D&D (2024) UA Ranger (Playtest 6)

[Marandahir]

I really don’t want the Ranger pushed even harder toward being an archer class rather than having a genuine choice between range and melee

Like Archery can and should be a part of the class. But a Ranger Ranges. They’re the masters of movements, especially across long distances.

Ranger base class should try to emulate Breath of the Wild style exploration and stamina features as much as possible.

 

[Charlaquin]

And they'll be very confused when they get the next round of feedback saying the features are stupid and shallow and shouldn't be there.

We’ll see, I suppose.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Like Archery can and should be a part of the class. But a Ranger Ranges. They’re the masters of movements, especially across long distances.

Ranger base class should try to emulate Breath of the Wild style exploration and stamina features as much as possible.

Absolutely. That’s a great comparison.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In my mind I had already mentioned that swift quiver should just be swift strike and work for both melee and ranged attacks like they already did with barrage and villi. I 100% agree with you. I just don't think it should be on the primal list because of how it makes full casters much better at martial combat than your martial characters.

That’s fair, then.

Yeah I wish they scaled weapon spells in a way that benefits the half casters more than full casters.

 

[Minigiant]

No. There is no reason to view either spell as arcane. They are specifically Ranger spells. Not every primal spell needs to be a cheesy unique skill from an anime about forest warriors.

I didn't say they are arcane.

I said the Conjure Barrage nor Conjure Volley feel Primal nor Iconically Ranger.

They are situational. Rangers are iconically monster hunters. Traditionally of giants and monsters.
Neither spell is a monster killer spell.

 

[Charlaquin]

I didn't say they are arcane.

I said the Conjure Barrage nor Conjure Volley feel Primal nor Iconically Ranger.

They are situational. Rangers are iconically monster hunters. Traditionally of giants and monsters.
Neither spell is a monster killer spell.

Neither spell has any function besides killing monsters…?

 

[Minigiant]

Neither spell has any function besides killing monsters…?

they are too weak to kill monsters of the level you get them

 

[Charlaquin]

they are too weak to kill monsters of the level you get them

Just because they don’t one-shot high CR monsters doesn’t mean they’re not for killing monsters. Anyway, they’re AoE spells, intended for use against large groups of weaker monsters rather than powerful individual ones.

 

[Horwath]

Just because they don’t one-shot high CR monsters doesn’t mean they’re not for killing monsters. Anyway, they’re AoE spells, intended for use against large groups of weaker monsters rather than powerful individual ones.

Yes, I so need to have on my 17th level ranger ability to one shot a bunch of CR1 monsters(if they fail their save)...
Such an epic addition for Rangers epic tier of play

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, I so need to have on my 17th level ranger ability to one shot a bunch of CR1 monsters(if they fail their save)...
Such an epic addition for Rangers epic tier of play

I mean, if the argument is “rangers should get more interesting things to do at high levels than a couple AoE damage spells,” I don’t disagree. But “they aren’t monster killer spells” is not accurate. Killing monsters is literally the only thing those spells do.