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

[Kurotowa]

I often get the feeling that the designers thought short rests were fairly easy to get, so they overvalued abilities you recover on a short rest. Had a short rest been like in 4e, about 5 minutes long, the warlock recovering their spells on a short rest would have been amazing. But instead, at least in the game I'm running (Princes of the Apocalypse, so fairly dungeon-heavy) it seems like the number of situations where the PCs could take a short rest but not a long rest is fairly small.

That does seem to be the more common (though not exclusive) play experience.

The assumption is two short rests a day.

It really makes me wonder how a house rule that all "recharge on short rest" abilities are multiplied by three and recharge on a long rest instead would work. Has anyone actually played with something like that? I'm sure it would be a bit uneven, but the disparity between long rest and short rest classes is probably my biggest complaint about 5e at this point.

 

[Parmandur]

That does seem to be the more common (though not exclusive) play experience.



It really makes me wonder how a house rule that all "recharge on short rest" abilities are multiplied by three and recharge on a long rest instead would work. Has anyone actually played with something like that? I'm sure it would be a bit uneven, but the disparity between long rest and short rest classes is probably my biggest complaint about 5e at this point.

It would create some silly Nova potential, and takes the resource management out of the equation, which is the game.

 

[Parmandur]

https://www.thegamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-dungeons-dragons-ranger-class-change/

Speculation that this alternate Ranger might be a sign of D&D 5.5e coming.

Doubtful: maybe another Xanathar's Guide, but Mearls also said recently that another Xanathar's style book was years away.

I'll wager that any alternative features, if they pass muster, will end up in a setting book.

 

[Blue]

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.

And they should realize that you can't make a full mage without making it a bit overpowered.

And they should realize you can't make a holy knight without making it overpowered.

And they ...

Oh wait, if all of the classes are overpowered, then they ae all balanced against each other.

So declare every other class overpowered and then create a beastmaster of equal power.

We're already got summoners. We already have polymorph. We've already got people who can cast wish. If that power isn't enough to cover a decent 2nd melee combatant then I can't conceive of the power levels you want.

 

[Kurotowa]

It would create some silly Nova potential, and takes the resource management out of the equation, which is the game.

How so? Genuinely asking, do you have specific reasoning or are just reflexively against the idea? The action economy is still in play and the existing long rest classes certainly aren't short on resource management. It would give the short rest classes the ability to nova, which is what I feel they're lacking right now. I might be a little worried about Warlock spells, but that's why I'm asking if anyone's tried anything like this under actual play.

 

[Parmandur]

How so? Genuinely asking, do you have specific reasoning or are just reflexively against the idea? The action economy is still in play and the existing long rest classes certainly aren't short on resource management. It would give the short rest classes the ability to nova, which is what I feel they're lacking right now. I might be a little worried about Warlock spells, but that's why I'm asking if anyone's tried anything like this under actual play.

The idea is to have different strategies for rest, to mean that the whole party has to plan resources and rests together.

Going Nova is distinctly undesirable, and a bad idea over the course of a full day.

 

[bedir than]

i rather like the 2HD version of the Ranger that they did. The ability to recharge a bit more frequently than typical was an interesting mechanic. I'd love a way to bring that back as an alternate feature.

 

[CapnZapp]

But that's the thing: while Ranger satisfaction is significantly out of line with the other Classes, most people are happy with it and keep playing with the Class. Most people are not dropping the Beastmaster, though a relatively large number are dissatisfied based on what they wanted it to be. But those who are dissatisfied are not all dissatisfied for the same reasons, and those who are already satisfied are likely not going to be satisfied by any "fix" introduced. That's why the old Revised Ranger died, it made the situation worse when tested.

What WoC found was a radical lack of consensus on what people wanted from a "Ranger," as it lacks an agreed upon identity among established and new D&D players.

"Lacks an agreed upon identity" is basically the title of the history of the Ranger class in D&D ever since it tried to grow beyond "be Aragorn." Especially since the few themes people can agree upon are key to the identity of the Ranger are not restricted by class anymore. Anyone can track. Anyone can be good with animals. Anyone can be really good at surviving in nature. Anyone can dual-wield. And most of those abilities are generally relegated to non-combat pillars anyway, which leaves the Ranger feeling weak in the one pillar a lot of people argue is the most important in D&D.

Frankly, IMO, the concept of the Ranger just doesn't have enough of its own niche anymore to justify a base class. Which is why every attempt to do so has been met with disappointment.

If you say so.

I feel WotC have lost track of the goal here.

If they for once created a Ranger that met some goal, and did that really well, that would be a start. More than a start, since after all a large reason why we're paying WotC is for them to choose a direction, to lead the way.

As I see it, the wishywashyness and especially the weakness is what doomed the Ranger.

Compare the Bard - it was a target for malcontent in 3E, but when they realized "jackofalltrades" does not merit being 50% as good in many things, but more like 90% that sorted itself. Especially with the decision to give it a strong mechanical identity (the only class able to hand out bonus dice) and the decision to make it a full caster (albeit with the Bard spell list).

The best way to solve the lack of community consensus isn't to solve the lack of community consensus.

It is to dispel it, by choosing a direction and committing to it. Create a strong Ranger first, and you will have taken the edge of the complaints.

 

[Staffan]

The assumption is two short rests a day.

Yes. And it's not an assumption that matches well with my experience.

In my campaign, I've instituted a house rule that the first rest of the day takes 5-10 minutes, the next 15-30, and after that it's one hour or more.

 

[Horwath]

The Scout is *extremely* overrated. Its good features don't come until Lv. 13 and above, which is beyond the levels where most D&D games are played.

maybe,
but, I'm just saying that having scouts 3rd level features instead of favored enemy and favored terrain would be best thing to fix the ranger.