D&D 5E Let's Tweak the 5E Ranger!

[Inconnunom]

You have your own idea of why your class should be great, and you play it that way. If that's fun for you, then that works. I hope, that at the least, you've seen enough other people comment that also like the Ranger, and play it differently, that you can understand that your conception might not be the only one. And that's why some people (me) think it's a little muddled. I wouldn't worry, though, people like me have been making the same criticism since the 70s, and it's still a core class.

WotC (and specifically Mike Mearls) agrees with you in this podcast he talks specifically what they are not happy with for the Ranger. Starts @ 7:30 to 11:30
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/state-game

 

[Minigiant]

My point is that is what the "D&D Ranger" was and since 5th edition is using the concepts of past edition, this is how the 5th edition "D&D ranger" will look and play.

People don't have to like it as their image of the ranger doesn't match the iconic D&D ranger.

There should be a new class for their image. It can be called the strider, warder, seeker or something with new class features.

But if the 5th edition ranger didn't have the iconic features and concept of past D&D ranger, it would have been a design goal failure. Much how a druid or barbarian which lacked iconic class features would have been.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Minigiant]

I know. The iconic ranger is a blantant ripoff. But that's the iconic ranger. And it makes sense.

People may not like it but that's what it is. You can adjust the class features but they all have to be there.

Just like many people hate Vancian spell casting, the iconic D&D wizard will still prepare spells from a spellbook.

 

[Inconnunom]

I know. The iconic ranger is a blantant ripoff. But that's the iconic ranger. And it makes sense.

People may not like it but that's what it is. You can adjust the class features but they all have to be there.

Wat. Confused, So... Iconic /niche > fun that most people will enjoy? I would rather have a niche archtype than a niche class.

 

[Mephista]

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant rather, they do not have a meaningful mechanical role that is unique to all rangers. While it is true that they are the only ones with favored terrain and enemy, that is much more ribbon than true meaningful mechanic.

True. They tried to make the Terrain to be meaninful, but it kind of fell flat. I agree. That's probably the reason so many are trying to fix the Ranger - its not a popular ability.

And rangers get favored terrain/enemy? :/ It isn't meaningful enough and WotC has stated that the ranger's role in the game as it is is not unique and memorable enough.

Well, fluff wise, there's a niche, its just that the mechanics fall flat. That's an issue.

WotC (and specifically Mike Mearls) agrees with you in this podcast he talks specifically what they are not happy with for the Ranger. Starts @ 7:30 to 11:30
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/state-game

Iiiiiiinnnnnnnnnttttteresting. Wait. The page linked doesn't say anything about the Ranger, only the Psion. I mean, Mystic. Whatever its called. You sure?

Do you know what the "iconic" D&D Ranger is? A thinly veiled Strider.

With all due respect, the Ranger is NOT Strider. Not anymore. The concept has grown up and evolved since then, drawn from more sources.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Inconnunom]

Iiiiiiinnnnnnnnnttttteresting. Wait. The page linked doesn't say anything about the Ranger, only the Psion. I mean, Mystic. Whatever its called. You sure?

Yea heck the podcast starting at 7:30. Here is a direct link:
http://media.wizards.com/2015/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_07_10_2015.mp3

 

[Mephista]

Yea heck the podcast starting at 7:30. Here is a direct link:
http://media.wizards.com/2015/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_07_10_2015.mp3

Arigato

 

[MoonSong]

That's oversimplifying things a bit. If that's the case, then we've narrowed down every class into the orignal three - Fighting Man "I hit stuff with stick," Magic-User "I cast spells," and Cleric "I do both at once!" ....

Still, the Magic-User was awfully specific, it wanted to be "I cast spells", but in the end it was only "I cast spells from books in this specific way". Only the Basic Mage and the M20 Mage come even close to be that generic.

I was surprised for good when I saw the 4e ranger was spelless, I never quite saw the Hunter, did it really ahve spells?

Cities are called urban jungles. I grew up in New York City and people used to call it wild. I know where the pack of wild dogs used to hang out. Animal friendship would have came in handy as a kids. And the rats. The damn rats and other vermin.

New York! ha that's like so tame... Only one pack of wild dogs? You should try my city one of these days.

Wat. Confused, So... Iconic /niche > fun that most people will enjoy? I would rather have a niche archtype than a niche class.

Well, but if you water down the niche/iconic so it appeals to its non-fans, you are excluding the fans. What most people would enjoy fits under the big 4, the other classes are their own niches, when you don't get them right, you are depriving these players form what they love so they are palatable to players that won't play them anyway.

Combat: The Fighter, obviously is the pinnacle here. Followed up, closely, by the Barbarian and Paladin...more far by the Monk and, for magic, Sorcerer.

After the nerf that wasn't a nerf but still forced people to change the way they played their sorcerers I don't think the sorcerer is that good in combat anymore. Warlocks, those guys hit hard... (I think the best a sorcerer could do was to go Favored Soul of Life and focus on buffing allies like crazy, I could be wrong, I suck at optimizing, but that is how I see it)