D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[Micah Sweet]

The thing about having a character created to deal with particular types of foes and terrain is that it's a signal to the DM to make those things important in the campaign. Unfortunately, similar abilities are pretty rare in 5e, and the DMG is far more interested in telling people how to invent a cosmology from scratch, rather than sitting them down and saying 'look at your player's character sheets and work from there.' Published adventures are of course not much help, either.

So, while I think abilities like Favoured Foe are cool and flavourful, I don't think they fit the game as it exists, or at least, as many people play it.

The DMG does not encourage the DM to sculpt the adventure, the setting and the campaign to the specific PCs presented, and IMO that's a good thing. Why would the world care about who decides they want to try to save it?

 

[Neonchameleon]

The thing about having a character created to deal with particular types of foes and terrain is that it's a signal to the DM to make those things important in the campaign. Unfortunately, similar abilities are pretty rare in 5e, and the DMG is far more interested in telling people how to invent a cosmology from scratch, rather than sitting them down and saying 'look at your player's character sheets and work from there.' Published adventures are of course not much help, either.

So, while I think abilities like Favoured Foe are cool and flavourful, I don't think they fit the game as it exists, or at least, as many people play it.

This is why several of us have said that Favoured Terrain shouldn't give you a bonus in that terrain but a bonus you can apply anywhere based on what you do in that terrain. So my example would be Favoured Terrain (Mountains) should give you a climb speed as you spend so much time scrambling and climbing. (And then it should give a party buff such as advantage on athletics checks to follow a path you've marked or are guiding for them).

Favoured Foe if it stays should likewise be a bonus you've learned from that foe rather than a bonus against that foe in specific.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Favoured Foe if it stays should likewise be a bonus you've learned from that foe rather than a bonus against that foe in specific.

In theory I agree with this, but in practice it tends to become “which one is best?”

 

[Micah Sweet]

In theory I agree with this, but in practice it tends to become “which one is best?”

Every class feature choice boils down to "which one is best?" It's when nearly everyone has the same answer to that question that we start to have a problem.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In theory I agree with this, but in practice it tends to become “which one is best?”

Just like any player choice. Which is why you try to make them as non-comparable as possible. Is climbing more useful than swimming? And is that more useful than herblore?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Just like any player choice. Which is why you try to make them as non-comparable as possible. Is climbing more useful than swimming? And is that more useful than herblore?

Yes, I think those sorts of features are better for this sort of thing than straight up combat bonuses. Or...combat bonuses with a value that is hard to calculate. The goal should be that players can justify, or at least convince themselves, that their favorite as "best".

Kind of like how I believe that interesting racial abilities, with hard-to-compare value, are better than racial ASIs.

 

[Staffan]

Some people hate Known Spells - and others hate too few known spells but are more than fine if there are enough known spells. The Sorcerer was literally invented to be a Known Spells class because some people really wanted it to exist.

I object to that. The sorcerer was primarily created to be a spontaneous spellcaster class. Limiting them to a smallish number of known spells was one of the methods for balancing them against Vancian prepared casting.

But in 5e, all casters are spontaneous casters. So spells known is a straight downgrade from spells prepared. You can do things to balance that out (like having a higher number of spells known than an equal-level prepared caster could prepare, or giving the spells known caster some method of casting more spells), but in itself spells known is strictly worse than spells prepared.

 

[Staffan]

Considering the expert classes can put their expertise in any skill, I guess the 'no magic' ranger is... a rogue?

This actually made me think a little.

I think there should be a place for the non-magical outdoorsman. I also think there's room for the magical one.

I also don't think there's all that much room for variation (in the sub-class sense) in the non-magical version. So perhaps that's better left to a fighter subclass, a rogue sub-class, or either. Which would then leave the ranger as the magical version, with subclasses leaning in different magical directions. What I would like to see, to perhaps prevent this kind of argument from being a constant nuisance over the next decade, is that they put the non-magical Scout (or whatever they decide to call it) in the PHB, so there's something to point to when people want to play a non-magical outdoorsperson.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I object to that. The sorcerer was primarily created to be a spontaneous spellcaster class. Limiting them to a smallish number of known spells was one of the methods for balancing them against Vancian prepared casting.

Tomato tomato. There were only spontaneous spells known and non-spontaneous spells prepared.

But in 5e, all casters are spontaneous casters. So spells known is a straight downgrade from spells prepared.

This happens if and only if you restrict the number of spells known so that a spells prepared caster can prepare as many spells as a spells known caster can know. If you do that then yes it's worse because spells prepared can do literally everything spells known can and more.

The 5e PHB went a step further. On average the Spells Known casters knew approximately two spells per spell level they had of levels 1-5 while the spells prepared casters could prepare three spells per spell level. This made Spells Prepared casters awful. And lead to people hating Spells Prepared because WotC hamstrung almost all the Spells Prepared classes.

If you don't sabotage spells prepared and guide people through traps it is IMO a superior system leading to characters that are better characterised, easier to play, and with a whole lot less faffing. But WotC chose to sabotage the sorcerer and ranger in particular.

You can do things to balance that out (like having a higher number of spells known than an equal-level prepared caster could prepare, or giving the spells known caster some method of casting more spells), but in itself spells known is strictly worse than spells prepared.

There is nothing in the concept of Spells Known that says that you should know fewer spells than a spells caster can prepare.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The sorcerer was primarily created to be a spontaneous spellcaster class.

Is it really possible to say that any one feature was the primary driver? Isn’t it more likely that there were a number of desired characteristics, and the designers saw an opportunity to meet several of them at once?