D&D 5E Ranger fight: PHB vs. UA

[Neil the Knight]

I was so disappointed with the phb Ranger .......... and then I saw the ua Ranger .......oh god the horror ........ Phb Ranger all the way

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

I was so disappointed with the phb Ranger .......... and then I saw the ua Ranger .......oh god the horror ........ Phb Ranger all the way

My pet theory (which I have no way to test) is that this is exactly the reaction WOTC was going for. Note that prior to the release of the new UA Ranger, the PHB Ranger was a source of complaints, but now it's winning this poll by a 4 to 1 margin.

 

[ClockworkNinja]

So many features of the ranger that were unique when first introduced have migrated to become universal parts of the system (things like tracking, two weapon fighting, ect).

Honestly I would have been happy if the name "Ranger" had been applied to the "Outlander" background, and ranger-y combat abilities such as multi-attacks and animal companion were used as fighter sub-classes.

 

[sithramir]

I'm disappointed because I thought Id see a mock battle between both!

 

[Mercule]

I personally would love to see a Frankenstein mash-up of all three existing Ranger write-ups, based mostly off of the PHB version.

The comments on this poll have prompted me to do just that (more of an equal mix, actually). I went back and looked at the first UA Ranger and found it to be much better than I recalled. I've only got a couple more abilities to add in. I removed Favored Enemy, not because I'm opposed to genocidal Rangers, but because it is both situational and nerfed in 5E. I could use a suggestion for a capstone ability.

Also, welcome to the boards.

 

[Mercule]

So many features of the ranger that were unique when first introduced have migrated to become universal parts of the system (things like tracking, two weapon fighting, ect).

TWF was not part of the original Ranger. I have no idea why it was ever added as it makes no sense.

I'm disappointed because I thought Id see a mock battle between both!

Well, you might have seen the battle, except for that whole Ambuscade thing.

 

[Celondon]

TWF was not part of the original Ranger. I have no idea why it was ever added as it makes no sense.

If I remember correctly AD&D's Ranger had the ability to use two equal length weapons in melee as a unique feature. EDIT: Apparently, I misremembered! Nevermind!

In my mind, the "perfect" Ranger would be:
* A highly skilled warrior, with bow, axe or sword wearing light or medium armor.
* Have superb ability at surviving and guiding allies through the wilderness.
* Have a wide variety of "Wood Lore" tricks (poultices, creating deadfalls, spike traps, disguising/altering terrain features) that, in 5e terms would be "rituals" although non-magical in nature.

 

[Mercule]

In my mind, the "perfect" Ranger would be:
* A highly skilled warrior, with bow, axe or sword wearing light or medium armor.
* Have superb ability at surviving and guiding allies through the wilderness.
* Have a wide variety of "Wood Lore" tricks (poultices, creating deadfalls, spike traps, disguising/altering terrain features) that, in 5e terms would be "rituals" although non-magical in nature.

Agreed. I'd also add "tough" to that, but I'm starting to think that may be best represented as a subclass, somehow.

One thing to keep in mind, both for boosters and skeptics is that the "highly skilled" part may be a factor of level. We just only see high-level rangers, in media. A fighter who gets his clock cleaned and later wins is a sweet comeback/underdog story. A woodsy guy who steps on a twig is just a doofus.

 

[Celondon]

Agreed. I'd also add "tough" to that, but I'm starting to think that may be best represented as a subclass, somehow.

One thing to keep in mind, both for boosters and skeptics is that the "highly skilled" part may be a factor of level. We just only see high-level rangers, in media. A fighter who gets his clock cleaned and later wins is a sweet comeback/underdog story. A woodsy guy who steps on a twig is just a doofus.

"Highly Skilled" means "Proficient with" -- in the same way a fighter is a highly skilled warrior.

EDIT: And, yes, a woodsy guy stepping on a twig would be a doofus!

 

[Mercule]

"Highly Skilled" means "Proficient with" -- in the same way a fighter is a highly skilled warrior.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. It's one of the stones I've seen frequently thrown at Ranger fans, though: "You want someone who's a better fighter than the Fighter, better thief than the Rogue, tougher than the Barbarian, and has spells to boot." Erm... nope; just someone who is competent enough at most of those (I don't care about spells) that they could survive on their own in a wide range of circumstances. They'd still need help to take down the BBEG, though.