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

[Don Durito]

There really isn't a way within the current framework of D&D to model the Ranger being good at exploration other than through skills. For some reason Rogues can get Expertise at Survival and Perception and Barbarians can (assuming the variant feature from UA made it into publication) but Rangers still can't unless they use optional game features to take feats or multiclass.

If there were real exploration rules then the ranger could be plugged into them in some way - but even then it's going to be an issue because lots of games would probably never use those rules.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I agree with @Sir Brennen , I think the Ranger should just be a subclass of Fighter (same for the Barbarian and the Monk, but that's another topic.) But I'm not on the design team, so my opinion should be taken with an equally-small grain of salt.

Alas, making the "perfect Ranger" for D&D is likely an exercise in futility. There are just too many different ideas of what "a ranger" is supposed to be in pop media. Should the ideal Ranger be based on Legolas? (Yes.) Should it be based on Aragorn? (Also yes.) Should it be based on Princess Mononoke? (Still yes.) Should it be based on Hank from the D&D cartoon? (Yes again.) Can it be all of them at once? (Absolutely not how dare you...)

I don't envy Wotc.

On the other hand: 13th Age pulls it off, so we know it's doable.

 

[Don Durito]

People will want manuvers and imp critical still for their fighter.

As this topic proves my point, many people want a ranger that doesn't lose a drop of combat ability compared to a "normal fighter".

People will just say the Ranger subclass sucks at fighting compared to the Champion and Battlemaster. To many, rangers are only seen in the combat lens.

I don't think it's a major issue, but probabl all the Fighter subclasses should be designed so that they have some kind of identity and non-combat functionality besides just new ways to hit things.

I think a Ranger sub-class is probably a good example of what a Fighter subclass should be.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think concentration is unnecessary.
I wanted to say, that it still has uses for the ranger subclasses that uses bonus actions every turn. But the fey wanderer apparently does not need to use a bonus action anymore.

 

[Don Durito]

On the other hand: 13th Age pulls it off, so we know it's doable.

It's basically conceptually the same as the 4e Ranger and lots of people hated that and said it wasn't a real ranger.

 

[jmartkdr2]

It's basically conceptually the same as the 4e Ranger and lots of people hated that and said it wasn't a real ranger.

I have a hard time seeing this - the classes are very different. Partially because the games are very different, but mostly because the design goals for the classes are so obviously different it would have been amazing if the end results were similar.

 

[Horwath]

also,

replacement of 3rd level god awful primeval awareness;
Track: advantage on Survival checks for tracking creatures.

or proficiency in cartographer tools. Anything is better than default...

 

[Don Durito]

I have a hard time seeing this - the classes are very different.

Really. The same basic three things. Archer/Two Weapon Dervish or Beastmaster. Pretty much entirely martial (The Ranger can pick up a spell in 13th Age but they have no real connection to traditional ranger magic). If you're going into melee you pretty much have to be a Two Weapon Fighter unless you're using a pet. The main distinction is that 13th Age Ranges are all Dex based (which is going to disappoint people who prefer Rangers to be Strength based).

Sure there's a whole lot of different ways the concepts are mechancially implemented but that's really not the point. If you like the way 13th Age implements the Ranger you may be happy with it (unless of course the fact that it's an utter snorefest to play turns you off), but if you wanted something different you won't be. And there's plenty of something different takes on the Ranger to want.

Edit: And in any case, part of the way that both 13th Age and 4E make their own niche for the Ranger is by taking things away from the Fighter, which also caused a backlash. In 5E the Fighter can already do Two Weapon Fighting and Archery as well, if not better, than the Ranger, so these are not specific Rangery things.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think it's a major issue, but probabl all the Fighter subclasses should be designed so that they have some kind of identity and non-combat functionality besides just new ways to hit things.

I think a Ranger sub-class is probably a good example of what a Fighter subclass should be.

But then you'll cross the people who don't want additional flavor injected into the fighter and prefer the fighter to default as a blank slate killing machine.

That is essentially why the ranger and paladin and barbarian crossed the bridges from subclass to class. To keep the Fighter pure.

So now you have a Fighter as a 100% combat class with no flavor glue to it outside if combat ability. And then you have people who want a 50% exploration and 50% combat class in the Ranger to match the Fighter in combat.

 

[Lidgar]

I'm mostly referring to people posting dumb memes instead of even trying to have a discussion.

Sorry, but the title of your post (GARBAGE) does not exactly elicit rational discourse. You may have a perfectly valid point, but it comes across as clickbait to me.