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.

 

[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.