BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
Absolutely. I crave some complexity, but despise needless complexity.
But even something that is complex but elegant can be too much for some players. For one of my players at least, it's proven true.
Revised Ranger update
- Thread starter pukunui
- Start date
Absolutely. I crave some complexity, but despise needless complexity.
But even something that is complex but elegant can be too much for some players. For one of my players at least, it's proven true.
PrimevalSeeker
Explorer
I have to say that I am kinda sorry that we won't be getting an official revised ranger.
I do not believe that the main problems of the ranger are the dpr output or the overall theme of the ranger, but the feel and implementation of some of the abilities. For me favored enemy, favored terrain and primeval awareness are the worst offenders. Specifically, what bothers me is that they are all DM dependent.
For favored enemy/terrain, you either know the types of enemies and terrain you are going to encounter and in what order (in my case by asking the DM), which means that the abilities are almost always online, or you don’t and you just wasted a feature of the class if you choose wrong.
Regarding favored terrain, the revised ranger took one step forward and one stem back, making the “traveling for an hour” feature baseline was a good change, however, the additional combat oriented feature was an overcorrection, being too early and too much. The favored enemy problem was made even worse, by changing this situational ability to also provide a damage boost.
I think a fitting solution would be to keep the second part for natural explorer for any terrain and change "favored enemy" so that if you track any enemy for an hour or more you gain advantage on tracking them and maybe gain some useful information. Another more organic version for favored enemy could be that the ranger keeps a bestiary/journal and after tracking/observing/slaying a creature they update it with the creature’s entry. Adding expertise to survival would not hurt either.
Regarding primeval awareness, this is another ability that makes me feel as if I am giving chores to my DM and I don’t see why this takes up the space of a feature and was not made a ranger only spell, similarly to hunters mark.
Hopefully, if alternative features are introduced (this reminds me of what we have seen so far from PF2), there will be replacements for those three abilities and also hunter and BM subclasses be given spells for the shake of symmetry.
This suggestion was very popular in the WotC forums during the playtest for DnDNext. Essentially, the ranger would get something similar to warlock invocations but they would be themed after favored enemy/terrain. I believe it was suggested even before warlock was introduced in the playtest.
I do not believe that the main problems of the ranger are the dpr output or the overall theme of the ranger, but the feel and implementation of some of the abilities. For me favored enemy, favored terrain and primeval awareness are the worst offenders. Specifically, what bothers me is that they are all DM dependent.
For favored enemy/terrain, you either know the types of enemies and terrain you are going to encounter and in what order (in my case by asking the DM), which means that the abilities are almost always online, or you don’t and you just wasted a feature of the class if you choose wrong.
Regarding favored terrain, the revised ranger took one step forward and one stem back, making the “traveling for an hour” feature baseline was a good change, however, the additional combat oriented feature was an overcorrection, being too early and too much. The favored enemy problem was made even worse, by changing this situational ability to also provide a damage boost.
I think a fitting solution would be to keep the second part for natural explorer for any terrain and change "favored enemy" so that if you track any enemy for an hour or more you gain advantage on tracking them and maybe gain some useful information. Another more organic version for favored enemy could be that the ranger keeps a bestiary/journal and after tracking/observing/slaying a creature they update it with the creature’s entry. Adding expertise to survival would not hurt either.
Regarding primeval awareness, this is another ability that makes me feel as if I am giving chores to my DM and I don’t see why this takes up the space of a feature and was not made a ranger only spell, similarly to hunters mark.
Hopefully, if alternative features are introduced (this reminds me of what we have seen so far from PF2), there will be replacements for those three abilities and also hunter and BM subclasses be given spells for the shake of symmetry.
This suggestion was very popular in the WotC forums during the playtest for DnDNext. Essentially, the ranger would get something similar to warlock invocations but they would be themed after favored enemy/terrain. I believe it was suggested even before warlock was introduced in the playtest.
I'm not sure what to make of this, but in the Design+ segment that Jeremy just did, he mentioned that he had just recently approved some errata for the next printing of the core books. He said that they made a number of tweaks and that some of these will make alternative class features unnecessary. Gave no details.
Video can be found:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/291534952
His discussion of the revised ranger and alternate class features starts at about 32:20 and goes till about 34:45
Major points:
1) They aren't moving fast on alternative class features because they want to get new data (been several years since they collected the first batch). It will help them focus on what might be useful for the community as it stands now. If anything.
2) They use a variety of data sources to make assessments (surveys, DDB, market research, Adventurer's League, etc.)
3) As noted above, he said he'd approved some errata that should make the need for some alternative class features unnecessary.
AD
Video can be found:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/291534952
His discussion of the revised ranger and alternate class features starts at about 32:20 and goes till about 34:45
Major points:
1) They aren't moving fast on alternative class features because they want to get new data (been several years since they collected the first batch). It will help them focus on what might be useful for the community as it stands now. If anything.
2) They use a variety of data sources to make assessments (surveys, DDB, market research, Adventurer's League, etc.)
3) As noted above, he said he'd approved some errata that should make the need for some alternative class features unnecessary.
AD
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
I am guessing there might be a clarification that once you order your pet to do something (like attack), it will continue to do that same thing without ongoing orders until you give it a new order. That would solve some issues with the beastmaster, without the need for an alternative class feature.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
For me, a grognard will forever be the people that live on the Dragonsfoot forums.
Harzel
Adventurer
The claim that "rangers are a frequently played class, therefore the PHB ranger must be ok" depends on the assumption that most of the people playing rangers are playing PHB rangers. If someone has cited data that supports that, I missed it. Without such data, that claim seems like a pretty obvious non sequitur.
Also, most of the complaints about the PHB ranger that I have seen center on the Beastmaster. So maybe the thing one really needs to know is how relatively popular the PHB Beastmaster is. Is there any data on that?
Also, most of the complaints about the PHB ranger that I have seen center on the Beastmaster. So maybe the thing one really needs to know is how relatively popular the PHB Beastmaster is. Is there any data on that?
abirdcall
(she/her)
Wait, what are you saying here?
Harzel
Adventurer
Without some clue from you about how I have failed to communicate, I don't think I can provide a useful clarification.
EDIT: I have reread the portion of my post that you quoted a couple times. I don't see anything that should make it confusing or incomprehensible. That doesn't preclude the possibility that I am being dense, though. Please say more if you wish.
Last edited:
abirdcall
(she/her)
You said the assumption is that most people are playing the PHB Ranger.
Could you clarify how you think it could possibly be different? It's kind of like saying the majority of people who are playing 5e use the PHB or basic rules.
Li Shenron
Legend
That is precisely what I've been saying all the time. Trying to embed a pet into a class or a feat never works, because it's either balanced and therefore weak, or strong and therefore unbalanced, and a middle ground has the worst of both worlds. Any solution may at best satisfy 20% of the people.
It's just so much better to let a player run a pet as an NPC.
Similar Threads
