D&D General What is appropriate Ranger Magic

[Micah Sweet]

It may not be that they don't want to make new classes. Each of the character classes in D&D is built around a particular concept. Barbarians are known for their ability to rage. Bards are known to inspire others through music and other performative arts. And so forth. If you were to come up with a new class concept, you are going to have ask yourself as to what makes your class concept different and distinct from the other concepts that were used to make the other classes. What features will set it apart from the others? How close are my class's features to those belonging to a different class?

If you feel confident that your class concept can stand on its' own and not tread on another class's concept, then you got a new class that you can publish and spread around to those who might be interested in playing it.

However, you might discover that your class concept is too close to the concept belonging to another class, and there is no way to separate the two. In this case, it might be better to take your concept and make it into a subclass/archetype of the other class.

This is a problem that all RPG companies have to deal with whenever they want to make a new character class.

Pathfinder 1st edition's Advanced Class Guide actually has a chapter on how to design new classes and class archetypes.

And yet, so many 5e producers who aren't WotC manage to make new classes for the ruleset. So it can't be that hard.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd bring Bards into the conversation (as in 1e, they were also "druidic"), but it'd probably make Snarf break out into hives or something.

3e bards made much more sense to me than the 5e version. Picking up bits of magic whereever they can.

 

[Corinnguard]

And yet, so many 5e producers who aren't WotC manage to make new classes for the ruleset. So it can't be that hard.

Good point. And some of them are using 5e's chassis to make these new classes or to upgrade old ones.

 

[Minigiant]

And yet, so many 5e producers who aren't WotC manage to make new classes for the ruleset. So it can't be that hard.

It's the Homebrewer Player problem.

Players don't choose what classes are allowed. DMs do.

And DMs tend to mostly pull from one publisher for their classes unless they make a class from another publishing a major aspect of their setting.

In the past this wasn't a huge issue as designers would made similar class with different power sources or mechanics.

To be fair this typically was because the games in the old days were very rigid so in order to Mitch match a different set of mechanics and flavor you had to create a whole new class, profession, clan ,or whatever.

But in today's gaming publishing, That is not as common.

Publishers don't make a magical Ranger and nonmagical Strider class and emphasize the difference between Martial might and Primal magic. Publishers don't make 2 arcanists, one with spell points and one with spell rolls and emphasize how although They have the same spells Some spells are stronger with one class and some spells are better with the other.

We know from the D&D next playtest that Wizard originally wanted to cut the sorcerer and Warlock and fold it in to the Wizards. Then they tried and failed to roll back warlock back into spellcasting in the one D&D playtest.

So If you desire the play style from one class and a mechanics of another class you can't do it anymore.

Ironically D&D essentials is probably the last major class based RPG that offered different looks of the same classes.

 

[James Gasik]

3e bards made much more sense to me than the 5e version. Picking up bits of magic whereever they can.

Yeah, Bards are a whole separate discussion. I honestly don't mind them having the option to be full casters- the idea of music and performance being tied to magic, and perhaps even being an earlier form of magic, speaks to me, and in 3.5 I came very close to becoming a Sublime Chord, a Prestige Class that allows a Bard to cast up to 9th level spells.

That having been said, I don't care for the precise way it was done. Much like how Eldritch Knight vs. Bladesinger rubs the wrong way, comparing Arcane Trickster to the Bard makes me feel that the Bard gets a much better deal- especially considering the sorts of abilities they can get on top of the base class from their Subclasses. I get that 5e isn't in the business of making balanced character classes, but the fact that the Bard gets a fantastic skills package and is far more versatile than the Rogue and gets full caster privileges with the added benefit of being able to poach the spell lists of other classes just feels a bit...extra, I suppose.

And I fully understand people who would like to play a half caster Bard, or even a Bard without spells at all, but instead having various magical songs/performances they can use to bolster their allies.

And certainly, I do understand people who don't really feel the Bard has earned it's niche, beyond being a legacy class- if you want an adventuring Performer, well, that's a Background you could apply to a Rogue or a Sorcerer, or what have you.

Believe it or not, I'm going to tie this back into the thread topic. Some classes in 5e feel superfluous- half-baked concepts that don't really need to be a full class. You could have had a "Bardic Soul" Sorcerer subclass just as easily as a Bard class, if that's the thing you wanted to do.

And the Scout Rogue shows that being an "extreme explorer" or "wilderness warrior" is something that could be accomplished on the subclass level, or even conceptually with a background.

The Ranger feels like a multiclassed build disguised as a class, with very little that feels iconic or truly it's own, let alone something that deserves a niche.

In AD&D (both versions), one didn't need a Ranger to survive in the wilderness. In 1e, the Barbarian was better at such things. In 2e, with one exception, anyone could pick up Survival skills (Tracking, btw- anyone could take it, but non-Rangers took a -5 penalty while the Ranger got bonuses).

Almost anything the Ranger ever had that was unique was shared with another class, taken from another class, or taken away.

Bonuses to fight certain foes? Removed in 4e, never to return. Sure, it was a problematic feature (as can be favored terrain) because of it's campaign dependence, but there are ways it could be made to work- having less monster types out there would do wonders, for one. Or taking a page from the 3.x Horizon Walker, where you get neat abilities you can apply universally because you have mastered dealing with certain situations (Desert Horizon Walkers are immune to fatigue everywhere, not just in deserts).

Two-Weapon Fighting? Even in 2e, anyone could do it, and the Ranger's "no penalties" ability could be replicated as soon as the Complete Fighter's Handbook came out.

Hide in Shadows and Move Silently? Thief skills. Sure, they were better in the wilds than a Thief was...but the Complete Thief fixed that too.

Animal Companions? Well, just about every class has flirted with the idea in some form.

Shapeshifting? Never as good as what the Druid got.

Spellcasting? An afterthought until 3.x started to put Ranger-only spells in splatbooks, most of which we haven't seen since.

Etc., etc.. The Ranger is an idea, loosely defined and even it's archetypes are varied- Robin Hood, John Rambo, Aragorn, most fantasy Elves, Natty "Hawkeye" Bumppo, Davy Crockett, Hiawatha, Tarzan, and many more are characters the Ranger class is meant to evoke, even though the precise way they do it can vary wildly.

And few of the names listed have the sorts of "primal/supernatural/druidic/magical" powers that would truly let them stand out in a fantastical world.

Heck, some of those characters could be Barbarians just as easily as Rangers.

To truly make the Ranger a worthy class, you really need to carve out a niche for them. Level Up does this by making the Ranger's contributions truly matter, by making survival in the field an issue for even high level characters.

5e does not do this. In fact, it goes out of it's way to try and avoid anyone having niche protection. I could make a Druid with an Outlaw or Urchin background with proficiency in Stealth and Thieves' Tools (or Sleight of Hand in 2024, I guess) and call him a Thief. In fact, the Druid's abilities might make them truly impressive thieves!

Sure, I probably won't have reliable single-target damage in the same way, and I don't have automagical abilities to make skill checks (which I feel are kind of problematic for the game anyways, really, YMMV), but I have other abilities to make up for them.

Is the "class fantasy" the same if I'm infiltrating enemy bases and scouting in the form of an owl or using pass without trace? Maybe not, but the end result is at least comparable.

So what we're left with is not the end goal, but the precise path one takes to get there as being the major difference between some classes.

In 5e, the main draw to a class isn't what makes that class unique, so much as how it accomplishes it's goals. And with so many ways to accomplish the goals of classes like the Ranger, the class is always going to be lacking something some people want.

You can't fix the Ranger for everyone. You can only adapt it to suit a subset of players. For example, looking at the poll, I see that half of the people who voted want a Ranger without spells.

If you printed a PHB where the Ranger has no spells (hint: this happened once before), you're going to have (presumably) half the people saying "where's my magical Ranger?!".

Sure, some say, you could have a magical Ranger subclass. But if it ends up being another 1/3 caster subclass with access to spells that aren't going to matter a whole lot by the time you get them (pass without trace at 7th level! Wow, amazing!), I don't know how many people would be happy with it.

Now maybe if full caster classes were less prevalent, having a handful of spells would feel cooler, I don't know. But at that point, you're not redesigning a class, but the entire game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's the Homebrewer Player problem.

Players don't choose what classes are allowed. DMs do.

And DMs tend to mostly pull from one publisher for their classes unless they make a class from another publishing a major aspect of their setting.

In the past this wasn't a huge issue as designers would made similar class with different power sources or mechanics.

To be fair this typically was because the games in the old days were very rigid so in order to Mitch match a different set of mechanics and flavor you had to create a whole new class, profession, clan ,or whatever.

But in today's gaming publishing, That is not as common.

Publishers don't make a magical Ranger and nonmagical Strider class and emphasize the difference between Martial might and Primal magic. Publishers don't make 2 arcanists, one with spell points and one with spell rolls and emphasize how although They have the same spells Some spells are stronger with one class and some spells are better with the other.

We know from the D&D next playtest that Wizard originally wanted to cut the sorcerer and Warlock and fold it in to the Wizards. Then they tried and failed to roll back warlock back into spellcasting in the one D&D playtest.

So If you desire the play style from one class and a mechanics of another class you can't do it anymore.

Ironically D&D essentials is probably the last major class based RPG that offered different looks of the same classes.

I put together a houserule document referencing every 5e class (among many other things) I liked the look of from many different publishers and made it accessible to my players. If they like the brief included in the doc, I give them access to the source. It's worked out pretty well for the last few years.

 

[Horwath]

Let's be honest.

The Magic of D&D is only incoherent and ill-defined because Wizards of the Coast do not want to make new classes.

we really do not need more classes. maybe less.

half of "class features" of some classes can be turned into feats.

I mean, look at the ranger debate for the last, err, forever.

stuck in a triangle of fighter/rogue/druid and everyone here pulls to one corner of it or one side of the triangle or maybe just stuck in the middle.
we have 7 ideas minimum of what ranger should be.

do we need anymore of this class?
shadow templar? debate between fighter, cleric and rogue?

 

[Micah Sweet]

we really do not need more classes. maybe less.

I think what you meant to say here was "I personally do not want new classes. Maybe less."

 

[Corinnguard]

we really do not need more classes. maybe less.

So, one class to class them all?

 

[Minigiant]

we really do not need more classes. maybe less.

half of "class features" of some classes can be turned into feats.

I mean, look at the ranger debate for the last, err, forever.

stuck in a triangle of fighter/rogue/druid and everyone here pulls to one corner of it or one side of the triangle or maybe just stuck in the middle.
we have 7 ideas minimum of what ranger should be.

do we need anymore of this class?
shadow templar? debate between fighter, cleric and rogue?

Not everyone wants to play GURPS.

The D&D ranger is not a fighter/rogue/druid outside of charop.

Strict class systems have the benefit that you can scale the aspects you desire fairly (if you balance it).

The issue with Ranger is that the chief designers of TSR and WOTC have always been "I'll fix it in play", soft math touch, old school rose glasses, designers. They haven't caught up to discourse, zeitgeist, charop of the internet RPG communities.