One, I’m always quick to jump against someone saying they don’t like a feature because it’s bad when bad is a personal experience.
Two, I don’t know. Every time I post a new thread about something fun or interesting with the ranger class I get 10 posts for every 1 about how that is dumb or the ranger is terrible. I guess I feel like the hate is also r and well so I go after it when I can.
Three, I could ask the same thing of others that have so many problems with the ranger. Why are any of us here? Handbook, Tasha’s, homebrew, everyone go do our own thing and get off the internet.
Let me flip this discussion around for a bit. Through a whole bunch of threads here in the ranger forum I keep seeing the same thing - a fairly small core of us (me, Frank, Rosco, Envoy) seem to really like the ranger as is and find we can play it effectively with almost any DM seeing the need only for fairly small tweaks here and there. There is a second (larger it seems) group that is highly dissatisfied with the ranger and fells you have to multiclass out to really do anything with it and that it needs another major rewrite to be an effective class in 5e. I doubt we are ever going to do much besides bicker unless we find some common ground to work from. So let me as those of you in group 2 a couple of questions: 1) Why do you even bother to start with a ranger before dipping out? (instead of say starting with a fighter with the outlander or folk hero background and taking nature as a skill) 2) What features of the ranger are you looking for or do you like mechanically or thematically that make you bother with it at all rather than just ignore it completely? 3) What do you see as it’s place in D&D?
I start with ranger because they are very good in T1... One of the best.
Especially now with Tashas they get front loaded so they get some great stuff off the bat.
Their 1st and second level spells are great for helping the party.
I pick a ranger for damage output for the martial side and then the party assistant magic (good berry, pass without trace, spike growth, healing spirit)
Plus the newer subclass features are very good.
Gloomstalker is like top 5 in the game for me.
It's place to me is a top half damage dealer with strong party support features and high level abilities that let them face a multitude of creature types and keep said creatures on their toes.
Hence why I think they should get a way to counter things other classes can't... Like blindsense.
They should be able to recall information about any creature they have marked not just a select few.
More snares and crafting of potices that give buffs would be good too.
Optimus, what do you see as it’s “theme” ? For me it’s that the ranger is already a multiclass and represents the “mountain man” type lone adventurer that steps in to help the party. it looks like what you want is combat damage boosts and healing and utility/buffing spells do I have that right? what core abilities would you change and why to get you to not opt out at higher levels?
again how can you fix something if you don't really understand what is wrong?
some suggested changes are more "personal feel" than practical. that can just move the problem to a new part rather than patching the actual holes. some haters are stuck on repeat and can only see their opinion and play experience as the real solution. some supporters use only Ideal conditions for their perspective. Each change has consequences that trickle out to other areas. making the "command beast" a bonus action all of a sudden creates conflict with certain spells. I don't like that conflict so I am glad I can still use regular beastmaster. some people don't and they have the option to switch. that was a improvement.
Isolated mechanics is also not good. some people want a variety of options and changes that create an "always best course" of action cause gameplay issues. A big part of roleplaying is throwing characters in various scenarios and seeing different solutions to the same problem (even combat). in order to do that you need tools with good interaction.
desire for magicless rangers is something the wizards team has denied over and over. the question is why? I believe they want a world of magic and even mundane abilities still have a thread of world magic build in to them. Mechanically, Why not play a scout rogue or a fighter with proper skills if you want to play a non-magic hero in a world of magic?
How many hours have some of us actually spent understanding game design? (rhetorical. please don't actually start spouting credentials). I am talking classes or books or even the more shady youtube design vids (not just 5e youtubers actual designers) Opinions are great but what about skill at actually fixing the problem. a degree in math and statistics does not make a good game designer(it can help but there are more pieces at play). sometimes you just cant damage the thing to death. how do you quantify the value of "ribbon" features?
. There is a second (larger it seems) group that is highly dissatisfied with the ranger and fells you have to multiclass out to really do anything with it and that it needs another major rewrite to be an effective class in 5e.
I have yet to see that the second group is larger. From optimization groups on facebook and such I see a majority just want minor wording/ or function changes/cleanup.
when someone says they have a high level of dissatisfaction is that really connected to wanting a major overhaul? or is it they just want the little bits fixed.
Optimus, what do you see as it’s “theme” ? For me it’s that the ranger is already a multiclass and represents the “mountain man” type lone adventurer that steps in to help the party. it looks like what you want is combat damage boosts and healing and utility/buffing spells do I have that right? what core abilities would you change and why to get you to not opt out at higher levels?
I listed my changes to the existing features I find lackluster in another post.
Mostly change Favored foe to non-concentration and to add to that I would allow the ranger to add +prof to checks to recall information to creatures they have marked with it. Fits the theme of tracker/hunter very well.
I would change feral senses as something that you do once a day to let you ignore a special sense like tremorsense or blindsense. Fits the theme of Hunter very well.
again how can you fix something if you don't really understand what is wrong?
some suggested changes are more "personal feel" than practical. that can just move the problem to a new part rather than patching the actual holes. some haters are stuck on repeat and can only see their opinion and play experience as the real solution. some supporters use only Ideal conditions for their perspective. Each change has consequences that trickle out to other areas. making the "command beast" a bonus action all of a sudden creates conflict with certain spells. I don't like that conflict so I am glad I can still use regular beastmaster. some people don't and they have the option to switch. that was a improvement.
Isolated mechanics is also not good. some people want a variety of options and changes that create an "always best course" of action cause gameplay issues. A big part of roleplaying is throwing characters in various scenarios and seeing different solutions to the same problem (even combat). in order to do that you need tools with good interaction.
desire for magicless rangers is something the wizards team has denied over and over. the question is why? I believe they want a world of magic and even mundane abilities still have a thread of world magic build in to them. Mechanically, Why not play a scout rogue or a fighter with proper skills if you want to play a non-magic hero in a world of magic?
How many hours have some of us actually spent understanding game design? (rhetorical. please don't actually start spouting credentials). I am talking classes or books or even the more shady youtube design vids (not just 5e youtubers actual designers) Opinions are great but what about skill at actually fixing the problem. a degree in math and statistics does not make a good game designer(it can help but there are more pieces at play). sometimes you just cant damage the thing to death. how do you quantify the value of "ribbon" features?
Again please don't assume people don't understand simply because they don't see value in the ability.
Your perspective is not the only correct one and assuming people don't like it "because they don't understand the game" is incredibly condescending
. There is a second (larger it seems) group that is highly dissatisfied with the ranger and fells you have to multiclass out to really do anything with it and that it needs another major rewrite to be an effective class in 5e.
I have yet to see that the second group is larger. From optimization groups on facebook and such I see a majority just want minor wording/ or function changes/cleanup.
when someone says they have a high level of dissatisfaction is that really connected to wanting a major overhaul? or is it they just want the little bits fixed.
That can vary considerably from person to person. I think the best policy is to tune these naysayers out because (A) they probably don't know what they want, only what they don't want, and (B) their negative enjoyment does not affect my positive enjoyment whatsoever.
In the same vein, there's a video on YouTube right now asking why Ghostbusters: Afterlife only has a 62% fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes. It's still positive, it's still well-above average, but it's just not high enough for some people. And I find this arguing over critical opinion ridiculous. Similarly, I don't need a bunch of optimizers telling me the ranger (and monk) are deficient. It doesn't do what they want it to, what they think it should do, but that doesn't mean it doesn't do its intended job well. If I personally find something deficient, I'll fix it. I, we, still have a perfectly serviceable framework to build from.
How many hours have some of us actually spent understanding game design? (rhetorical. please don't actually start spouting credentials). I am talking classes or books or even the more shady youtube design vids (not just 5e youtubers actual designers) Opinions are great but what about skill at actually fixing the problem. a degree in math and statistics does not make a good game designer(it can help but there are more pieces at play). sometimes you just cant damage the thing to death. how do you quantify the value of "ribbon" features?
This is further reinforcing the idea that our opinions are invalid because we are not game designers, which invalidates the purpose of the thread as a whole.
Also, even if they arent perfect, at least by putting forth ideas on how abilities can be improved, people are trying to fix the problems. That acts as practice towards game design and the act of discussion helps us all to better understand it through that practice. You mentioned books and youtube series and classes, but neglected to mention one of the best teachers. Practice.
Simply dismissing the changes as being too focused on isolated mechanics or on personal experience or on trying to shove a math degree into it completely squashes any chance of anyone learning anything through practice. That is what we are doing by bouncing ideas back and forth about changes, we are practicing fixing problems and gaining a better understanding of game design through hearing everyone's viewpoints.
The only WRONG way to fix or practice fixing a problem is to say "there's nothing to fix" or treat those who are dissatisfied as simply being ignorant.
. There is a second (larger it seems) group that is highly dissatisfied with the ranger and fells you have to multiclass out to really do anything with it and that it needs another major rewrite to be an effective class in 5e.
I have yet to see that the second group is larger. From optimization groups on facebook and such I see a majority just want minor wording/ or function changes/cleanup.
when someone says they have a high level of dissatisfaction is that really connected to wanting a major overhaul? or is it they just want the little bits fixed.
The larger is simply my impression, I feel like there are 2-5 posters from the second group for each of us in the first group in most threads like this one. You may well be right that the real naysayers are a much smaller group and most are really looking for small tweaks. I’m not trying to start new arguments (we get enough) but to establish a basis for rational discussion so I would love to hear from the “tweakers” the last couple of posts by Optimus are good examples of what I would like to see (thank you Optimus).
Two, I don’t know. Every time I post a new thread about something fun or interesting with the ranger class I get 10 posts for every 1 about how that is dumb or the ranger is terrible. I guess I feel like the hate is also r and well so I go after it when I can.
One look at the title of the thread would tell you that most people responding to it probably think there is something wrong with the ranger and would disagree with your point of view. So why even respond to the thread knowing that you are only going to start arguments? Why start those arguments when you know its not acting on the prompt put forward by the thread?
Three, I could ask the same thing of others that have so many problems with the ranger. Why are any of us here? Handbook, Tasha’s, homebrew, everyone go do our own thing and get off the internet.
Thats what this is! Homebrew! But rather than just talking to a wall about our ideas, this thread allows users to share and improve their homebrew rules by talking to others.
You are more than welcome to leave this thread alone and be happy with the Ranger as it is. But other people think there are things that need fixing. Other people have ideas on how to fix those problems. Other people want feedback on their ideas.
If you are not going to give ideas on how to improve the ranger and if you are not going to give feedback on other people's ideas (beyond arguing that there isnt a problem in the first place), then there isnt a reason for you to be responding to this thread. Save arguing the rangers strengths for the other threads. Thats not what this one is for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Optimus, what do you see as it’s “theme” ? For me it’s that the ranger is already a multiclass and represents the “mountain man” type lone adventurer that steps in to help the party. it looks like what you want is combat damage boosts and healing and utility/buffing spells do I have that right? what core abilities would you change and why to get you to not opt out at higher levels?
I listed my changes to the existing features I find lackluster in another post.
Mostly change Favored foe to non-concentration and to add to that I would allow the ranger to add +prof to checks to recall information to creatures they have marked with it. Fits the theme of tracker/hunter very well.
I would change feral senses as something that you do once a day to let you ignore a special sense like tremorsense or blindsense. Fits the theme of Hunter very well.
I would change foe Slayer to every attack.
You did and I’ll have to go back and reread for details - thanks for that post. I agree changing FF to non concentration and maybe to short rest recharge would make it better. Same for your idea on FS. We have our differences on feral senses but maybe we can work towards something we can agree on.
How many hours have some of us actually spent understanding game design? (rhetorical. please don't actually start spouting credentials). I am talking classes or books or even the more shady youtube design vids (not just 5e youtubers actual designers) Opinions are great but what about skill at actually fixing the problem. a degree in math and statistics does not make a good game designer(it can help but there are more pieces at play). sometimes you just cant damage the thing to death. how do you quantify the value of "ribbon" features?
This is further reinforcing the idea that our opinions are invalid because we are not game designers, which invalidates the purpose of the thread as a whole.
Also, even if they arent perfect, at least by putting forth ideas on how abilities can be improved, people are trying to fix the problems. That acts as practice towards game design and the act of discussion helps us all to better understand it through that practice. You mentioned books and youtube series and classes, but neglected to mention one of the best teachers. Practice.
Simply dismissing the changes as being too focused on isolated mechanics or on personal experience or on trying to shove a math degree into it completely squashes any chance of anyone learning anything through practice. That is what we are doing by bouncing ideas back and forth about changes, we are practicing fixing problems and gaining a better understanding of game design through hearing everyone's viewpoints.
The only WRONG way to fix or practice fixing a problem is to say "there's nothing to fix" or treat those who are dissatisfied as simply being ignorant.
Most people are ignorant by circumstance. And, paradoxically, when confronted with information to shed them of their ignorance, the majority will dig in their heels. It only stands to reason people who complain loudly are ignorant of what they're complaining about. It may be an assumption, but it's an entirely reasonable one.
Change one thing and there's a ripple effect. How many people here don't like Natural Explorer? How many people here actually know how to use it with the rules for movement in the PHB? If you don't understand the rules, then you can't correct any alleged deficiency. And if you don't run them as written, then the feature won't work as intended anyway.
Since its been a while since I have put forward any ideas, I do have one additional improvement idea for the revised Beastmaster. One thing that seems odd to me is that the 7th level feature has no changes, so if you use the Primal Companion about half of the ability is now redundant. The magical damage is great, but having a bonus action command in Primal Companion feature and the Exceptional Training feature seems like a bad design.
To that end, I designed this optional version of the 7th level feature
Arcane Training
7th-level Beastmaster feature, which replaces the Exceptional Training feature)
Your bond to the magical forces suffusing nature extends into your bond with your primal beasts, weaving simple commands and signals into the verbal and somatic components of your spellcasting. Attacks made by your primal beast now count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to non magical attacks and damage.
Additionally, whenever you use your bonus action to cast a Ranger spell, you can command your primal beast to Dash, Disengage, or Hide as part of the same bonus action.
Since your companion is already a bonus action to command, the strength of this is allowing your companion to have a free "cunning action" even if you had to use your bonus action to cast one of your Ranger spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
How many hours have some of us actually spent understanding game design? (rhetorical. please don't actually start spouting credentials). I am talking classes or books or even the more shady youtube design vids (not just 5e youtubers actual designers) Opinions are great but what about skill at actually fixing the problem. a degree in math and statistics does not make a good game designer(it can help but there are more pieces at play). sometimes you just cant damage the thing to death. how do you quantify the value of "ribbon" features?
This is further reinforcing the idea that our opinions are invalid because we are not game designers, which invalidates the purpose of the thread as a whole.
Also, even if they arent perfect, at least by putting forth ideas on how abilities can be improved, people are trying to fix the problems. That acts as practice towards game design and the act of discussion helps us all to better understand it through that practice. You mentioned books and youtube series and classes, but neglected to mention one of the best teachers. Practice.
Simply dismissing the changes as being too focused on isolated mechanics or on personal experience or on trying to shove a math degree into it completely squashes any chance of anyone learning anything through practice. That is what we are doing by bouncing ideas back and forth about changes, we are practicing fixing problems and gaining a better understanding of game design through hearing everyone's viewpoints.
The only WRONG way to fix or practice fixing a problem is to say "there's nothing to fix" or treat those who are dissatisfied as simply being ignorant.
Most people are ignorant by circumstance. And, paradoxically, when confronted with information to shed them of their ignorance, the majority will dig in their heels. It only stands to reason people who complain loudly are ignorant of what they're complaining about. It may be an assumption, but it's an entirely reasonable one.
Change one thing and there's a ripple effect. How many people here don't like Natural Explorer? How many people here actually know how to use it with the rules for movement in the PHB? If you don't understand the rules, then you can't correct any alleged deficiency. And if you don't run them as written, then the feature won't work as intended anyway.
This statement doesnt add much more to the conversation than repeating "you just dont like it because you do not know any better."
If you feel issues with the ranger are all just a misunderstanding on the player end, then this thread is not for you. You do not have to die on that hill here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
From this point on, I am done responding to comments that are not adding anything based on the purpose of the thread. Choosing to respond is also acting to pull the conversation away from its original purpose, and that is a mistake on my part.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Optimus, what do you see as it’s “theme” ? For me it’s that the ranger is already a multiclass and represents the “mountain man” type lone adventurer that steps in to help the party. it looks like what you want is combat damage boosts and healing and utility/buffing spells do I have that right? what core abilities would you change and why to get you to not opt out at higher levels?
I listed my changes to the existing features I find lackluster in another post.
Mostly change Favored foe to non-concentration and to add to that I would allow the ranger to add +prof to checks to recall information to creatures they have marked with it. Fits the theme of tracker/hunter very well.
I would change feral senses as something that you do once a day to let you ignore a special sense like tremorsense or blindsense. Fits the theme of Hunter very well.
I would change foe Slayer to every attack.
I really like the idea of ignoring a special sense, as that would make it a fairly unique ability. Its somewhat niche, but alot of monsters at higher level have multiple senses.
I have a lvl 14 Gloomstalker ranger in my campaign right now. If monsters couldnt reliably see him using tremorsense or blindsight, he would almost never be seen by anything, lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
How many hours have some of us actually spent understanding game design? (rhetorical. please don't actually start spouting credentials). I am talking classes or books or even the more shady youtube design vids (not just 5e youtubers actual designers) Opinions are great but what about skill at actually fixing the problem. a degree in math and statistics does not make a good game designer(it can help but there are more pieces at play). sometimes you just cant damage the thing to death. how do you quantify the value of "ribbon" features?
This is further reinforcing the idea that our opinions are invalid because we are not game designers, which invalidates the purpose of the thread as a whole.
Also, even if they arent perfect, at least by putting forth ideas on how abilities can be improved, people are trying to fix the problems. That acts as practice towards game design and the act of discussion helps us all to better understand it through that practice. You mentioned books and youtube series and classes, but neglected to mention one of the best teachers. Practice.
Simply dismissing the changes as being too focused on isolated mechanics or on personal experience or on trying to shove a math degree into it completely squashes any chance of anyone learning anything through practice. That is what we are doing by bouncing ideas back and forth about changes, we are practicing fixing problems and gaining a better understanding of game design through hearing everyone's viewpoints.
The only WRONG way to fix or practice fixing a problem is to say "there's nothing to fix" or treat those who are dissatisfied as simply being ignorant.
Most people are ignorant by circumstance. And, paradoxically, when confronted with information to shed them of their ignorance, the majority will dig in their heels. It only stands to reason people who complain loudly are ignorant of what they're complaining about. It may be an assumption, but it's an entirely reasonable one.
Change one thing and there's a ripple effect. How many people here don't like Natural Explorer? How many people here actually know how to use it with the rules for movement in the PHB? If you don't understand the rules, then you can't correct any alleged deficiency. And if you don't run them as written, then the feature won't work as intended anyway.
This statement doesnt add much more to the conversation than repeating "you just dont like it because you do not know any better."
If you feel issues with the ranger are all just a misunderstanding on the player end, then this thread is not for you. You do not have to die on that hill here.
I never accused you or anyone else of not understanding the rules. I posed a series of rhetorical questions to get people to start thinking. Tinkering means thinking like a designer. Thinking like a designer means recognizing that nothing exists within a vacuum. These should not be controversial statements. You think they don't add anything to the discourse. I think they are necessary reminders of fundamental truths which bear repeating.
That said, yes, I do think some of the gripes about the class are due to misconceptions. Some people are dissatisfied with the class because it doesn't do what they want. But, again, what they want the class to do and what the class is intended to do don't necessarily jive. How many tables throw out the movement rules and exploration pillar? That's worth acknowledging because it creates a bias. And ignoring that bias does us all a disservice.
First, acknowledge the deficiencies. Then design counters for those deficiencies. I don't like how the vanilla Beast Master screws over saving throws: both the riders for the beast's attacks and their own saving throws. So I fix that at my table by adding the ranger's proficiency bonus to both the rider and all saving throws; even death saving throws. And I give them additional hit dice─equal to the ranger's level─because I think their hit points are too low. I've also come up with bonus spells for both the Beast Master and Hunter that follow the same conventions as those introduced in Xanathar's. And then I went back and edited those spell lists after Tasha's updated the class' spell list.
By the same token, I also recognize that some people can still play these classes and subclasses to the best of their ability. I've seen a RAW Beast Master played at level 20 and kick ass. There may be an element of system mastery at work to consider. But I also don't think that's healthy for the longevity of the game. If people need system mastery to "keep up" with others who don't, then there is a divide.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That’s a fair question.
One, I’m always quick to jump against someone saying they don’t like a feature because it’s bad when bad is a personal experience.
Two, I don’t know. Every time I post a new thread about something fun or interesting with the ranger class I get 10 posts for every 1 about how that is dumb or the ranger is terrible. I guess I feel like the hate is also r and well so I go after it when I can.
Three, I could ask the same thing of others that have so many problems with the ranger. Why are any of us here? Handbook, Tasha’s, homebrew, everyone go do our own thing and get off the internet.
Here is JC’s phantom tweet. https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1023354199646527488
Let me flip this discussion around for a bit. Through a whole bunch of threads here in the ranger forum I keep seeing the same thing - a fairly small core of us (me, Frank, Rosco, Envoy) seem to really like the ranger as is and find we can play it effectively with almost any DM seeing the need only for fairly small tweaks here and there. There is a second (larger it seems) group that is highly dissatisfied with the ranger and fells you have to multiclass out to really do anything with it and that it needs another major rewrite to be an effective class in 5e. I doubt we are ever going to do much besides bicker unless we find some common ground to work from. So let me as those of you in group 2 a couple of questions:
1) Why do you even bother to start with a ranger before dipping out? (instead of say starting with a fighter with the outlander or folk hero background and taking nature as a skill)
2) What features of the ranger are you looking for or do you like mechanically or thematically that make you bother with it at all rather than just ignore it completely?
3) What do you see as it’s place in D&D?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I start with ranger because they are very good in T1... One of the best.
Especially now with Tashas they get front loaded so they get some great stuff off the bat.
Their 1st and second level spells are great for helping the party.
I pick a ranger for damage output for the martial side and then the party assistant magic (good berry, pass without trace, spike growth, healing spirit)
Plus the newer subclass features are very good.
Gloomstalker is like top 5 in the game for me.
It's place to me is a top half damage dealer with strong party support features and high level abilities that let them face a multitude of creature types and keep said creatures on their toes.
Hence why I think they should get a way to counter things other classes can't... Like blindsense.
They should be able to recall information about any creature they have marked not just a select few.
More snares and crafting of potices that give buffs would be good too.
Optimus, what do you see as it’s “theme” ? For me it’s that the ranger is already a multiclass and represents the “mountain man” type lone adventurer that steps in to help the party.
it looks like what you want is combat damage boosts and healing and utility/buffing spells do I have that right?
what core abilities would you change and why to get you to not opt out at higher levels?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
again how can you fix something if you don't really understand what is wrong?
some suggested changes are more "personal feel" than practical. that can just move the problem to a new part rather than patching the actual holes. some haters are stuck on repeat and can only see their opinion and play experience as the real solution. some supporters use only Ideal conditions for their perspective. Each change has consequences that trickle out to other areas. making the "command beast" a bonus action all of a sudden creates conflict with certain spells. I don't like that conflict so I am glad I can still use regular beastmaster. some people don't and they have the option to switch. that was a improvement.
Isolated mechanics is also not good. some people want a variety of options and changes that create an "always best course" of action cause gameplay issues. A big part of roleplaying is throwing characters in various scenarios and seeing different solutions to the same problem (even combat). in order to do that you need tools with good interaction.
desire for magicless rangers is something the wizards team has denied over and over. the question is why? I believe they want a world of magic and even mundane abilities still have a thread of world magic build in to them. Mechanically, Why not play a scout rogue or a fighter with proper skills if you want to play a non-magic hero in a world of magic?
How many hours have some of us actually spent understanding game design? (rhetorical. please don't actually start spouting credentials). I am talking classes or books or even the more shady youtube design vids (not just 5e youtubers actual designers) Opinions are great but what about skill at actually fixing the problem. a degree in math and statistics does not make a good game designer(it can help but there are more pieces at play). sometimes you just cant damage the thing to death. how do you quantify the value of "ribbon" features?
I have yet to see that the second group is larger. From optimization groups on facebook and such I see a majority just want minor wording/ or function changes/cleanup.
when someone says they have a high level of dissatisfaction is that really connected to wanting a major overhaul? or is it they just want the little bits fixed.
I listed my changes to the existing features I find lackluster in another post.
Mostly change Favored foe to non-concentration and to add to that I would allow the ranger to add +prof to checks to recall information to creatures they have marked with it. Fits the theme of tracker/hunter very well.
I would change feral senses as something that you do once a day to let you ignore a special sense like tremorsense or blindsense. Fits the theme of Hunter very well.
I would change foe Slayer to every attack.
Again please don't assume people don't understand simply because they don't see value in the ability.
Your perspective is not the only correct one and assuming people don't like it "because they don't understand the game" is incredibly condescending
That can vary considerably from person to person. I think the best policy is to tune these naysayers out because (A) they probably don't know what they want, only what they don't want, and (B) their negative enjoyment does not affect my positive enjoyment whatsoever.
In the same vein, there's a video on YouTube right now asking why Ghostbusters: Afterlife only has a 62% fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes. It's still positive, it's still well-above average, but it's just not high enough for some people. And I find this arguing over critical opinion ridiculous. Similarly, I don't need a bunch of optimizers telling me the ranger (and monk) are deficient. It doesn't do what they want it to, what they think it should do, but that doesn't mean it doesn't do its intended job well. If I personally find something deficient, I'll fix it. I, we, still have a perfectly serviceable framework to build from.
This is further reinforcing the idea that our opinions are invalid because we are not game designers, which invalidates the purpose of the thread as a whole.
Also, even if they arent perfect, at least by putting forth ideas on how abilities can be improved, people are trying to fix the problems. That acts as practice towards game design and the act of discussion helps us all to better understand it through that practice. You mentioned books and youtube series and classes, but neglected to mention one of the best teachers. Practice.
Simply dismissing the changes as being too focused on isolated mechanics or on personal experience or on trying to shove a math degree into it completely squashes any chance of anyone learning anything through practice. That is what we are doing by bouncing ideas back and forth about changes, we are practicing fixing problems and gaining a better understanding of game design through hearing everyone's viewpoints.
The only WRONG way to fix or practice fixing a problem is to say "there's nothing to fix" or treat those who are dissatisfied as simply being ignorant.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
The larger is simply my impression, I feel like there are 2-5 posters from the second group for each of us in the first group in most threads like this one. You may well be right that the real naysayers are a much smaller group and most are really looking for small tweaks. I’m not trying to start new arguments (we get enough) but to establish a basis for rational discussion so I would love to hear from the “tweakers” the last couple of posts by Optimus are good examples of what I would like to see (thank you Optimus).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
One look at the title of the thread would tell you that most people responding to it probably think there is something wrong with the ranger and would disagree with your point of view. So why even respond to the thread knowing that you are only going to start arguments? Why start those arguments when you know its not acting on the prompt put forward by the thread?
Thats what this is! Homebrew! But rather than just talking to a wall about our ideas, this thread allows users to share and improve their homebrew rules by talking to others.
You are more than welcome to leave this thread alone and be happy with the Ranger as it is. But other people think there are things that need fixing. Other people have ideas on how to fix those problems. Other people want feedback on their ideas.
If you are not going to give ideas on how to improve the ranger and if you are not going to give feedback on other people's ideas (beyond arguing that there isnt a problem in the first place), then there isnt a reason for you to be responding to this thread. Save arguing the rangers strengths for the other threads. Thats not what this one is for.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
You did and I’ll have to go back and reread for details - thanks for that post.
I agree changing FF to non concentration and maybe to short rest recharge would make it better. Same for your idea on FS. We have our differences on feral senses but maybe we can work towards something we can agree on.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Most people are ignorant by circumstance. And, paradoxically, when confronted with information to shed them of their ignorance, the majority will dig in their heels. It only stands to reason people who complain loudly are ignorant of what they're complaining about. It may be an assumption, but it's an entirely reasonable one.
Change one thing and there's a ripple effect. How many people here don't like Natural Explorer? How many people here actually know how to use it with the rules for movement in the PHB? If you don't understand the rules, then you can't correct any alleged deficiency. And if you don't run them as written, then the feature won't work as intended anyway.
Since its been a while since I have put forward any ideas, I do have one additional improvement idea for the revised Beastmaster. One thing that seems odd to me is that the 7th level feature has no changes, so if you use the Primal Companion about half of the ability is now redundant. The magical damage is great, but having a bonus action command in Primal Companion feature and the Exceptional Training feature seems like a bad design.
To that end, I designed this optional version of the 7th level feature
Since your companion is already a bonus action to command, the strength of this is allowing your companion to have a free "cunning action" even if you had to use your bonus action to cast one of your Ranger spells.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
This statement doesnt add much more to the conversation than repeating "you just dont like it because you do not know any better."
If you feel issues with the ranger are all just a misunderstanding on the player end, then this thread is not for you. You do not have to die on that hill here.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
From this point on, I am done responding to comments that are not adding anything based on the purpose of the thread. Choosing to respond is also acting to pull the conversation away from its original purpose, and that is a mistake on my part.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I really like the idea of ignoring a special sense, as that would make it a fairly unique ability. Its somewhat niche, but alot of monsters at higher level have multiple senses.
I have a lvl 14 Gloomstalker ranger in my campaign right now. If monsters couldnt reliably see him using tremorsense or blindsight, he would almost never be seen by anything, lol
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I never accused you or anyone else of not understanding the rules. I posed a series of rhetorical questions to get people to start thinking. Tinkering means thinking like a designer. Thinking like a designer means recognizing that nothing exists within a vacuum. These should not be controversial statements. You think they don't add anything to the discourse. I think they are necessary reminders of fundamental truths which bear repeating.
That said, yes, I do think some of the gripes about the class are due to misconceptions. Some people are dissatisfied with the class because it doesn't do what they want. But, again, what they want the class to do and what the class is intended to do don't necessarily jive. How many tables throw out the movement rules and exploration pillar? That's worth acknowledging because it creates a bias. And ignoring that bias does us all a disservice.
First, acknowledge the deficiencies. Then design counters for those deficiencies. I don't like how the vanilla Beast Master screws over saving throws: both the riders for the beast's attacks and their own saving throws. So I fix that at my table by adding the ranger's proficiency bonus to both the rider and all saving throws; even death saving throws. And I give them additional hit dice─equal to the ranger's level─because I think their hit points are too low. I've also come up with bonus spells for both the Beast Master and Hunter that follow the same conventions as those introduced in Xanathar's. And then I went back and edited those spell lists after Tasha's updated the class' spell list.
By the same token, I also recognize that some people can still play these classes and subclasses to the best of their ability. I've seen a RAW Beast Master played at level 20 and kick ass. There may be an element of system mastery at work to consider. But I also don't think that's healthy for the longevity of the game. If people need system mastery to "keep up" with others who don't, then there is a divide.