log in or register to remove this ad

 

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


log in or register to remove this ad


Undrave

Hero
The problem is this is true of almost any ability a "fighter" has.

What ability can you give a "fighter" that shouldn't be open to every martial class?

Rangers, Paladins, Rogues -- they are, conceptually, fighters with extra narrative hooks attached.
The REAL problem is that too many people treat the Fighter as the 'default'. A class for characters without a class. The class for simple NPCs. Probably because, as you say, older version of the game had stuff like Rangers and Paladins who were gated 'Fighter+Other Stuff' classes.

It's always the same song and dance since then: if you give X to Fighter, suddenly EVERYBODY should be able to do X. After all, if a FIGHTER can do it, why not MY character who is a SUPERIOR class?

You can see it in the Feats that feel like Fighter class features that were hidden away in the Feat section (multiple weapons feats feel like aborted 'Advanced Fighting Styles'), a move that was probably designed to give the Fighter the same number of class features while giving that 3.x "Fighters get lots of feats!" feeling back into the game... but also giving EVERYBODY access to the same toys.

This is not a design issue, it's an issue of how a class is sold to players and the players' perception of it being hung up on previous edition. The Fighter should be able to stand on his own, so should the Rangers and Paladins, without ever referencing each other.
 

NotAYakk

Legend
Didn't 4e solve that problem?
D&D solved it two different ways. And I think the 2nd was actually better.

The first way they solved it is they redefined "fighter" to mean "front line defender". And then they made the Ranger class for "Lightly Armored Skirmisher".

The second way they solved it was in the essentials era. In it, they made meaty subclasses.

The Fighter had 3 subclasses: the Knight, Slayer and Weaponmaster. Weaponmaster was the original fighter. They where all the same class; so they had access to similar feats, paragon paths and somewhat overlapping power selection (sometimes not, because 2 of them where simplified).

The Knight/Slayer where Fighters who specialize in defence and offence respectively. The Weaponmaster was defined by mechanical complexity really; if it was "regreened" it would probably lean into a more defined narrative.

If you imagine 4e starting with that essentials pattern, we get sort of what I wrote above.

The essentials era Ranger, which was a hybrid Primal/Martial character, was also clever. It split the martial part from the primal ones.

You could imagine a Ranger literally picking Martial powers from the same list as the Fighter-Archer would, or a Rogue-Scout. But they would also pick up Primal powers from a different list. With a 4e like budget system, your choice of Primal powers would mean you where not picking a Martial one, not your inability to pick a Martial power.

Now, throw in built-in hybridization here. A PC might pick a class and 2 specializations.

A Fighter (Archer + Primal Bond) could be a Ranger.

The core book might have pre-built packages of specializations. Fighter (Knight + Divine Oath) is a Paladin (Martial|Divine hybrid), Fighter (Knight + Exemplar of Might) is a different (pure martial) character.

Each of the specialization picks would give you your some level 1 class features, and influence what powers you can pick from.

This is easier in a 4e like system, because most of your advancement comes in the form of modular powers. In a 5e like system where advancement comes in new features which are often "always on", the combinatorics get harder to deal with.

Still, in 5e, you could imagine making subclasses a bit less tied to exact levels and making them beefy enough to support "Paladin".
 

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
The "subclass" model works better, however.

Have Class, Subclass, Archetype.

Class: Fighter
Subclass: Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin/Paragon/Weaponmaster
Archetype: Subclass specific.

Put more meat into Subclass.

Class: Trickster
Subclass: Rogue/Monk/Bard
Archetype: Subclass specific

Class: Magic-User
Subclass: Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Artificer
Archetype: Subclass specific

Class: Priest
Subclass: Cleric/Druid/Shaman
Archetype: Subclass specific

The "class" here ends up looking a bit like a 4e power source.

Fighter
Fighters are at home on the front lines of combat. Tough, resourceful and deadly.

Tier 1: Tier 1 Fighters gain Fighting Styles and Second Wind
Tier 2: Tier 2 Fighters gain Extra Attack and Indomidable (reroll some saves)
Tier 3: Tier 3 Fighters gain Weapon Mastery (extra set of weapon damage dice) and Legendary Resistances (Indomidable now auto-succeeds)

The Paladin subclass might make the Weapon Mastery damage radiant, as an example of how the subclasses would modify base class features.

On top of it, the Paladin subclass would add spellcasting. The Weaponmaster subclass might add weapon specific features and abilities. The Paragon might add Battlemaster maneuvers, or might be the "simple" class with some extra static bonuses.

As a sketch:

Tricksters:

Tier 1: Tier 1 Tricksters gain Mobility and Expertise
Tier 2: Tier 2 Tricksters gain Sudden Strike (reaction attack) and Tumble (like the rogue 1/2 damage ability)
Tier 3: Tier 3 Tricksters gain Disable (stunning strike ish) and Reliable Talent

Magic-Users

Tier 1
: Tier 1 Magic-Users gain Spellcasting and Familiars
Tier 2: Tier 2 Magic-Users gain Focus and Wards
Tier 3: Tier 3 Magic-Users gain Arcanum and Refuge

Priests

Tier 1
: Tier 1 Priests gain Channel and Blessing
Tier 2: Tier 2 Priests gain Sanctuary and Smite
Tier 3: Tier 3 Priests gain Intervention and Incarnation
In the playtest, there was an extra layer of character building where you choose a specialty, which was something like a feat chain that you got automatically at x-y-z levels. It was pretty close to what you are describing.
 

ECMO3

Hero
No one can state what a Fighter does better than a Ranger that is significant enough to not make the Fighter second fiddle to a Ranger.

It's "Paladins get Divine Smite. Rangers get Hunter's Mark. Fighter get ???"

A fighter is generally going to be better with weapons and damage, has better saves and has the both heal himself as a bonus action and take a second action in combat, he also gets an extra ASI, heavy armor and more attacks. Finally fighter gets unique and more martial-oriented fighting styles. Some/most of the fighter subclasses build on these themes.

In a straight up fight with weapons, whether ranged or melee, a fighter will usually defeat a Ranger. Rannger is a more powerful class overall considering all 3 pillars but it is not a more powerful combat class.

I also would not say Rangers "get" Hunter's Mark. It is a spell and not a particularly good one. It is difficult to use effectively because it muddles up your bonus action, especially at higher levels when you have extra attack and would get the biggest damage boost. While everyone took it 4 years ago, I see many Rangers that never take it at all now and those that do generally trade it out once 2nd level spells become available.
 
Last edited:

ECMO3

Hero
The biggest problem with a fighter-subclass based Ranger is the subclass does not have enough room for the amount of abilities everyone wants in a Ranger, especially in tier 1 and tier 2. You get a subclass ability at 3, 7, 10, 15, 18. You would have to fit every "Ranger thing" you want into those 5 levels.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
A fighter is generally going to be better with weapons and damage, has better saves and has the both heal himself as a bonus action and take a second action in combat, he also gets an extra ASI, heavy armor and more attacks. Finally fighter gets unique and more martial-oriented fighting styles. Some/most of the fighter subclasses build on these themes.

In a straight up fight with weapons, whether ranged or melee, a fighter will usually defeat a Ranger. Rannger is a more powerful class overall considering all 3 pillars but it is not a more powerful combat class.

Half of that isn't true in 5e or most editions as base fighter and base rangers get the same thing from ability score, levels, and fighting styles.

The other stuff is either arbitrarily locked from rangers due to not having better ideas for fighter or not real that logical.

Where 5e missed the boat is not making Superiority dice base for both fighters and rangers but restricting rangers to certain chosen targets like how the Hunter subclass works. The fighter would not be as restricted and be able to use dice on any target or specialize with certain equipment

But we all know what happened.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
Where 5e missed the boat is not making Superiority dice base for both fighters and rangers but restricting rangers to certain chosen targets like how the Hunter subclass works. The fighter would not be as restricted and be able to use dice on any target or specialize with certain equipment

But we all know what happened.
Yeah, they didn't get on that boat - thankfully - because it would have been the wrong boat.
 

NotAYakk

Legend
In the playtest, there was an extra layer of character building where you choose a specialty, which was something like a feat chain that you got automatically at x-y-z levels. It was pretty close to what you are describing.
In one of my "5e heartbreaker"s I everyone advanced in 3 paths "at the same time". Each granted HD.

You'd always have a class and subclass. You could swap your subclass for a 2nd class (multiclassing).

In T1 you'd also have a background, T2 a paragon path, T3 an epic destiny, and T4 a legend.

T1 would go from 5 to 8 HD (2/1/2 to 3/3/2) over 4 levels (1-4), T2 from 12 to 20 HD (4/4/2/2 to 6/6/2/6) over 6 levels (5-10), T3 from 26 to 40 HD (7/7/2/6/2 to 10/10/2/6/12) over 10 levels (11-20).

If you kill con-to-HP at each level, you get HP totals not that far off from 5e at level 20.

The goal was that "adding up HD" was sufficient to generate a rough balance of encounters. Monsters would have stars ( * ) next to their HD representing "elite" status (so a single * was worth x2 HD, a double * was worth x5 HD, a triple * was worth x10 HD, a quad ** was worth x20 HD). A dragon might be 20*** HD (so "200 HD" of danger).

You could use your "other" HD to multiclass, or even multisubclass. Each category was capped at a given level.

Because each tier was a 1.6x, 1.7x, 1.5x ratio of HD, threats can be described by tier. A heroic threat is aimed at 30 HD total party size (20-40), a paragon threat at 60 HD total party size (40-80), and epic threats at 120 HD total party size (80-160). Legendary threats would hit at around 240 HD (160-320) total party size.

The "power budget" of subclasses (per HD) was equal to that of the main class. Ditto for paragon/epic paths.

Starting off 2 class, 1 subclass and 2 background was aimed at making the "dead at level 1" problem go away. You could still do apprentice tier -- 1/0/2 for example -- relatively easily.

2 background HD that don't scale lets you say "I'm an elf (1HD) woodsman (1HD)" as your background. Or "I'm a woodsman(1 HD) mercenary (1HD)". Or "I used to be a fighter (1HD) but am on the run (1HD)" as your background. Writing backgrounds that come attached to subclasses (can be extended with them) works as well.
 
Last edited:

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Yeah, they didn't get on that boat - thankfully - because it would have been the wrong boat.

You mean not wrong boat.

Rolling dice to add to Intelligence checks about favored enemies, Wisdom (Survival) checks while in the wilderness, Strength (Athletics) checks to swim or climb or run, Charisma (Intimidation) checks when speaking in your favored enemies tongue, and damage rolls vs large creatures woulda be awesome.


Missed the boat. Everyone knows rangers know all the most triggering, hateful, and hurtful thing one can say and they should be able to roll superiority dice to point out a high waisted dragon's feminine hips.
 


ECMO3

Hero
Half of that isn't true in 5e or most editions as base fighter and base rangers get the same thing from ability score, levels, and fighting styles.
No they don't. Fighters get an additional ASI at 6th level which will put them ahead of Rangers in ability score. Some of the fighting styles give them the same base, others don't because Rangers can't get them. Fighters also get more attacks per turn at higher levels and from level 2 on they get an entire extra action per short rest.

If you assume you fight 2 battles per short rest and each battle is 4 turns Action Surge accounts for a flat 12.5% increase in damage. I think 2 fights and 8 rounds is actually on the high side and in play it will usually be more than a 12.5% boost in damage output. At higher levels when fighters get more than 1 AS this boost is even more than and that is on top of the extra attack(s) they are getting every turn compared to rangers.

Finally the Ranger is generally more MAD then the fighter. A Ranger needs to invest in Wisdom to make use of most subclass abilities, additionally a strengh-Ranger needs to invest in dex to boost AC with medium armor. A Fighter can dump both of those. So not only does the fighter get more ASIs, he can easier focus them on combat stats. The Ranger can overcome this with Drudic Warrior, but this puts him behind the fighter because he can not take a true "martial" fighting style.

The other stuff is either arbitrarily locked from rangers due to not having better ideas for fighter or not real that logical.
If you are talking about fighting styles that is not true. GWF is locked out of Ranger and when combined with the higher damage weapons affords the highest base DPR of any fighting style. Additionally it is difficult to rate superior technique as there are a ton of variables that go into it, but considering the extra damage from the die itself and the extra damage from either the extra attack granted by the maneuver or the conditions imposed by maneuver, it is not safe to say this style will always be outdone by one of the Ranger combat styles. It depends on what maneuver you get and the type of battles you fight in.


Where 5e missed the boat is not making Superiority dice base for both fighters and rangers but restricting rangers to certain chosen targets like how the Hunter subclass works. The fighter would not be as restricted and be able to use dice on any target or specialize with certain equipment
Rangers cant get superiority dice at all except through a feat, while any fighter can get one through a fighting style. That is part of what I am talking about and I do not like the idea of making SD available to Rangers.
 
Last edited:

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
No they don't. Fighters get an additional ASI at 6th level which will put them ahead of Rangers in ability score. Some of the fighting styles give them the same base, others don't because Rangers can't get them. Fighters also get more attacks per turn at higher levels and from level 2 on they get an entire extra action per short rest.

If you assume you fight 2 battles per short rest and each battle is 4 turns Action Surge accounts for a flat 12.5% increase in damage. I think 2 fights and 8 rounds is actually on the high side and in play it will usually be more than a 12.5% boost in damage output. At higher levels when fighters get more than 1 AS this boost is even more than 12.5% and that is on top of the extra attack(s) they are getting every turn compared to rangers.

Finally the Ranger is generally more MAD then the fighter. A Ranger needs to invest in Wisdom to make use of most subclass abilities, additionally a strengh-Ranger needs to invest in dex to boost AC with medium armor. A Fighter can dump both of those. So not only does the fighter get more ASIs, he can easier focus them on combat stats. The Ranger can overcome this with Drudic Warrior, but this puts him behind the fighter because he can not take a true "martial" fighting style.

You are completely missing my point.

My point is nothing about Action Surge, Second Wind, and Indomitable feel like Fighter features to me. These features could, and in ways used to be, Ranger class features and could make sense as Ranger class features.

Hell, Tasha gave Rangers their own version of Second Wind in Tireless.

Really only Extra Attack (2) and Extra Attack (3) feel like Fighter exclusive class features to me.
If you are talking about fighting styles that is not true.
GWF is locked out of Ranger and when combined with the higher damage weapons affords the highest base DPR of any fighting style. Additionally it is difficult to rate superior technique as there are a ton of variables that go into it, but considering the extra damage from the die itself and the extra damage from either the extra attack granted by the maneuver or the conditions imposed by maneuver, it is not safe to say this style will always be outdone by one of the Ranger combat styles. It depends on what maneuver you get and the type of battles you fight in.
Yes but Fighters and Ranger share many fighting styles.

It's not that Rangers couldn't learn GWF. It's that they don't because it doesn't match their style.

It's not like fighters had access to advanced fighting styles or fighting masteryy to say "well rangers and paladins and especially barbarians don't train with weapon enough to get Great Weapon Mastery or Archery MAstery."

Rangers having knowldege of giants, speaking Draconic, finding 4 meals in the desert, having a climb speed, and shrugging off exhaustion all feel very rangery... to me anyway.
 

ECMO3

Hero
You are completely missing my point.

My point is nothing about Action Surge, Second Wind, and Indomitable feel like Fighter features to me. These features could, and in ways used to be, Ranger class features and could make sense as Ranger class features.

I think they are class defining. Moreover, whether they feel like fighter features or not they are, they provide much of the difference between fighter and other martials and a custom class chassis that does not include those is not a fighter chassis.

Hell, Tasha gave Rangers their own version of Second Wind in Tireless.

Not really. They get tireless at a much higher level, with much more uses, it provides temp hps instead of hps and much less of them ... and requires an action to use instead of a bonus action.

Really only Extra Attack (2) and Extra Attack (3) feel like Fighter exclusive class features to me.
The question I was answering is what separates the Fighter from the Ranger. Those things all separate the two whether they feel like fighter features or not, they are. Also I noted you left out heavy armor, and that is a pretty big feature.

Yes but Fighters and Ranger share many fighting styles.
It's not that Rangers couldn't learn GWF. It's that they don't because it doesn't match their style.

RAW Rangers can not learn GWF without using a feat to get it. It is not on their list of fighting styles. It is not only GWF, Rangers also can't learn superb technique, unarmed combat, protection or interception either. The fighter has 11 fighting styles, the Ranger only has access to 6 of them, slightly over half.


It's not like fighters had access to advanced fighting styles or fighting masteryy to say "well rangers and paladins and especially barbarians don't train with weapon enough to get Great Weapon Mastery or Archery MAstery."
Barbarians have no fighting styles. Paladins do have GWF, but not Archery. Fighters have them both because they are masters at all this, not speacialized pockets like those other classes. As noted in the PHB "as fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor"


Rangers having knowldege of giants, speaking Draconic, finding 4 meals in the desert, having a climb speed, and shrugging off exhaustion all feel very rangery... to me anyway.
Sure and they give up the things that fighters have but don't "feel" Fighter-like to you to get it.
 

Mordhau

Adventurer
Hmmm....everything that Figher's get is basically purely mechanical stuff. It's purely stuff that interacts with the game rules, and not really with the fiction.

By this I mean you see a Paladin in the game world you know he can heal you by laying on hands and can smite things for holy damage that is especially effective against certain types of creatures.

You see a Fighter in the game world and you know they fight well (like the Paladin and the Ranger) and have special training in certain kinds of weapons (like the Paladin and Ranger). You don't know they can break the action economy by attacking again because you don't know what the action economy is and you don't know they can heal hit points because you don't know what those are either.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Hmmm....everything that Figher's get is basically purely mechanical stuff. It's purely stuff that interacts with the game rules, and not really with the fiction.

By this I mean you see a Paladin in the game world you know he can heal you by laying on hands and can smite things for holy damage that is especially effective against certain types of creatures.

You see a Fighter in the game world and you know they fight well (like the Paladin and the Ranger) and have special training in certain kinds of weapons (like the Paladin and Ranger). You don't know they can break the action economy by attacking again because you don't know what the action economy is and you don't know they can heal hit points because you don't know what those are either.

Indeed, this was always the key issue.

The fiction for Fighters and Ranger is fictionalized real life. Real life that many don't understand as it is partial real life and real life gamers don't all interact with it. Sounlike blantant over the top magic, fighter, ranger (and rogue) stuff are simplified or unrelated to the fiction. Everyone is not a hardcore fan of martial arts or real or fake combat sports, survival skill, and various nature and earth sciences enough to understand nor design fantastical version of them.

You kinda have to understand fighting or rangering to know the difference between a proficient user and a master user outside of "the numbers are higher".
 

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
Indeed, this was always the key issue.
Paladins and Ranger should not have fighting styles: mixing martial prowess and magic is their fighting style. It's not the like the paladin would be much weaker by not having a FS, though the ranger might need a little oomph (ideally concentration-less) to somewhat meet the paladin in terms of damage.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Paladins and Ranger should not have fighting styles: mixing martial prowess and magic is their fighting style. It's not the like the paladin would be much weaker by not having a FS, though the ranger might need a little oomph (ideally concentration-less) to somewhat meet the paladin in terms of damage.
Rangers should have fighting styles

They should be:
Colossus Slayer
Giant Killer
Horde Beaker
Druidic Warrior

Tassha's made Superiority Dice (a subclass feature) a fighting Style. They shoulda made Hunter's Prey a fighting style.

Missed the boat
 

ECMO3

Hero
Hmmm....everything that Figher's get is basically purely mechanical stuff. It's purely stuff that interacts with the game rules, and not really with the fiction.

By this I mean you see a Paladin in the game world you know he can heal you by laying on hands and can smite things for holy damage that is especially effective against certain types of creatures.

You see a Fighter in the game world and you know they fight well (like the Paladin and the Ranger) and have special training in certain kinds of weapons (like the Paladin and Ranger). You don't know they can break the action economy by attacking again because you don't know what the action economy is and you don't know they can heal hit points because you don't know what those are either.
I don't know. We roll it into the fiction in our games. Fighters know weapons and armor more so than the others. And the rules give more flexibility to optimize in that regard. There is also a lot of fiction and theme in the subclasses.

If your sneaky Fighter in leather and a Rapier comes across a magic longsword and plate, he can switch gears easier than most and optimize for it. In terms of the mechanics that works better when you roll stats but even with the 8 strength dex fighter you can still do it if you find some other magic.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top