Ranger Rehash

[steeldragons]

Thanks for the thoughtful remarks, Tom. You might want to take a look at my original (not warlock-modeled) ranger...though that also is a spell-less base with "Warden" as the spell-ranger...it does, however, essentially assume the complete scrapping of the PHB's Ranger spell list. Page 4 of this thread, post #37.

 

[Quickleaf]

Some well-articulated thoughts Tom! I am going to disagree with your points however.

First up, the whole trail/lodge relationship isn't very strong. Maybe it's the choice in language, but they look more related than they really are. Compare the warlock, since that was the basis for the update. You pick a pact at first level, then a gift at level...3? Anyway the two are related. They build on one another. Not so with the ranger. Picking a trail (hunter, scout, or warden) really doesn't have a connection when you eventually pick a lodge (guardian, wanderer, or seeker). So instead of building on the player's original choice, it forks.

I actually think narratively, the "Trail" leading to the "Lodge" could make a lot of sense. Sure, it's not as explicit as "your Otherworldly Patron bestows a gift of a Pact Boon upon you for your loyal service", but it's still viable. I think of it as "you've been wandering these many years on the Trail, any it finally leads you to a realization about how you fit into the greater scheme of civilization and nature - a Lodge." The specific language needs work, but the idea has a lot of merit that jives with the theme of the ranger as a wanderer in search of something.

Second issue: wild knacks. I get the idea behind these, but they come away feeling like "not-feats." No, no, really these are class abilities. Wink, wink, nod, nod. I think these things work better baked into the archetype. Right now , two of the archetypes (lodges) you have are ranger and wandery ranger. I don't think the distinction between these two is that strong. The Seeker, OTOH, makes sense because you are essentially trading out some of your combat abilities for spell casting umph. I don't really think you need to monkey with the spell list (except maybe incorporate some of the stuff from the player supplements), just mirror the existing Hunter archetype with three choices at each milestone.

Do you have the same criticism of the warlock's Eldritch Invocations? If "no", could you explain why not? If "yes", then this is just a point of personal opinion (which is valid, of course, but not the same as a design critique).

It's a cool departure, and has the makings of a nice Ranger but it still needs to cook a bit. Stop giving me options and give me a strong archetype with choices that support it.

That works for most classes, and I agree with you. However, historically in 1e and 3e (and to a lesser extent in 2e), the ranger was a hodgepodge class. 4e tried to focus it into a striker. But at its core concept it was meant to model a specific character from Tolkien's literature with a hodgepodge of abilities. Since then it's been expanded in multiple directions (arguably five main flavors that players desire). So it's a hodgepodge of an interpretation of an originally hodgepodge concept!

 

[BluSponge]

Some well-articulated thoughts Tom! I am going to disagree with your points however.

Go right ahead. I'm still digesting the new ruleset (slower than most due to other commitments), so I'm very likely to be wrong about any number of things.

It probably doesn't help that I grew to dislike 3e strongly and wasn't a big fan of 4e's design. Not meaning to start an edition war, I just find my thinking more rooted in 1st/2nd edition and find a lot of modern choices...far out there by my tastes.

I actually think narratively, the "Trail" leading to the "Lodge" could make a lot of sense. Sure, it's not as explicit as "your Otherworldly Patron bestows a gift of a Pact Boon upon you for your loyal service", but it's still viable.

Bold Italics is mine. The operative word here is COULD. Yes, it is still viable no doubt but right now the relationship just isn't very strong. The choices don't really build on one another and so you are making a choice for the sake of making a choice. In addition, I think the language needs to be more distinct. The terms used for Trail and Lodge are too similar and confusing. Hunter/Scout/Warden could just as easily be subclasses/Archetypes right along side Guardian/Wanderer/Seeker. There needs to be a clear division of language here to make both concepts firm and distinguished.

Do you have the same criticism of the warlock's Eldritch Invocations? If "no", could you explain why not? If "yes", then this is just a point of personal opinion (which is valid, of course, but not the same as a design critique).

You know, i KNEW the moment I typed that I was going to get dinged for it. I knew some obvious class (Fighter, I figured) was going to have its own selection of "Not-Feats". I haven't really read through the Warlock's class description, so I'm not very familiar with its Eldritch Invocations. And sure, it's a personal opinion. I have the same issue with Pathfinder classes that are riddled with "not-feats" these days. It's (IMNSHO) a cheap way to circumvent the class advancement ladder. It doesn't mean they don't work. I just think these abilities do more to reinforce the archetype when they are baked in. I've read your version of the Ranger, Quickleaf, and I totally get where your head is. I just think there are better ways to implement those abilities.

That works for most classes, and I agree with you. However, historically in 1e and 3e (and to a lesser extent in 2e), the ranger was a hodgepodge class. 4e tried to focus it into a striker. But at its core concept it was meant to model a specific character from Tolkien's literature with a hodgepodge of abilities. Since then it's been expanded in multiple directions (arguably five main flavors that players desire). So it's a hodgepodge of an interpretation of an originally hodgepodge concept!

I don't know how much of a "hodgepodge" the original class was. I know its popular to say that. The original ranger was a Fighter+, which is why it was a fighter subclass. I think the class has suffered a deterioration of niche protection brought on by adding feats and skills that allow other classes to morph into "Ranger-lite". That's why I suggested ditching the non-caster ranger, because a fighter seems like a better choice in that regard. The foundation of the ranger is already there at first level: wilderness lore and favored enemy. Everything else builds on that, or should. I think that's one of the failures of the Beastmaster. It seems completely unrelated to the core ranger, other than animal=wild. I mean, why doesn't the companion get bonuses against your favored enemy.

So yeah, all of this is personal opinion. I think Steeldragons' ranger is good effort, I just think it needs to bake a bit more is all. Tighten up the language, build on the foundation, and strengthen the concepts by focusing the options. That's all.

Carry on!
Tom

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=916]BluSponge[/MENTION]

Trail/Lodge: Language-wise, I completely agree. Conceptually, however, it is sound. Language-wise, yes it's a draft and it needs improvement.

Invocations/Wilderknacks: Entitled to your opinion, can't argue that!

Ranger was a Hodgepodge: I do stand by that statement. Here's the 1e Ranger.

We'd expect tracking, surprise, and fighting abilities, right? Right, those fit the ranger concept of "Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, infiltration, and spying."

What about these, however?

"In addition to considerable prowess as fighters, rangers have druidic and magical spell capabilities when they attain high levels."

This is a call back to Tolkien IIRC. Nothing in the concept statement describes them as being spellcasters.

"When fighting humanoid-type creatures of the "giant class,"..."
Why is their favored enemy "giant class"? Well, look over the "giant class" list and you've got a bunch of orcs, goblins, and other evil humanoids who look like stuff that would come straight out of Mordor. If we look at later edition rangers, where the favored enemy was chosen by the player, we then are faced with the question: How is favored enemy apropos to the ranger's core concept?

"at first level they get 2, rather then 1, Hit Dice."
Why? There's nothing conceptually about a scout, infiltrator, tracker, and master woodcrafter that says they are tougher than barbarians and fighters. I'm a bit perplexed by this feature, but I suspect it's a callback to some Aragorn aspect I'm forgetting.

"At 10th level (Ranger Lord), rangers are able to employ all non-written magical items which pertain to clairaudience, clairvoyance, ESP, and telepathy."
Very clearly emulating Tolkien's Aragorn. Not related to the ranger's core concept.

"All rangers must be of good alignment, although they can be lawful good, chaotic good, or neutral good. A ranger must have a Strength score of at least 13, Intelligence of at least 13, Wisdom of at least 14, and Constitution of at least 14."
"Any change to non-good alignment immediately strips the ranger of all benefits, and the character becomes a fighter, with eight-sided Hit Dice ever after. He can never again regain ranger status.

Rangers may not hire men-at-arms, servants, aides, or henchmen until they attain 8th level or higher.

No more than three rangers may ever operate together at any time.

Rangers may own only those goods and treasures which they can carry on their person and/or place upon their mount. All excess must be donated to a worthy communal or institutional cause (but never to another player character).

Rangers do not attract a body of mercenaries to serve them, but when (and if) rangers construct strongholds, they conform to the fighter class in other respects."
These all broadly fall into the category of Special Restrictions. And they're clearly meant to emulate Tolkien's Aragorn. Why does a ranger, a master scout and woodsman, need high Intelligence? Why must a ranger be good? Why can't he hire henchmen until 8th level? Because Aragorn.

 

[steeldragons]

It probably doesn't help that I grew to dislike 3e strongly and wasn't a big fan of 4e's design. Not meaning to start an edition war, I just find my thinking more rooted in 1st/2nd edition and find a lot of modern choices...far out there by my tastes.

In the interest of full disclosure, I never played 3x or, other than some online playtesting, 4e. Not at all my bag. So we are, very much on the same page as far as prefernce and flavor.

That said, this is an attempt to create something to replace in 5e and, so, certain elements/traits/structural guidelines must be [or are attempted to be] maintained to match thaat structure/framework.

The operative word here is COULD. Yes, it is still viable no doubt but right now the relationship just isn't very strong. The choices don't really build on one another and so you are making a choice for the sake of making a choice. In addition, I think the language needs to be more distinct. The terms used for Trail and Lodge are too similar and confusing. Hunter/Scout/Warden could just as easily be subclasses/Archetypes right along side Guardian/Wanderer/Seeker. There needs to be a clear division of language here to make both concepts firm and distinguished.

I agree here, for the most part, and it was something that I vacillated on Trail to Lodge, Lodge to Trail, what does that mean/how does that relate. It, most definitely, needs some more hammering/wordsmithing to get it to "feel"/sound right.

I do appreciate Quickleaf's defense/explanation of the Trail leading one to the Lodge. That's exactly what I was going for and, as per usual hahaha, Quickleaf managed to phrase/explain it better than I [at least initially ;p ] could.

You know, i KNEW the moment I typed that I was going to get dinged for it.

On this, I would simply point out/add that "Feats" (and multiclassing) are optional. From a 1/2e perspective, where "feats" didn't even exist and MCing was taken as a given (for demihumans, anyway), these can be disrupting. But, again, this is for 5e and the advent of "Feats" (from 3e, I guess?) are not that jarring for most players these days (though I myself will have nothing to do with them or multiclassing in 5e)...and are present, if optional, in 5e.

So, for the base/core game...this very much could be the ranger's shtick...they have skills/abilities/traits [related to their outdoorsy, forgotten lore, specialized battle roots] that other classes simply don't (and without "turning on" the optional Feat dial, never will) have access to. So, yes. They are, in effect, "mini-feats." That is by design.

I don't know how much of a "hodgepodge" the original class was. I know its popular to say that. The original ranger was a Fighter+, which is why it was a fighter subclass. I think the class has suffered a deterioration of niche protection brought on by adding feats and skills that allow other classes to morph into "Ranger-lite".

I don't think these two things are "Either/Or." I absolutely agree with your assertion of it being Fighter+ and the "+" becoming diluted (both in flavor and mechanics), edition after edition. But that doesn't preclude that it was an interesting...[not crazy about the term but] "hodgepodge" at its conception.

So yeah, all of this is personal opinion.

Of course! Understood. As is the whole alternative class, all/any of this. lol.

I think Steeldragons' ranger is good effort, I just think it needs to bake a bit more is all. Tighten up the language, build on the foundation, and strengthen the concepts by focusing the options. That's all.

Carry on!
Tom

Absolutely agreed on all counts. It needs (if I am so inclined/can be bothered. hahaha) work and fine tuning. Quickleaf's friends' critiques bear that out, in different ways/concerns, as well. Again, thanks. I do appreciate it.

 

[ScuroNotte]

I do like your concept. Our take was different.

At 1st level, Ranger gained expertise in Survival skill and started with 2 favored terrains instead of 1 (obviously doubling Survival skill is excluded).

For Favored Enemy we allowed 1 humanoid and 1 non humanoid to be select each time. At 2nd level, Hunter's Prey - when casting Hunter's Mark, gain advantage in concentration saving throws. At 18th level, your Hunter's Mark concentration saving throws against favored enemy are automatic.
Unless unconscious.

Spell casting is as Paladin with extra spells based on Wisdom modifier or make domain spells.

At 6th level, A Dual Wielder is allowed to have the offhand bonus attack be a part of the attack action

Primeval Awareness gives general direction and approximate number.

Feral senses was moved to 9th Level.

Elusive was added and placed at 13th level.

Dash was added to the Vanish ability.

Foe Slayer bonus applies to all/any enemy

Also for Hunter, Whirlwind attack allows you to move and attack any creature in a straight line whether you hit or miss, the opponent gets no OA.