D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[Ruin Explorer]

I appreciate that… it’s a fighter now. Drizzt is predominantly a fighter that’s been decided a while back. Aragorn is a fighter, Katniss is definitely a fighter. They are all fighters. (Though you can skin Aragon as a ranger with his herbcraft and elven Magic)

Sorry, no, that doesn't work.

Fighters aren't skilled in D&D.

Katniss, who I suspect you're unfamiliar with is ultra-skilled. That's her main thing. She'd definitely be the "Expert" archetype. She'd definitely have Expertise in Nature and probably Stealth. She's not an ambusher either - she frequently and successfully fights straight-up (and doesn't really like ambushing humans).

You must be thinking of some other D&D variant where Fighters aren't as bad as they are in 5E outside combat. 13th Age? Pathfinder 2E?

 

[TheSword]

Being a Dunedine RANGER, I would say that Aragorn is a ranger.

Well a ranger is also a car, a boy scout, a form of policeman and a moon vehicle. I don’t think the name of a single character defines an entire class that has come a long way since 1954

 

[TheSword]

Sorry, no, that doesn't work.

Fighters aren't skilled in D&D.

Katniss, who I suspect you're unfamiliar with is ultra-skilled. That's her main thing. She'd definitely be the "Expert" archetype. She'd definitely have Expertise in Nature and probably Stealth. She's not an ambusher either - she frequently and successfully fights straight-up (and doesn't really like ambushing humans).

You must be thinking of some other D&D variant where Fighters aren't as bad as they are in 5E outside combat. 13th Age? Pathfinder 2E?

Yes they are. They take the skilled feat - in fact they have multiple opportunities to do so. Or they take Skill expert to become really good at something.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes they are. They take the skilled feat - in fact they have multiple opportunities to do so. At least two at first level.

No, they aren't.

All classes have the same opportunity, and indeed all other classes can do more out of combat than a Fighter, with no exceptions. Skilled doesn't give you Expertise. Fighters are unarguably the least-able class in 5E outside combat.

There's no good reason for that. It doesn't fit the fantasy. It doesn't fit fantasy literature or tropes, but WotC did it anyway, just like in 3E and 4E.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I appreciate that… it’s a fighter now. Drizzt is predominantly a fighter that’s been decided a while back. Aragorn is a fighter, Katniss is definitely a fighter. They are all fighters. (Though you can skin Aragon as a ranger with his herbcraft and elven Magic)

Except no. Aragorn, the Ranger of the North is a fighter? Boromir's a fighter. Gimli's a fighter. If Aragorn is a fighter then it says something about how bad 5e is at handling classic fiction. And no Drizzt is literally the iconic ranger. If the Ranger as a class is not able to handle the literal person it was based on and the literal iconic 2e ranger then the Ranger as a class is not fit for purpose.

And we're also at the point that the Ranger class does not even cover the D&D ranger. The 1e and 2e rangers could not cast spells before level 8 - and 1e was soft-capped at about level 10. This all-magic-all-the-time ranger doesn't cover historic D&D rangers; it is its own unique thing. The only ranger it's remotely close to is the 3.5 one (with the 3.0 one not even being very good at archery).

And that's the problem with this playtest ranger. It does nothing really to represent any fictional archetype, not even that of a D&D ranger. And it is basically a bland collection of mechanics because it's trying to invent its archetype out of thin air, having rejected both its core inspiration as a class in Aragorn and even the iconic D&D ranger in Drizzt. As @Ruin Explorer has been saying all along WotC doesn't know what to do with the ranger which is why it's an obviously mechanics first class.

Would you therefore accept that as it's clear that the Ranger is unable to handle any sort of its fictional inspirations we rename the class Hedge Wizard because it's a caster who spends time in hedges and generally trying to get through life with wilderness lore and magic in medium quantities? That would free the Ranger name up to cover the actual ranger archetype that the current ranger is a miserable failure at covering and that all of Aragorn, Drizzt, and Katniss come under.

 

[TheSword]

No, they aren't.

All classes have the same opportunity, and indeed all other classes can do more out of combat than a Fighter, with no exceptions. Skilled doesn't give you Expertise. Fighters are unarguably the least-able class in 5E outside combat.

There's no good reason for that. It doesn't fit the fantasy. It doesn't fit fantasy literature or tropes, but WotC did it anyway, just like in 3E and 4E.

Fighters get more feats = more flexibility.

Skill Expert does give you expertise.

You’ve got it the wrong way round Katniss is a fighter because she doesn’t use magic. Not the ranger is wrong because Katniss doesn’t have magic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And that's the problem with this playtest ranger. It does nothing really to represent any fictional archetype, not even that of a D&D ranger.

Extremely well-put.

 

[The Glen]

It's underwhelming and flavorless. Hunters mark will turn into an action tax. Round 1 you cast hunters mark while everybody else attacks.

It needs to seriously bolster the party in the wilderness. Give them abilities that trigger automatically. Not automatic success like the current version but quality of life improvements. Move at fastest March speed and still be able to search. Better healing in favored terrain. Extra knowledge on possible enemies.

Rogues and bards might be cool in the city, but in the wilderness, the ranger is the apotheosis of cool.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Katniss is a fighter because she doesn’t use magic. Period.

LOL circular logic. And Feats don't help you when they don't even provide access to what you need, which they don't. Again you seem to be thinking of some other D&D-related game, where what you say might be true, but it's not even arguable in 5E.

 

[Minigiant]

That's literally nonsensical. You're combining metagame stuff with in-game stuff and it's just wildly nonsensical. You can't do that. You're basically turning the Ranger into Deadpool, breaking the Fourth Wall here lol.

The point is the in-game is based on the metagame.

A ranger who hunts dragons and other elemental monsters will want resistences. A ranger who needs info in a wilderness will want to be able to speak with animals and plants. A ranger who needs to hinder runners will want snares. The community wouldn't let you do this without casting spells and adds those spells o the game. So the ranger who still wants to do these things won't ignore the magic.