Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 6670140" data-attributes="member: 6683613">I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.Well, the PHB version is never going to "become obsolete".  It's still going to be there no matter what they do.  But it does sound from Mearls' comments like they're thinking about a complete rewrite, or even more than one.  If you haven't yet, I recommend you listen to the podcast where Mearls discusses this.  Phrases like "from the ground up" are used.I repeat:  the concept of the ranger, from the class description in the 1E PHB, is this:  "Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying."  There is no mention of favored enemy until it's listed among the "other abilities and benefits" alongside scrying, surprise, tracking, spells, and attracting followers.  Your claim that favored enemy is central to the class concept is something that you are asserting without evidence.  It has no textual basis.  Rangers without favored enemy would still be "adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying."  Imagine we took the 5th Edition ranger and just changed the benefits of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer so they applied to all monsters and terrains.  Do you really believe that the class would no longer be unique?  It would still have all manner of unique class features that reflect this concept.But maybe you disagree with my assessment of the 1E text.  So let's back off from that question.  Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're correct, and favored enemy has been the concept of the D&D ranger since 1E.  We still don't have to accept that as the end of the discussion.  Just because this is the concept the class has always had doesn't mean it's a good concept.  Not all concepts are equal.  And for the purposes of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game, favored enemy is rather a poor one.  Firstly, it is arbitrary; it does not reflect the expectations that non-D&D players and newcomers are likely to have upon hearing the term "ranger".  And secondly, it incentivizes players and DMs to avoid diverse encounters and adventures, when every mechanic in this game ought to enable them.  Yes, it's possible to rationalize an orc-slaying ranger showing up in an adventure without any orcs.  But given a choice between "more orcs" and "something else", the class feature naturally pushes the player towards "more orcs", for both mechanical and roleplaying reasons.  And it's just poor game design for there the optimal decision not to be a fun decision -- as fighting orcs session after session is likely not to be fun for most groups.So if we changed the favored enemy concept in favor of something more broadly applicable, as are the concepts of the barbarian and rogue and wizard and every other core class, then yes, this would "take the concept of the ranger and throw it into the bin" -- but because that concept was a poor one, this would be an improvement.  It would be easier to grasp for new players coming into the game with ideas based on Aragorn and Robin Hood.  And it would put ranger characters on an even footing with the others in their ability to select and excel in diverse adventures.  So why not do this?  What advantage does the arbitrary,  limiting concept of favored enemy provide to the game?And what concept could we change it to?Well, how about "adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying"?</blockquote>

Verification