Playtest (A5E) Level Up Playtest Document #7: Ranger

Welcome to the 7th Level Up playtest document. This playtest contains a candidate for the first 10 levels of game’s ranger class. In our initial survey, you asked us for a spell-less ranger -- so here is our playtest candidate for it!

Download the playtest document

And when you're ready --

Take the survey here!

What this is​

This is a playtest document. We’d love you to try out the rules presented here, and then answer the follow-up survey in a few days.

What this is not​

This is NOT the final game. It’s OK if you don’t like elements of these rules; that’s the purpose of a playtest document. Be sure to participate in the follow-up survey in a few days. All data, positive or negative is useful.

What we use this for​

Your survey responses help form the direction of the game as it goes through the development process.

Don’t forget!​

Sign up for the mailing list for notifications of playtests, surveys, and news, and to make sure you get notified on Kickstarter when the project launches in 2021.

Continue reading...

 

[Faolyn]

To sum up the warlord, it's a nonmagical fighter/bard who makes their allies more effective by granting additional attacks or movement, boosting their rolls, penalizing enemies, and restoring HP (or granting temp HP) via superior tactics and morale-boosting.

So it is a nonmusical bard, then.

Maybe make warlord into a bard archetype that uses shouts instead of music, and allows for a broader range of weapons that can also be used as a spellcasting focus (like swords bards do).

 

[Arilyn]

Since 5e classes only have a few archetype entry points, it's probably not a good idea to turn too many class ideas into archetypes, as is often suggested. The warlord is quite different from the bard, and wouldn't have room to breathe if stuffed into the bard container. You wouldn't get a warlord feature until 3rd level, and then a few more points after that. And then what about the spells, which is a big part of being a bard, but not warlord?

I like the warlord as a class, although, I'm not a fan of the name.

 

[Faolyn]

Since 5e classes only have a few archetype entry points, it's probably not a good idea to turn too many class ideas into archetypes, as is often suggested. The warlord is quite different from the bard, and wouldn't have room to breathe if stuffed into the bard container. You wouldn't get a warlord feature until 3rd level, and then a few more points after that. And then what about the spells, which is a big part of being a bard, but not warlord?

OK, but different enough from the bard how? What would stifle it if it became a bard archetype? What if they had an ability that burned spell slots, like the way a paladin's smites do? That would help them be less spell-oriented.

Obviously, we'll wait and see what LU has in store. But until then, I'm pretty skeptical of it as a class.

 

[Arilyn]

OK, but different enough from the bard how? What would stifle it if it became a bard archetype? What if they had an ability that burned spell slots, like the way a paladin's smites do? That would help them be less spell-oriented.

Obviously, we'll wait and see what LU has in store. But until then, I'm pretty skeptical of it as a class.

Other than supporting allies, I'm not seeing the connection between bards and military commanders. And having spells which then get burned to do commander things seems clunky. Shouldn't they just get their own thing, skipping the spell burning step? I don't even like this with paladins.

 

[Faolyn]

Other than supporting allies, I'm not seeing the connection between bards and military commanders. And having spells which then get burned to do commander things seems clunky. Shouldn't they just get their own thing, skipping the spell burning step? I don't even like this with paladins.

As @CM said: To sum up the warlord, it's a nonmagical fighter/bard who makes their allies more effective by granting additional attacks or movement, boosting their rolls, penalizing enemies, and restoring HP (or granting temp HP) via superior tactics and morale-boosting.

Is this correct, in your opinion?

Look through the bard abilities. They can literally do everything on that list except maybe granting additional attacks.

What do military commanders do? They give orders and inspire their troops to perform great deeds. Exactly as bards to. Don't forget, character class isn't a job. It's a collection of abilities.

 

[Arilyn]

As @CM said: To sum up the warlord, it's a nonmagical fighter/bard who makes their allies more effective by granting additional attacks or movement, boosting their rolls, penalizing enemies, and restoring HP (or granting temp HP) via superior tactics and morale-boosting.

Is this correct, in your opinion?

Look through the bard abilities. They can literally do everything on that list except maybe granting additional attacks.

What do military commanders do? They give orders and inspire their troops to perform great deeds. Exactly as bards to. Don't forget, character class isn't a job. It's a collection of abilities.

Games can certainly be designed this way, but that's not D&D. We have fighters, rangers, monks and barbarians. We have Wizards, sorcerers and warlocks. We have clerics and paladins. The descriptions of the classes have never in any edition just read like a collection of abilities.

I think it's very possible to make a warlord class that's as distinct from a bard as a barbarian is from a fighter or a sorcerer from a wizard.

4e did it. 13th Age did it really well. I think Level Up can do it too.

 

[DeviousQuail]

I see the bard as the magical step brother of the warlord. It shares a lot of the same DNA; helping allies, debilitating enemies, battlefield control, etc. But where the bard's mom went to art school, the warlord's mom went to a military academy (and their dad was probably a paladin in his youth).

The bard's inspiration mechanic could easily fit onto a warlord. Song of rest and counter charm as well, but the fluff is all wrong. Some of the spells work too but only in a mechanical sense. Otherwise a lot of bard stuff doesn't fit. Jack of all trades, expertise, magical secrets, most of the spells, lower hit dice, weapon and armor proficiencies, and being a full caster instead of a martial class.

As for archetypes I'd go with a Tactician that emphasizes finding/creating exploits in enemies and terrain, a Strategist that offers day long buffs to allies, a Commander that gets some Paladin-esque aura abilities, a Hospitaller/Medic that gives actual healing instead of temp hp to allies, and a War Mind that uses psionics to boost their abilities to greater heights.

 

[Morrus]

So it is a nonmusical bard, then.

Maybe make warlord into a bard archetype that uses shouts instead of music, and allows for a broader range of weapons that can also be used as a spellcasting focus (like swords bards do).

I guess, in the sense that a barbarian is an angry fighter and a cleric is a holy wizard. I mean, all D&D classes hit things, heal things, or magic things. I think somebody said in another thread that you only need two classes: martial and magical.

 

[Minigiant]

To get back on topic, although I like the v2 version of the ranger better, it feels to me more like an alternate fighter.

Maybe that's what people want.

However a lot of the A5E ranger class's features feel like they could just be fighter fighter ones. Just a swap of focus from Athletics, Intimidation, and Acrobatics to Perception, Stealth, and Survival. For example Fearsome Mysticism could go on a fighter. And how some of the features are just combat buff.

What I mean is. It feels like it answers "what do I want rangers to have?" and not "what do rangers what to have?". A player wants their ranger to pick up fighter and druid knack or be good with nets. A ranger, who might be hunting frost giants in the arctic at level 8, was to be better at killing giants and resisting the arctic.

But that's just me.

 

[Waller]

To get back on topic, although I like the v2 version of the ranger better, it feels to me more like an alternate fighter.

Seems pretty on topic... the thread is now the "we really only need one class" thread. The wizard is just a bad fighter with spells!