D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[Neonchameleon]

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.

1: This is untrue. Ranger as an archetype has a massive presence outside D&D.
2: So what? The archetypal D&D ranger is Drizzt Do'urden. If the class is meant to cover the "fictional archetype developed through D&D" then it should at the very least cover the archetypal example of that fictional archetype. But it fails at that to the point that you claim that the most archetypal D&D ranger should be a member of another class.

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

All of which says that if the ranger "is its own fictional archetype developed through D&D" and it is failing to cover far the most famous ranger in D&D then the class doesn't even cover the only source for its own archetype.

So what you are saying here is that the class fails to do what you say is the justification for the class. It's a zombie class - a collection of disjoint mechanics with no fictional inspiration and no roleplaying pointers. Which is why the One D&D ranger is such a soulless collection of mechanics where the mechanics are their own justifications.

 

[HammerMan]

I find they seem to be doubling down on everything is spells.

 

[HammerMan]

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 than the Wizard had spells to choose from by the end of 4E.

I loved and miss the “no magic but just as capable” martial parties.

 

[Neonchameleon]

and we’re back to the same old nonsense about fighters. Not going there again. It’s a thread about the ranger rules.

The fighter is literally the worst out of combat class. If you don't want that brought up then try not suggesting that a very much skills based character should come from the class with the least out of combat ability.

 

[The Glen]

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.

And that's a big problem. Rangers as written made wilderness adventures toothless because it was an automatic success. I would change it by having two sets of rules for survival. One for rangers and one for everybody else. Ranger gets two favored terrain types and a new one every time the pb goes up. Give the Rangers specific bonuses over other players and they will remind the dms of those rules. Everybody wants their moment in the spotlight. Even if they have to ahem the dm.

 

[Horwath]

if we really need to have spellcasting ranges(which we don't), then let's steal from paladins.

2nd level ability:

Elemental strike.
When you hit with a weapon or unarmed attack you can spend a spell slot to deal extra damage.

damage is chosen out of acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison or thunder damage.

extra damage is 2d6 for 1st level spell and extra +1d6 per spell level higher.
max of 6d6 for 5th level spell slot.

11th level ranger ability
all your attacks deal extra +1d6 damage chosen out of acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison or thunder.

 

[Minigiant]

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 than the Wizard had spells to choose from by the end of 4E.

The 4e original Ranger was just a damage focused archer or TWF warrior. It had almost no wilderness stuff unless you multiclassed or took the Ritual Caster feat.

Unill the community lets rangers speakwith/call animals/plants/fey, find quarry, resist the wild, or create level appropriate traps, camps, and heals without magic, the D&D ranger will end up using magic.

 

[TheSword]

1: This is untrue. Ranger as an archetype has a massive presence outside D&D.
2: So what? The archetypal D&D ranger is Drizzt Do'urden. If the class is meant to cover the "fictional archetype developed through D&D" then it should at the very least cover the archetypal example of that fictional archetype. But it fails at that to the point that you claim that the most archetypal D&D ranger should be a member of another class.

All of which says that if the ranger "is its own fictional archetype developed through D&D" and it is failing to cover far the most famous ranger in D&D then the class doesn't even cover the only source for its own archetype.

So what you are saying here is that the class fails to do what you say is the justification for the class. It's a zombie class - a collection of disjoint mechanics with no fictional inspiration and no roleplaying pointers. Which is why the One D&D ranger is such a soulless collection of mechanics where the mechanics are their own justifications.

It’s a hybrid Warrior-Druid. It always has been. I think you’re reading far more into things than you need to.

Drizzt was archetypal ranger because in AD&D that suited. Over 30 years the class has gained more and more magic (because magic is fun) But Drizzt is already written. So now Drizzt fits fighter better than Ranger. So what? I don’t expect the game to stand still or regress because a character written 30 years ago says so (or indeed 65 years ago)

In fact what am I saying. Drizzt has been predominantly fighter for ages. Since Homeland at least. He didn’t train as a ranger until he met Montolio years and years after training and living as a fighter. In 3.5 he was an 8th level fighter, 6th level ranger, with a smattering of rogue.

The game has many influences. It doesn’t have to be all Tolkein and Salvatore though.

 

[Raith5]

I am really surprised they added cantrips as a class feature - a ranger casting thornwhip does not feel like a ranger at all. I wish hunters mark was a class feature and the spell casting was in a subclass.

I also really dread the expansion of expertise. I just recently played a rogue with expertise and rolling any skill checks with expertise was anticlimatic and cheesy. I wished they changed expertise to something else like making skill checks a bonus or free action - rather than trampling over bounded accuracy.

 

[jasper]

Hunter;s Lore At level 6 they now know immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities of the target of their mark.
I think this a null. Unless you have a lot of new people playing, they know the monster's stats.