D&D 5E It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)

[Don Durito]

Yet we still have Rogues!

So clearly it is not impossible to make it work.

A big part of the issue here is niche protection.

If being good at certain skills is going to be part of a class, then that class needs some protection. Rogues get Expertise and later Reliable Talent.

Rangers get natural explorer. Of the two, Rogues get the more reliable one, that is less dependent on the campaign and gm interpretation and works in all kinds of environments.

The Rogue doesn't have to worry about being stealty in the forest, while the Ranger doesn't get natural explorer in a city.

The wilderness knacks I posted earlier in this thread for 4E Essentials could easily, be ported over into 5e. In fact I might have a go at converting the 4E Essentials Ranger to 5e just to see what it would look like.

 

[Azzy]

I don't remember where I saw it, but I recall seeing some rationale that since rangers were mostly forest pathfinders and scouts, they wouldn't favor two-handled weapons (hard to swing in a polearm or greatsword in a forest) or shields (again, clumsy in a narrow woodland) so they felt that a ranger would opt for a small off-hand weapon (knife, handaxe, etc) as an alternative. They also moved rangers to light armor (studded leather) to further that archetype as a scout, skirmisher, and archer rather than the heavier armor and weapons of a fighter.

Likewise, they moved the ranger's "move undetected in the woods" into thief like stealth abilities.

It's probably fair to view the 2e ranger less as Aragorn and more as Davy Crockett.

I can see that for the most part. The ability to wear heavy armor never really made since, and UA was already trying to move rangers to a specific set of weapons (though it was poorly done and still didn't limit greatswords). I'm still curious why they didn't lean more into archery as that really seems like it would be the ranger's top niche.

 

[Remathilis]

I can see that for the most part. The ability to wear heavy armor never really made since, and UA was already trying to move rangers to a specific set of weapons (though it was poorly done and still didn't limit greatswords). I'm still curious why they didn't lean more into archery as that really seems like it would be the ranger's top niche.

Archery is 2e was already pretty strong; most bows granted 2 attacks/round and traded damage for attacks/round. UA allowed 1e rangers use weapon specialization in bows, but 2e made WS a fighter-only thing, so ranger's lost that boon. (There might have been a kit somewhere that allowed it, its been a while.

 

[Azzy]

There might have been a kit somewhere that allowed it, its been a while.

For you and me both.

 

[Don Durito]

Heavy Armour makes perfect sense for Rangers if they're soldiers with a certain specific kind of training, ie they went through bootcamp first like everyone else and they'd be expected to put on heavy armour in situations that call for it. (Examples of this would include the Rangers in the Night's Watch in A Song of Ice and Fire).

This is part of the issue with Rangers, the concept is elastic and it has changed over time, and it's very hard to please everyone.

 

[Minigiant]

A big part of the issue here is niche protection.

If being good at certain skills is going to be part of a class, then that class needs some protection. Rogues get Expertise and later Reliable Talent.

Rangers get natural explorer. Of the two, Rogues get the more reliable one, that is less dependent on the campaign and gm interpretation and works in all kinds of environments.

The Rogue doesn't have to worry about being stealty in the forest, while the Ranger doesn't get natural explorer in a city.

The wilderness knacks I posted earlier in this thread for 4E Essentials could easily, be ported over into 5e. In fact I might have a go at converting the 4E Essentials Ranger to 5e just to see what it would look like.

It's really not niche protection.
The difference is more bout Opposed Checks vs Difficulty Classes.

Rogue skills are mostly Opposed Checks.

• Acrobatics/Athletics vs Athletics/Str Check
• Deception/Persuasion/Intimidation vs Insight/Wis check
• Stealth vs Perception/Wis check
• Sleight of Hand vs Perception/Wis check

Outside of thieves tools and Investigation, you don't need extra data except for the target's stats. You just roll Abilities checks. So all the designers need to do is make a list of traps and locks and rogues are supported. Done. Heck, trapsuses combat mechanics when you fail. Even less to write.

Ranger skills are DCs. The targets are nature and physics, magical or otherwise.
So if you don't have lists and paragraphs of the DCs, effects, features, and restrictions of the rangery stuff, DMs have to pull ideas out their butts until the info gets printed.

TSR and WOTC mostly uses spells as a shortcut for writing DCs and effects. They just make exploration challenges into spells and tell DMs to use drop them onto their party.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Heavy Armour makes perfect sense for Rangers if they're soldiers with a certain specific kind of training, ie they went through bootcamp first like everyone else and they'd be expected to put on heavy armour in situations that call for it. (Examples of this would include the Rangers in the Night's Watch in A Song of Ice and Fire).

This is part of the issue with Rangers, the concept is elastic and it has changed over time, and it's very hard to please everyone.

I agree. Rangers should get heavy armor.

 

[Asisreo]

LMOP is a low level adventure. That's the point.

None of that is in the PHB orDMG. That;s the point.

The point you're trying to make is that an average high-level adventure invalidates the Ranger but the high level ranger has access to more powerful skill, more spells known, and more spell slots. The Ranger at level 15+ has their level 1 features give them 3 enemies and terrains while the expertise Natural Explorer provides gives them the +10 to whatever relevant skill they are using, which is much more likely to occur considering the number of abilities. If anything, a Ranger at level 15+ gets more use out of celestial, fiend, and dragons than basically any other Ranger levels.

Although, this makes me wonder if it would be neat to have the planes as a favored enemy type.

Fighters and other near-pure combat classes can only ave to overcome the numerically rules that high level combat has. Because high level monster combat stats are listed in the MM.

And how are these high level fighters, barbarians, and rogues bypassing the fiend's nonmagical immunity? That's up to the DM rewarding them magical items. They absolutely should, but they might just not which would basically have them no longer participate at these high-levels.

Where is the rules for the elemental sandstorm that glasses you if you fail too many saves?

Not sure what exactly you're trying to say here, but there are rules for when your party is in the Deep Ethereal and face Ether Cyclones or when the party must face the Mad Winds of Pandemonium.

If these don't seem high-level, don't know what is.

 

[Don Durito]

It's really not niche protection.
The difference is more bout Opposed Checks vs Difficulty Classes.

Rogue skills are mostly Opposed Checks.

• Acrobatics/Athletics vs Athletics/Str Check
• Deception/Persuasion/Intimidation vs Insight/Wis check
• Stealth vs Perception/Wis check
• Sleight of Hand vs Perception/Wis check

Outside of thieves tools and Investigation, you don't need extra data except for the target's stats. You just roll Abilities checks. So all the designers need to do is make a list of traps and locks and rogues are supported. Done. Heck, trapsuses combat mechanics when you fail. Even less to write.

Ranger skills are DCs. The targets are nature and physics, magical or otherwise.
So if you don't have lists and paragraphs of the DCs, effects, features, and restrictions of the rangery stuff, DMs have to pull ideas out their butts until the info gets printed.

TSR and WOTC mostly uses spells as a shortcut for writing DCs and effects. They just make exploration challenges into spells and tell DMs to use drop them onto their party.

How are Stealth and Perception not core Ranger skills?

 

[Minigiant]

The point you're trying to make is that an average high-level adventure invalidates the Ranger but the high level ranger has access to more powerful skill, more spells known, and more spell slots. The Ranger at level 15+ has their level 1 features give them 3 enemies and terrains while the expertise Natural Explorer provides gives them the +10 to whatever relevant skill they are using, which is much more likely to occur considering the number of abilities. If anything, a Ranger at level 15+ gets more use out of celestial, fiend, and dragons than basically any other Ranger levels.

Although, this makes me wonder if it would be neat to have the planes as a favored enemy type.

Too bad there few official DCs to roll Nature or Survival against for Tier 2 or up challenges.
Too bad WOTC practtically forgets Rangers cast spells when they make new spells for books.
Too bad when WOTC remembers Rangers cast spells they forget to make exploration spells.
Too bad, higher tier and fantastical climates like the planes or even cities and dungeons aren't on the favored enemies list.

Favored Foe is just a rehash of an old spell with the exploration parts stripped out.

And how are these high level fighters, barbarians, and rogues bypassing the fiend's nonmagical immunity? That's up to the DM rewarding them magical items. They absolutely should, but they might just not which would basically have them no longer participate at these high-levels.

5e assumes an adventuring warrior gets access to a magic weapon eventually. The treasure tables will spit one out eventually. It doesn't assume you get a weapon that gives any pluses or benefits at all.

How are Stealth and Perception not core Ranger skills?

They are. The point is that Animal Handling, Nature, and Survival don't scale well past level 4 if unsupported. And the Tier 1 stuff WOTC does support is the stuff many people skip. So D&D puts on the weight on the DM's back.