log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Strider1973

Explorer
I too miss a spell-less ranger in D&D 5e: even if I know that it's not the same thing, by all means, I tend to build characters similar to rangers without spells with fighters with the outlander background and the Scout subclass from one of the early Unearthed Arcana.
I tried to use the spell less ranger from the first Unearthed Arcana, but it doesn't fit with the later development of the Ranger class, at least to me.
I feel almost the same about the Swashbuckler, which in my opinion should also be a fighter subclass: I tend to build duelist type fighters with the Battle Master Subclass and some cool maneuvers. ;)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
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.

They used to be general features.

They are only fighter abilities because WOTC couldn't think up a new class feature that reached the high bar needed for the playtest so they just made a general feature everyone used to be able to do exclusive.

I'm still upset my Ranger doesn't have Action points and Second Wind.
 

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
I wish fighter archetypes were based on martial roles/fighting style; defender, slayer, duelist, archer, spell'n blade, etc
Since feats are optional, there's a lot of feat that should be used as fighter's archetype features as some kind of improved fighting style.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
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.

Exactly. The Ranger started as Fighter + Rangery Stuff. There was no Fighter + More Fightery stuff. You couldn't roll a 17 STR and 15 Con to be a "Super Fighter"

With no "Super Fighter", the Ranger would either have to be an overpowered prestige class or be downgraded somehow to be equal to Fighter.
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.

Again it wouldn't work because the Ranger and Paladin would be too close in combat ability to Wizards.

And if the Wizard is almost as good as a Ranger in fighting, you'd have to nerf their spells.
 


Voadam

Legend
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.
And percentile strength. And the more than +2 hp per HD for con scores above 16.
 

Voadam

Legend
Exactly. The Ranger started as Fighter + Rangery Stuff. There was no Fighter + More Fightery stuff. You couldn't roll a 17 STR and 15 Con to be a "Super Fighter"
Not until Unearthed Arcana with the 15 str and con prerequisite cavalier and barbarian spell-less super fighters. The answer to the high prerequisite fighter + classes was more high prereq fighter + classes.
 

Exactly. The Ranger started as Fighter + Rangery Stuff. There was no Fighter + More Fightery stuff. You couldn't roll a 17 STR and 15 Con to be a "Super Fighter"

With no "Super Fighter", the Ranger would either have to be an overpowered prestige class or be downgraded somehow to be equal to Fighter.


Again it wouldn't work because the Ranger and Paladin would be too close in combat ability to Wizards.

And if the Wizard is almost as good as a Ranger in fighting, you'd have to nerf their spells.
Yup...like I said, a rebalance would impact ALL the classes. There are multiple cascade effects. And once again, the vast majority of the 5e community would not tolerate nerfs. They only want buffs ala Tashas.
 

Voadam

Legend
Fighters in 4e were balanced with others, they were defenders with martial themed powers.

In 3e they had warrior base similar to ranger and barbarian and paladin but instead of spells and powers they had bonus feats as the class specific fighter hook.

In AD&D they had exclusive weapon specialization (except for rangers having options for specific ones in 1e).

In 5e it is surge and second wind and the extra extra attacks and bonus ability bumps.
 

Horwath

Hero
The frequent use of guns and bombs by guerilla fighters in the real world kind of puts a serious dent in your argument...
bowshot or dagger at the throat is little less loud than gunfire or frag grenade.

but, let's compare Hunter's mark to modern night vision goggles or infrared. Or using darkvision spell. It would be an equivalent of putting on goggles while stalking someone and yelling in the dead of night: NIGHT VISION!! and then continue to try to be stealthy.
 

The Lizard Wizard

Adventurer
I made a ranger using Tasha's recently, an Earth Genasi Swarmkeeper.

Now, I don't really have much to judge it against as I'd never played a ranger previously. Also the campaign is a single storyline starting at level 8 (our regular campaign just finished a major story arc, and the DM wanted to take a break from it) where we play as yesterdays heroes that come out of retirement a couple decades after saving the city in an epic battle to face a new threat.

So, starting at a higher level isn't something I've done before in 5E, making it hard to judge having not played through the lower levels.

But I liked the flexibility provided with all the additional optional choices given in Tasha's. It was really easy to create the 'mountain ranger' I had envisioned, filling out a lot of elements from the characters backstory with matching in game mechanics and abilities.
 

Azzy

KMF DM
I really like the druid cantrip fighting style. It opens up a lot of new ways to play a ranger
I don't... As a fighting style, it competes with other desirable fighting styles. Also, rangers (and, by extension, paladins) should have cantrips as a class feature like all the other spellcasters.
 

Mordhau

Adventurer
The big issue I had with the Ranger I made earlier this year remains the bonus action economy. It's still very easy to get yourself into trouble where you can't use a major ability you built a character around due to bonus action conflict.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
bowshot or dagger at the throat is little less loud than gunfire or frag grenade.

but, let's compare Hunter's mark to modern night vision goggles or infrared. Or using darkvision spell. It would be an equivalent of putting on goggles while stalking someone and yelling in the dead of night: NIGHT VISION!! and then continue to try to be stealthy.

Darkvision lasts 8 hours with no concentration.
Why wait until you start sneaking?

A ranger who waits until they are in shouting distance with their prey to cast darkvision wasn't made to do laps and pushups after failed nighttime exercises by their mentor.
 

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
I think if the fighter's niche was pushed a little to include the '' spell less specialized monster slayer'', this would give it more thematic oomph, and then the ranger with spells could lean harder into the 4e Warden side of it, channeling nature to defend nature or the borderland folx.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The point is that the Fighter could do it as part of an attack, not they're the only one to do it. They'd just be BETTER at it. Everybody can use Shove, but the Fighter can attack while goading.
That was the point I was making, but your wording comes across like you think you’re correcting me, so it may not have been clear.
 

Horwath

Hero
Darkvision lasts 8 hours with no concentration.
Why wait until you start sneaking?

A ranger who waits until they are in shouting distance with their prey to cast darkvision wasn't made to do laps and pushups after failed nighttime exercises by their mentor.
Sometimes you track someone during daylight and they can just slip in some cave opening or sewer, waiting for them to go ahead 300 or so feet can mean losing them, especially if it's a hard surface to track or they go through water part of the time so you need more or less constant visual lock.
 

The big issue I had with the Ranger I made earlier this year remains the bonus action economy. It's still very easy to get yourself into trouble where you can't use a major ability you built a character around due to bonus action conflict.
This is a general issue with 5e. "how do I expect to use my one and only bonus action" is a big thing for even casual optimisation, and a major trap if you don't plan to the last detail.

"Favoured Foe" was specifically designed to help rangers in that regard, and why you can't stack it with Hunter's Mark.
 

Horwath

Hero
This is a general issue with 5e. "how do I expect to use my one and only bonus action" is a big thing for even casual optimisation, and a major trap if you don't plan to the last detail.

"Favoured Foe" was specifically designed to help rangers in that regard, and why you can't stack it with Hunter's Mark.
TWF should be merged into Attack action, then most of bonus action economy problems with martials go away.
They you can chose one or two spells/abilities that use Bonus action and you are good to go.
 

TWF should be merged into Attack action, then most of bonus action economy problems with martials go away.
They you can chose one or two spells/abilities that use Bonus action and you are good to go.
I can think of a number of ways to exploit that in a few seconds, and it pushes rangers back into boring hunters mark dependence. And hurts archers.

And for certain rangers, there is still competition between hunters mark and commanding a pet.


Not that you couldn't do that, but it's not a "simple" solution, it would require a major reworking across the board.
 
Last edited:

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top