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.

 

[isdestroyer]

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.

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".

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.

You are correct in that I have little experience with Essentials, but I am aware that 5E has been mostly adventures, and I approve of that. The angle I am coming from is WotC's stated goal of incorporating all of the previous editions into 5E, which includes 3.5, which Pathfinder is based on. Most of my experience is Pathfinder, and I hope that WotC learns from PF's mistakes. Yes, PF is doing extremely well, and I like the game, at it's heart, and I love the adventures and everything they do for GM's, but they still publish mostly for the players.

I really feel that there needs to be clearly defined class roles, like 4E had. Leader, Controller, Defender, Striker, and maybe one more I'm forgetting (I'ts been a long time since I played 4E). This way, you don't have any fumbling about with a class that requires numerous updates because no one knows what to do with it. Each of those roles can have more than one class associated with it, as long as those classes feel distinct from one another. For example, in PF's Ultimate Magic, Paizo introduced the Magus. Thematically, this is my favorite class after Paladin because it fills a combat niche that the other classes don't, that of a warrior that casts spells at the same time he fights with a sword. Under the 4E system, the Magus would be a Striker, but he does this differently than the Rogue, or Barbarian (which I feel can be emulated by the Fighter). Unlike the Eldritch Knight prestige class, The Magus fills this niche right from level 1 and you don't have to jump through hoops to do it.

Fewer classes does mean less complexity, because it's not the player that has to worry about all of them, but the GM. The GM has to keep all of those class options in his head and balance his encounters and challenges around what the players choose. Instead of saying to a new player "fit your concept to one of these specific classes, even though it might have abilities that don't fit that concept", say; "as a Fighter, you can be a warrior from a barbaric land like Conan, or a skilled tracker and swordsman like Aragorn. The limit is your imagination!" This would also lessen the mental load on the GM, not having to know the many abilities of multiple classes. And you don't have to stuff "Ranger stuff" into the Rogue, but you spread those concepts around, and make multiclassing easier and more viable (while not alienating singe-classed specs).

Also, I understand that at this point, the argument; "you might as well make your own game", will get bandied about, the point is, is that if WotC is soliciting advice for how to improve the game they made, then they need to consider the fact that some things just don't work as intended, and should be reconsidered as part of the game. There is nothing stopping them (if enough people demand it) reprinting the PHB and DMG with reorganized classes that have a clearly defined purpose and mechanically fit the world.

 

[isdestroyer]

Had to delete a double post.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I really feel that there needs to be clearly defined class roles, like 4E had. Leader, Controller, Defender, Striker, and maybe one more I'm forgetting (I'ts been a long time since I played 4E). This way, you don't have any fumbling about with a class that requires numerous updates because no one knows what to do with it.

It really seems to me like you're missing the point here. Have you actually sat down and compared the 5E PHB ranger to this new UA ranger, side by side? The classes are very similar in outline and function. In no sense can the ranger be said to have changed "role". In the big picture, WotC knows exactly what they want to do with the ranger. What changed were the details. Class abilities that didn't work quite as intended, or quite to players' satisfaction, were tuned up. In 4E terms, it's not like they're printing a new ranger that's a controller instead of a striker. It's like they're tweaking the existing ranger's striker abilities to be better at striking.

I could argue at some length why lumping the D&D classes into four discrete mechanical roles is not a great idea (for starters: is the fighter a defender or a striker?). But I think the whole topic of class roles is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You're letting it distract you into rambling about maguses, when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the 5E ranger, why players were dissatisfied with it, or why WotC decided to write a revision. You need to reexamine all of those things and reassess your stance from there.

 

[ghabrel]

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

​

​

I actually prefer 5e. Like, a lot. Kudos on the reference though, I laughed.

 

[ghabrel]

I had no idea how many people think Rangers are useless...

I -expletive deleted- love Rangers. The new version only makes them better in my book (although my reading [of this thread] has pulled up a couple of losses).

And to whoever it was saying Rangers have to fill a specific role (I don't usually use forums, and I'm bad at noting usernames; sorry), isn't the shooty guy enough? Yeah, I can and will readily admit that Rogues are spitting distance from Rangers, and Rogues CAN go ranged, but unless I'm just ill-informed, Rogues don't have an abundance of ranged-focused abilities.

I don't know, maybe I'm just rooting for my favorite team, but I've always felt like Rangers have their niche. Fine, yeah, maybe it isn't as broad or well-defined as others, but does that make it any less valid?

In the end, it doesn't really matter to me; there are still going to be Rangers in my games.

 

[Jester David]

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.

But the wizard casting sleep costs a spell slot. If 1/4 of the damage output it reliably removed by the ranger, it becomes easier for the rest of the party to take out the rest with minimal expenditure of resources.

I disagree, I'm not the greatest on the math, but it is not the same as a +5.

Actually it is. That's why advantage on Perception is a +5 bonus to passive Perception.
Or rather, it's a +5 when you need to roll at least a 10. The exact bonus depends on the number you want. Since you just want to roll above average... it's a +5.

The maximum roll is never increased.

No, that is the difference. It increases the maximum roll but has a lower average roll.

Plus advantage prevents it from stacking with the Barb ability that also provides advantage.

You mean that ability that barbarians get at 7th level, but rangers get at 1st that somehow isn't overpowered.
Yeah, it won't stack of they're the same. But, adding proficiency bonus prevents it stacking with the bard Jack of All Trades feature that lets you add half your prof to all ability checks.

Adding proficiency would allow it to improve whether you continued with Ranger or not. It would be an even better dip than currently.

Not really. Since either way a single level dip confers all the bonus.
The bonus would be lessened until high level, then become equal, before *finally* becoming better at high level. But it takes longer.

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.

Favoured enemy isn't useful all the time, no. But it's often easy to pick a very useful enemy making the feature useful half the time. So it's pretty easy to balance as a +1 bonus to all damage. Or even +0.5. But to every potential attack in every combat round all day.
Which seems pretty balanced against +7 damage to one attack each short rest with the fighter, or +2 damage to all attacks for a fight twice a day.

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

I'm not advocating it's complete removal and non-inclusion. I'm arguing that each ranger should be able to choose spellcasting or no-spellcasting, like a warlock choose tome, blade, or chain. Or sorcerers pick metamagic.

 

[Mistwell]

I really feel that there needs to be clearly defined class roles, like 4E had. Leader, Controller, Defender, Striker, and maybe one more I'm forgetting (I'ts been a long time since I played 4E). This way, you don't have any fumbling about with a class that requires numerous updates because no one knows what to do with it.

Oh helllllllll no. That was something about 4e that I thought looked good on paper but in practice it was a terrible idea. It put people's role playing choices into little pre-defined boxes and reduced our role playing and enjoyment a great deal. Nor does it have anything to do with this ranger issue.

 

[The_Gneech]

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.

I think you've got a good point here, although it's probably overstating it to say that a ranger's chosen style negates the other. STR rangers can still toss axes and spears, and DEX rangers can still use light/finesse weapons.

But yeah, that was one of my bits of feedback too. The two-weapon thing is part of making ranger the "Drizzt simulator" class, which is exactly backwards from what the character's relationship to the class should be.

-The Gneech

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think you've got a good point here, although it's probably overstating it to say that a ranger's chosen style negates the other. STR rangers can still toss axes and spears, and DEX rangers can still use light/finesse weapons.

But yeah, that was one of my bits of feedback too. The two-weapon thing is part of making ranger the "Drizzt simulator" class, which is exactly backwards from what the character's relationship to the class should be.

-The Gneech

That would be an overstatement, which is why I didn't say it.

5e Rangers can be good at both, but both fighting style and hunter features encourage specialization, which I think is the wrong way to go.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh helllllllll no. That was something about 4e that I thought looked good on paper but in practice it was a terrible idea. It put people's role playing choices into little pre-defined boxes and reduced our role playing and enjoyment a great deal. Nor does it have anything to do with this ranger issue.

I'm confused, but I also don't want to start an edition skirmish...

Why did it reduce roleplaying? What does being a striker have to do with roleplaying? I mean, any more than, say, sneak attack?

Not being facetious, I genuinely don't understand how the roles could possibly reduce roleplaying.