• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

5E Is it possible that the Revised Ranger is not dead?

lkj

Explorer
I'm curious on what would be variant features on other classes other than the Ranger. Don't get me wrong that class needs a bunch of tweaks to make it more appealing in my eyes, but have they ever mentioned anything else other than for example not having the Monk use Two-Weapon Fighting as their "virtual fighting style".
You know, I think Jeremy may have referred very peripherally to other classes in one of those Dragon+ twitch shows awhile back. But I couldn't tell you which one. And it's probably not enough substance to bother seeking it out. Other people have mentioned the Sorcerer as a possibility.

AD
 

Fenris-77

Explorer
Expertise in Survival would be good too. There's no reason a Rogue should be able to be twice the tracker a Ranger is. Actually, skill related buffs in general would be ok. the Ranger has always been MAD and skill money-ish compared to the other combat classes, so why not build on that?
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
I really, really liked the Level 1 subclass concept, with the origin environment being the subclass choice. Don't know if that is what they will go with, but way more evocative than standard 5E Rangers for sure.
That, and the idea of fixing the animal companion by it replacing spellcasting, are the only two ideas he floated that I’d absolutely not even consider using.

I have literally no interest in a ranger that is the terrain they come from, instead of having the tactical specialist (hunter), Beast Master, Shadow Walker (DeepStalker), Far Traveller (horizon walker), etc.

I do dig his other ideas for making the terrain choice matter. I’d also love to see new fighting styles that exemplify things the Ranger does that others don’t.
 

Parmandur

Legend
That, and the idea of fixing the animal companion by it replacing spellcasting, are the only two ideas he floated that I’d absolutely not even consider using.

I have literally no interest in a ranger that is the terrain they come from, instead of having the tactical specialist (hunter), Beast Master, Shadow Walker (DeepStalker), Far Traveller (horizon walker), etc.

I do dig his other ideas for making the terrain choice matter. I’d also love to see new fighting styles that exemplify things the Ranger does that others don’t.
I did like the Warlock-style choice, as the best way to try and salvage the Ranger with animal companion archetype. Honestly, I see the beastmaster going away in future iterations of the Ranger, if it doesn't follow a spell slot equivalent style framework something along the lines Mearls proposed.

The idea of a terrian-specific Ranger subclass really scratched a major itch for me: mage-warriors tied to nature, who bring the fighting style of their home wherever they go. Much stronger narrative identity, fired my imagination in a way that the standard Ranger, with it's confused identity, never has.

In particular, I was taken with the possibility of culture hero archetypes that can take elements from particular real world cultures, but tied to an environment rather than a specific ethincity (Arctic Rangers pulling from Finnish/Norse/Siberian/Eskimo folk heros, Desert Rangers pulling from Arabic/Australian-Aborigine/Navajo/Hebrew heros, Grassland Rangers pulling from Mongol/Persian/Magyar/Lakota legends, etc...)
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
I did like the Warlock-style choice, as the best way to try and salvage the Ranger with animal companion archetype. Honestly, I see the beastmaster going away in future iterations of the Ranger, if it doesn't follow a spell slot equivalent style framework something along the lines Mearls proposed.
I very much doubt it will go anywhere, tbh. I can see an “alternate feature” that allows the ranger to spend spell slots to boost the companion, or simply new spells that boost a creature the caster controls. Choosing between Spellcasting feature and the Companion feature is a non-starter, for me.

The idea of a terrian-specific Ranger subclass really scratched a major itch for me: mage-warriors tied to nature, who bring the fighting style of their home wherever they go. Much stronger narrative identity, fired my imagination in a way that the standard Ranger, with it's confused identity, never has.
I’d be fine with a subclass that worked that way, just not as a replacement for the current subclasses. I don’t particularly think the ranger has a confused identity, but for folks who do, a subclass that redefines the Ranger by their Favored Terrain choice could be fun. I’d call it The Warden.

In particular, I was taken with the possibility of culture hero archetypes that can take elements from particular real world cultures, but tied to an environment rather than a specific ethincity (Arctic Rangers pulling from Finnish/Norse/Siberian/Eskimo folk heros, Desert Rangers pulling from Arabic/Australian-Aborigine/Navajo/Hebrew heros, Grassland Rangers pulling from Mongol/Persian/Magyar/Lakota legends, etc...)
There are pitfalls there, but if handled carefully I’m all for it. As long as it doesn’t replace the ranger.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
"One of the hard things about working in tabletop is you can’t patch a physical book"

Yes, you can, and you should have patched the Ranger a long time ago.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
There is some very interesting 6e discussion, and game modularity discussion, that takes place after the 33.30 mark.

Some notes I took:

"[Emphasis that a 6e would be very far off and it gives him a headache thinking how hard it would be to even start]
Interesting. The first time I've seen any official WotC person mention 6E (though I may be late to the party).

Saying "it's far off", of course, is exactly what they say when they HAVE started thinking about the new edition, and it actually isn't that far off.

The same with console generations.

The only time it really IS far off is when you hear absolutely nothing about it.

The minute they start telling you how far off it is, it isn't.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
I'd welcome another stab at a variant. I want the beast master ranger to work. I've been trying to rebuild it to have a pet from first level but the design space isn't really big enough.
My preferred solution is for the rules to concede that any player with two characters will always steal a bit more than his share of the spotlight, and instead make it an opt-in subclass.

And then design the animal companion we deserve, one that is as sturdy as any other party member (that is on the front lines), and dealing useful amounts of damage.

In short, the design needs to realize that you simply can't have a fun cool pet without making the package a little overpowered.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Interesting. The first time I've seen any official WotC person mention 6E (though I may be late to the party).

Saying "it's far off", of course, is exactly what they say when they HAVE started thinking about the new edition, and it actually isn't that far off.

The same with console generations.

The only time it really IS far off is when you hear absolutely nothing about it.

The minute they start telling you how far off it is, it isn't.
No, Mearls has mentioned 6E in the past, particularly when talking about the Ranger, on the Happy Fun Hour. He did specify in the past that they have not begun work on a 6E, because 5E is still selling.
 

Parmandur

Legend
My preferred solution is for the rules to concede that any player with two characters will always steal a bit more than his share of the spotlight, and instead make it an opt-in subclass.

And then design the animal companion we deserve, one that is as sturdy as any other party member (that is on the front lines), and dealing useful amounts of damage.

In short, the design needs to realize that you simply can't have a fun cool pet without making the package a little overpowered.
The spell slot equivalency summoning system should do for balance and flexibility: though in the event of a total Ranger redesign, I think the Beastmaster is toast.
 

Mistwell

Hero
Interesting. The first time I've seen any official WotC person mention 6E (though I may be late to the party).

Saying "it's far off", of course, is exactly what they say when they HAVE started thinking about the new edition, and it actually isn't that far off.

The same with console generations.

The only time it really IS far off is when you hear absolutely nothing about it.

The minute they start telling you how far off it is, it isn't.
He was asked by the interviewer and didn't bring it up on his own. He laughed about the question and then thought about it like it was novel.
 

Gladius Legis

Explorer
6e won't be talked about in earnest until 5e sales start to massively slow down. That doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon.
 

Horwath

Explorer
I want ranger without favored terrain/enemy.

This is the worst feature in the game as it is 100% into "DMs charity" category.

It is either great or does not work at all.

Sad thing is that "scout rogue subclass" is better ranger than a ranger.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
I want ranger without favored terrain/enemy.

This is the worst feature in the game as it is 100% into "DMs charity" category.

It is either great or does not work at all.

Sad thing is that "scout rogue subclass" is better ranger than a ranger.
My homebrew for ranger takes favored terrain and makes it include "local terrain" after 24 hours. Its more getting to know the lay of the land. So, pretty much,except for short transition periods its there.

For enemies, its more about familiarity and study.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
The spell slot equivalency summoning system should do for balance and flexibility: though in the event of a total Ranger redesign, I think the Beastmaster is toast.
I don't know what you mean here.

If it is the spells a Ranger gets that holds back the animal companion, the obvious solution is to remove them from the core Ranger chassi, and instead hand them out to select subclasses.

Not including the Beastmaster, of course.

My guess, however, that even with the loss of magic, the Beastmaster with a proper combat pet will still need DM opt-in. My feeling is that even if you reduce the master to a poor-man's bare bones Fighter in medium armor, no Extra Attack, and no real (non-ribbon) abilities (unless companion-focused), the character build will STILL appear overshadowed.

Why? Because I am convinced the animal companion needs to be close to a full fighter in itself to be truly viable.

In other words, no, I'm not holding my breath either. I think MMearls is entirely clueless as to what a Beastmaster needs for basic functionality, given the high-lethality position a melee companion finds itself in.
 
Last edited:

Paul Farquhar

Adventurer
I would just like to point out that rangers didn't get animal companions until 3rd edition, and even then they where inferior to druid animal companions.

I don't consider it an essential feature of the class.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
I would just like to point out that rangers didn't get animal companions until 3rd edition, and even then they where inferior to druid animal companions.

I don't consider it an essential feature of the class.
If you mean animal companions aren't essential to Rangers, okay.

If you mean animal companions aren't essential to D&D, I disagree.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
I would just like to point out that rangers didn't get animal companions until 3rd edition, and even then they where inferior to druid animal companions.

I don't consider it an essential feature of the class.
Plus: the main reason people didn't care about ranger ACs was indeed that anyone wanting one obviously selected the Druid class.

Not only did you companion get better, you yourself upgraded a low-tier martial to a high-tier caster class.

A win-win situation if there ever was one.

Of course, the 3E companion was STILL squishy (iirc) so any minmaxing druid player simply became the beast himself and dropped the AC idea altogether. (I could be wrong but I can't remember any ACs in my d20 days)
 

Advertisement

Top