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...

 

[Morrus]

This document is obsolete, folks. There was a ranger v2 document a week later.

 

[Stalker0]

This document is obsolete, folks. There was a ranger v2 document a week later.

Going based on earlier statements, I never got the impression the v2 was meant to be a replacement....but that both classes were being presented to get feedback.

if this version is truly obsolete, why not delete the thread?

 

[THEMNGMNT]

Yeah, but what? They don't have a core theme like the other classes do. They're all over the place: trackers, bounty hunters, regular hunters, forest protectors, archers, two-weapon fighters, quarterstaff fighters, herb lore, magic use...

My point is that I think a core MECHANIC can and should be created. Think about barbarians. The rage mechanic is the core of that class. It's a defining feature that players love. But does it capture every thematic aspect of barbarians? Nope.

 

[Morrus]

if this version is truly obsolete, why not delete the thread?

For 20 years, we haven't deleted any threads here unless they're spam.

 

[Faolyn]

My point is that I think a core MECHANIC can and should be created. Think about barbarians. The rage mechanic is the core of that class. It's a defining feature that players love. But does it capture every thematic aspect of barbarians? Nope.

I agree. What is the core mechanic of the ranger? What makes the ranger a ranger?

In my readings through old Dragon Magazine, I saw them asking that same question 20, 30+ years ago. I don't think it's been answered to the majority's satisfaction yet.

 

[ART!]

The Ranger's things is tracking/hunting, and being more used than other classes to living in the wild. Since Level Up is shifting Barbarian to Berseker (a smart move, IMHO), then that frees up at least a little conceptual territory for the Ranger. I'm thinking the Barbarian features a Ranger could have would be some version of Unarmored Defense, Primal Path, Danger Sense, and increased movement.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree. What is the core mechanic of the ranger?

Favored Enemy

What makes the ranger a ranger?

Being able to handle the wilderness and its inhabitants in an eficient and effective manner in order to deal with its favored enemies on terms favorable to the ranger.

---
The key problem D&D always had was threading that needle. It's a Specialist. But how does one make a specialist specialized without either over specializing to the point of being too narrow nor broadening its power over too many areas.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I agree. What is the core mechanic of the ranger? What makes the ranger a ranger?

In my readings through old Dragon Magazine, I saw them asking that same question 20, 30+ years ago. I don't think it's been answered to the majority's satisfaction yet.

Correct.

 

[Faolyn]

Favored Enemy

Being able to handle the wilderness and its inhabitants in an eficient and effective manner in order to deal with its favored enemies on terms favorable to the ranger.

OK, so how would you do that mechanically that makes it (a) one core mechanic, like rage or sneak attack or metamagic and (b) is neither under- nor overpowered? Because "being able to handle the wilderness" and "being able to handle wilderness inhabitants" are already two different mechanics, and may become a lot more if you accept that there are a bunch of different types of wilderness and a bunch of different types of inhabitants.

 

[Minigiant]

OK, so how would you do that mechanically that makes it (a) one core mechanic, like rage or sneak attack or metamagic and (b) is neither under- nor overpowered? Because "being able to handle the wilderness" and "being able to handle wilderness inhabitants" are already two different mechanics, and may become a lot more if you accept that there are a bunch of different types of wilderness and a bunch of different types of inhabitants.

There are actually many ways to do A. And avoiding B is not difficult as well. Just pick one and test it.

The thing is that the ranger is not a fighter/druid, fighter/rogue or a fighter/rogue/druid. The ranger is a class based on the idea that there are people who are train purposely for a specific goal. The core mechanic is just the tool to help reach that goal.

Once you define that goal, you ask "what would a person with that goal want to be able to do?".
This is the main issue with rangers. Often Too much attention was and is placed on how a ranger should look and what part or features it has and how to mimic whom. Not enough is thought is put into why a ranger has a feature and why it wants that feature. If a ranger loses her spells, well what did she have her spells for? Can she replicate the same solutions mundanely or does she learn to bypass the same issues or does she refocus on other things? The A5E team seems to be doing this somewhat while being hamstrung by the old thought processes of the community.