D&D 5E The Ranger: You got spellcasting in my peanut butter!

[Xodis]

One of the things the rules need to do is ensure that when Wonder Woman complains, "Is there anything Batman can't do with those stupid Batarangs?" there is an answer. Saying "No, Batman can do anything with his Batarangs, but he only throws them three times a day because, well, he just does" is no kind of answer. The Batman player will quite reasonably say, "Well, what if I do throw a fourth Batarang today? What happens then?"

You can't, because you only HAVE 3. Simple and realistic. Batman goes in prepared and saves the magical Batarangs for when they are needed, time for you to think of a different way to win than the magical Batarang. The power of the narrative is more powerful than any ability, thats why Batman can defeat Superman.

 

[Minigiant]

Arguably you would then be better at doing something than the person who can't do that thing. Those are called skills....


So your argument is that at some point you who can solder a pipe should somehow gain the ability to "know how best to lay pipe" over say the guy who has been plumbing all his life (and in game mechanics actually put the skill Crafting: Plumber on his sheet)?

That's what the Ranger is doing. He's becoming the "best at this" without even needing the Proficiency or Ability scores...


Which is again arguably that they are really skilled at that one thing.


Except he actually does these things better with no skill than the person whom has the skill... because why? He went to Ranger Academy? And flunked out of Stealth 101, Survival 101, and his mandatory Athletics courses?

And he gets these abilities later in life? Has he been fulfilling his mandatory continuing education credits or something? Ranger (K)Night School?

BARGLE!?!?!?!







And that's what I'm laughing at 5e over. The Ranger who can have an actual penalty to Stealth gets a handful of really neato Stealth (and other) based abilities because... eh... Master of Stealth?

Someday someone will come along and make a D&D game I really like. And most of you will hate it.

Strength of skill and application of ski are two different things.
Same thing was in 3rd edition. Rangers received free Tracking feat and HIPS +Camouflage but could have negative Wisdom or Dexterity and no ranks in Survival or H/MS.

In 5e, rangers can track but not necessarily predict weather.

 

[Joe Liker]

I disagree about D&D being one of them, and a game Angel Summoner is on equal footing with BMX Bandit, is a game I don't want to play.

Indeed, in the games I've played that do try it, everything feels very abstract and artificial, and neither the Angel Summoner nor the BMX Bandit end up having much fun.

For example, Marvel Heroic can be a brilliant RPG system when used wisely for the right purpose, but if you try to team Silver Surfer with Daredevil, it just gets stupid. (In fact, "the right purpose" is probably not a game set in the Marvel Universe. It's way better for games based on '80s and '90s cartoons. But I digress.)

 

[Agamon]

Am I misremembering, or did Mearls once talk about how the DMG will have rules for changing up existing classes or even making your own?

Why are people wringing their hands about how D&D isn't their own personal fantasy heartbreaker when the full core rules aren't out yet? Obviously, the classes had to be made a certain way in the PH. Let's see what the DMG says about switching that up before getting all up in arms.

Patience, padawans!

 

[evileeyore]

I disagree about D&D being one of them...

Argh! I left out one little word. Yeah, D&D is not one of them.

...and a game Angel Summoner is on equal footing with BMX Bandit, is a game I don't want to play.

You should really try the FATE system some day, I recommend Dresden Files in particular (it really does handle the Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit situation really well).

And really what's happening is that you're not building a character who's good at stealth/survival/whatever despite himself, you're building a character who really knows one area. The Jim-Bob the Forest ranger you describe is only adept in his favored terrain. He's good because he knows the area, not the skills. The guy who actually has stealth and survival is good anywhere.

Except there is no "favored terrain" (unless Urban is treated as a Terrain Type, oh please, oh please, oh please!).

The Ranger is just the "best of the best of the best" at simple Tracking*... even if the other guy is a master in the skill. Unless the other buy is also a Ranger his skill doesn't even get to come into it, he simply can never rival the UnProficient, WIS penalized Ranger at simple Tracking.

Complicated or difficult Tracking? 5e Belkar need not even step up... heck at that point UnProfficient characters will outclass the UnProficient Low WIS Ranger if they have actual WIS bonuses.


And this makes sense to you?


* And has a few other "non-skill based tricks that totally make certian skills way better if you actually have them". Rogue does this as well in a few spots.

Strength of skill and application of ski are two different things.

My laughter is sourced from: "Without Skill there can be no Application of it".

Same thing was in 3rd edition. Rangers received free Tracking feat and HIPS +Camouflage but could have negative Wisdom or Dexterity and no ranks in Survival or H/MS.

Sure, and in 3e said Ranger still couldn't actually track... it still required a skill roll. They gained 0 benefit for having the feat without the Survival skill at some appreciable level (or at least a decent WIS bonus, likely both).

In 5e, rangers can track but not necessarily predict weather.

Arguably 5e Rangers automatically get what the Survival Skill gave without the Feat in 3e, the ability to track extremely simple and easy to follow tracks. Something anyone in 5e gets, they just need a roll if they aren't a Ranger, and no matter how skilled they are, the Ranger can track the simple things far better than a non-Ranger ever will.

 

[Dausuul]

You can't, because you only HAVE 3. Simple and realistic. Batman goes in prepared and saves the magical Batarangs for when they are needed, time for you to think of a different way to win than the magical Batarang.

So he can throw them once, but can't pick them up and throw them again. Until tomorrow, when he can. Because...?

This is the heart of the issue with daily limits on nonmagical abilities. There needs to be an explanation of that limit that can hold up under a player pushing on it a bit. With something like barbarian rage, the limit is, "It's really tiring to do that, so you physically can't do it more than X times per day. If you try to do it again, it simply doesn't work." That makes sense, as long as you don't use the same explanation for multiple abilities with independent use limits. But if rangers are preparing spells, cleric-style (and it appears they are), it's nearly impossible to explain those restrictions without recourse to magic.

 

[Andor]

The Ranger is just the "best of the best of the best" at simple Tracking*... even if the other guy is a master in the skill. Unless the other buy is also a Ranger his skill doesn't even get to come into it, he simply can never rival the UnProficient, WIS penalized Ranger at simple Tracking.

Complicated or difficult Tracking? 5e Belkar need not even step up... heck at that point UnProfficient characters will outclass the UnProficient Low WIS Ranger if they have actual WIS bonuses.

And this makes sense to you?

I'm afraid you've lost me completely. Are you complaining that the ranger doesn't need skill or that he does?
To answer the question I think you were asking, yes. It makes sense to me that between two unskilled characters the one with the greater natural aptitude is superior. Again, I don't view classes as existing so I don't care if it says ranger on the character sheet. If Bob's character is a Ranger with no outdoors skills, and Sally is playing a fighter with survival and Nature, I'm listening to Sally's character. She's got the chops.

Except there is no "favored terrain" (unless Urban is treated as a Terrain Type, oh please, oh please, oh please!).

I'm kind of lost here too. I wasn't in the late playtest so my only source for the current Ranger is the leaked alpha. When I look at him I see no magical tracking power, unless he actually uses magic. He does have favored terrain, chosen at first level which gives him several benefit, and good ones, but not outrageously so. As far as tracking is concerned his only benefit is that he gets more information on the thing he's tracking if it's his favored terrain.

Oh, you also have a favored enemy, and get advantage on Survival rolls to track them.

So yes, on his own turf, tracking his hated foe, the Ranger is by far the best at tracking. In someone elses backyard against a foe he doesn't know he is no better than Sallys fighter, assuming equal wisdom scores. Unless he whips out some mojo. Sounds good to me.

 

[Xodis]

So he can throw them once, but can't pick them up and throw them again...

So it would be a per encounter type ability, but honestly throwing a Batarang would be a weapon attack and nothing special. Although if its a BATMAN type magical Batarang effect, you probably cant just pick them up. Batman doesn't just hit people in the face with a ninja star, he throws it into the barrel of a gun causing it to explode when they pull the trigger, into an electrical cable where he needs to go turn off power before getting otherwise ZAP! In D&D there are very few non magical abilities with restrictions that can't be explained thru a realistic element.

 

[evileeyore]

This is the heart of the issue with daily limits on nonmagical abilities. There needs to be an explanation of that limit that can hold up under a player pushing on it a bit. With something like barbarian rage, the limit is, "It's really tiring to do that, so you physically can't do it more than X times per day. If you try to do it again, it simply doesn't work." That makes sense...

Maybe to you, but not to me.


It's part and parcel with the other nonsense in D&D, arbitrary limits imposed by Class restrictions for purely "balance" reasons. Sure, I agree, balance can be good, but a lot of these things simply do not stand up to under the harsh light of critical thinking. "Good for the game"? Probably. Make sense in a non-gamist fashion to me? Nope.

 

[nnms]

The more I think about it the more reskinning magic as not magic doesn't really work for me either.

What will be interesting is how they handle multiclassing and how much the ranger has its wilderness class features front loaded onto level 1. If it ends up being that level 1 is where all the iconic ranger stuff happens and you can just do other levels in fighter, barbarian and rogue after that then there's really no problem.

Ranger without magic isn't really my pet class idea. I do get though that if it's yours, you'll feel less than supported by 5E's default assumption about rangers getting magic very early.