D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[Minigiant]

I think you are forgetting the utility powers...

Nope.

Only 2 of the 4e PHB1 Ranger's 16 Utility powers strickly helps you in wilderness exploration: Careful Advise and Skilled Companion. Both compete with combat utilities as well.

2 more kinda sorta do via ignoring terrain and boosting speed for 1 turn.

 

[Haplo781]

If one actually wants wilderness stuff, it's not a competition.

Rangers didn't need additional combat enhancements, anyway.

The problem is that, in D&D, combat takes up about 90% of the rules and is basically guaranteed to happen once a session or so.

Wilderness exploration may or may not ever come up and if it does you can handle it with some skill checks.

So why blow a utility slot (of which you get 7 over 30 levels) on a power that you might not use in a typical session, when you can pick one that you know will come up every time you play?

 

[Remathilis]

Nope.

Only 2 of the 4e PHB1 Ranger's 16 Utility powers strickly helps you in wilderness exploration: Careful Advise and Skilled Companion. Both compete with combat utilities as well.

2 more kinda sorta do via ignoring terrain and boosting speed for 1 turn.

I think there are a lot of people forgetting what the classes looked like in 2008 vs what they looked like after 3 years of expansion, including monthly Dragon options.

 

[Minigiant]

If one actually wants wilderness stuff, it's not a competition.

Rangers didn't need additional combat enhancements, anyway.

It wasn't really. The combat utilities at those levels weren't that good.

The point was it was "Shift Wis Mod squares" OR "give an ally Wis Mod bonus to a skill check."

The exploration bits were skill challenges and Rituals. Rangers didn't get rituals and the fighter would blow the skill challenge with their low Stealth/Perception/Survival/Dungeoneering.

 

[Eric V]

I think there are a lot of people forgetting what the classes looked like in 2008 vs what they looked like after 3 years of expansion, including monthly Dragon options.

True, I am remembering the ranger in our group near the end of our 4e campaign and there were a lot more options by then.

That's still the 4e ranger, though, yes?

 

[James Gasik]

4e Rangers did have a few magical powers though, since they had a slice of the Primal power source- I remember a teleport that gave me +5 to all defenses for a turn, another teleport that linked two squares on the battlefield so you could blink from one to another, and a power that let you reshape the terrain.

As for Rangers and magic, well, other than 4e and some variant options to remove spells in 3e (which were strictly worse than having access to magic in the first place), Rangers have had magic as long as I've been playing the game. So I'm not sure why anyone would want to make them less magical just because.

Now wanting actual class features instead of spells? That would be nice, but it's obviously not WotC's bag- even in 3e, you needed specialty spells to make Rangers really good (outside of the Sword of the Arcane Order). In fact, there was a spell that let you shoot a volley of arrows, as I recall.

WotC is obviously more comfortable cranking out a bunch of new spells than they are with making class and subclass abilities, so I'm terrified of what a spell-less Ranger would look like, if they made one.

 

[Minigiant]

4e Rangers did have a few magical powers though, since they had a slice of the Primal power source- I remember a teleport that gave me +5 to all defenses for a turn, another teleport that linked two squares on the battlefield so you could blink from one to another, and a power that let you reshape the terrain.

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

4e Rangers did have a few magical powers though, since they had a slice of the Primal power source- I remember a teleport that gave me +5 to all defenses for a turn, another teleport that linked two squares on the battlefield so you could blink from one to another, and a power that let you reshape the terrain.

As for Rangers and magic, well, other than 4e and some variant options to remove spells in 3e (which were strictly worse than having access to magic in the first place), Rangers have had magic as long as I've been playing the game. So I'm not sure why anyone would want to make them less magical just because.

Now wanting actual class features instead of spells? That would be nice, but it's obviously not WotC's bag- even in 3e, you needed specialty spells to make Rangers really good (outside of the Sword of the Arcane Order). In fact, there was a spell that let you shoot a volley of arrows, as I recall.

WotC is obviously more comfortable cranking out a bunch of new spells than they are with making class and subclass abilities, so I'm terrified of what a spell-less Ranger would look like, if they made one.

This is why you need to think outside the Wizard of the Coast.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

Oh is that important? I mean, they didn't have specialty spells or variant options (like being spell less) in the 3e PHB either. I was just looking at the class overall.

 

[James Gasik]

This is why you need to think outside the Wizard of the Coast.

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.