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

[billd91]

In name, yes. But it was written up as an entire redesign of the class right down to different hit dice progression in 1e. A very different approach from 5e subclasses.

More than just name. It also indicated combat tables/saving throw tables to use as well as some magic item compatibility. And in 1e, at least, a ranger who fell from their lofty alignment lost their ranger abilities and became a fighter. Subclass groupings were different in those editions than in 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

You can give fighters actually weapons and armor mastery.

The problem is that such features are either:

• Too complex for simple beginner characters
• OR too simple to allow for a range where fighters don't outclass everyone
• OR doesn't lock fighters completely into Overspecialization

Overall D&D hasn't really decided what course rangers and paladins didn't take that fighters did. Anytime a suggestion is given, we as a community balk at the idea for one reason or any another.

----

IMO, 5e shoulda did the easy route and gave an extra attack ever 3 levels. Rangers should keep AOE attacks as a base class feature with more Area with level. Paladins just smite.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

IMO, 5e shoulda did the easy route and gave an extra attack ever 3 levels. Rangers should keep AOE attacks as a base class feature with more Area with level. Paladins just smite.

You know...that's actually a great idea! Also buff the damage bonus from rage.

In the playtest, character did not get more attacks, they only added more weapon die to their damage on a hit.

 

[Minigiant]

I see where you are going with this.
That speaks to a larger problem that WOTC has with power creep.
By trying to sell more product, they have created classes that are more powerful than the Fighter.
Yet, WOTC will never do a proper rebalance that might actually include nerfing existing classes, because that sells less product.

Always more more more, as opposed to stay the same there, but less here.
If WOTC came out and said "Fighters lose Action Surge, and Paladin's don't gain a 2nd attack until 11th level", the customer base would lose their mind.

It's not that complex.

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

Neither TSR nor WOTC can finish the sentence with something that is purely Fightery. Nor can most fans.

That's why you hear "Paladins and Rangers are Fighter subclasses" but you rarely see games where "Paladins and Rangers are fighter subclasses". Because when talk becomes action, fewer know how to design a pure fighter when a ranger, barbarian, or paladin is around without unjustified removal of warrior aspects from the other classes.

 

[billd91]

It's not that complex.

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

Neither TSR nor WOTC can finish the sentence with something that is purely Fightery. Nor can most fans.

They get Action Surges, Second Wind, and Indomitable! Those options are as fightery as divine smite is paladiny and hunters mark rangery. The fact that you think they're not distinctive enough or that these other martial types could be seen with them is your problem. The fact is, they're fighter abilities because they've been defined as fighter abilities every bit as much as divine smite is a paladin ability and hunters mark a ranger ability. Let them be defined as fighter abilities.

 

[Mordhau]

They get Action Surges, Second Wind, and Indomitable! Those options are as fightery as divine smite is paladiny and hunters mark rangery. The fact that you think they're not distinctive enough or that these other martial types could be seen with them is your problem. The fact is, they're fighter abilities because they've been defined as fighter abilities every bit as much as divine smite is a paladin ability and hunters mark a ranger ability. Let them be defined as fighter abilities.

Well, they literally used to be things that anyone could do!

 

[Mordhau]

It's not that complex.

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

Neither TSR nor WOTC can finish the sentence with something that is purely Fightery. Nor can most fans.

That's why you hear "Paladins and Rangers are Fighter subclasses" but you rarely see games where "Paladins and Rangers are fighter subclasses". Because when talk becomes action, fewer know how to design a pure fighter when a ranger, barbarian, or paladin is around without unjustified removal of warrior aspects from the other classes.

Part of the issue is that Paladins and Rangers basically started off as elite fighters that you could be only if you rolled well enough. Second addition wound that back a bit by giving only Fighters Weapon Specialisation, but to begin with, it was largely obvious that you didn't go Fighter if you could choose a better option.

I believe in 3E they considered making Paladins and Rangers and then chickened out - which is a real shame, because they could have got away with it, and that sort of position in the game is really where they belong*.

But really' that's the issue in a nutshell. To me a Ranger that has more skills and doesn't fight as well as a Fighter isn't really what a ranger is. The Ranger fights as well as a fighter, and has wider skills. Of course that's just not viable as a separate class.

Of course, since 2nd edition, we have now had so many attempts to 'fix' the Ranger and make it work as a core class, that there's a whole range of different conceptions of what the Ranger is floating around as each attempt becomes someone's idea of what a Ranger should be.

*I'd also argue that both these things fit the original conception of Prestige classes to a tee. They both seem to work best as representative of in-setting organisations.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

It's not that complex.

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

Neither TSR nor WOTC can finish the sentence with something that is purely Fightery. Nor can most fans.

That's why you hear "Paladins and Rangers are Fighter subclasses" but you rarely see games where "Paladins and Rangers are fighter subclasses". Because when talk becomes action, fewer know how to design a pure fighter when a ranger, barbarian, or paladin is around without unjustified removal of warrior aspects from the other classes.

Even more reason to nerf the other classes. It may be difficult, but there may be "justified removal" of warrior aspects from the other classes. Like I said, the Paladin's 2nd attack being moved back (now we are dancing close to Cleric, but still a decent difference), or a Fighter losing Action Surge, these are reasonable in my eyes.

But ultimately, a complete redesign and rebalance of all the classes is what is needed. WOTC has decided to go the other way with Tasha's and blurred the lines between classes even more. I know I could come up with more balanced classes, but I don't work for WOTC, and the majority of the 5e community does not want nerfs, they only want buffs.

 

[Ancalagon]

ranger is really incompatible with spellcasting simply because of Verbal components. You are as a ranger a guerrilla/stealth warrior, but when you have to yell from top of your lungs(yes, maybe some DMs will say that V components are somewhat quiet but most won't), you are NOT a guerrilla fighter.

No if only it was printed for spells what was the radius of Verbal components at which they can be heard, of better yet printed for EVERY spell on case by case basis it would be far better.

Or simply give rangers ability to ignore Verbal and Somatic components in spells.

The frequent use of guns and bombs by guerilla fighters in the real world kind of puts a serious dent in your argument...

 

[billd91]

Well, they literally used to be things that anyone could do!

But they're fighter abilities now and nobody else has them.