Ranger 2024 is just a demonstration of how incompetent the people who wrote the rulebooks are. Playing the iconic bow-wielding ranger is only for those who enjoy roleplaying, which makes it pointless to spend money on work that hasn't been done. Granting spells that are practically worthless, acquiring a 20th-level ability that's practically inconsistent, and removing nice things like the ability to move through difficult terrain. If we were at a table with friends, I could understand it. Asking for money for this crap makes no sense.
Ranger 2024 is just a demonstration of how incompetent the people who wrote the rulebooks are. Playing the iconic bow-wielding ranger is only for those who enjoy roleplaying, which makes it pointless to spend money on work that hasn't been done. Granting spells that are practically worthless, acquiring a 20th-level ability that's practically inconsistent, and removing nice things like the ability to move through difficult terrain. If we were at a table with friends, I could understand it. Asking for money for this crap makes no sense.
I don't think its that far out of bounds to dislike the new ranger. I am a 14 ranger Main and will never touch 24 ranger. If i have to play 24 I will play something other than ranger but hopefully my tables would rather try something else.
It is there first post and some of the comments feel like hyperbole so it might be a troll.
However, the theory that the new design is inferior can at least be supported as an opinion. (so can the opposite). i am going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an angry post but not quite a troll one.
There is a grave misunderstanding of what a ranger is.
A ranger is not a longbow shooting PC from a distance. I mean they can do that but don't specialize in it. You won't do well.
What rangers actually are is skirmishers. Skirmishers excel in short range weapons. Their class features support this. Extra mobility. Ability to turn invisible which means enemies cannot make opportunity attacks against you.
Try weapons like dagger/dart throwing. Hand Xbows or duel weird. Shortbow with vex actually out damages longbow until you get to level 17 and get Auto advantage.
Also, the temp HP from tireless makes you one of the best scouts and trap disarmers. Cuz if you get hit by environmental hazards, you can just renew your temp HP.
You make some valid arguments here. The unfortuante problem many Ranger players face though is that many campaigns do not give a Ranger space to shine. Unfortunately exploration and survival is often ignored in campaigns because they require more work on the part of the GameMaster. I know this from experience on both ends.
That said, I did play one campaign decades ago where the GameMaster took these things into consideration and my 2nd Edition Pathfinder Kit Ranger was incredibly fun to play. Unfortunately, that kind of campaign takes work and imagination to develop.
You make some valid arguments here. The unfortuante problem many Ranger players face though is that many campaigns do not give a Ranger space to shine. Unfortunately exploration and survival is often ignored in campaigns because they require more work on the part of the GameMaster. I know this from experience on both ends.
That said, I did play one campaign decades ago where the GameMaster took these things into consideration and my 2nd Edition Pathfinder Kit Ranger was incredibly fun to play. Unfortunately, that kind of campaign takes work and imagination to develop.
I just had an epiphany, a warlock (not all subclasses) can communicate with the ranger, when it is out beyond LOS, via several mind reading type functions. A warlock can also use their familiar in combat which can also be a "companion" partner when the Ranger is out scouting.
This does not minimize the DMs workload, nor prevent the other PCs twiddling their thumbs, but it can allow a split of the party.
My personal opinion is that the Ranger works well with a well-developed sandbox type campaign. Where the GameMaster knows what is surrounding the base the players start at and can let the players explore at their discretion.
Of course there are ways for the GM to reduce his load. For example, he never gives out a "map" of the area, that way, no matter what direction the players go they are going towards something he's designed and planned.
A Ranger taking point in this type of campaign as they move overland and also ensuring that they stay well provisioned with his survival, animal handling, and nature skills can be be an enjoyable campaign.
I do think WotC is trying to set up this sort of experience somewhat with the new Heroes of the Borderland and from what I've heard they are setting up similar sandboxes in the new Forgotten Realms release next month.
Again it still comes back to the GM being able to balance this style of play with others to keep everyone engaged.
I don't think the ranger needs such a sandbox. Just as a bard doesn't need a tavern or a city to function. This is because the features of bard that are social can still function via tricks and creative dungeon delving.
Similarly a ranger can use their skills in any environment as long the dm and players are willing to think about practically and scope of features. In the right mindset and design it's not even really extra work for the dm. It doesn't even have to be all paths lead to x either.
That being said certain designs are more "stable" features/metrics than others.
The 24 features do seem to limit the idea of a ranger (as a class) in different ways than 2014. 24 ranger may be arguably be a "skirmisher". However, ranger archetypes ( narrative groups of ranger than the dnd class) want less playstyle restrictions than provided by 24 dnd.
The new 5.5e came out while my group was already mid-campaign, so we have been handling the switchover piece by piece. The ranger in my group uses a paper and pencil character sheet, and he was already comfortable with how his character worked, and didn't want to have to relearn too much stuff. So at each level we weigh the new and the old and we pick and choose what to keep and what to upgrade. The same goes for all of my players, though, because I care more about having fun playing a game than I do about religiously adhering to every rule written in a book. And I think that's the best way to go, though I do concede that it's a lot easier to do that with paper character sheets than it is with an online service that doesn't allow you to just cross something out and write in something else.
Mileage may vary, terms and conditions apply.
Oh, and I just read what Kithanias wrote - "The unfortuante problem many Ranger players face though is that many campaigns do not give a Ranger space to shine. Unfortunately exploration and survival is often ignored in campaigns because they require more work on the part of the GameMaster." That, I believe, sums it up nicely. So many of the perceived failures of the ranger class are, in fact, failures of the design of the campaign setting and play style.
The ‘24 ranger isn’t the ‘14 ranger - very true; but it’s also not a dysfunctional class. Whether your DM creates spaces for the wilderness exploration abilities or not the ranger has always been an effective class in the right hands. However, it is also easy to mistreat the ranger as one dimensional and then it can fail to satisfy. It is not just an archer, not just a two weapon fighter, not just scout or low rent Druid. Yes it no longer has those ribbon abilities of 2014 and earlier, but then most of those can be covered by reasonable interpretations of survival, nature and stealth skills. The archery or throwing fighting styles improve its ranged abilities while TWF and dual wielding improve its melee abilities. Getting spells at L1 and rounding up on spell levels improves its casting significantly at low levels or for multiclassing. Could it be improved? Sure, but if your disappointed in it it may be more about you and your play style or expectations than about the class itself.
You make some valid arguments here. The unfortuante problem many Ranger players face though is that many campaigns do not give a Ranger space to shine. Unfortunately exploration and survival is often ignored in campaigns because they require more work on the part of the GameMaster. I know this from experience on both ends.
That said, I did play one campaign decades ago where the GameMaster took these things into consideration and my 2nd Edition Pathfinder Kit Ranger was incredibly fun to play. Unfortunately, that kind of campaign takes work and imagination to develop.
While survival definitely can be ignored, Its rare I have ever played in a game where exploration completely is ignored.
Dungeons often have exploration elements. They aren't just combat rooms. There are full of things to problem solve.
Maybe there are rooms with water in which having a swim speed would certainly be helpful to reach the enemy. Maybe you're getting ambushed. And they all have higher ground on a ledge. Having a climb speed to get up there would be helpful. Perhaps you want to scout out the next room for the party. Using nature's veil and dash action will get you 150 move speed over 2 turns while invisible to do it.
Any creative player will find ways to use these abilities in almost any setting that isn't a colosseum death fight.
Because certain elements vary from group to group each class should function within the defined scope both uniquely but also on a similar scale.
There was a way to play 14 ranger within scope of the original 14 standards but it also filled some gaps no other classes could. Minor rules tweaks via errata zanathars etc actually made it easier for the class to fall out of scope by not playing to its features. But we also got realignment via Tasha's and some subclasses.
So wotc needs clear features that are independent of the pillars of play but instead treat ranger as a unique part of the game. The only fix forward for 24 would be unique feats, spells or other mechanics that have ranger prerequisite. This could reinforce the weak foundation that is the ranger playspace.
Now the problem with 24 is play scope was thrown out. Every class got new designs or toys but ranger kinda got the bare minimum. Its now out of scope and has almost no unique appeal. (It still has archetype appeal but that can also be built via rougues or fighters taking similar skills) every toy rangers got basically was universal. bastion toys weren't unique, every martial got masteries, clean up spells and feats didn't really help (and actually hurt in many ways)
Ranger 2024 is just a demonstration of how incompetent the people who wrote the rulebooks are. Playing the iconic bow-wielding ranger is only for those who enjoy roleplaying, which makes it pointless to spend money on work that hasn't been done. Granting spells that are practically worthless, acquiring a 20th-level ability that's practically inconsistent, and removing nice things like the ability to move through difficult terrain. If we were at a table with friends, I could understand it. Asking for money for this crap makes no sense.
Troll - Fail
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
There is a grave misunderstanding of what a ranger is.
A ranger is not a longbow shooting PC from a distance. I mean they can do that but don't specialize in it. You won't do well.
What rangers actually are is skirmishers. Skirmishers excel in short range weapons. Their class features support this. Extra mobility. Ability to turn invisible which means enemies cannot make opportunity attacks against you.
Try weapons like dagger/dart throwing. Hand Xbows or duel weird. Shortbow with vex actually out damages longbow until you get to level 17 and get Auto advantage.
Also, the temp HP from tireless makes you one of the best scouts and trap disarmers. Cuz if you get hit by environmental hazards, you can just renew your temp HP.
You make some valid arguments here. The unfortuante problem many Ranger players face though is that many campaigns do not give a Ranger space to shine. Unfortunately exploration and survival is often ignored in campaigns because they require more work on the part of the GameMaster. I know this from experience on both ends.
That said, I did play one campaign decades ago where the GameMaster took these things into consideration and my 2nd Edition Pathfinder Kit Ranger was incredibly fun to play. Unfortunately, that kind of campaign takes work and imagination to develop.
I just had an epiphany, a warlock (not all subclasses) can communicate with the ranger, when it is out beyond LOS, via several mind reading type functions. A warlock can also use their familiar in combat which can also be a "companion" partner when the Ranger is out scouting.
This does not minimize the DMs workload, nor prevent the other PCs twiddling their thumbs, but it can allow a split of the party.
My personal opinion is that the Ranger works well with a well-developed sandbox type campaign. Where the GameMaster knows what is surrounding the base the players start at and can let the players explore at their discretion.
Of course there are ways for the GM to reduce his load. For example, he never gives out a "map" of the area, that way, no matter what direction the players go they are going towards something he's designed and planned.
A Ranger taking point in this type of campaign as they move overland and also ensuring that they stay well provisioned with his survival, animal handling, and nature skills can be be an enjoyable campaign.
I do think WotC is trying to set up this sort of experience somewhat with the new Heroes of the Borderland and from what I've heard they are setting up similar sandboxes in the new Forgotten Realms release next month.
Again it still comes back to the GM being able to balance this style of play with others to keep everyone engaged.
I don't think the ranger needs such a sandbox. Just as a bard doesn't need a tavern or a city to function. This is because the features of bard that are social can still function via tricks and creative dungeon delving.
Similarly a ranger can use their skills in any environment as long the dm and players are willing to think about practically and scope of features. In the right mindset and design it's not even really extra work for the dm. It doesn't even have to be all paths lead to x either.
That being said certain designs are more "stable" features/metrics than others.
The 24 features do seem to limit the idea of a ranger (as a class) in different ways than 2014. 24 ranger may be arguably be a "skirmisher". However, ranger archetypes ( narrative groups of ranger than the dnd class) want less playstyle restrictions than provided by 24 dnd.
The new 5.5e came out while my group was already mid-campaign, so we have been handling the switchover piece by piece. The ranger in my group uses a paper and pencil character sheet, and he was already comfortable with how his character worked, and didn't want to have to relearn too much stuff. So at each level we weigh the new and the old and we pick and choose what to keep and what to upgrade. The same goes for all of my players, though, because I care more about having fun playing a game than I do about religiously adhering to every rule written in a book. And I think that's the best way to go, though I do concede that it's a lot easier to do that with paper character sheets than it is with an online service that doesn't allow you to just cross something out and write in something else.
Mileage may vary, terms and conditions apply.
Oh, and I just read what Kithanias wrote - "The unfortuante problem many Ranger players face though is that many campaigns do not give a Ranger space to shine. Unfortunately exploration and survival is often ignored in campaigns because they require more work on the part of the GameMaster." That, I believe, sums it up nicely. So many of the perceived failures of the ranger class are, in fact, failures of the design of the campaign setting and play style.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
The ‘24 ranger isn’t the ‘14 ranger - very true; but it’s also not a dysfunctional class. Whether your DM creates spaces for the wilderness exploration abilities or not the ranger has always been an effective class in the right hands. However, it is also easy to mistreat the ranger as one dimensional and then it can fail to satisfy. It is not just an archer, not just a two weapon fighter, not just scout or low rent Druid. Yes it no longer has those ribbon abilities of 2014 and earlier, but then most of those can be covered by reasonable interpretations of survival, nature and stealth skills. The archery or throwing fighting styles improve its ranged abilities while TWF and dual wielding improve its melee abilities. Getting spells at L1 and rounding up on spell levels improves its casting significantly at low levels or for multiclassing. Could it be improved? Sure, but if your disappointed in it it may be more about you and your play style or expectations than about the class itself.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
While survival definitely can be ignored, Its rare I have ever played in a game where exploration completely is ignored.
Dungeons often have exploration elements. They aren't just combat rooms. There are full of things to problem solve.
Maybe there are rooms with water in which having a swim speed would certainly be helpful to reach the enemy. Maybe you're getting ambushed. And they all have higher ground on a ledge. Having a climb speed to get up there would be helpful. Perhaps you want to scout out the next room for the party. Using nature's veil and dash action will get you 150 move speed over 2 turns while invisible to do it.
Any creative player will find ways to use these abilities in almost any setting that isn't a colosseum death fight.
Because certain elements vary from group to group each class should function within the defined scope both uniquely but also on a similar scale.
There was a way to play 14 ranger within scope of the original 14 standards but it also filled some gaps no other classes could. Minor rules tweaks via errata zanathars etc actually made it easier for the class to fall out of scope by not playing to its features. But we also got realignment via Tasha's and some subclasses.
So wotc needs clear features that are independent of the pillars of play but instead treat ranger as a unique part of the game. The only fix forward for 24 would be unique feats, spells or other mechanics that have ranger prerequisite. This could reinforce the weak foundation that is the ranger playspace.
Now the problem with 24 is play scope was thrown out. Every class got new designs or toys but ranger kinda got the bare minimum. Its now out of scope and has almost no unique appeal. (It still has archetype appeal but that can also be built via rougues or fighters taking similar skills) every toy rangers got basically was universal. bastion toys weren't unique, every martial got masteries, clean up spells and feats didn't really help (and actually hurt in many ways)