D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[TheSword]

The fighter is literally the worst out of combat class. If you don't want that brought up then try not suggesting that a very much skills based character should come from the class with the least out of combat ability.

And yet, still not bad at it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It’s a hybrid Warrior-Druid. It always has been.

Absolutely false.

Did you not start playing D&D until 3.5E?

If not, what's your excuse for saying that? In 1E and 2E a Ranger doesn't even get spells until LEVEL 8.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The fighter is literally the worst out of combat class.

It's kinda in the name...

 

[Neonchameleon]

It’s a hybrid Warrior-Druid. It always has been. I think you’re reading far more into things than you need to.

I think you're utterly ignoring the real world meanings of the word "ranger". Such as Forest Rangers and Army Rangers. Who are wilderness specialists who get on with very little magic and a lot of knowledge and training.

The game has many influences. It doesn’t have to be all Tolkein and Salvatore.

Indeed it doesn't. Which is why we're bringing in examples like Katniss Everdeen. You on the other hand are refusing to accept that the ranger is based on anything other than D&D as it has existed since 2014. There is more to both fiction and reality than a single minded focus on the current edition of D&D while going out of your way to strain out any outside influences, whether from earlier editions, whether from what the class was based on, or whether from almost contemporary fiction.

In the end all you have left is navel gazing and mechanics if you don't accept anything from outside D&D for a class based on an archetype that actually came from the real world.

 

[TheSword]

Absolutely false.

Did you not start playing D&D until 3.5E?

If not, what's your excuse for saying that? In 1E and 2E a Ranger doesn't even get spells until LEVEL 8.

I started playing in AD&D. Yes. They got spells at level 8. As I said Druid-Warrior hybrid. That became more pronounced with every edition. Welcome to 1D&D

 

[Horwath]

Absolutely false.

Did you not start playing D&D until 3.5E?

If not, what's your excuse for saying that? In 1E and 2E a Ranger doesn't even get spells until LEVEL 8.

even in 3.5e you were bottom of the barrel spellcaster.

that is why there were several spell-less ranger ACFs in later splat books.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I started playing in AD&D. Yes. They got spells at level 8. As I said Druid-Warrior hybrid. That became more pronounced with every edition. Welcome to 1D&D

LOL.

It's absolutely false to say it became more pronounced with each edition. 3.5E was the first time it was even arguable - before that they were Fighters with some wilderness abilities who might eventually gain a few very low-level spells. 4E didn't make it more the case, as Hexmage has reminded me. 5E is the first edition where Rangers "went hard" on spells, and 1D&D is even more extreme than that.

 

[TheSword]

I think you're utterly ignoring the real world meanings of the word "ranger". Such as Forest Rangers and Army Rangers. Who are wilderness specialists who get on with very little magic and a lot of knowledge and training.

Indeed it doesn't. Which is why we're bringing in examples like Katniss Everdeen. You on the other hand are refusing to accept that the ranger is based on anything other than D&D as it has existed since 2014. There is more to both fiction and reality than a single minded focus on the current edition of D&D while going out of your way to strain out any outside influences, whether from earlier editions, whether from what the class was based on, or whether from almost contemporary fiction.

In the end all you have left is navel gazing and mechanics if you don't accept anything from outside D&D for a class based on an archetype that actually came from the real world.

It really isn’t just the current edition. The ranger has had magic at early levels for the last 25 years. It has become more magical over that time not less. So no, I don’t think Katniss has had a great deal of influence on the Ranger class. She might have had a fair bit of influence on archery in 5e just as film Legolas did. But not on the ranger.

I think it’s brilliant that WOC is giving martials more spells to affect things. I really couldn’t care less that it isn’t through non-Magical means.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The ranger has had magic at early levels for the last 25 years.

?!??!!??! That would start us in 1997. Late 2E.

That's not how time works. You perhaps mean 2003 and thus 19 years? Which is false because it include 4E, but whatever.

So no, I don’t think Katniss has had a great deal of influence on the Ranger class. She might have had a fair bit of influence on archery in 5e just as film Legolas did. But not on the ranger.

I agree but that's a HUGE PROBLEM.

Because players want Katniss types (and not they don't want them to be Fighters, jesus lol).

Whereas the dilettantes at WotC just have no idea what a Ranger is so keep coming up with random ideas about what it might be and hoping one sticks.

 

[Neonchameleon]

LOL.

It's absolutely false to say it became more pronounced with each edition. 3.5E was the first time it was even arguable - before that they were Fighters with some wilderness abilities who might eventually gain a few very low-level spells. 4E didn't make it more the case, as Hexmage has reminded me. 5E is the first edition where Rangers "went hard" on spells, and 1D&D is even more extreme than that.

Technically the 3.0 Ranger was as good at spellcasting as the 3.5 Ranger and worse at absolutely everything else. Meaning it was more arguable in 3.0 - but the 3.0 Ranger was so awful that no one remembers it as an argument for anything.

But both of them got literally zero first level spells per day at 4th level and 1 at 6th. Which in practice meant that a seventh level ranger with a wis 14 could cast two first level spells per day or as many as a first level druid with wis 14.