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

[Greg K]

I am pretty sure poachers have the same incentive as city criminals to develop a language to stay ahead of law enforcement, and "everyone has to poach a little off of the king's land" is pretty cliché in fantasy, so I find the complaints about scout rogues and thieves cant to be pretty weak.

You missed the point. It is not that the ability won't be useful for some rogues taking the archetype. The point is that the designers stated that the subclass covers the non-spellcasting/non-mystical wilderness expert warrior- thus, not every character taking the Scout archetype is a wilderness criminal for whom Thieves' Cant is appropriate and, yet, they provided no alternatives for such characters.

 

[cbwjm]

The scout is a weird one. I feel it needs to be an archetype from level 1 that allows the replacement of thieves cant with another language and thieves tools with another tool. I think if someone came and said they wanted to play one when hitting level 3, I'd make that offer to them.

 

[Li Shenron]

Eldritch Knight?

Urban doesn't have to be civilized. There are plenty of urban environments that require survival and ranger qualities. Post Apocalyptic Mad Max. The old city under the city in Futurama. The slums and abandoned parts of Baldur's Gate. None of these urban areas fall into the realm of any type of wilderness, yet could still easily support and require the skills of a ranger.

Yet the "problem" according to Mearls is in the Ranger base class, which does NOT need to support anything urban, just like the Fighter base class doesn't need to include spells.

You want to do a urban ranger or eldritch knight, make a subclass. My criticism is to Mearls apparent complaint that the base class itself doesn't already include features for what is only a stretch concept or actually almost a multiclass concept (ranger/rogue).

 

[Undrave]

just like the Fighter base class doesn't need to include spells.

They added a Fighting style that gives two cantrips though...

 

[Greg K]

You want to do a urban ranger or eldritch knight, make a subclass. My criticism is to Mearls apparent complaint that the base class itself doesn't already include features for what is only a stretch concept or actually almost a multiclass concept (ranger/rogue).

It is not a stretch of a concept. You may not like it, but the urban rangers have been a thing since at least 3e (The first time that I have seen the concept addressed officially). Furthermore, he did make a Ranger subclass and there were no urban environment abilities to support the concept which results in ranger class breaking several of the design guidelines when switching to the subclass that he designed. Hence, why he came up with some new optional and variant abilities for the ranger base class.

That the ranger has no urban class abilities and sticks the player with unwanted ranger abilities, it is also why a ranger/rogue multi-class a terrible fit. In addition, multi-classing is an optional rule not used by all groups (which people whom keep advocating multi-classing seem to ignore). Therefore, it makes sense that they would provide a subclass as an option- and, thankfully so. As a DM, I do not like making players jump through such a basic concept if it fits in with a campaign (which is why I liked UA style class variants in 3e and wish that WOTC had supported it more in the class splatbooks for 3.0).

 

[jmartkdr2]

So, in conclusion: ranger should have its subclass kick in at 1st level.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree, those are good fighter and ranger archtypes if you get rid of the thieves tools and cant. Did they address this at all in the recent UA on variant features? That would be a method to solve this issue.

Yeah rogues in my games can choose a secret or impenetrable shorthand language related to their profession, background, or relevant to the lore of their subclass. My rogue/wizard is only proficient in thieves tools narratively because he is a tinker with a past as a smuggler and a bit of a scoundrel. His Cant is the language of port towns and river sailors.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

You missed the point. It is not that the ability won't be useful for some rogues taking the archetype. The point is that the designers stated that the subclass covers the non-spellcasting/non-mystical wilderness expert warrior- thus, not every character taking the Scout archetype is a wilderness criminal for whom Thieves' Cant is appropriate and, yet, they provided no alternatives for such characters.

It is a ribbon. Why should they bother to provide an alternative? More than that, it is a ribbon that only comes up if you chose to use it.

You could at least give us a "my sister's boyfriend's favorite pizza delivery guy's third cousin twice removed once got kicked out of a D&D game when he refused to have his scout rogue decode thieves cant" story, because it is a ribbon and there are no real stakes, but if you can't make a good argument, you can always make an entertaining one.

Now I feel bad they didn't keep the scout fighter, because "second wind totally invalidates the wilderness guy" at least feels like it is important enough to say (even if it is wrong).

 

[Li Shenron]

They added a Fighting style that gives two cantrips though...

And that's a good thing because it's an option, not something baked into the base class for every fighter.

It's also an option that came out 5.5 years after the edition started, and still unofficial, and that says something about how it is in fact not that fundamental.

It is not a stretch of a concept. You may not like it, but the urban rangers have been a thing since at least 3e (The first time that I have seen the concept addressed officially).

...

In addition, multi-classing is an optional rule not used by all groups (which people whom keep advocating multi-classing seem to ignore).

I may be wrong but the first urban ranger I remember is from the Unearthed Arcana book in 3.5, which is a book of variants, some no-brainers and some wacky. And it came out after a revision which shifted the concept of a ranger more towards the triviality of "best archer or two-weapon expert", a terrible idea that weakened the identity of the class.

And half of the reason why multiclassing is optional is to safeguard campaigns where class identity is important (the other half is putting a limit to a certain type of player to focusing on the character building minigame at the expense of the rest), so if you ban multiclassing but allow bastardized class concepts you only achieve half of the purpose.

 

[Greg K]

I may be wrong but the first urban ranger I remember is from the Unearthed Arcana book in 3.5, which is a book of variants, some no-brainers and some wacky. And it came out after a revision which shifted the concept of a ranger more towards the triviality of "best archer or two-weapon expert", a terrible idea that weakened the identity of the class.

I am pretty sure it was the 3.0 supplement Masters of the Wild (and a quick google search states it was in Chapter 1). It was also, apparently, in Dragon 310 on page 59. So, that would be twice before Unearthed Arcana.