Because rangers are aimed at the exploration/travel/survival leg of the game they present many problems to players old and new. The exploration leg has the fewest rules, the least guidance and therefore the most ways to go cockeyed. The PHB ranger was designed to make max use of the possibilities but it calls for real skill and experience with the leg whether in game, via fiction or in real life by both the player and the DM. The Tasha’s ranger is less focused on the outdoor aspects of the class and more focused on combat which makes it easier and more enjoyable for players to run in a game that mostly skips past the travel/exploration/survival activities and focuses on the social and combat legs. I like and play both but would love to see some official guidance on how to run and play exploration campaigns so that it was as well supported as the other 2 legs. Maybe then others would see why folks like FRGG and myself don’t feel the PHB ranger is bad.
This is the general narrative that surrounds the Ranger in 5th Edition, yes. And that's why Tasha's is improving the perception of the Ranger class by being more intuitive and easier to pick up.
That is not to say the PHB Ranger is weak. But it takes an extremely skilled, advanced, and invested player to make the most out of its features. And 5E by design is meant to attract newbies and casual gamers who don't have the time or experience to do this, and frankly shouldn't be expected to. Which, again, says nothing about the strength of the features themselves and only discusses how accessible they are.
I also want to point out two more things:
1. Overland travel is part of exploration, but it is not the entirety of exploration. Crossing the Lost Woods to get from Goodlandia to Eviltown is exploration, but so is stopping along the way to investigate the ancient ruins of advancedutopia. The former is, additionally, overland travel. The latter is not.
2. Which dovetails neatly into point two: there's actually a lot of guidance for both exploration and overland trav in 5e, but it's scattered across myriad books, is extremely unintuitive and, most importantly, a majority of groups skip it altogether because they're focused on advancement of the plot.
It is a deep dive to use appropriately for both player and DM. That is part of the appeal for me. The ranger isn’t for everyone. In the same way a fighter or wizard isn’t for everyone. People try to make the ranger do what it isn’t meant to do and then blame the class.
I think that's why I do think it's bad.... Because the design doesn't match the design of the game at a base level.
If you can't get much out of it because your not a "extremely skilled, advanced, and invested player" then IMO it's heading towards Ivory Tower game design which they intentionally went in the opposite direction of with 5e.
Because people don't want to engage in that aspect of the game, the lack of content for that aspect, or the DMs misunderstanding of the concepts to make it work it ultimately doesn't matter ... The end result is that it needed to be more accessible to more people and that is exactly what Tashas did. It's really for the better
It’s sort of bass ackward - the Tasha version is what should have been in the PHB and the original should have been in Tasha’s as an intensified version.
It’s sort of bass ackward - the Tasha version is what should have been in the PHB and the original should have been in Tasha’s as an intensified version.
Good point....I would have loved that approach with an exploration intensive adventure module with new interesting environmental challenges.
I am holding out that they will do that now that Witchlight came out which is very much a social encounter focused adventure.
I think that's why I do think it's bad.... Because the design doesn't match the design of the game at a base level.
If you can't get much out of it because your not a "extremely skilled, advanced, and invested player" then IMO it's heading towards Ivory Tower game design which they intentionally went in the opposite direction of with 5e.
Because people don't want to engage in that aspect of the game, the lack of content for that aspect, or the DMs misunderstanding of the concepts to make it work it ultimately doesn't matter ... The end result is that it needed to be more accessible to more people and that is exactly what Tashas did. It's really for the better
Should all fantasy books be written for only a adult audience? should dnd only make books that cater to a young adult crowd? by limiting the experience to exactly one style you have a very flat self reinforcing system. That makes it hard to introduce new and interesting content. By diversifying the classes in the phb they resisted power creep alot more by encouraging other class play instead of just making more powerful or interesting subclasses that eventually invalidate the old ones. Is the PHB ranger more complex? yes. that means it gave people something to do when the desire for more complex and interesting narratives and worlds develop. wizards has said one is not intended to replace the other. They just appeal to different groups. The problem is when one group constantly is negging and complaining instead of trying to understand the value and purpose. There is a huge difference in "that is not for me" vs "That is bad"
I think that's why I do think it's bad.... Because the design doesn't match the design of the game at a base level.
If you can't get much out of it because your not a "extremely skilled, advanced, and invested player" then IMO it's heading towards Ivory Tower game design which they intentionally went in the opposite direction of with 5e.
Because people don't want to engage in that aspect of the game, the lack of content for that aspect, or the DMs misunderstanding of the concepts to make it work it ultimately doesn't matter ... The end result is that it needed to be more accessible to more people and that is exactly what Tashas did. It's really for the better
Should all fantasy books be written for only a adult audience? should dnd only make books that cater to a young adult crowd? by limiting the experience to exactly one style you have a very flat self reinforcing system. That makes it hard to introduce new and interesting content. By diversifying the classes in the phb they resisted power creep alot more by encouraging other class play instead of just making more powerful or interesting subclasses that eventually invalidate the old ones. Is the PHB ranger more complex? yes. that means it gave people something to do when the desire for more complex and interesting narratives and worlds develop. wizards has said one is not intended to replace the other. They just appeal to different groups. The problem is when one group constantly is negging and complaining instead of trying to understand the value and purpose. There is a huge difference in "that is not for me" vs "That is bad"
My base assumption is the class should be designed in a way that allows you to play it with the base system in mind.
I think the ranger features did not meet this metric. They were not intuitive and required a larger ask from both the player and the DM than other classes to feel the value from the features.
I can think of no other class feature that requires as much time/preparation from a DM perspective to not feel useless IMO. It goes against the design intent of 5e IMO as it does not encourage plug and play in any setting/genre/game style like the other class features do.
Is it a good option for niche campaigns? Yes very much so. Which is why I think it would have been better if the PHB ranger had been Tasha's and the more "advanced" ranger (which IMO is kind of a silly overstatement as I do not think the features are that myself but I will not argue that point) would have been better served with a particular kind of adventure in mind.
Much like a 90% RP game with less than 10% combat would likely be a poor fit for a fighter I think the majority of campaigns are a poor fit for the PHB ranger.
I'm just happy we've moved on to discussing which version of the Ranger we prefer, as opposed to whether the Ranger is good at all.
Me too!
It's a VERY nice place to be in with all of you folks!
It is a nice place. Right now I’m playing a Tasha ranger as much of the travel/exploration is being handled ”off screen”. In my previous campaign I had a PHB ranger as we were having to locate and find our destination in a large wilderness area before begging to explore the location itself. Different campaigns, different needs and different types of characters to suit the adventures.
Tasha’s improvements are nice and yes I use them but I think I would go back to basic ranger with the changes I suggested. I think they would make the basic ranger a clearly superior naturist to things like the scouting rogue which is really what they should be. On a par in nature with the Druid, better as a fighter than a Druid and able to hold their own in a fight against anything not the DND equivalent of an A1 Abrams. The ranger is a loner that helps a party, at home in any wilderness really good in a few, able to fight and win against most beasts and barbarians (humanoids).
I agree. Right now the best way to build a Ranger (other than spell-casting) is to build a Scout/Rogue Barbarian multiclass.
IMHO every class should have a niche that they fill better than anyone. The Ranger's travel-related abilities have been adopted or surpassed by others. They don't get a pile of combat advantages so what's left? Rangering should be left to Rangers.
Tasha’s improvements are nice and yes I use them but I think I would go back to basic ranger with the changes I suggested. I think they would make the basic ranger a clearly superior naturist to things like the scouting rogue which is really what they should be. On a par in nature with the Druid, better as a fighter than a Druid and able to hold their own in a fight against anything not the DND equivalent of an A1 Abrams. The ranger is a loner that helps a party, at home in any wilderness really good in a few, able to fight and win against most beasts and barbarians (humanoids).
I agree. Right now the best way to build a Ranger (other than spell-casting) is to build a Scout/Rogue Barbarian multiclass.
IMHO every class should have a niche that they fill better than anyone. The Ranger's travel-related abilities have been adopted or surpassed by others. They don't get a pile of combat advantages so what's left? Rangering should be left to Rangers.
Yeah to be honest I'm more upset they give these features to other classes than anything.
Like rogue getting to pick expertise in anything is kinda cool I get it but ultimately I think they should have had a restricted list and their subclass unlocks more options for them.
Also ranger should be the only ones to get certain spells like good berry, pass without trace.... Druids getting them and then being able to use them more than ranger due to spell slots and being prepared casters just makes what the ranger can do a bit redundant and honestly makes much more sense for the druid to take the spell and use it then the ranger who knows so few spells.
Tasha’s improvements are nice and yes I use them but I think I would go back to basic ranger with the changes I suggested. I think they would make the basic ranger a clearly superior naturist to things like the scouting rogue which is really what they should be. On a par in nature with the Druid, better as a fighter than a Druid and able to hold their own in a fight against anything not the DND equivalent of an A1 Abrams. The ranger is a loner that helps a party, at home in any wilderness really good in a few, able to fight and win against most beasts and barbarians (humanoids).
I agree. Right now the best way to build a Ranger (other than spell-casting) is to build a Scout/Rogue Barbarian multiclass.
IMHO every class should have a niche that they fill better than anyone. The Ranger's travel-related abilities have been adopted or surpassed by others. They don't get a pile of combat advantages so what's left? Rangering should be left to Rangers.
I think you underestimate the ranger’s abilities. Both travel-related and combat wise. It takes 2 or more classes to do what the ranger can do on their worst day in the wild. Rangers are very strong in combat. And barbarians? How does that even enter the conversation?
Tasha’s improvements are nice and yes I use them but I think I would go back to basic ranger with the changes I suggested. I think they would make the basic ranger a clearly superior naturist to things like the scouting rogue which is really what they should be. On a par in nature with the Druid, better as a fighter than a Druid and able to hold their own in a fight against anything not the DND equivalent of an A1 Abrams. The ranger is a loner that helps a party, at home in any wilderness really good in a few, able to fight and win against most beasts and barbarians (humanoids).
I agree. Right now the best way to build a Ranger (other than spell-casting) is to build a Scout/Rogue Barbarian multiclass.
IMHO every class should have a niche that they fill better than anyone. The Ranger's travel-related abilities have been adopted or surpassed by others. They don't get a pile of combat advantages so what's left? Rangering should be left to Rangers.
A Scout/Barbarian multiclass is in no way, shape, or form a better Ranger than the Ranger. What even is this take?
Tasha’s improvements are nice and yes I use them but I think I would go back to basic ranger with the changes I suggested. I think they would make the basic ranger a clearly superior naturist to things like the scouting rogue which is really what they should be. On a par in nature with the Druid, better as a fighter than a Druid and able to hold their own in a fight against anything not the DND equivalent of an A1 Abrams. The ranger is a loner that helps a party, at home in any wilderness really good in a few, able to fight and win against most beasts and barbarians (humanoids).
I agree. Right now the best way to build a Ranger (other than spell-casting) is to build a Scout/Rogue Barbarian multiclass.
IMHO every class should have a niche that they fill better than anyone. The Ranger's travel-related abilities have been adopted or surpassed by others. They don't get a pile of combat advantages so what's left? Rangering should be left to Rangers.
But that is really the point DR- the ranger IS a spell caster in addition to being a fighter and naturalist in one character you have a fighter, a Druid and a rogue let’s see the scout barbarian do that without giving up more than they get. My general rule is simple: “ no MC build to mimic a full class is going to be better than the full class at everything that class can do.” You can maybe be better at one aspect but not all.
Because rangers are aimed at the exploration/travel/survival leg of the game they present many problems to players old and new. The exploration leg has the fewest rules, the least guidance and therefore the most ways to go cockeyed. The PHB ranger was designed to make max use of the possibilities but it calls for real skill and experience with the leg whether in game, via fiction or in real life by both the player and the DM. The Tasha’s ranger is less focused on the outdoor aspects of the class and more focused on combat which makes it easier and more enjoyable for players to run in a game that mostly skips past the travel/exploration/survival activities and focuses on the social and combat legs. I like and play both but would love to see some official guidance on how to run and play exploration campaigns so that it was as well supported as the other 2 legs. Maybe then others would see why folks like FRGG and myself don’t feel the PHB ranger is bad.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
This is the general narrative that surrounds the Ranger in 5th Edition, yes. And that's why Tasha's is improving the perception of the Ranger class by being more intuitive and easier to pick up.
That is not to say the PHB Ranger is weak. But it takes an extremely skilled, advanced, and invested player to make the most out of its features. And 5E by design is meant to attract newbies and casual gamers who don't have the time or experience to do this, and frankly shouldn't be expected to. Which, again, says nothing about the strength of the features themselves and only discusses how accessible they are.
I also want to point out two more things:
1. Overland travel is part of exploration, but it is not the entirety of exploration. Crossing the Lost Woods to get from Goodlandia to Eviltown is exploration, but so is stopping along the way to investigate the ancient ruins of advancedutopia. The former is, additionally, overland travel. The latter is not.
2. Which dovetails neatly into point two: there's actually a lot of guidance for both exploration and overland trav in 5e, but it's scattered across myriad books, is extremely unintuitive and, most importantly, a majority of groups skip it altogether because they're focused on advancement of the plot.
It is a deep dive to use appropriately for both player and DM. That is part of the appeal for me. The ranger isn’t for everyone. In the same way a fighter or wizard isn’t for everyone. People try to make the ranger do what it isn’t meant to do and then blame the class.
I think that's why I do think it's bad.... Because the design doesn't match the design of the game at a base level.
If you can't get much out of it because your not a "extremely skilled, advanced, and invested player" then IMO it's heading towards Ivory Tower game design which they intentionally went in the opposite direction of with 5e.
Because people don't want to engage in that aspect of the game, the lack of content for that aspect, or the DMs misunderstanding of the concepts to make it work it ultimately doesn't matter ... The end result is that it needed to be more accessible to more people and that is exactly what Tashas did. It's really for the better
It’s sort of bass ackward - the Tasha version is what should have been in the PHB and the original should have been in Tasha’s as an intensified version.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Good point....I would have loved that approach with an exploration intensive adventure module with new interesting environmental challenges.
I am holding out that they will do that now that Witchlight came out which is very much a social encounter focused adventure.
Should all fantasy books be written for only a adult audience? should dnd only make books that cater to a young adult crowd? by limiting the experience to exactly one style you have a very flat self reinforcing system. That makes it hard to introduce new and interesting content. By diversifying the classes in the phb they resisted power creep alot more by encouraging other class play instead of just making more powerful or interesting subclasses that eventually invalidate the old ones. Is the PHB ranger more complex? yes. that means it gave people something to do when the desire for more complex and interesting narratives and worlds develop. wizards has said one is not intended to replace the other. They just appeal to different groups. The problem is when one group constantly is negging and complaining instead of trying to understand the value and purpose. There is a huge difference in "that is not for me" vs "That is bad"
My base assumption is the class should be designed in a way that allows you to play it with the base system in mind.
I think the ranger features did not meet this metric. They were not intuitive and required a larger ask from both the player and the DM than other classes to feel the value from the features.
I can think of no other class feature that requires as much time/preparation from a DM perspective to not feel useless IMO. It goes against the design intent of 5e IMO as it does not encourage plug and play in any setting/genre/game style like the other class features do.
Is it a good option for niche campaigns? Yes very much so. Which is why I think it would have been better if the PHB ranger had been Tasha's and the more "advanced" ranger (which IMO is kind of a silly overstatement as I do not think the features are that myself but I will not argue that point) would have been better served with a particular kind of adventure in mind.
Much like a 90% RP game with less than 10% combat would likely be a poor fit for a fighter I think the majority of campaigns are a poor fit for the PHB ranger.
I'm just happy we've moved on to discussing which version of the Ranger we prefer, as opposed to whether the Ranger is good at all.
Me too!
It's a VERY nice place to be in with all of you folks!
It is a nice place. Right now I’m playing a Tasha ranger as much of the travel/exploration is being handled ”off screen”. In my previous campaign I had a PHB ranger as we were having to locate and find our destination in a large wilderness area before begging to explore the location itself. Different campaigns, different needs and different types of characters to suit the adventures.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I agree. Right now the best way to build a Ranger (other than spell-casting) is to build a Scout/Rogue Barbarian multiclass.
IMHO every class should have a niche that they fill better than anyone. The Ranger's travel-related abilities have been adopted or surpassed by others. They don't get a pile of combat advantages so what's left? Rangering should be left to Rangers.
Yeah to be honest I'm more upset they give these features to other classes than anything.
Like rogue getting to pick expertise in anything is kinda cool I get it but ultimately I think they should have had a restricted list and their subclass unlocks more options for them.
Also ranger should be the only ones to get certain spells like good berry, pass without trace.... Druids getting them and then being able to use them more than ranger due to spell slots and being prepared casters just makes what the ranger can do a bit redundant and honestly makes much more sense for the druid to take the spell and use it then the ranger who knows so few spells.
I think you underestimate the ranger’s abilities. Both travel-related and combat wise. It takes 2 or more classes to do what the ranger can do on their worst day in the wild. Rangers are very strong in combat. And barbarians? How does that even enter the conversation?
A Scout/Barbarian multiclass is in no way, shape, or form a better Ranger than the Ranger. What even is this take?
But that is really the point DR- the ranger IS a spell caster in addition to being a fighter and naturalist in one character you have a fighter, a Druid and a rogue let’s see the scout barbarian do that without giving up more than they get. My general rule is simple: “ no MC build to mimic a full class is going to be better than the full class at everything that class can do.” You can maybe be better at one aspect but not all.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
And here we go again 😳🤪😁
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Pretty much.
No one bite
At this point its been discussed to death and we will need to see what they come up with for the class in 2024.