log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Tasha's really improved and changed the feel of Rangers

ECMO3

Hero
There is a night and day difference between pre-Tasha and post-Tasha Ranger. Aside from being substantially more powerful, the extra spells with Primal Awareness and extra abilities through Deft Explorer and nature's viel completely change the feel from an undpowered martial to an arguably overpowered rogish caster.

At 13th level you have: expertise in 1 skill, 2 languages, +5' movement, swim speed, climb speed, 4 free spell castings a day, turn yourself invisible as a bonus action 5 times a day, give yourself 1d8+W thps 5 times a day, ignore difficult terrain, favored foe 5 times a day ..... this is in addition to subclass abilities that are pretty awesome and extra attack and spell casting from the original Ranger chassis.

The new Ranger plays more like a GISH/utility guy as opposed to a martial and in terms of all 3 pillars I would argue it is actually one of the strongest classes now. Second probably to Wizard but competitive with all others.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ReshiIRE

Adventurer
Second to Ranger is a bold claim; would you put them ahead of Rogues (who can interact well with the other pillars and has a lot of damage, particularly when ranged) and Paladin (much less impact exploration wise, mind, but good socially and fantastic in combat) for martials, and all full spellcasters besides Wizards (since even Sorcerers, who are 'weaker', are still quite powerful due to full spellcasting)?

Legitimate question because that would be fantastic to hear that Tasha's really improved Rangers that much. The main D&D experience I had acknowledged that one player's character, as a Ranger, was weakened by their class... and they were planning to multi-class as soon as they could.
 


ECMO3

Hero
Second to Ranger is a bold claim; would you put them ahead of Rogues (who can interact well with the other pillars and has a lot of damage, particularly when ranged) and Paladin (much less impact exploration wise, mind, but good socially and fantastic in combat) for martials, and all full spellcasters besides Wizards (since even Sorcerers, who are 'weaker', are still quite powerful due to full spellcasting)?

Legitimate question because that would be fantastic to hear that Tasha's really improved Rangers that much. The main D&D experience I had acknowledged that one player's character, as a Ranger, was weakened by their class... and they were planning to multi-class as soon as they could.

It is bold. Rogues are (or were?) my favorite class. I think Rogues are better out of combat, but they can't keep up with Tasha's Ranger in combat. Paladins generally do more damage in combat, when able to melee, but they are less mobile and less versatile in combat and are generally behind when in water or difficult terrain or any time they need to use missile weapons. Paladins are better in social situations (Fey Wanderer excepted), but generally not a lot better unless they use ASIs on Charisma, in which case combat suffers significantly. With Drudic Warrior, Shillaleigh and Magic Stone Rangers can do a SAD build with 14 Dexterity and still be very effective in combat (although that does cause them to be bonus action starved when using magic stone and a sling).

On spells, the thing with the new Ranger subclasses and Primal Awareness is they are not that far behind a full caster. That is what I am talking about in terms of feel. With my current Ranger I never find myself running out of spells and rarely have to weigh "should I cast it or should I save it" when I want to cast a spell. With most subclasses a 13th level Ranger will now know 16 spells, which is more than a 13th level Sorcerer and the same number as a 13th level Bard. A 13th-level full caster gets to cast 17 leveled spells a day, not counting AR, CD, SPs etc. A 13th level Ranger can cast 15 leveled spells a day, not far behind at all. Granted they are weaker levels and 4 of them are specific spells that have to be cast as opposed to slots that can be used for anything. But then you also have 5xTireless, 5xFavored Foe, 5xNatures Veil and subclass features that either are spells or work a lot like spells in execution.
 
Last edited:

ReshiIRE

Adventurer
Those are good points. You're reminding me that each spellcaster in 5e has a differen table indicating how many spells slots they have... which is still a lot mad to me, but it does probalby help the Ranger balance wise.

Hope one day I'll get to play with one as a GM.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/They)
There is a night and day difference between pre-Tasha and post-Tasha Ranger. Aside from being substantially more powerful, the extra spells with Primal Awareness and extra abilities through Deft Explorer and nature's viel completely change the feel from an undpowered martial to an arguably overpowered rogish caster.
Yeah… But if “caster” is not what you want your Ranger to feel like, Tasha’s is no help.
At 13th level you have: expertise in 1 skill, 2 languages, +5' movement, swim speed, climb speed,
👍
4 free spell castings a day, turn yourself invisible as a bonus action 5 times a day, give yourself 1d8+W thps 5 times a day, ignore difficult terrain, favored foe 5 times a day ..... this is in addition to subclass abilities that are pretty awesome and extra attack and spell casting from the original Ranger chassis.
Ugh, so many X/day abilities… And after 4e got so much crap for “making every character a caster,” but I guess it’s ok now as long as everyone’s actually a caster.
The new Ranger plays more like a GISH/utility guy as opposed to a martial and in terms of all 3 pillars I would argue it is actually one of the strongest classes now. Second probably to Wizard but competitive with all others.
Surprise, surprise, the solution to rangers feeling weak was to make them more like wizards 🙄
 

ECMO3

Hero
Yeah… But if “caster” is not what you want your Ranger to feel like, Tasha’s is no help.
Maybe not for everyone, but I love it. Spells and magic have been part of the Ranger since 1E and more of that is better IMO.

You can still play plenty of non-casters/non-magic classes: Several non-Magic Barbarians, Rogues and Fighters are available. Not to mention Monks.

A Rogue-Scout could do that Wilderness explorer theme pretty well without any magic I think. RAW they will actually be generally better at the exploration pillar than most Rangers I think.
 
Last edited:




Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Yeah… But if “caster” is not what you want your Ranger to feel like, Tasha’s is no help.
You need to complete the sentence.

"Yeah… But if “caster” is not what you want your Ranger to feel like, Tasha’s is no help because that was already solved in a previous book with the Rogue (Scout)."

Look, a martial skill monkey with wilderness abilities and good sniping who works well with archery and melee.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/They)
You need to complete the sentence.

"Yeah… But if “caster” is not what you want your Ranger to feel like, Tasha’s is no help because that was already solved in a previous book with the Rogue (Scout)."

Look, a martial skill monkey with wilderness abilities and good sniping who works well with archery and melee.
The scout is cool. I like the scout a lot. But a spelless ranger, the scout is not.
 



Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I mean, conceptually, it’s a rogue. But also, mechanics matter.
Gotta call you on this. Conceptually, why is it a rogue? I've played plenty of "not rogue" characters using rogue class. Inspector, locksmith, detective, an archeologist even. 5e even further separates that a rogue need not be a criminal based on your background - and that others can.

Second, mechanics only matter if you require them to matter. I've converted characters between too many editions and too many systems where if you get hung up that "the mechanic was X there, and Y serves a similar purpose here" you just can't move forward. I unfortunately used to be unrelenting on it, until I learned that the same general result in the big picture got the results needed.

If you can realize a ranger-esque concept, and you don't want spells so the damage equalizer of Hunter's Mark is already off the table, why do you care that it's now a precision based one? Why do you care if you can now take expertise is appropriate wilderness skills instead of relying on Favored Terrain and spells?

Now, you are right it's only a partial. Rogue (Scout) has no option for pets. But until Tasha's, Ranger's didn't have an on-par viable option for pets either, so that wasn't an issue.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
To be fair, there's a lot of people pushing against 'x but with casting'.
To be fair, a lot of people think quicksand is a level 15 exploration challenge.
Another way Tasha helped Ranger is by defining natural hazards that could be overcome that are past Tier 1.

Hopefully now that TCOE defined powerful natural hazards, rangers could get either spells or tolls that defat things like lavabombs, whirlpools, and floods.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/They)
Gotta call you on this. Conceptually, why is it a rogue? I've played plenty of "not rogue" characters using rogue class. Inspector, locksmith, detective, an archeologist even. 5e even further separates that a rogue need not be a criminal based on your background - and that others can.
I didn’t say it’s conceptually a criminal, I said it’s conceptually a rogue, which it is. As are those concepts you mentioned (well, archeologist is a bit of a stretch unless you’re talking about the Indiana Jones or Laura Croft variety, but it can work as a rogue).
Second, mechanics only matter if you require them to matter. I've converted characters between too many editions and too many systems where if you get hung up that "the mechanic was X there, and Y serves a similar purpose here" you just can't move forward. I unfortunately used to be unrelenting on it, until I learned that the same general result in the big picture got the results needed.

If you can realize a ranger-esque concept, and you don't want spells so the damage equalizer of Hunter's Mark is already off the table, why do you care that it's now a precision based one? Why do you care if you can now take expertise is appropriate wilderness skills instead of relying on Favored Terrain and spells?
I’m not concerned about emulating any previous edition, nor the specific expression of any particular mechanic. But mechanics still matter, as they are the primary driver of gameplay feel. And the scout doesn’t feel like a ranger. It feels like a rogue who specialized in wilderness skills instead of (or more likely, in addition to) urban skills or dungeoneering skills. The ranger is more than just a wilderness skill specialist. The ranger is a trailblazer, a monster hunter, and a defender on the borders of civilization. They need more than just a really high bonus to nature and survival checks.
Now, you are right it's only a partial. Rogue (Scout) has no option for pets. But until Tasha's, Ranger's didn't have an on-par viable option for pets either, so that wasn't an issue.
I don’t care about pets. I mean, they seem to be something a lot of ranger fans want for some reason, so sure, include the option in there somewhere. But they’re far from essential to the concept and not at all what the Scout lacks to make it work as a Ranger.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/They)
Look, @Blue, if you’re satisfied with the Scout as an option for a non-spellcasting ranger, great. I’m glad it’s there for you. But in general, telling people for whom it isn’t satisfying that they’re wrong for wanting something else is just rude. I’d appreciate it if you’d just let me express my frustration with the lack of an option I find satisfying without being told to shut up and settle for something that isn’t at all what I’m looking for in such an option.
 


ECMO3

Hero
Look, @Blue, if you’re satisfied with the Scout as an option for a non-spellcasting ranger, great. I’m glad it’s there for you. But in general, telling people for whom it isn’t satisfying that they’re wrong for wanting something else is just rude. I’d appreciate it if you’d just let me express my frustration with the lack of an option I find satisfying without being told to shut up and settle for something that isn’t at all what I’m looking for in such an option.
I think his point is the Rogue-scout is more or less exactly what those people claim they want.

I don't get what is missing from it (other than potentially pets, which I never understood being part of the Ranger theme anyway).
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top