Revised Ranger update

[Li Shenron]

Looks like the revised ranger might be dead.

Jeremy Crawford just posted this on Twitter:

That doesn't mean they will do absolutely nothing however, just not another class (unless they change their minds again). They can still do alternative class features, which is much better, and not only for the ranger.

 

[pukunui]

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.

Hmm. I haven't watched the video yet, but the way you have phrased this makes me wary. Jeremy used to make it quite clear that 5e's errata was just going to be for fixing actually errors, not for changing the rules ... but it sounds like this may no longer be the case. If so, color me unimpressed.

That doesn't mean they will do absolutely nothing however, just not another class (unless they change their minds again). They can still do alternative class features, which is much better, and not only for the ranger.

Perhaps. I still would like to see some alternative class features for the ranger. In fact, I would much rather see alternative class features to rules changes via errata ...

 

[Horwath]

That doesn't mean they will do absolutely nothing however, just not another class (unless they change their minds again). They can still do alternative class features, which is much better, and not only for the ranger.

But if the do AFC for ranger, what class features will those be? Favored enemy and Natural explorer?

Then those ACF will be much stronger or much more usefull, as honestly then can't get any worse.

 

[pukunui]

FWIW here's a link to the thread I started almost a year ago when JC first started talking about doing alternate class features instead of a full class substitute: The Future of the Ranger

 

[Leatherhead]

It's possible for something to be both popular and hated, or popular and bad, I suppose.
Rangers are a cool concept and have a clear role to play in a party. Rangers also have issues.

More importantly, if popularity was the only metric for focusing on classes, we would be up to our ears in updates for the Bard and Druid right now. And I don't think anyone, even among the new players, has been complaining that those classes are lacking. (Sorcerers have a laundry list of complaints, but they are still more popular than Druids.)

 

[Winterthorn]

Waaay back in 1979 when I was a teenager, a friend introduced me to the concept of RPGs and had me build a ranger with a blend of rules from D&D and Chivalry & Sorcery. His game failed to launch and shortly afterwards I discovered BECMI, which still holds fond memories today, and I never saw an AD&D Ranger until the year 2E was nigh to be released. I also read Lord of the Rings in the 1980s. So I always liked the concept of a wilderness warrior, and Strider (Aragorn II) was to me an excellent example of what a human Ranger should be. Many years and editions later I remain open to variability in the features of such as class, but really do not understand that there seems to be a passion online amongst D&D fans for the ranger greater than any other class. (Excepting of course the much loved Warlord of 4E.). Back in the 3E days the WotC boards would sometimes errupt into a flame storm about the ranger. There were issues with other classes, but the ranger seemed to me to "steal the show" online. While in saying I like the concept, I have trouble understanding the passion this class provokes, 'cause this has been going on since well before the Ranger's iteration in 5E.

I can only conclude WotC is misreading the audience for the Ranger because of their North American centric ideas about fantasy - which dovetails with my beef of WotCs phobia/bias concerning Witches, but that's a separate issue. I suspect expectations for character concepts in fantasy have their distinct followings in NA versus Britain and Europe, and of course beyond too. I suppose that is an interesting discussion of itself vis a vis the marketing of stories, films and fantasy games

TLDR: WotC's design errors seem to me to be a product of marketing errors.

 

[TwoSix]

Not really.
They did a major revision in 2015, and based on the feedback from that pulled back from most of the changes to a much smaller revision. And based on the feedback from that, finishing the revision seemed to be a low priority.
After all, it's a month away from two years and nothing has been done, and only small tweaks were needed to balance the revised ranger. Feedback clearly showed they were either not on the right track or it was not a priority.

And it's not that the attitudes to the class shifted. It's that the negative attitudes were always a vocal minority to begin with and any changes likely ended up upset more people than they satisfied, paired with an influx of people who are just fine with the ranger how it is.

Yea, I think you've hit the nail on the head here. With these shifting demographics, who is served by the creation of a precedent of replacing published material for balance reasons?

New players don't care about what previous versions of the ranger did, are presumably less balance sensitive than more experienced gamers (as it's difficult to assess balance without play experience and having a fuller grasp of the system), and are more likely to look to the core rules as a guideline when balance questions do arise.

More experienced gamers in a house campaign can simply grab one of the myriad options of revised rangers already accessible, or make changes on their own to achieve the flavor and power level of ranger they want.

AL gamers can simply avoid the ranger if they think it's undertuned. For organized play, overtuned builds are more problematic than undertuned options. Undertuned means that one option becomes unviable, overtuned means that all options not also overtuned become unviable. (This is also for the AL gamer prioritizing effectiveness, which is not the entirety of AL gamers but somewhat more prevalent.)

The only real group of players affected by the lack of an official ranger are AL gamers that prioritize effectiveness but really really like rangers, and players in home games that like rangers, but don't like homebrew/houseruling. I personally believe both groups are small, the former need to simply suck it up, and the latter need to learn embrace homebrew, as WotC seems to be moving strongly away from prioritizing concepts being "official".

 

[Li Shenron]

But if the do AFC for ranger, what class features will those be? Favored enemy and Natural explorer?

Then those ACF will be much stronger or much more usefull, as honestly then can't get any worse.

I don't know. The "favored xxx" types of abilities have had criticism since almost 20 years. If they are strong and narrow then people complain that most of the times they aren't using them, if they are weak and broad then people complain that they don't feel "favoured" enough, if they are strong and broad then they are broken, and if they are weak and narrow then they are ribbon.

 

[lkj]

Hmm. I haven't watched the video yet, but the way you have phrased this makes me wary. Jeremy used to make it quite clear that 5e's errata was just going to be for fixing actually errors, not for changing the rules ... but it sounds like this may no longer be the case. If so, color me unimpressed.

Perhaps. I still would like to see some alternative class features for the ranger. In fact, I would much rather see alternative class features to rules changes via errata ...

He didn't clarify in any way in the video. Was really about one sentence. I assume we'll hear soon. But while I'd be against large scale changes put through with the errata, an additional sentence that reads like a clarification wouldn't bother me much. We can argue about whether it's really a clarification and not a rule change (e.g., one could argue that the didn't intend the rangers pet to be so limited so it's errata). But then it gets down to semantics. I agree with your broader point that using errata to change rules is a bad habit. But I don't have a line in the sand. Small wording changes that improve play would be fine with me. I can accept that might not be true for everyone.

AD

 

[ClaytonCross]

I just think their needs to be a duel wielding melee subclass option that works (I played one in 3.5 and loved it). I could only make the class work as an archer and half way as single weapon fighter. Two weapon fighting as a ranger with current build options is a mess of uselessness will many levels of stagnation between level 5 and level 17. If Zephyr strike applied to more than one attack and scaled with damage with spell slot used it would be one thing but again its a single attack focused ability and it doesn't even scale. I would say giving the ranger booming blade would fix it but then your back to single strikes again and I would prefer a first level spell that scaled to their is a cost. That's just my opinion anyway.