D&D 5E The Annotated PHB

[Mind of tempest]

That... uhhh.. proves my point.

What people want class to look:
The 1e ranger doesn't have spells are level 7! Why does the 5e one get magic at level 2! BOOOO!

What people want class to play:
The 1e ranger gets spells at level 8 because players want rangers to be self sufficient trackers and thus need healing, divination, and nature magic to do so in a simple package.

or a properly robust skill system that we have never had.

 

[Oofta]

We have a ranger that doesn't have spells: the rogue scout.

 

[Reynard]

We have a ranger that doesn't have spells: the rogue scout.

Or a battlemaster with the outlander background.

 

[Oofta]

Or a battlemaster with the outlander background.

There are a lot of ways to do a straight up wilderness warrior thanks to backgrounds.

 

[Asisreo]

Annotations would expose these conflicts in the minds of many fans and expose compromises and errors in WOTC's designs. It would bust some of the illusions 5e runs on.

I think it would make the game better. Fans are waaay too finicky with impossible expectations. No product is perfect and revealing that imperfection and the compromises that had to be done will not only display humility but also confidence that despite its flaws, it is still a usable product.

Even if I 100% disagree with a design decision fundamentally, I'd rather know they actually meant for that decision to have a certain effect rather than wonder if this effect was an oversight.

 

[Mind of tempest]

We have a ranger that doesn't have spells: the rogue scout.

you know how people want more things to do than is offered by that

 

[Reynard]

you know how people want more things to do than is offered by that

The problem here is imprecise language. People don't want a "ranger without spells" they want "a ranger that more closely resembles Aragorn" or "a woodsy character with an awesome pet" or "a wilderness warrior really good at slaying giants" or whatever.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The problem here is imprecise language. People don't want a "ranger without spells" they want "a ranger that more closely resembles Aragorn" or "a woodsy character with an awesome pet" or "a wilderness warrior really good at slaying giants" or whatever.

yeah, some kinda skill fighter with greater complexity on offer would solve it.

 

[Oofta]

you know how people want more things to do than is offered by that

Well, no, I don't. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but if you take away magic or other supernatural abilities what are you left with?

The ranger class has always been pretty nebulous to me. LOTR was a low magic world, Aragorn in D&D terms had little more than expertise in medicine. If you look at a more nebulous wilderness warrior ranger, that is likely a dex based build that uses some kind of bow and is good at survival and stealth. It's easily attained a number of ways.

So don't go around telling people what they know, because I don't know what you think I know. You know?

 

[Reynard]

Well, no, I don't. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but if you take away magic or other supernatural abilities what are you left with?

The ranger class has always been pretty nebulous to me. LOTR was a low magic world, Aragorn in D&D terms had little more than expertise in medicine. If you look at a more nebulous wilderness warrior ranger, that is likely a dex based build that uses some kind of bow and is good at survival and stealth. It's easily attained a number of ways.

So don't go around telling people what they know, because I don't know what you think I know. You know?

Not to get too far afield, but LotR wasn't a "low magic" world. It was a "rare magic" world. Aragon wasn't just a skilled healer, his hands were literal magic. Sting wasn't a +1 dagger, it was a weapon of the First Age that could cow the last of Ungoliant's brood. D&D uses different language and SFX for these things, but it doesn't mean parallels can't be drawn.