Ranger playtest discussion

[UngeheuerLich]

I think it would be super-fun if high level spells took multiple/many rounds to cast, and the martials had to protect them until complete.

It is not fun for the spellcaster if it is all they could do.

I think banishment has it right. Minor effect for 1 minute, concentration.
If you can concentrate until the end, boom.

Does not have to be 1 minute. 3 or 5 rounds as a doom clock would suffice.

Not having a different concentration spell up would probably enough of a cost.
If it is not, you could reduce the caster's movement speed to 0 too. Maybe limit them to only cast cantrips while they concentrate.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It is not fun for the spellcaster if it is all they could do.

It wouldn't be "all" they could do. Just for the highest-level, most powerful spells.

And I agree about Banishment. I like that one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I opposed a hostile view towards players. @Micah Sweet was saying that rangers should suffer if the DM didn't tell them what terrains the campaign would take place in. That's not neutrality. And if it is, then I do think that type of "neutrality" is bad DMing.

That is not what I said, and if it came off that way I'm sorry (though your response still felt pretty hostile). I said the world doesn't have to reflect the PC choices. I explicitly mentioned having a session 0 so a gross mismatch is avoided.

Just because you personally always design your campaigns around your players doesn't mean that any other style is bad DMing. That an extraordinarily insulting view.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It wouldn't be "all" they could do. Just for the highest-level, most powerful spells.

And I agree about Banishment. I like that one.

No. I meant all they could do while casting the spell. Would be unfun for the player to just wait till combat is over.

 

[Arilyn]

Rangers could also get an ability that a good survival roll practically let's them see into the past while examing tracks.

In their favoured terrain, they'd get bonuses that make them really scary predators.

They should have an intuitive sense of their natural surroundings, making them alert to traps and hard to fool with illusions.

A ranger can hide the groups' camp, making it more likely that they get an undisturbed rest.

With time a ranger could collect healing herbs. They have to be fresh to maintain benefits, so no hoarding them.

One problem, I see with Ranger design is that their basic abilities are forced into being realistic. This leads to comments that a fighter with survival skills is a ranger. But since other non spellcasting classes have over the top abilities, surely our ranger can too without needing spells.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No. I meant all they could do while casting the spell. Would be unfun for the player to just wait till combat is over.

Oh, sure. But I think some mechanics could be created to make such spells some kind of sustained test with decision-making along the way.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Oh, sure. But I think some mechanics could be created to make such spells some kind of sustained test with decision-making along the way.

Of course. Or you use existing mechanics like concentration (which you had to use anyway simce you are casting a multiround spell, when doing it as you suggest), and then allow for something extra.

I am also totally in support of those mechanics. This is why I suggested, that every spell can be cast as ritual. Fireball cast by a circle of 3 level 3 casters as ritual. Now go out and stop them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Of course. Or you use existing mechanics like concentration (which you had to use anyway simce you are casting a multiround spell, when doing it as you suggest), and then allow for something extra.

I am also totally in support of those mechanics. This is why I suggested, that every spell can be cast as ritual. Fireball cast by a circle of 3 level 3 casters as ritual. Now go out and stop them.

Sure.

AND I personally wouldn’t mind occasionally skipping 5 turns, knowing enemies will have advantage on attacks against me, while my teammates protect me, to get off spectacular spells. I think that would be fun. Fun to play, fun to imagine. (Same thing?)

YMMV.

(Maybe the spell builds each round, so the decision to make is whether to keep going or to let go with a partial effect.)

 

[Gammadoodler]

No. I meant all they could do while casting the spell. Would be unfun for the player to just wait till combat is over.

Seems like it'd be pretty implementation-dependent. The player has to select their spells in the first place, so presumably they'd be opting in to the multi-turn experience (whatever that looks like). As long as there are enough casting time options and the balance of cast time vs spell effect is in a good place, people would find ways to have their fun.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Sure.

AND I personally wouldn’t mind occasionally skipping 5 turns, knowing enemies will have advantage on attacks against me, while my teammates protect me, to get off spectacular spells. I think that would be fun. Fun to play, fun to imagine. (Same thing?)

YMMV.

(Maybe the spell builds each round, so the decision to make is whether to keep going or to let go with a partial effect.)

Incidentally pf2e has some spells like this. I think they all max out at 2 rounds, but there might be some decent existing templates to borrow.

 

[niklinna]

Incidentally pf2e has some spells like this. I think they all max out at 2 rounds, but there might be some decent existing templates to borrow.

I tried Pathfinder 2 as a caster. Nearly every spell took 2 actions to cast, and just that was a drag. It needed more variety there. I did like the spells that did more based on how many actions you spent casting them, it was a fun tradeoff to make. But there weren't very many of those.

Total aside, but Castle Falkenstein handled something like this in an engaging way. You had to play cards into a pool each turn to build up your spell power, either to a certain threshold or just for more effect, maybe both, I don't remember exactly. But you still felt like you were doing something on your turn even if your spell wasn't actually going off yet.

 

[Minigiant]

Hunter's Mark makes no more/less sense as Martial than literally dozens of Martial bonus-damage abilities)

The Perception and Survival bonuses are a bit too mystical unless you say Hunters Mark .

WotC decided to go the opposite way to for example, giving Rangers a Climb Speed, and made them into actual spells.

Because giving a swim speed requires a creating a new spell.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I tried Pathfinder 2 as a caster. Nearly every spell took 2 actions to cast, and just that was a drag. It needed more variety there. I did like the spells that did more based on how many actions you spent casting them, it was a fun tradeoff to make. But there weren't very many of those.

Total aside, but Castle Falkenstein handled something like this in an engaging way. You had to play cards into a pool each turn to build up your spell power, either to a certain threshold or just for more effect, maybe both, I don't remember exactly. But you still felt like you were doing something on your turn even if your spell wasn't actually going off yet.

Oh yeah, not advocating wholesale adoption Of pf2e spellcasting, just that there are a few spells that will let you spend multiple turns' worth of actions to power them up (e.g horison thunder sphere). No real idea if they are any good, so much as that there is a template for slower chunkier spellcasting.

I wonder if something like spending some hp could work as an equivalent power-up resource to the power cards you mention..

 

[Gammadoodler]

The Perception and Survival bonuses are a bit too mystical unless you say Hunters Mark .

Are they?

You choose a creature you can see within range and mystically mark it as your quarry. Until the spell effect ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack, and you have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) check you make to find it. If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to mark a new creature.

Like, if we take out the word "mystically" from the effect description, does it sound like something a Ranger should be incapable of without magic?

 

[Olrox17]

Rangers could also get an ability that a good survival roll practically let's them see into the past while examing tracks.

In their favoured terrain, they'd get bonuses that make them really scary predators.

They should have an intuitive sense of their natural surroundings, making them alert to traps and hard to fool with illusions.

A ranger can hide the groups' camp, making it more likely that they get an undisturbed rest.

With time a ranger could collect healing herbs. They have to be fresh to maintain benefits, so no hoarding them.

One problem, I see with Ranger design is that their basic abilities are forced into being realistic. This leads to comments that a fighter with survival skills is a ranger. But since other non spellcasting classes have over the top abilities, surely our ranger can too without needing spells.

I'm intrigued by the concept of the razor-sharp senses Ranger. A passable warrior, good at skills (expertise), but the main class features all focus on an almost supernatural ability to listen, smell and watch their surroundings. Then you can give them limited spell casting on a subclass basis, like eldritch knights and arcane tricksters.

 

[niklinna]

Oh yeah, not advocating wholesale adoption Of pf2e spellcasting, just that there are a few spells that will let you spend multiple turns' worth of actions to power them up (e.g horison thunder sphere). No real idea if they are any good, so much as that there is a template for slower chunkier spellcasting.

I wonder if something like spending some hp could work as an equivalent power-up resource to the power cards you mention..

I think that would be pretty awesome. I find risk/reward tradeoffs like that to be a lot of fun.

 

[Minigiant]

Are they?

Like, if we take out the word "mystically" from the effect description, does it sound like something a Ranger should be incapable of without magic?

No.

How does a ranger gain better tracking sense against a single target on a duration outside of magic?

Now if you said the ranger had enhanced senses then it could be martial but like a canine or avian it would be always on.

Now I'm not against giving Rangers dog smell, eagle eyes, and rabbit ears. But that's not Hunters Mark.

 

[Haplo781]

No.

How does a ranger gain better tracking sense against a single target on a duration outside of magic?

By focusing your undivided attention on it?

 

[Gammadoodler]

No.

How does a ranger gain better tracking sense against a single target on a duration outside of magic?

Now if you said the ranger had enhanced senses then it could be martial but like a canine or avian it would be always on.

Now I'm not against giving Rangers dog smell, eagle eyes, and rabbit ears. But that's not Hunters Mark.

You really think there are zero nonmagical ways to obtained an advantaged game state on a skill check?

You don't think just being better at focussing would be adequate?

It's not that different from fighting spirit on the samurai or rage on a barbarian, neither of which needs spellcasting.

 

[Minigiant]

By focusing your undivided attention on it?

You really think there are zero nonmagical ways to obtained an advantaged game state on a skill check?

You don't think just being better at focussing would be adequate?

It's not that different from fighting spirit on the samurai or rage on a barbarian, neither of which needs spellcasting.

Sure. But Hunters Mark isn't heightened senses. It's a Mark you can sense out of the range of your normal senses.