D&D 5E Understanding WOTC's class design guidelines and subclass acquisition

[Tales and Chronicles]

Anyway, with the new variant feature for classes, I think its quite possible to create an urban ranger. They remove most of the wilderness stuff for more general adventuring/exploration stuff.

 

[Undrave]

It's a generally poorly realized concept created because of gaps made by making stealth too broad, not having social engineering and streetwise type skills and so on while the ranger concept itself is too heavily shellacked with Steve Irwin, Robin hood, and natureman bounty hunter. There are a few ways that you could go with it and people have already given good explanations, but at least in 5e it's a concept that better fits under rogue fighter or almost any class other than ranger or druid due to their base themes and spell lists

Eh, I think it's made by the Ranger being a self-referential class that can't easily be explained without delving into mechanical differences. The Ranger as a class exists almost entirely because it existed in previous edition and not much else. The sort of reasons given to excuse the Warlord's exclusion from the 5e PHB could easily apply to a Ranger.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Eh, I think it's made by the Ranger being a self-referential class that can't easily be explained without delving into mechanical differences. The Ranger as a class exists almost entirely because it existed in previous edition and not much else. The sort of reasons given to excuse the Warlord's exclusion from the 5e PHB could easily apply to a Ranger.

I wish WotC took the ranger away from the ''nature's protector'' theme it had for a while now. With the success of the Witcher, MM's Bloodhunter, PF's Inquisitor, WH's Witch Hunters, I had hope for a ranger that is more a ''monster slayer'' with arcane support rather than an half druid protecting forests. In my head, rangers do not protect wilderness, they protect civilization from the threat of wilderness.

 

[tetrasodium]

Eh, I think it's made by the Ranger being a self-referential class that can't easily be explained without delving into mechanical differences. The Ranger as a class exists almost entirely because it existed in previous edition and not much else. The sort of reasons given to excuse the Warlord's exclusion from the 5e PHB could easily apply to a Ranger.

I agree entirely on the included because it always was bit and all the attempts to reinvent or revise it are just a symptom of not making rangery archetypes under other more purposeful classes being realized too late. It probably could have fit well under wizard with an inverted AT/EK type half martial type pickup or something

 

[Minigiant]

That's a rogue.

Rogue doesn't have the magic. You need divination and enchantment spells to track in D&D. Especially if you learn into the setting.

If the target is invisible, the rogue lacks the magic to see it. My group failed to save a noble from gangsters because the party rogue decided to take the lead and missed all the clues. I wasn't gonna fudge anything and Lady Marbottom was turned into a vampire.

This is something D&D fails at for a single PC. Eldritch Knights are evocation and abujaration. Arcane tricksters are illusion and enchantment.

The ranger is the combat diviner since OD&D when it attempted to mimic Aragon. However because of the way they built the ranger, you can't up the divination magic and full the nature magic.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Rogue doesn't have the magic. You need divination and enchantment spells to track in D&D. Especially if you learn into the setting.

If the target is invisible, the rogue lacks the magic to see it. My group failed to save a noble from gangsters because the party rogue decided to take the lead and missed all the clues. I wasn't gonna fudge anything and Lady Marbottom was turned into a vampire.

This is something D&D fails at for a single PC. Eldritch Knights are evocation and abujaration. Arcane tricksters are illusion and enchantment.

The ranger is the combat diviner since OD&D when it attempted to mimic Aragon. However because of the way they built the ranger, you can't up the divination magic and full the nature magic.

DMG p 244 has the rules for tracking, its mundane task, no need for magic. Same thing with spotting clues or getting the information from a NPC. You just need the appropriate set of skills and a good Passive Perception and Investigation. An Inquisitive or Mastermind rogue is a beast in an urban adventure, even without magic. Add to that the good background and maybe a feat or two (Observant, Actor, Skulker etc) and you have all you need for ''rangering'' in the city.

 

[Minigiant]

DMG p 244 has the rules for tracking, its mundane task, no need for magic. Same thing with spotting clues or getting the information from a NPC. You just need the appropriate set of skills and a good Passive Perception and Investigation. An Inquisitive or Mastermind rogue is a beast in an urban adventure, even without magic. Add to that the good background and maybe a feat or two (Observant, Actor, Skulker etc) and you have all you need for ''rangering'' in the city.

Pass with Trace
Invisiblity
Flight

D&D has too many way to beat mundane tracking should the DM use them. You need both mundane and magical tracking to track someone with real D&D fantasy resources. It's a problem since the early days but that's beyond the point.

We are both lucky and unlucky that Tolkien gave Aragorn access and master of the ultimate crystal ball. It means rangers have clairvoyance clairaudience telepathy and ESP powers. But the power levels they have sucks.

The urban ranger tones down the wilderness skills and magic for more detective skills and magic but 5e doesn't allow for it. Not at level 1 when it should. That's a class design flaw, even in the designer's eyes.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Pass with Trace
Invisiblity
Flight

D&D has too many way to beat mundane tracking should the DM use them.

The standard assumption is that magic is rare (the PCs being exceptional). Even if the quarry does have Invisibility or PWT they can be tracked with Survival skill (smell*, footprints etc). Investigation skill can be used to ask questions, look for clues, interrogate contacts etc, that can lead to hideouts. Or you can use your contacts (acquired through an appropriate background) to hire someone with specialised abilities - you know, just like actual detectives in detective stories do. In The Sign of Four Sherlock Holmes (who cannot cast spells) borrows the dog Toby to track a suspect. Part of being a detective is having contacts with skills you might need.

You have to be a level 13 ranger to cast Divination anyway - that's much higher level than most games - if you need it a 9th level cleric is more likely to be available. And the Ranger's spell list is stuffed full of spells relating to plants and animals - you thinking of a subclass with a unique spell list!?

If the setting is high magic, you know what class all the detectives are? Divination wizard.

No, frankly, its bullocks. At it's core Ranger Class = wilderness guy.


* The most useful tracker is actually a druid wildshaped into a bloodhound.

 

[tetrasodium]

The standard assumption is that magic is rare (the PCs being exceptional). Even if the quarry does have Invisibility or PWT they can be tracked with Survival skill (smell*, footprints etc). Investigation skill can be used to ask questions, look for clues, interrogate contacts etc, that can lead to hideouts. Or you can use your contacts (acquired through an appropriate background) to hire someone with specialised abilities - you know, just like actual detectives in detective stories do. In The Sign of Four Sherlock Holmes (who cannot cast spells) borrows the dog Toby to track a suspect. Part of being a detective is having contacts with skills you might need.

You have to be a level 13 ranger to cast Divination anyway - that's much higher level than most games - if you need it a 9th level cleric is more likely to be available. And the Ranger's spell list is stuffed full of spells relating to plants and animals - you thinking of a subclass with a unique spell list!?

If the setting is high magic, you know what class all the detectives are? Divination wizard.

No, frankly, its bullocks. At it's core Ranger Class = wilderness guy.


* The most useful tracker is actually a druid wildshaped into a bloodhound.

It sounds like you are confusing "the default setting of forgotten realms plus greyhawk" for "every setting & world published or played" . Every one of those spells is third level or lower & thus common in eberron & likely just as common if not moreso in sigil or ravinica. d&d would be so much better if people would stop confusing setting specific lore & baselines as the core rules that apply everywhere without a thought for how & if it fits other settings. A big chunk of the problem exists because 5e couldn't resist linking druid & ranger to the lore of those two under Mielikki in FR. Not only does it make adapting concepts like urban ranger needlessly difficult & awkward if possible, but also it creates similar problems trying to fit them to other settings where druids & rangers would/should/do have a different role in the world than hugging trees & being Aragon.

Survival should not be the goto skill for urban tracking & investigating, the skills needed to "follow tracks, hunt wild game, guide your group through frozen wastelands, identify signs that ow bears live nearby, predict the weather, or avoid quicksand and other natural hazards." should be extremely different in an urban environment. Investigate is not contacts or streetwise. Persuade or deception is not social engineering. so on & so forth.


While a divination wizard might work well, you noting the massive overkill of that shows just how bad the overly thick aragon paintjob is on ranger... That's why you hire a magewright or build an archetype that fits under some class not corrupted by too much of FR's lore & baselines in the base class.

 

[Minigiant]

The standard assumption is that magic is rare (the PCs being exceptional). Even if the quarry does have Invisibility or PWT they can be tracked with Survival skill (smell*, footprints etc). Investigation skill can be used to ask questions, look for clues, interrogate contacts etc, that can lead to hideouts. Or you can use your contacts (acquired through an appropriate background) to hire someone with specialised abilities - you know, just like actual detectives in detective stories do. In The Sign of Four Sherlock Holmes (who cannot cast spells) borrows the dog Toby to track a suspect. Part of being a detective is having contacts with skills you might need.

You have to be a level 13 ranger to cast Divination anyway - that's much higher level than most games - if you need it a 9th level cleric is more likely to be available. And the Ranger's spell list is stuffed full of spells relating to plants and animals - you thinking of a subclass with a unique spell list!?

If the setting is high magic, you know what class all the detectives are? Divination wizard.

No, frankly, its bullocks. At it's core Ranger Class = wilderness guy.


* The most useful tracker is actually a druid wildshaped into a bloodhound.

I've fought flying enemies at level 1. And fly is the same level as fireball. Pass without Trace used to be level 1.

Not every setting had low magic. And even those on the lower side has many ways to subvert tracking. The truth is that DM have to opt not to use resources and be friendly to make mundane tracking work in D&D.

The Original ranger was expected to use crystal balls. And the 3rd edition ranger carried wands and scrolls. This all for wildernesses with few intelligent enemies.

Now you go to big cities with mob bosses,guild masters, wealthy nobles, and crooked guard captains. The number of spellcasters per square measurement increases. So the ranger you might see in a Ravinca Ptolus, or Eberron might sacrifice some animal and plant tricks to better stalk humanoids and monsters with more access to magic.

The question is whether that is a base feature for a ranger, a subclass of a ranger or a subclass of another class.

The issue here is that whether you believe it is a ranger, fighter, or rogue, you gain unwanted and nonsensical baggage to the concept. And if you think wizard, you are frontloading an already powerful class with skills. And it beaks the design team's own rules and guidelines.