Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Acr0ssTh3P0nd" data-source="post: 6857731" data-attributes="member: 6762652">Ok, so the ranger has an identity problem. People can agree on three things about the ranger: it is (a) the exploration class, and is (b) a competent martial character that (c) has access to spellcasting options.Thing is, no one can agree on how to implement (b) and (c). If you have 1/2-spellcasting as part of the main class, then you can't have an independent animal companion for the Beast Master archetype. But the Beast Master is such a "ranger" thing, and works really well thematically! You could fix this by making the Beast Master a separate class. But, if the Ranger class has spellcasting in its core, you still can't use the exploration class in low-magic campaigns, which (to me, at least) sees really silly. If the class has no spellcasting, what differentiates it from a fighter or rogue with the outlander background, at least in flavor?See what I mean?So, to fix this, I've honed in on the one thing that people can agree on: the exploration.In my attempt to rework the Ranger, the base class is almost entirely exploration-based, no spells as a default (don't panic, I'll explain further), with the only combat features being Extra Attack at 5th level and the weapon and armor proficiencies as they are now. For example, the ranger gets expertise with the survival skill at 1st level as a baseline. This overall approach makes it much, much better at exploration than a rogue or fighter with the outlander background, and so establishes and retains its identity in that regard.With spellcasting removed from the base class, each subclass has the power and the freedom to take care of how ranger fights. You have the Hunter, the Beast Master, and the Spellstrider (1/2 caster subclass, with the classic Ranger spells and certain Druid ones - you can finally run a Ranger with Flameblade!). Each one uses unique features to gain their combat boost.I'd like to note that I 100% think that the Ranger should have spellcasting options. I also 100% think there should be a way to play a no-magic ranger in the default class, rather than requiring a rework of the whole thing. Over the course of the last few updates, I've used feedback from Reddit and multiple social media sites to hone and refine "survivalist dice" as a class mechanic that can be used in both utility and combat. The ranger class gives some ways to use them for utility (healing in short rests, reducing falling damage, etc) and the subclasses use them for extra damage and more utility (Hunter uses them to deal extra damage and get some set-up, the Beast Master uses them to fuel maneuvers it can pull off with its beast, and the Spellstrider can use them for empowering ranger spells).Survivalist dice don't recharge until the end of your turn, so you have to be careful about how you use them. Do I spend some on utility options before my turn comes up, or do I blow them all on damage boosts? If I save them for damage, do I spread them across multiple enemies or stack them on a single enemy?I've decided to call my attempt to rework this classic D&D class "The 'Have Your Cake' Ranger", since its design goals are widesweeping, (overly) ambitious, and are attempting to let rangers have their cake and eat it, too:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Create a unifying vision for the ranger focused on exploration </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Allow both magic and non-magic rangers by default </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fix the beast master's balance vs. fun issue </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Change as little as possible from the current, official Ranger </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Save the world and be home in time for tea </li> </ul>A proof-of-concept write-up can be found <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8eqcDznen8FNHJJSjIyeFdlSUE" target="_blank">here</a>."Just boost the Beast Master, everything else is fine!" suggestions will be politely-but-firmly rejected. The WotC design team consensus is that the Beast Master's power level is actually balanced with the ranger class as a whole, but is wonky because it doesn't have enough room to work within the ranger subclass space as-written, and I trust their judgement on that one. I also firmly believe that, as "the exploration class", the Ranger should have an option to have no spellcasting in the default class so that you can play the gritty survivalist or person-with-the-wolf in low-magic campaigns.Additionally, I would like to point out that a fighter with the Outlander background is not the same as a non-magic ranger. The Outlander fighter does not get Survival Expertise (or anything similar), Favored Enemy, Primeval Awareness, Land's Stride, Hide in Plain Sight, or Feral Senses. These are all really cool features that flavorwise (mostly) work with non-magic characters just as well as spellcasters. Beyond tradition, there's no reason to restrict them to any particular character.</blockquote>

Verification