D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[Horwath]

Because players want Katniss types (and not they don't want them to be Fighters, jesus lol).

Give option to fighter to trade away heavy armor proficiency for another skill and you have Katniss/Legolas

 

[TheSword]

LOL.

It's absolutely false to say it became more pronounced with each edition. 3.5E was the first time it was even arguable - before that they were Fighters with some wilderness abilities who might eventually gain a few very low-level spells. 4E didn't make it more the case, as Hexmage has reminded me. 5E is the first edition where Rangers "went hard" on spells, and 1D&D is even more extreme than that.

1e and AD&D - Magic at 8th level
3e - Magic at 4th level
4e - Who cares
5e - Magic at 2nd level
1D&D - Magic at 1st level

So not false at all.

 

[Horwath]

Technically the 3.0 Ranger was as good at spellcasting as the 3.5 Ranger and worse at absolutely everything else. Meaning it was more arguable in 3.0 - but the 3.0 Ranger was so awful that no one remembers it as an argument for anything.

But both of them got literally zero first level spells per day at 4th level and 1 at 6th. Which in practice meant that a seventh level ranger with a wis 14 could cast two first level spells per day or as many as a first level druid with wis 14.

3.0 ranger was only worth as 1st level.

you got Track and TWF+Ambidex, yes, you needed 2 feats to dual wield in 3.0 with some marginal competence.
Also you got double of skill points at 1st level.

So, it was, Ranger1 then fighter X

 

[Neonchameleon]

It really isn’t just the current edition. The ranger has had magic at early levels for the last 25 years.

If you mean 23 years then at fifth level a ranger got zero spells per day. (Zero is not none in 3.X as you got bonus spells from your stat). And first I don't count fifth level as early levels - and second having zero first level spells per day is only having magic in the most technical sense.

So throughout the run of 3.X at low level the ranger had little enough magic you needed to squint to see it.

Meanwhile in 4e, no. No the ranger didn't have magic in general.

The first time the ranger actually got any significant magic at low levels was in 4e when they got two (not zero) first level spells at second level - and by fifth level (when the 3.0 and 3.5 ranger had zero spells per day) they had four first level spell slots and two second level.

So it's been less than ten years when the ranger has had magic at early levels. The only edition where the ranger gets magic at early levels is 5e. And the 5e ranger has been universally considered the worst class and the one that needed the most serious patches.

I think it’s brilliant that WOC is giving martials more spells to affect things. I really couldn’t care less that it isn’t through non-Magical means.

And I do.

 

[The Glen]

So, it was, Ranger1 then ANYTHING ELSE

3.0 ranger was the most front loaded class in all of D&D, it was almost solely responsible for the change in multi-tasking rules in 3.5 and got all the starting abilities kicked to later levels. Ruined my rogue/barbarian/ranger build overnight

 

[Minigiant]

Because players want Katniss types (and not they don't want them to be Fighters, jesus lol).

Your players maybe.

The last few rangers I've played with that weren't me were based on Kiba Inuzuka, Sango, Cheetah, Geralt, Jon Snow, and Doom Guy.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's underwhelming and flavorless. Hunters mark will turn into an action tax. Round 1 you cast hunters mark while everybody else attacks.

Hunter’s Mark is a bonus action to cast. Always has been.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I’m fine with access to magic, especially magic that isn’t just spells. It’s spellcasting that doesn’t fit the ranger archetype.

 

[TheSword]

If you mean 23 years then at fifth level a ranger got zero spells per day. (Zero is not none in 3.X as you got bonus spells from your stat). And first I don't count fifth level as early levels - and second having zero first level spells per day is only having magic in the most technical sense.

So throughout the run of 3.X at low level the ranger had little enough magic you needed to squint to see it.

Meanwhile in 4e, no. No the ranger didn't have magic in general.

The first time the ranger actually got any significant magic at low levels was in 4e when they got two (not zero) first level spells at second level - and by fifth level (when the 3.0 and 3.5 ranger had zero spells per day) they had four first level spell slots and two second level.

So it's been less than ten years when the ranger has had magic at early levels. The only edition where the ranger gets magic at early levels is 5e. And the 5e ranger has been universally considered the worst class and the one that needed the most serious patches.

And I do.

Well I don’t think that’s quite true. If a 3e ranger wanted to cast spells they had a Wisdom 12+ so did get spells at 4th level and therefore faster and to a greater extent than AD&D Or 1e. With wands and scrolls granting even more accessibility to spells in that edition.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Ok. We’re the community. So let’s allow rangers to do that. Stop using “the community” as an excuse and be the change you want to see in the world.