D&D General What is a Ranger? A miserable pile of secrets! (+)

[Ruin Explorer]

Augh... but pets in DnD ALWAYS suck >< do we HAVE to include them?

Yes, yes we do. D&D needs to up it's game with pets, but they do have to be included. They're much more part of the archetype than say, silly little spells.

 

[Mecheon]

D&D is not an MMO, so seems like you're comparing apples and oranges.

Technically its two MMOs! Neverwinter and D&D Online okay I'll stop

(Though I'd argue MMOs have absolutely influenced class fantasies and how they're seen. We're never going back to the days of "Druid is just a nature cleric" for a reason)

 

[Undrave]

Yes, yes we do. D&D needs to up it's game with pets, but they do have to be included. They're much more part of the archetype than say, silly little spells.

Okay then... Do we HAVE to include them in the PHB, where some of an edition's WEAKEST designs are usually found? The book where the designers have the least solid grasp of their new game? Rushing it out just ends up with the designers going 'use the MM stats', which is almost universally a bad way to do it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Okay then... Do we HAVE to include them in the PHB, where some of an edition's WEAKEST designs are usually found? The book where the designers have the least solid grasp of their new game? Rushing it out just ends up with the designers going 'use the MM stats', which is almost universally a bad way to do it.

Just because the design has been historically bad doesn't mean we can't eventually get it.

We got a good fighter that one time. Right in the PHB1.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Okay then... Do we HAVE to include them in the PHB, where some of an edition's WEAKEST designs are usually found? The book where the designers have the least solid grasp of their new game? Rushing it out just ends up with the designers going 'use the MM stats', which is almost universally a bad way to do it.

Yes, yes we absolutely do.

Because pets are absolutely key to the appeal of Rangers for a lot of people, particularly people new to the game.

And to be real, it's only 5E where pets are total car-crash. Every other edition which features them did a significantly better job, and if they're a little OP, so what? They're also typically very hard to optimize beyond being basically OP (just make sure they only scale with Ranger levels).

The designers just need to budget more time to this, frankly. The issue 4E and 5E both had were that, ultimately they were rushed out. How about that's your real lesson? Don't rush out an edition of D&D. Learn from the better video game companies - "When it's done" is when it comes out, not "as soon as we can slap it together".

And yeah, "Use MM stats" is fundamentally not a good plan, so how about we just don't?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes, yes we absolutely do.

Because pets are absolutely key to the appeal of Rangers for a lot of people, particularly people new to the game.

People underestimate how big pet collecting is. There is a reason pokemon is a juggernaut.

So data dump from my playtests. The most taken feats out of 600 feats in WoE?

1) Finesse Failure
My version of Lucky, once per encounter, it lets you turn a natural 1 into a natural 20. Pretty obvious why this is king, especially in a system where a natty 1 is a -10 and a 20 is a +10.

2) Animal Friend
Gives you a basic animal companion. Often people take multiple instances of this.

3) Authority
The 'Form an Organization' feat. Gets you a small business, ships' crew, a guild, etc.

Probably only #3 because it took a while for the groups to figure out they could use this to recreate Oliver Twist by netting street urchins into street businesses or criminal conspiracies, but mostly so they could have an army of children to dote on.

And then one player asked if they could use it to get a zoo...

 

[Shardstone]

I wouldnt enjoy ranger if pet was core.

 

[Stalker0]

It's a fun conceit for a story (see the -inexplicable- popularity of Goblin Slayer)

If you ignore the first episode, which is just a bit too much for many people's comfort zones, the rest of teh show is quite good.

 

[Charlaquin]

I wouldnt enjoy ranger if pet was core.

The thing about rangers is that large portions of ranger fans feel this way about basically every feature we associate with rangers, except (non-magical) naturey-ness and maybe stealth. I think the only satisfying solution is going to be to strip the ranger down to nothing but those two traits at base, and make all the rest - pets, spells, favored enemies, archery, dual-wielding, whatever - optional.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you ignore the first episode, which is just a bit too much for many people's comfort zones, the rest of teh show is quite good.

A bit too much is putting it mildly. But this checks out with what I have heard about it elsewhere.