WotC Wants your Feedback On The Revised Ranger

I'm a big fan of the concave Rangers. When they're out in nature they can collect rainwater during a storm... they're great!

*EDIT* Okaaaaaayyy... so the merging of the two threads pretty much made this joke superfluous.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

So I'm not quite what I'm sure many of you would consider a legitimate, vetted D&Der (I started with 4e, have never actually played myself, and DM without any counsel or advice from experienced DMs)

You have experienced an edition change. The cycle... It is complete.

​

I have trouble finding any negatives from going to the revised Ranger from the one in the PHB. Everything feels like either a lateral move or an upgrade.

"Upgrade" as in "this improves the gameplay", or "upgrade" as in "this improves the character's power"?

There is one oft-overlooked but pretty substantial loss in the functionality of Natural Explorer: no more doubling skill proficiency.

(Porque no Giant Owl?)

Because it's intelligent, can function as a flying mount, and as a Large creature scales better with extra HD.

 

[isdestroyer]

I actually don't have a problem with the Ranger itself, what I have a problem with is it's implementation in the game without it filling a clearly defined niche. Since I'm most familiar with the 3.5/Pathfinder version of the Ranger, let's look at that one; It has a full BAB, d10 hd, access to all weapons and armor (except exotic and heavy), limited access to Druid spells, and a very situational damage dealing ability in the form of favored enemy, and a very situational and slight boost to some skills with favored terrain. Now, what about any of that fills a niche that couldn't be filled by another class that took a feat? You say he is a wilderness warrior and survivalist? Sounds like a Barbarian. You say it has skills which are broadly useful in any environment? Sounds like Bards and Rogues. You even said that a Rouge could take over the Ranger's sneaking in a forest or dungeon. Again, it's the implementation that I have a problem with, not the idea of a Ranger itself. In a class based game, each class needs a role to fill, so if you want a "Ranger", then that needs to be very clearly defined, and be distinct from the other classes. As it stands, I don't see a mechanical or thematic distinction in the class.

That should also answer your last question about why we shouldn't keep it. If it does not fill a specific and distinct purpose in the game, then it should be removed. And I can't give an answer as to why it should be kept, because I can't see a reason for it. I'd even go a step further and remove the Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer, and Monk. I think 5E also has a Warlock class, which is yet another flavor of Wizard. Now, to tie in your question about what would be gained from having less classes to choose from, with less classes comes less complexity, which in turn means it's easier to learn, which in turn is more attractive to those who have never played the game before. This is one of my complaints with Pathfinder. That game has so many rules that the Core Rulebook is 569 pages long, not including the Index. That's pretty daunting for new players. And if your game needs a "beginner's box" just to ease people into the game, it's too complex. The core rulebook should be all that is needed to get people into the game without getting a Master's degree in Law (I say, sarcastically to prove a point, because someone will take that literally). How about, instead of adding a lot of new classes and feats and spells and skills and races and archetypes and etc, etc, which create rules bloat and complexity, why not create a 5E version of Essentials, that boil the game down to it's essence? You might say that people like more options, but I would argue that less options allows for greater creativity. I know that the majority of sales is in the player options, but that's because they game companies don't market to GM's. Without GM's, there is no game. In order to keep up revenue, release more things for the GM to play with in the form of adventures, creatures, locations, what-have-you.

Kinda of a tangent to the original topic, but related, none-the-less.

*Edit: Sorry, this was a reply to Lord Twig, I forgot to hit "reply with quote".

 

[leonardoraele]

OMG they really should fix their survey website. I accidentally clicked into a shortcut to another website in my browser's menu, and when I try to take the survey again says "You already completed this survey" ¬¬

 

[Jester David]

How exactly does going first win a fight?

At low levels, a monster can only take a single hit. Dropping an enemy in round one greatly reduces the damage potential of the encounter. Even at higher levels it allows a solid alpha strike, with hunter's mark and the like.

It give you an advantage, sure, but there is a good chance the Ranger with a high Dex was going to go first anyway!

Right, which is why advantage is too strong. They're already fast, and advantage negates the chances of a bad roll. It changes the average initiative of a ranger with 16 Dexterity from 13 to 18. That's a big jump.

Again, proficiency in initiative checks would be fine and unique. It has the same effect (the ranger is faster on average) but isn't quite as strong as advantage.

He get's one shot with advantage with his bow, which again might have hit anyway, and now his ability is done.

Advantage on an attack is two chances to hit. That's not that different from Action Surge (which at low levels, often gets used after a miss). But it comes up every single encounters rather than once a short rest.
The first round of an encounter at level 1 (or even 2-3) has enormous impact on the rest of the fight. And it doesn't hurt at higher levels either.

Of course, there's also the Strength trap. Because you can be a dwarf ranger with double axes that hits off Str and has an ass initiative, and thus the ability confers no bonus.

If he's melee there is no guarantee that an enemy will be in range to attack, so that wastes that ability. That's it for that combat.

That the ability is only strong for half of rangers doesn't balanace it. You don't average out the power level across builds. The inability to use it in melee is another huge issue. It really favors ranged combatants, while rangers should be equally expected to rely on melee. An ability that also equally works with rangers wielding twin weapon is needed.

Brainstorming, I'd give the ranger a bonus to movement in the first round, allowing time to position themself. Or a small bonus to damage if they move and attack.

The Ranger needs something that is useful at 1st level to help him keep up with the other classes. Barbarians get 2 Rages that gives them +2 damage, resistance to all physical attacks and advantage on all strength checks. Paladins get a combat heal (that increases every level) that can also cure any disease or poison. Fighters get a self combat heal usable every short rest plus a Fighting Style that adds either +2 to ranged attacks, +2 to one-handed damage, re-rolls on two-handed damage (essentially advantage on damage rolls), etc.

You mean something like a constant +2 to damage to all humanoids?

Meanwhile the PHB Ranger got exactly nothing combat related. Adding advantage to initiative rolls, advantage to the first round of attacks (one or two depending on level) and a situational +2 damage has to stack up against everything that the other classes get. Compared to the Barbarian's Rage, it's not looking that overpowering. Ignoring difficult terrain is nice, but it doesn't happen all the time. Honestly in the canned adventures that I have played it probably comes up less than 10% of the time. Useful, and great flavor for a Ranger, but hardly game breaking, even at 1st level.

By 6th level the Revised Ranger's situational +2 bonus goes to +4 and they can make it slightly less situational. Meanwhile the Barbarian can Rage 4 times a day making their bonus almost an 'always active' ability. The Paladin can now drop a 30 point heal and the Fighter (most likely) gets an additional +1 to hit and damage (maybe AC too) from his ASI and his self heal goes from 1d10+1 to 1d10+6.

The other factors are a big thing. The ranger needs to be the exploration pillar class. But it can't be the king of exploration and the wild and equal in combat to all the other classes. Because that just makes it outright better.
In the same way it'd be (or is, depending on whom you ask) poor design making a fighter better at combat than any other class and balancing it with fewer out of combat options.
The ranger needs to be competitive in terms of damage, especially at higher levels.

But, repeating, an ability that doesn't synergize with one classical type of ranger, doesn't work with alternate ability score choices, makes the class too appealing for a single level dip, and is potentially really strong at low levels.
That's just not a well designed ability.

Drizzt used magic all the time, Faerie Fire and Darkness immediately come to mind. Although those were Drow spells.

Right. He used abilities unrelated to his being a ranger and related to his being a drow.


Actually casting ranger spells was not a part of his character. It's not a part of any well-known ranger. There needs to be an option.

 

[Lord Twig]

I actually don't have a problem with the Ranger itself, what I have a problem with is it's implementation in the game without it filling a clearly defined niche. Since I'm most familiar with the 3.5/Pathfinder version of the Ranger, let's look at that one; It has a full BAB, d10 hd, access to all weapons and armor (except exotic and heavy), limited access to Druid spells, and a very situational damage dealing ability in the form of favored enemy, and a very situational and slight boost to some skills with favored terrain. Now, what about any of that fills a niche that couldn't be filled by another class that took a feat? You say he is a wilderness warrior and survivalist? Sounds like a Barbarian. You say it has skills which are broadly useful in any environment? Sounds like Bards and Rogues. You even said that a Rouge could take over the Ranger's sneaking in a forest or dungeon. Again, it's the implementation that I have a problem with, not the idea of a Ranger itself. In a class based game, each class needs a role to fill, so if you want a "Ranger", then that needs to be very clearly defined, and be distinct from the other classes. As it stands, I don't see a mechanical or thematic distinction in the class.

That should also answer your last question about why we shouldn't keep it. If it does not fill a specific and distinct purpose in the game, then it should be removed. And I can't give an answer as to why it should be kept, because I can't see a reason for it. I'd even go a step further and remove the Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer, and Monk. I think 5E also has a Warlock class, which is yet another flavor of Wizard. Now, to tie in your question about what would be gained from having less classes to choose from, with less classes comes less complexity, which in turn means it's easier to learn, which in turn is more attractive to those who have never played the game before. This is one of my complaints with Pathfinder. That game has so many rules that the Core Rulebook is 569 pages long, not including the Index. That's pretty daunting for new players. And if your game needs a "beginner's box" just to ease people into the game, it's too complex. The core rulebook should be all that is needed to get people into the game without getting a Master's degree in Law (I say, sarcastically to prove a point, because someone will take that literally). How about, instead of adding a lot of new classes and feats and spells and skills and races and archetypes and etc, etc, which create rules bloat and complexity, why not create a 5E version of Essentials, that boil the game down to it's essence? You might say that people like more options, but I would argue that less options allows for greater creativity. I know that the majority of sales is in the player options, but that's because they game companies don't market to GM's. Without GM's, there is no game. In order to keep up revenue, release more things for the GM to play with in the form of adventures, creatures, locations, what-have-you.

Kinda of a tangent to the original topic, but related, none-the-less.

*Edit: Sorry, this was a reply to Lord Twig, I forgot to hit "reply with quote".

I think there is just a difference in opinion as to what D&D is. 5e is already a greatly streamlined version of the game. What you are talking about is almost the basic version of the game, which only has Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard. And sure, you can play with just those, but eventually many players will want to play Advanced D&D, with additional race and class combinations. The danger, of course, is going too far (see Pathfinder), which is why the D&D 5e team has been so slow to introduce new player options. It is a pace that I completely agree with btw.

 

[Lord Twig]

At low levels, a monster can only take a single hit. Dropping an enemy in round one greatly reduces the damage potential of the encounter. Even at higher levels it allows a solid alpha strike, with hunter's mark and the like.

Minus one goblin isn't a problem. And if it makes it easier for the Wizard to take out the rest with a Sleep spell, well, at least the Ranger got to contribute. At higher levels an alpha strike might happen anyway and won't take out even a single creature. Still not seeing the problem.

Right, which is why advantage is too strong. They're already fast, and advantage negates the chances of a bad roll. It changes the average initiative of a ranger with 16 Dexterity from 13 to 18. That's a big jump.

Again, proficiency in initiative checks would be fine and unique. It has the same effect (the ranger is faster on average) but isn't quite as strong as advantage.

I disagree, I'm not the greatest on the math, but it is not the same as a +5. The maximum roll is never increased. Plus advantage prevents it from stacking with the Barb ability that also provides advantage. Adding proficiency would allow it to improve whether you continued with Ranger or not. It would be an even better dip than currently.

Advantage on an attack is two chances to hit. That's not that different from Action Surge (which at low levels, often gets used after a miss). But it comes up every single encounters rather than once a short rest.
The first round of an encounter at level 1 (or even 2-3) has enormous impact on the rest of the fight. And it doesn't hurt at higher levels either.

Of course, there's also the Strength trap. Because you can be a dwarf ranger with double axes that hits off Str and has an ass initiative, and thus the ability confers no bonus.

It is way different than Action Surge. I usually see Action Surge used near the beginning of a tough encounter to take out two enemies in the same round, or take down one tough one. Advantage on first round attacks just helps you take down one weak opponent, or weaken a tough one for someone else to take out later, thus giving the other player the kill, but at least you get the assist. Teamwork!

That the ability is only strong for half of rangers doesn't balanace it. You don't average out the power level across builds. The inability to use it in melee is another huge issue. It really favors ranged combatants, while rangers should be equally expected to rely on melee. An ability that also equally works with rangers wielding twin weapon is needed.

It also works for Rangers that use both ranged and melee or melee that is in range. So not completely useless, but it is something to keep in mind when judging its strength.

Brainstorming, I'd give the ranger a bonus to movement in the first round, allowing time to position themself. Or a small bonus to damage if they move and attack.

They gave extra movement and an extra attack on the first round to the Deep Stalker, which is perfect for a subclass that focuses on ambush and, well, stalking.

You mean something like a constant +2 to damage to all humanoids?

And if you aren't fighting humanoids it's worthless. While the +2 damage from Rage can only be used when the Barbarian is raging, he can choose when he wants to rage and also gets resistance to all physical attacks and advantage to all strength checks. That is way more powerful than Favored Enemy by itself. The Ranger needs more than just that.

The other factors are a big thing. The ranger needs to be the exploration pillar class. But it can't be the king of exploration and the wild and equal in combat to all the other classes. Because that just makes it outright better.
In the same way it'd be (or is, depending on whom you ask) poor design making a fighter better at combat than any other class and balancing it with fewer out of combat options.
The ranger needs to be competitive in terms of damage, especially at higher levels.

But, repeating, an ability that doesn't synergize with one classical type of ranger, doesn't work with alternate ability score choices, makes the class too appealing for a single level dip, and is potentially really strong at low levels.
That's just not a well designed ability.

I agree, but I don't think that is the case for any of the Ranger's 1st level abilities.

Right. He used abilities unrelated to his being a ranger and related to his being a drow.

Actually casting ranger spells was not a part of his character. It's not a part of any well-known ranger. There needs to be an option.

Just going to agree to disagree. Spellcasting has always been a part of the Ranger and should continue to be, IMHO.

 

[Uchawi]

I mean, it's pretty obvious in Storm King's Thunder, after a city was attacked by giants they're going to be on the lookout for giants pretty much all the time. Thing is, they're overland traveling hundreds of miles, and conveniently checking the giant radar every few miles seems like something you would want to do. I don't want to get caught out by a random stone giant or three (what actually happened that session). They then proceeded to basically track them at a distance while using some things to imitate a larger group of frost giants until the giants were fatigued. Nothing wrong with that in my book, but like... I don't know, five miles is a huge area and there could literally be dozens of different groups of creatures in it at any given time.

It would make more sense to me that a ranger could succeed a check with advantage in regards to any activities performed by a creature in a 5 mile radius, without the instant telepathy or super cognition. Save the magic stuff like that for spells. The ranger could be a short range 5 senses (sight, sound, etc.) radar, versus long range.

 

[Mistwell]

I actually don't have a problem with the Ranger itself, what I have a problem with is it's implementation in the game without it filling a clearly defined niche. Since I'm most familiar with the 3.5/Pathfinder version of the Ranger, let's look at that one; It has a full BAB, d10 hd, access to all weapons and armor (except exotic and heavy), limited access to Druid spells, and a very situational damage dealing ability in the form of favored enemy, and a very situational and slight boost to some skills with favored terrain. Now, what about any of that fills a niche that couldn't be filled by another class that took a feat? You say he is a wilderness warrior and survivalist? Sounds like a Barbarian. You say it has skills which are broadly useful in any environment? Sounds like Bards and Rogues. You even said that a Rouge could take over the Ranger's sneaking in a forest or dungeon. Again, it's the implementation that I have a problem with, not the idea of a Ranger itself. In a class based game, each class needs a role to fill, so if you want a "Ranger", then that needs to be very clearly defined, and be distinct from the other classes. As it stands, I don't see a mechanical or thematic distinction in the class.

That should also answer your last question about why we shouldn't keep it. If it does not fill a specific and distinct purpose in the game, then it should be removed. And I can't give an answer as to why it should be kept, because I can't see a reason for it. I'd even go a step further and remove the Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer, and Monk. I think 5E also has a Warlock class, which is yet another flavor of Wizard. Now, to tie in your question about what would be gained from having less classes to choose from, with less classes comes less complexity, which in turn means it's easier to learn, which in turn is more attractive to those who have never played the game before. This is one of my complaints with Pathfinder. That game has so many rules that the Core Rulebook is 569 pages long, not including the Index. That's pretty daunting for new players. And if your game needs a "beginner's box" just to ease people into the game, it's too complex. The core rulebook should be all that is needed to get people into the game without getting a Master's degree in Law (I say, sarcastically to prove a point, because someone will take that literally). How about, instead of adding a lot of new classes and feats and spells and skills and races and archetypes and etc, etc, which create rules bloat and complexity, why not create a 5E version of Essentials, that boil the game down to it's essence? You might say that people like more options, but I would argue that less options allows for greater creativity. I know that the majority of sales is in the player options, but that's because they game companies don't market to GM's. Without GM's, there is no game. In order to keep up revenue, release more things for the GM to play with in the form of adventures, creatures, locations, what-have-you.

Kinda of a tangent to the original topic, but related, none-the-less.

*Edit: Sorry, this was a reply to Lord Twig, I forgot to hit "reply with quote".

Sounds like you'd be happier with the Basic rules classes. Which is cool. In fact, it's why they made the Basic rules the way they did, for people with game preferences like yours. I would like to play in a Basic rules game some day, it just hasn't happened. But there are people who prefer the game with just the four base classes that can subsume all the other archetypes you mentioned. It just doesn't seem to be a majority of people.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

You say he is a wilderness warrior and survivalist? Sounds like a Barbarian.

A barbarian is a rage-based melee combat juggernaut. A ranger is a hunter and tracker. In 5E, they share a grand total of zero unique class features (two if you count Extra Attack and Ability Score Improvement, which you shouldn't). The most you can say is that there's considerable overlap in their skill lists.

Now, to tie in your question about what would be gained from having less classes to choose from, with less classes comes less complexity, which in turn means it's easier to learn, which in turn is more attractive to those who have never played the game before. This is one of my complaints with Pathfinder. That game has so many rules that the Core Rulebook is 569 pages long, not including the Index. That's pretty daunting for new players.

Fewer classes does not imply less complexity. A player only needs to learn his or her own character's class. That's where the complexity problem comes in for Pathfinder: loads and loads of build options that you have to sort through within a given class. But it's really easy, and exciting, to tell new players "You can be a barbarian, like Conan, or a ranger, like Aragorn..." Then they just pick a class that matches their character concept -- and don't even try to tell me that the ranger isn't a distinct character concept -- and they don't have to care about any of the other class options unless they want to. You recommend having the role of the ranger be taken over by the rogue (or the barbarian or the bard, despite also advocating the removal of those classes ). That would actually make the problem worse, because it would mean putting those ranger options within the rogue class, making those classes more complex in a way that players actually have to care about. "Here is a ranger class" is simpler than "Here is a rogue class, and a feat that can turn the class into something ranger-like".

How about, instead of adding a lot of new classes and feats and spells and skills and races and archetypes and etc, etc, which create rules bloat and complexity, why not create a 5E version of Essentials, that boil the game down to it's essence? I know that the majority of sales is in the player options, but that's because they game companies don't market to GM's. Without GM's, there is no game. In order to keep up revenue, release more things for the GM to play with in the form of adventures, creatures, locations, what-have-you.

Reading this, I feel like you are writing from a position of ignorance about both 4E Essentials and 5E. Just for starters, Essentials had not one ranger class, but two. And 5E has only printed one book that's even arguably "player options": the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. Everything else has been adventure paths and the like.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Key feedback points I made:

* come up with a basic rule for pets that would allow many more options as opposed to the tiny list (like d8 HD per ranger level, regardless of what size the beast is for example)
* don't make beast communication a core trait, as there are lots of ranger archetypes that don't have a BFF pet. That's what beast masters are for
* try to avoid class features that replicate another class's features.

But, the beast communication isn't necessarily at all about having animal friends. It's just a feature that makes you better at figuring out what's going on with animals, training or calming them, etc. It's a more flavorful bonus to Animal Handling. I literally can't imagine a Ranger concept that isn't Urban where that works against the concept. At worst, it will be mostly ignored.


ANyway, nearly all of my feedback was positive. I did note that the init. bonus and crit feature of Nat Explorer would find a better home in Primeval Awareness, both thematically and in terms of MC balance, and that Ranger Spellcasting is still much too restricted by the spell known thing, and needs tobe more like the paladin. That's it for negatives.

General @ thread:

I don't want rangers to have anything that is specifically designed for wielding twin weapons. Keep it at melee weapons, and let the ranger decide if that is a two handed sword or spear, shield and one handed weapon, long knife and open hand, etc.

But I agree that every ranger should be competent in melee and ranged combat, by default.

What if the Lvl 11 Hunter ability wasn't a choice, but instead you get both, and can only use one per round?

One thing Neverwinter Online got very, very right IMO is that the ranger's abilities all have a melee and ranged version. The dash back ability becomes a dash forward ability when you switch to melee, etc. and the attack powers do similar but distinct things depending on your weapons, and the whole class is geared around mixing melee and range dynamically, as needed. Slow enemies down with that ranged AoE, dash back, hit them with ranged until the dash recharges, switch to melee, dash in with the big melee attack, etc. It is the most fun of all the classes, IMO, because it plays like a skirmisher, in and out, impossible to pin down, deadly and elusive. Love it.

The 5e ranger does a good job of skirmishing, except that it still wants you to pick ranged or melee. I don't dig that. I would really like to ditch fighting styles, and instead get a benefit to versatility of weapon choice, that rewards using melee and ranged weapons.