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.

 

[The_Gneech]

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

"Should be competent at both" implied it! ;P Although it sounds like you may be saying rangers should be total switch hitters by default.

I don't think having a specialization is bad per se– (movie) Aragorn didn't dazzle as an archer even if he was handy with a bastard sword– but he was competent at it. But I do think "bow, two-weapon, or get out" is a very limited way of looking at rangers, too.

-The Gneech

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

I think there could stand to be one or two more "one size fits all" type combat styles like Defense, and that would about cover it. No biggie.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Telling someone, on paper, that their role is X, tends to cause that person to conform to the role of X. And it tends to cause other players to expect them to behave like X, and assume they will behave like X, and causes those other players to adjust how they behave based on that assumption. This impacts ones ability to freely role play. The fighter isn't supposed to strike, they're supposed to defend. The wizard isn't supposed to defend, they're supposed to control. And so on. So behaviors tend to conform to expectations of the label. This is true in all of life, and particularly when it's spelled out in black and white by specific rules. It's not that you must behave that way - it's that more often than not, that's just how people react to roles being defined for them.

It's also why my freest feeling role playing has been with the lightest rules I've played.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Telling someone, on paper, that their role is X, tends to cause that person to conform to the role of X. And it tends to cause other players to expect them to behave like X, and assume they will behave like X, and causes those other players to adjust how they behave based on that assumption. This impacts ones ability to freely role play. The fighter isn't supposed to strike, they're supposed to defend. The wizard isn't supposed to defend, they're supposed to control. And so on. So behaviors tend to conform to expectations of the label. This is true in all of life, and particularly when it's spelled out in black and white by specific rules. It's not that you must behave that way - it's that more often than not, that's just how people react to roles being defined for them.

It's also why my freest feeling role playing has been with the lightest rules I've played.

I get what you're saying, but IME, 4e is super clear, and even explicit IIRC, about party role having nothing to do with how you roleplay the character.

IME, it has less impact on roleplaying than what encounter powers you choose does, which in turn is less than class feature options, in turn less than class and race choices. Obviously your mileage varies on this one, though. Thanks for the clarification.

I think there could stand to be one or two more "one size fits all" type combat styles like Defense, and that would about cover it. No biggie.

It could cover it, but I don't think it would be close to being he best option, and there is no reason not to try to get closer to the best option.

"Should be competent at both" implied it! ;P Although it sounds like you may be saying rangers should be total switch hitters by default.

I don't think having a specialization is bad per se– (movie) Aragorn didn't dazzle as an archer even if he was handy with a bastard sword– but he was competent at it. But I do think "bow, two-weapon, or get out" is a very limited way of looking at rangers, too.

-The Gneech

I don't think it does imply that, but it's not a big deal. And yes, I'm saying the ranger should, at least optionally, be switch hitters, rather than having any strong push toward specialization of weapon choice or style of fighting.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It could cover it, but I don't think it would be close to being he best option, and there is no reason not to try to get closer to the best option.

Howzat not the best option? Let people specialize if they want, and not if they don't.

 

[mellored]

I get what you're saying, but IME, 4e is super clear, and even explicit IIRC, about party role having nothing to do with how you roleplay the character.

It was explicitly mentioned.

But many people didn't read that part. They just jumped right into the class description and saw the "defender" and took that to mean they had to defend.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Howzat not the best option? Let people specialize if they want, and not if they don't.

Doesn't really solve the Hunter issue, for starters. If you don't want to focus on ambushing, or have a pet, you have to specialize in ranger or melee.

Secondly, one better option than a couple more range agnostic fighting styles, for this particular issue, would be a fighting style that rewards switching as needed, and a few new spells that support both.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Funny, b/c Fav Enemy has always been one of my favourite class abilities

 

[Psychometrika]

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.

Advantage is the same as +5 only we you you need a 10, and tapers off from the middle of the distribution for any other number. Advantage also gives you almost doubles the chance to crit, where static modifiers do nothing. So, actually they function quite differently.

 

[wicked cool]

so is the new the eventual new ranger going to be an online supplement or going to be included in a new book?