Ranger playtest discussion

[Micah Sweet]

If you have a problem with things, yes. But as this is a thread about the playtest for the WotC Ranger, it seems odd to say "there's no problem, you can always play a 3pp version!".

Was that the Oberoni fallacy? My goodness, that takes me back.

Well, a lot of people on this 1DD thread seem to have a problem with things, things which others have claimed are unlikely to be fixed by WotC. I'm one of them. Why not offer an alternative?

 

[James Gasik]

Well, a lot of people on this 1DD thread seem to have a problem with things, things which others have claimed are unlikely to be fixed by WotC. I'm one of them. Why not offer an alternative?

I'm not looking to pick a fight or anything, if 3pp D&D is better than 5e or 1D&D, or whatever else it ends up being called, and people want that, that's fine. I like the cut of Adventure in Rokugan's jib, myself. But I'm not sure if "1D&D playtest discussion" is the best place to shill, personally.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not looking to pick a fight or anything, if 3pp D&D is better than 5e or 1D&D, or whatever else it ends up being called, and people want that, that's fine. I like the cut of Adventure in Rokugan's jib, myself. But I'm not sure if "1D&D playtest discussion" is the best place to shill, personally.

Fair enough. Hard to resist when I see Level Up doing so many things so much better. I'll try to dial it back.

 

[FireLance]

I honestly think that the only way to satisfy a majority of the player base is to have the Expert group comprising the Artificer, Bard, and Rogue, the Mage group comprising the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard, the Priest group comprising the Cleric, Druid, and Paladin, the Warrior group comprising the Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk, and the Ranger group comprising the non-magical ranger (Scout?), the warlock-like supernatural ranger (Seeker?), and the half-spellcaster ranger (Warden?).

 

[Branduil]

I honestly think that the only way to satisfy a majority of the player base is to have the Expert group comprising the Artificer, Bard, and Rogue, the Mage group comprising the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard, the Priest group comprising the Cleric, Druid, and Paladin, the Warrior group comprising the Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk, and the Ranger group comprising the non-magical ranger (Scout?), the warlock-like supernatural ranger (Seeker?), and the half-spellcaster ranger (Warden?).

Sounds like they should just make the Spellcaster Ranger its own subclass. This would also give significantly more room to the base Ranger class to have meaningful, flavorful mechanics which define it as a wilderness survivor and hunter.

 

[Islayre d'Argolh]

Sorry, no, that doesn't work.

Fighters aren't skilled in D&D.

Katniss, who I suspect you're unfamiliar with is ultra-skilled. That's her main thing. She'd definitely be the "Expert" archetype. She'd definitely have Expertise in Nature and probably Stealth. She's not an ambusher either - she frequently and successfully fights straight-up (and doesn't really like ambushing humans).

You must be thinking of some other D&D variant where Fighters aren't as bad as they are in 5E outside combat. 13th Age? Pathfinder 2E?

Katniss took Prodigy/Skilled Expert (as a variant human) and the Ambush maneuver (as a Battlemaster).

So d20+Wis+PBX2 on Survival Checks and d20+Dex+PB+d8 on Stealth Checks.

Done.

 

[Minigiant]

I honestly think that the only way to satisfy a majority of the player base is to have the Expert group comprising the Artificer, Bard, and Rogue, the Mage group comprising the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard, the Priest group comprising the Cleric, Druid, and Paladin, the Warrior group comprising the Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk, and the Ranger group comprising the non-magical ranger (Scout?), the warlock-like supernatural ranger (Seeker?), and the half-spellcaster ranger (Warden?).

Sounds like they should just make the Spellcaster Ranger its own subclass. This would also give significantly more room to the base Ranger class to have meaningful, flavorful mechanics which define it as a wilderness survivor and hunter.

The 3 biggest hindrances with a nonmagical Ranger are

1. those who want it can't agree on what it gets
2. it will likely scale bad
3. It won't be as good as the half caster

For example look at the Level Up Ranger.

1. It has 2 pages of choosable exploration knacks. WOTC isn't going to do that. They will choose or survey chooses and you'll get stuck with whatever 4 features picked.
2. None of the knacks are above level 10 in requirements. The knacks are all Tier 1 and Tier 2. WOTC is even worse at making Tier 1 and 2 stuff.
3. The spellcasting subclass the Wildborn is by far the strongest subclass

 

[TheSword]

Well, a lot of people on this 1DD thread seem to have a problem with things, things which others have claimed are unlikely to be fixed by WotC. I'm one of them. Why not offer an alternative?

It just seems that way.

It’s actually a small number of people with a lot of problems.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The 4e ranger didn'tget these powers in the PHB.
The 4e PHB Ranger was just HIGH DAMAGE and "Shift X squares so the monster couldn't hit you".

Most came in later books or in Essentials when the edition was being redone.

The ranger was especially nice in essentials.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The 3 biggest hindrances with a nonmagical Ranger are

1. those who want it can't agree on what it gets
2. it will likely scale bad
3. It won't be as good as the half caster

For example look at the Level Up Ranger.

1. It has 2 pages of choosable exploration knacks. WOTC isn't going to do that. They will choose or survey chooses and you'll get stuck with whatever 4 features picked.
2. None of the knacks are above level 10 in requirements. The knacks are all Tier 1 and Tier 2. WOTC is even worse at making Tier 1 and 2 stuff.
3. The spellcasting subclass the Wildborn is by far the strongest subclass

I like this breakdown and find it interesting the counterpoint to it.

1. Hard to say what 1D&D will do, but in 5e, there are at least a few ranger-only spells. The amount of design work to produce those is effectively identical to producing non-magical options.
2. This is one of those things that is probably true but doesn't have to be. Scaling is pure mechanics, the same is true of...
3. Nonmagical features don't need to have noncompetitive mechanics.

For myself, I'm ok with a Ranger that can cast. It's just strange to me that there is this near total unwillingness to explore any non-garbage power budget options outside of spellcasting.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It’s actually a small number of people with a lot of problems.

I may have a new .sig

 

[Minigiant]

I like this breakdown and find it interesting the counterpoint to it.

1. Hard to say what 1D&D will do, but in 5e, there are at least a few ranger-only spells. The amount of design work to produce those is effectively identical to producing non-magical options.
2. This is one of those things that is probably true but doesn't have to be. Scaling is pure mechanics, the same is true of...
3. Nonmagical features don't need to have noncompetitive mechanics.

For myself, I'm ok with a Ranger that can cast. It's just strange to me that there is this near total unwillingness to explore any non-garbage power budget options outside of spellcasting.

It's because of a self fulfilling issue.

Many groups are PURE COMBAT or barely do exploration. Especially post level 5 exploration.

So few know how to run it except for the groups who do.

So when people ask all you get is "I wanna craft potions and hide in grass".

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It's because of a self fulfilling issue.

Many groups are PURE COMBAT or barely do exploration. Especially post level 5 exploration.

So few know how to run it except for the groups who do.

So when people ask all you get is "I wanna craft potions and hide in grass".

This is true and to break out of it would require adventure design where there are specific guidance on exploration stuff.

 

[Gammadoodler]

It's because of a self fulfilling issue.

Many groups are PURE COMBAT or barely do exploration. Especially post level 5 exploration.

So few know how to run it except for the groups who do.

So when people ask all you get is "I wanna craft potions and hide in grass".

Except that we're only orthogonally discussing exploration. There could be more nonmagical Combat solutions too, and the counterpoints would all still apply.

It'd be nice if more was done with exploration, but it's not like that's the only way to figure out a nonmagical Ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

Except that we're only orthogonally discussing exploration. There could be more nonmagical Combat solutions too, and the counterpoints would all still apply.

It'd be nice if more was done with exploration, but it's not like that's the only way to figure out a nonmagical Ranger.

The exploration pillar plus healing IS why rangers have magic.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The exploration pillar plus healing IS why rangers have magic.

Is this a 1D&D opinion? A thematic opinion? Something else?

Because it is not an opinion well supported by the existing 5e Ranger spell list which includes a bunch of summons, aoe damage, damage mitigation spells, and the (now) definitive ranger spell hunter's mark a (mostly) damage rider spell.

 

[James Gasik]

Is this a 1D&D opinion? A thematic opinion? Something else?

Because it is not an opinion well supported by the existing 5e Ranger spell list which includes a bunch of summons, aoe damage, damage mitigation spells, and the (now) definitive ranger spell hunter's mark a (mostly) damage rider spell.

Perhaps that's the issue, then? Not that Rangers have magic, but that their magic lacks identity?

 

[Minigiant]

Is this a 1D&D opinion? A thematic opinion? Something else?

Because it is not an opinion well supported by the existing 5e Ranger spell list which includes a bunch of summons, aoe damage, damage mitigation spells, and the (now) definitive ranger spell hunter's mark a (mostly) damage rider spell.

The ranger had spells to get healing, scrying, speaking to animals, speaking to plants, communing with nature, curing poisons, ESP, etc to copy Aragorn and the Rangers of LOTR.

It expanded with D&DS more magical highlights over time with summons, gaining scent, turning into animals, teleports, jumping in trees, breathing water, ignoring sandstorms, predicting weather, resisting elements.

Rangers barely had damage and damage mitigation spells. The exploration spells came first.

 

[Minigiant]

Perhaps that's the issue, then? Not that Rangers have magic, but that their magic lacks identity?

Their magic has an identity.

The problem is WOTC doesn't give them exploration spells anymore so people miss the fact that that was the whole point of the magic.

 

[Remathilis]

L

The 3 biggest hindrances with a nonmagical Ranger are

1. those who want it can't agree on what it gets
2. it will likely scale bad
3. It won't be as good as the half caster

What I think it comes down to is this burning desire by some players to have non-magical "magic". You see it in discussions of fighters. You see it in discussions of nonmagical rangers. You even see it in discussions of psionics. There is a vocal group of players who want all the benefits of magic without casting spells, and usually that equates to "no components, can't be dispelled/countered, etc." Which of course are all big elements of balancing spellcasting. I'm not saying people want nonmagical magic to cheese the system, but hot damn are there a lot of people who want powers akin to spellcasting without actually calling it spellcasting.