D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[Neonchameleon]

Yes. Things that look like spells, act like spells and have aftereffects like spells… are actually spells.

Shock horror. Stop the press. How can you survive workouts this superfluous guidance.

And 4e powers did not look like spells or act like spells or have aftereffects like spells in most cases unless they were spells.

But the anti-4e Waaaghabl would call Sweeping Blow a spell because it basically acted like Whirlwind Attack.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Some people hate Known Spells - and others hate too few known spells but are more than fine if there are enough known spells. The Sorcerer was literally invented to be a Known Spells class because some people really wanted it to exist. But the implementation of Known Spells at the launch of 5e was obviously terrible because the known spells casters knew fewer spells than the prepared casters could have prepared at any one time. So people wanted it changed - and these calls to have it changed have almost vanished since Tasha's put in good sorcerer subclasses and brought the ranger up to four rather than two spells per spell level known.

So what you are saying here is that because some people like crunchy peanut butter and others like smooth peanut butter we should listen only to the people who like crunchy and erase smooth from existence based on there having been a few jars of rancid smooth peanut butter. Rather than have some classes (e.g. the Paladin) having prepared casting and others (e.g. the Ranger) having known spells.

What I'm saying is that WotC has done research and found that the majority of people like the core concepts of spellcasters that use Known spells, but found that they don't like the Known Spellcasting system. They said as much in the recent UA video "interviews". The majority of people don't like Known Spells. Not just because they give less options to choose than Prepared Casting, but because you sacrifice the versatility of changing your spells on a long rest. Known Spells is just not good design for the majority of 5e players, according to recent surveys. I'm sorry if you like it, but the majority of people don't, so WotC are changing the spellcasting classes to better serve the tastes of the majority.

No it isn't. Or more accurately for people who don't care and think that all magic is fine they are the same thing. For those who don't like Everything Is A Spell then they mostly aren't.

If a feature consumes spell slots in order to use, does similar effects to a spell, and has most of the normal restrictions of a spell (action/bonus action/reaction to use, limited range, etc), it's practically just a spell that is granted by a class feature.

You can have a mystical connection without being loaded down with spells. All editions before 5e managed to have very few ranger spells per day.

And that has changed. As has the amount and ages of people that play D&D compared to previous editions. To the majority of players, half-casting rangers is what rangers are. Their role has been defined in 5e.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And that has changed. As has the amount and ages of people that play D&D compared to previous editions. To the majority of players, half-casting rangers is what rangers are. Their role has been defined in 5e.

No, it hasn't.

You have no basis for that rather extreme claim and no supporting evidence. The surveys cited previously are from much earlier. WotC have made Rangers a confusing mess for three editions now, and that's what they are in 5E and 1D&D - a confusing mess. A confusing mess that doesn't even meet what their own research indicated was most important, note!

 

[Branduil]

The non-spellcasting 4e Ranger was the only time the Ranger truly felt fun to me. You can make valid arguments it lacked the exploration features a Ranger needs, but it was at the very least very good at its role, and it successfully recreated the feeling of being Legolas, so it recreated one archetypal Ranger, which is more than you can say for most of the D&D iterations.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No, it hasn't.

You have no basis for that rather extreme claim and no supporting evidence. The surveys cited previously are from much earlier. WotC have made Rangers a confusing mess for three editions now, and that's what they are in 5E and 1D&D - a confusing mess. A confusing mess that doesn't even meet what their own research indicated was most important, note!

5e has sold better than any previous edition, gained the most newer players that have never played TTRPGs before, and significantly lowered the average age of the fanbase. The generation that makes up the biggest chunk of D&D 5e's player base is Gen Z, most of which probably started with 5e. Maybe my claim of "majority" is a bit of an exaggeration, but clearly, to a huge chunk of the player base, the only version of the Ranger they have experienced is the Half-Casting Ranger in 5e.

I agree that the ranger is a poorly defined mess. However, I don't think that spellcasting is the reason for that. I don't think that the majority of players would want a non-Half-Casting Ranger. I think your view that Rangers shouldn't be spellcasting is unsupported and likely in the minority.

 

[Haplo781]

The non-spellcasting 4e Ranger was the only time the Ranger truly felt fun to me. You can make valid arguments it lacked the exploration features a Ranger needs, but it was at the very least very good at its role, and it successfully recreated the feeling of being Legolas, so it recreated one archetypal Ranger, which is more than you can say for most of the D&D iterations.

PHB Ranger with Hunter utilities is about the flavor I'd like to see in 1DD.

 

[Minigiant]

The non-spellcasting 4e Ranger was the only time the Ranger truly felt fun to me. You can make valid arguments it lacked the exploration features a Ranger needs, but it was at the very least very good at its role, and it successfully recreated the feeling of being Legolas, so it recreated one archetypal Ranger, which is more than you can say for most of the D&D iterations.

the 4e Ranger in 5e is a Fighter.

4e took the 3e fighter and cut it in half and replaced the 3e ranger with the Archery and TWF part of the fighter. 5e stitched them back together and remade the 3e ranger.

The 3e ranger kinda sucked though until WOTC made a ton of exclusive feats and spells for it.

Guess what the 5e ranger doesn't have.

 

[Eric V]

The 4e original Ranger was just a damage focused archer or TWF warrior. It had almost no wilderness stuff unless you multiclassed or took the Ritual Caster feat.

I think you are forgetting the utility powers...

 

[Haplo781]

I think you are forgetting the utility powers...

They existed. The problem is that they competed for the same slots as utilities that help you in combat.

 

[Eric V]

They existed. The problem is that they competed for the same slots as utilities that help you in combat.

If one actually wants wilderness stuff, it's not a competition.

Rangers didn't need additional combat enhancements, anyway.