D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[Ruin Explorer]

The point is the in-game is based on the metagame.

A ranger who hunts dragons and other elemental monsters will want resistences. A ranger who needs info in a wilderness will want to be able to speak with animals and plants. A ranger who needs to hinder runners will want snares. The community wouldn't let you do this without casting spells and adds those spells o the game. So the ranger who still wants to do these things won't ignore the magic.

No. As I've said, this is a nonsensical conflation of metagame and ingame. You're using metagame reasoning for why an ingame Ranger would make choices. The Ranger would breaking the fourth wall to even think like that. I'm sorry but that's literally not a rational argument.

And it's still nonsensical because Rogues are far more advantaged by spells than Rangers are. If you're going with "but the metagame" then Rogues should be all over spells.

 

[Minigiant]

To heck with the community. Particularly the community of the time. We have a new community of D&D players now, let’s let rangers do those things without magic.

The community barely lets the fighter do cool stuff with swords. Good luck getting them to let your ranger ask a dog with the bad man with a big hat went without magic fingers.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Speaking of Ranger vs Rogue, I always thought it was odd that the Rogue was the one who got "Steady Aim" (basically, use a Bonus Action and don't move to get advantage on an attack) and the Ranger didn't.

 

[TheSword]

Except no. Aragorn, the Ranger of the North is a fighter? Boromir's a fighter. Gimli's a fighter. If Aragorn is a fighter then it says something about how bad 5e is at handling classic fiction. And no Drizzt is literally the iconic ranger. If the Ranger as a class is not able to handle the literal person it was based on and the literal iconic 2e ranger then the Ranger as a class is not fit for purpose.

And we're also at the point that the Ranger class does not even cover the D&D ranger. The 1e and 2e rangers could not cast spells before level 8 - and 1e was soft-capped at about level 10. This all-magic-all-the-time ranger doesn't cover historic D&D rangers; it is its own unique thing. The only ranger it's remotely close to is the 3.5 one (with the 3.0 one not even being very good at archery).

And that's the problem with this playtest ranger. It does nothing really to represent any fictional archetype, not even that of a D&D ranger. And it is basically a bland collection of mechanics because it's trying to invent its archetype out of thin air, having rejected both its core inspiration as a class in Aragorn and even the iconic D&D ranger in Drizzt. As @Ruin Explorer has been saying all along WotC doesn't know what to do with the ranger which is why it's an obviously mechanics first class.

Would you therefore accept that as it's clear that the Ranger is unable to handle any sort of its fictional inspirations we rename the class Hedge Wizard because it's a caster who spends time in hedges and generally trying to get through life with wilderness lore and magic in medium quantities? That would free the Ranger name up to cover the actual ranger archetype that the current ranger is a miserable failure at covering and that all of Aragorn, Drizzt, and Katniss come under.

Ranger is its own fictional archetype developed through D&D, just like the Druid is. Neither of these classes particularly existed in fiction outside of D&D and similar characters are almost always better described as wizards, sorcerers or priests.

I think you need to check your updates. Drizzt was a ranger in earlier editions but since 5e has been predominantly a fighter.

The reason Tolkien’s characters are all fighters is because Tolkien came before D&D and D&D introduced magic to classes waaaaaay back. Because magic is fun, and people like using it. It’s why we have Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, Bards, Rangers, and Paladins.

It seems like there are a few very vocal people who seem to want to turn the clock back 35 years. It ain’t never gonna happen, I’m sorry to say.

 

[Remathilis]

I want less casting instead of more, and more non-magical exploration abilities instead of less (“lost none of” was a typo, should either have been “none of” or “lost all of”).

Welcome to 1D&D, you've already lost that battle.

Look at the last playtest: nearly every race has some type of spellcasting or supernatural ability (like tremorsense). Several feats (and thus backgrounds) give magical abilities. 1D&D is doubling down on easy access to magic, not removing it. I'm fairly sure most PCs are going to have access to magic, be it from race, feat or class/subclass.

Anyone hoping for low magic D&D should start looking for a good fantasy heartbreaker, because D&D is stepping on the gas.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

It's underwhelming and flavorless. Hunters mark will turn into an action tax. Round 1 you cast hunters mark while everybody else attacks.

It needs to seriously bolster the party in the wilderness. Give them abilities that trigger automatically. Not automatic success like the current version but quality of life improvements. Move at fastest March speed and still be able to search. Better healing in favored terrain. Extra knowledge on possible enemies.

Rogues and bards might be cool in the city, but in the wilderness, the ranger is the apotheosis of cool.

The problem here is that the wilderness exploration features of the 2014 5E Ranger are either arguably too good or completely useless depending on how much the DM focuses on wilderness exploration in their campaign. I imagine that's why Tasha's presented more optional alternative features for the Ranger than other classes.

 

[TheSword]

LOL circular logic. And Feats don't help you when they don't even provide access to what you need, which they don't. Again you seem to be thinking of some other D&D-related game, where what you say might be true, but it's not even arguable in 5E.

Survival is a fighter skill. I can can use Skill Expert at first level to have expertise in survival and proficiency in knowledge nature. Fighters can do plenty… and we’re back to the same old nonsense about fighters. Not going there again. It’s a thread about the ranger rules.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Survival is a fighter skill. I can can use Skill Expert at first level to have expertise in survival and proficiency in knowledge nature. Fighters can do plenty… and we’re back to the same old nonsense about fighters. Not going there again.

It's not "nonsense". I'm only talking facts. You're trying to make up that Fighters have out-of-combat capabilities, when they have absolutely the least of any class in D&D 5E. Also, no you can't have "Skill Expert" at first level in 1D&D. We don't even know if it'll exist, and even if it does, the 1D&D versions of Human don't have access to it. Which is I presume how you were getting it (VHuman), given Fighters don't get a Feat until L4.

 

[TheSword]

It's not "nonsense". I'm only talking facts. You're trying to make up that Fighters have out-of-combat capabilities, when they have absolutely the least of any class in D&D 5E.

I’ve just posted all I need to do to recreate Katniss. Which was my position. I’m not making anything up - the structures are plain to read.

There’s a lot of incorrect information flying around here. Not least that ranger casting rounds down which is demonstrably wrong.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Anyone hoping for low magic D&D should start looking for a good fantasy heartbreaker, because D&D is stepping on the gas.

4E actually has a ton of options for nonmagical characters. Fighter, Ranger (pre-Essentials), Rogue, and Warlord gives you a completely nonmagical party. IIRC the Fighter had more potential abilities to choose from than the Wizard had spells to choose from by the end of 4E.