There's just one hiccup with your theory. After announcing the death of the Revised Ranger, Jeremy Crawford said in a(n admittedly now-deleted) Tweet:
What's funny is that the Ranger isn't even in the bottom third when it comes to class popularity. Frankly, the revised ranger helped feed an internet-fueled view of the class that doesn't align with the majority of players. I wasn't sorry to end it.
So it looks like Jeremy Crawford has conflicting data.
I wonder whether the use of the term popularity is representing the amount of players playing it, or the satisfaction though. If it isn't bottom third satisfaction wise why would they work on it? I can definitely see Ranger being very popular in terms of people picking up the game and having a preconceived idea of the Ranger, playing it, therefore it having a high popularity, but not necessarily enjoying the experience.
I love the Ranger class but started hating the features before Tasha's. The terrain and exploration abilities really shouldn't be gassed up. I understand that it "can" be useful but it's a pain more often than not.
Tasha's made Ranger great again....aside from the lvl 20 ability I'm still not a fan of. (would rather take a single dip in cleric for cantrips and other passives, plus you don't lose anything aside from Foe Slayer!)
I'm not going to defend Favored Foe Slayer as a great capstone or anything, but I will point out that it's 1d8 Favored Foe + 5 Foe Slayer does ultimately add up to around the same damage as a non-magical longbow, rapier, or one-handed longsword. It doesn't get stronger with magic items and it doesn't proc Sharpshooter/GWM, but it is basically a mini-Extra Attack that requires concentration but doesn't need a separate attack roll to hit. Still not the best capstone, but lest we forget the Fighter's capstone is literally just Extra Attack again, so while the Fighter's is better, it's not that much better.
Also, Foe Slayer has the choice to add +5 to the attack roll instead and still add 1d8 to the damage, which does make it slightly more versatile than just a mere Extra Attack.
the more powerful effect in terms of boosting damage is not adding your wisdom modifier to your damage roll but adding your wisdom modifier to your attack roll, as it means that you go from not hitting your target and not dealing damage to hitting your target and dealing damage, you go from dealing 0 points of damage with an attack to dealing 1d8 + 1d6 + 5 + (bonus from magic weapon, if any) damage, or 1d8 + 1d6 + 15 if you are using sharpshooter with that attack, a much higher increase than merely making a hit dealing 1d8 + 1d6 + 5 to dealing 1d8 + 1d6 + 10
Okay....but I'm not dismissing the Investigation skill. Or the value of it for exploration. All I'm saying is that Wizards and Artificers specifically aren't necessarily guaranteed to take it because they only get two skills and have a lot of competition for them.
You're putting words in my mouth. Please stop.
I am just asking for clarity:
what has been your experience with the clear and defined differentiation between perception and investigation? It might be you have had only experiences where DMs used perception for everything basically when that shouldn’t be the case. And that is a subconscious factor for your comment on investigation?
perception is seeing/ hearing/ smelling stuff that is hard to physically see/ hear/ smell, investigation is more about putting clues together and noticing things that are in plain view that others might overlook
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I'll continue to add to that. By and large, min-maxers tend to care about single-target dpr in a white room combat Encounter against a gray sack of HP, which is such a narrow focus to the point of being functionally useless outside of passing the time in internet discussion forums.
Also, min-maxers tend to make assumptions in favor of certain classes' situational abilities that they don't make in the case of the Ranger. For instance, assuming the Rogue will always get Sneak Attack, or that the wizard/cleric/druid will always have the right spell for the job, or that the fighter or paladin will always have Action Surge/Smite slots. They do not do this for the Ranger. If we start assuming that Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy are always on in white room scenarios the same way we assume Sneak Attack is, the Ranger suddenly becomes a much more attractive class.
But they're going to argue that it's much easier to get Sneak Attack than to get the benefits of Natural Explorer. To that, I counter that getting Sneak Attack relies heavily on the player and their party making smart choices in combat in the exact same way that Natural Explorer relies heavily on the Ranger player making smart Favored Terrain choices (mountains, forest, and grasslands are all generally solid starting Terrains, while the rest can be chosen by simply paying attention to the story.)
While I agree with your sentiments about Ranger abilities you're doing yourself no favors spewing off rhetoric about "min-maxers". It is toxic to lump people into groups you use as a scapegoat, and it's even worse to continue on by spreading uneducated opinions. People that optimize are way more varied and interesting in their approach to the game than you give them credit in this little smear post. All you're doing is continuing the ignorant, fearmongering dialogue around optimization. It would be cool if you could make your point without dumping crap on swaths of people you really know nothing about.
I'm on record in this thread as not being enamored with much of the PHB Ranger, but I also think these class comparisons are mostly really silly and not conducive to a helpful dialogue. I'm sorry Quandrico, I get where you are coming from but I think you are super off base with your multiclass, item-dependant build.
I've come around to thinking it's really other aspects of the game that does the Ranger dirty more than anything else. In particular how pervasive familiars are (this is where I empathize with your stance Quan). I watched my friend's gloomstalker ranger play second fiddle when scouting and this was an underdark campaign! It was dumb. I'm pretty sure all my apathy towards medium Ranger abilities morphed into a general malaise towards Find Familiar's broken ass.
Looks like I struck a nerve. I invite you to introspect on why my post triggered you to such a point you felt you had to put words in my mouth and plant a strawman in the ground.
I never said optimizing (or optimizers) were bad. Rather, all I did was challenge the assumptions by which optimizers form their opinions on classes and point out the double standard that happens when judging the value of a feature. I also recognized that white room scenarios --while fun to theorycraft in and handy for mathematics-- fail to accurately represent the typical combat encounter (or adventuring day) to the point of uselessness. This is not to say optimizing is bad. Rather, I'm merely inviting you to reconsider the flaws in the context of the average optimizer's mindset and think of ways to reorient yourself so that your optimization yields results that better reflect the experience at the table.
Opinions fossilized from white room combat scenarios are flawed because of the white room combat scenarios own inherent shortcomings. I'm not telling you not to optimize (I do so myself.) I'm suggesting you should consider how you're optimizing, what the flaws are in how you're optimizing, and the holes in the conclusions you draw from the flawed framework of your optimization.
It is super amusing to see you get mad at Jounichi for putting words in your mouth after this little gem.
We've never had an interaction on this forum before. And yet you seem to know me so well that you feel comfortable in your knowledge of how I approach the game and that I should be considering reorienting myself.
I invite you to introspect on why you think you know me and all these optimizers so well to be making these kinds of assumptions.
@Dravaal: you made a lot of really good points in that longer post. In particular about a large "new player" base and the steeper learning curve of the Ranger. Making the class more accessible through new options is only a net positive IMO.
Here's a thought: streamlining the mechanics of the Ranger can help the roleplaying experience. I'm one of those that much prefers expertise over Natural Explorer. I find with NE my thought process is always interrupted by a "does this work mechanically" that invariably disrupts the moment (even if just a little, it does add up in a session). Meanwhile expertise feels invisible, in a good way. I can focus on my actions from a roleplaying perspective and know that what I want to do will benefit from my class feature. No stopping to ask a question, just announce my actions and intentions and roll with the moment.
There was a really nice post about how to better manage announcing Natural Explorer and stuff. Lost it. Was a really good post so whoever posted that, kudos. Anyways, it's definitely possible to smooth out the play patterns to a large extent with the PHB ranger abilities. But the fact that it takes that effort and extra gameplay skill is something. Something not everyone has, or wants to have to manage.
The standard array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. I can see a ranger dumping charisma WAAAY before dumping intelligence, and even dumping constitution or strength if the build is a ranged one. So assuming you put the 8 in charisma, at minimum you are looking at a 10 in intelligence, and more likely a 12 or 13 before racial modifiers.
I would argue that anyone dumping Con in favor of Int is doing it wrong, even if they are ranged.
I would argue anyone who has never dumped con. Only really cares about the combat pillar.
low con makes for interesting characters.
first of all that punctuation mark probably should not have been there and really threw me off
second of all Frank's point still stands even if you do not specifically dump constiution for int, you could absolutely do an array of like str 10, dex 15, con 13, int 12, wis 14, cha 8 without too much trouble, yes you can argue that +1 to int is still not a lot and does not let you quite excell at intelegence based checks quite as well as a rouge might but you could still have decent int and that is the point.
And honestly if your race does not grant you an ASI to con and you wanna keep your 14 and 15 in dexterity and wisdom then it is entirely reasonable to have a constiution score of 10 instead of 13, not gonna make much of a difference to your available hit points until much later on (compared to having a constiution modifier of +1) and if you are gonna avoid melee combat like the plague anyways what the hell, go for it, your somewhat high hit dice will still give you an reasonable amount of hit points for emergencies where you need to stab someone with a rapier or your dual shortswords, not like con will suddenly be a complete dump stat.
as for the validity of extremely low-con characters they will lead to more interesting strategic desicions at least, and playing a physically fragile character, perhaps one who is sick and weak could probably be a lot of fun, but it is a very specific type of build for a very specific type of player who enjoys a very specific type of game play
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
@Dravaal: you made a lot of really good points in that longer post. In particular about a large "new player" base and the steeper learning curve of the Ranger. Making the class more accessible through new options is only a net positive IMO.
Here's a thought: streamlining the mechanics of the Ranger can help the roleplaying experience. I'm one of those that much prefers expertise over Natural Explorer. I find with NE my thought process is always interrupted by a "does this work mechanically" that invariably disrupts the moment (even if just a little, it does add up in a session). Meanwhile expertise feels invisible, in a good way. I can focus on my actions from a roleplaying perspective and know that what I want to do will benefit from my class feature. No stopping to ask a question, just announce my actions and intentions and roll with the moment.
There was a really nice post about how to better manage announcing Natural Explorer and stuff. Lost it. Was a really good post so whoever posted that, kudos. Anyways, it's definitely possible to smooth out the play patterns to a large extent with the PHB ranger abilities. But the fact that it takes that effort and extra gameplay skill is something. Something not everyone has, or wants to have to manage.
Cheers. I think that first impressions of a class are very important, and that for a lot of people PHB Ranger probably does seem less accessible. The benefits of Deft Explorer and Favoured Foe are much easier to see off the bat, which as you say can only be a good thing for people giving it a chance.
I think one of the key strengths of 5E is the accessibility, I started back when 3E came out, and it will always hold a special place in my heart and I love the way your characters come together and the prestige class options and different paths to take to a prestige class. But, 5E is so popular because it is so much easier to get into, to run, than 3/3.5. That accessibility that is key to 5E is probably most lacking in the Ranger, which because it sometimes requires that little bit more busy work, which can be a little jarring. Each person will be different, some people revel in the complexity, but 5E's strength is probably in the less is more philosophy.
Unlike every other base class in the game, ask 100 people what a ranger is or should be and you will get 100 answers. THAT is the core defining issue with the class in 5E. THAT is why we have all been talking in this forum and others like it since the beginning.
"Rangers should be a fighter subclass."
"Rangers are druid/fighters."
"Rangers are rogue/druids."
"Rangers are fighter/rogues."
"Rangers should cast spells."
"Rangers shouldn't cast spells."
"Rangers should be stealthy."
"Rangers should be the best at ______________."
"Rangers should be a jack-of-all trades."
"Rangers should be outdoor experts."
"Rangers should be combat skirmishers."
It goes on and on and on. The contentment and satisfactory rating with players will never be any higher than it is with just one set of rules. Please one group, piss off the other groups. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The best solution to the issue is what the came up with in the end, and that is the build-a-bear build-your-own-ranger set of optional class ability swaps. Even then it won't work completely because we all still don't agree what a ranger is at it's core.
Unlike every other base class in the game, ask 100 people what a ranger is or should be and you will get 100 answers. THAT is the core defining issue with the class in 5E. THAT is why we have all been talking in this forum and others like it since the beginning.
"Rangers should be a fighter subclass."
"Rangers are druid/fighters."
"Rangers are rogue/druids."
"Rangers are fighter/rogues."
"Rangers should cast spells."
"Rangers shouldn't cast spells."
"Rangers should be stealthy."
"Rangers should be the best at ______________."
"Rangers should be a jack-of-all trades."
"Rangers should be outdoor experts."
"Rangers should be combat skirmishers."
It goes on and on and on. The contentment and satisfactory rating with players will never be any higher than it is with just one set of rules. Please one group, piss off the other groups. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The best solution to the issue is what the came up with in the end, and that is the build-a-bear build-your-own-ranger set of optional class ability swaps. Even then it won't work completely because we all still don't agree what a ranger is at it's core.
Paladin? Armor, smite, and heal.
Rogue? Sneak attack and skills.
Wizard? Spells, books, and options through magic.
This hits the nail on the head:
and why I tell newer people/DMs who get beeer people, that Ranger is one of the hardest classes to play, because it requires a degree of knowledge of the skills/abilities/mechanics, as well as the player having personal experience enough playing to know how to best utilize them.
ranger is a hard mode class. To solo.
but, you often see it dipped into for multicoasses and such all the time. And that would NOT be the case if the class indeed sucked. It’s dipped into a lot, because of how great it is.
Unlike every other base class in the game, ask 100 people what a ranger is or should be and you will get 100 answers. THAT is the core defining issue with the class in 5E. THAT is why we have all been talking in this forum and others like it since the beginning.
"Rangers should be a fighter subclass."
"Rangers are druid/fighters."
"Rangers are rogue/druids."
"Rangers are fighter/rogues."
"Rangers should cast spells."
"Rangers shouldn't cast spells."
"Rangers should be stealthy."
"Rangers should be the best at ______________."
"Rangers should be a jack-of-all trades."
"Rangers should be outdoor experts."
"Rangers should be combat skirmishers."
It goes on and on and on. The contentment and satisfactory rating with players will never be any higher than it is with just one set of rules. Please one group, piss off the other groups. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The best solution to the issue is what the came up with in the end, and that is the build-a-bear build-your-own-ranger set of optional class ability swaps. Even then it won't work completely because we all still don't agree what a ranger is at it's core.
Paladin? Armor, smite, and heal.
Rogue? Sneak attack and skills.
Wizard? Spells, books, and options through magic.
i mean most people vaguely agree that a ranger is some kind of nature-y person who uses weapons of some variety to kill things at least on occasion, but that is about it, it really is just a loose set of semi-connected ideas more than anything, guess that is the appeal of pathfinder, getting to customize a lot of abillities to your liking and choose whatever you think fits, maybe such a direction is where we might see 6e headed, "here is a bunch of abillities you can choose from, do whatever the hell you want"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
“...guess that is the appeal of pathfinder, getting to customize a lot of abillities to your liking and choose whatever you think fits...” ...just like 4E, Tasha’s, and I’m sure 6E.
“...guess that is the appeal of pathfinder, getting to customize a lot of abillities to your liking and choose whatever you think fits...” ...just like 4E, Tasha’s, and I’m sure 6E.
Except all of that customizability is not what people really use it for. They say they like the options but they tend not to use most of those options. There are a lot of set builds and pretty much every guide goes into long extensive diatribes why various of those options are just plain bad. Some don't even bother to make room for multiple personal styles of play. Others that do are basically a confusing mess because they don't make it very clear when and where they are doing so.
“...guess that is the appeal of pathfinder, getting to customize a lot of abillities to your liking and choose whatever you think fits...” ...just like 4E, Tasha’s, and I’m sure 6E.
Except all of that customizability is not what people really use it for. They say they like the options but they tend not to use most of those options. There are a lot of set builds and pretty much every guide goes into long extensive diatribes why various of those options are just plain bad. Some don't even bother to make room for multiple personal styles of play. Others that do are basically a confusing mess because they don't make it very clear when and where they are doing so.
Use them or not, people love having the options. But I agree with you. This is a great video speaking to this very point. It's worth a watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grMYFTuarT8
“...guess that is the appeal of pathfinder, getting to customize a lot of abillities to your liking and choose whatever you think fits...” ...just like 4E, Tasha’s, and I’m sure 6E.
Except all of that customizability is not what people really use it for. They say they like the options but they tend not to use most of those options. There are a lot of set builds and pretty much every guide goes into long extensive diatribes why various of those options are just plain bad. Some don't even bother to make room for multiple personal styles of play. Others that do are basically a confusing mess because they don't make it very clear when and where they are doing so.
Use them or not, people love having the options. But I agree with you. This is a great video speaking to this very point. It's worth a watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grMYFTuarT8
Unlike every other base class in the game, ask 100 people what a ranger is or should be and you will get 100 answers. THAT is the core defining issue with the class in 5E. THAT is why we have all been talking in this forum and others like it since the beginning.
"Rangers should be a fighter subclass."
"Rangers are druid/fighters."
"Rangers are rogue/druids."
"Rangers are fighter/rogues."
"Rangers should cast spells."
"Rangers shouldn't cast spells."
"Rangers should be stealthy."
"Rangers should be the best at ______________."
"Rangers should be a jack-of-all trades."
"Rangers should be outdoor experts."
"Rangers should be combat skirmishers."
It goes on and on and on. The contentment and satisfactory rating with players will never be any higher than it is with just one set of rules. Please one group, piss off the other groups. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The best solution to the issue is what the came up with in the end, and that is the build-a-bear build-your-own-ranger set of optional class ability swaps. Even then it won't work completely because we all still don't agree what a ranger is at it's core.
Paladin? Armor, smite, and heal.
Rogue? Sneak attack and skills.
Wizard? Spells, books, and options through magic.
This hits the nail on the head:
and why I tell newer people/DMs who get beeer people, that Ranger is one of the hardest classes to play, because it requires a degree of knowledge of the skills/abilities/mechanics, as well as the player having personal experience enough playing to know how to best utilize them.
ranger is a hard mode class. To solo.
but, you often see it dipped into for multicoasses and such all the time. And that would NOT be the case if the class indeed sucked. It’s dipped into a lot, because of how great it is.
I agree often I've thought if they just labeled ranger as an advanced class people would complain a lot less.
Here's the thing though with the current ranger (and even pre-tasha's for the most part ) I can build A mostly ranger build for each of those as long as I'm willing to sacrifice something to get there. The huge potential excites many people but a lot only focus on what they Had to sacrifice.
Unlike every other base class in the game, ask 100 people what a ranger is or should be and you will get 100 answers. THAT is the core defining issue with the class in 5E. THAT is why we have all been talking in this forum and others like it since the beginning.
"Rangers should be a fighter subclass."
"Rangers are druid/fighters."
"Rangers are rogue/druids."
"Rangers are fighter/rogues."
"Rangers should cast spells."
"Rangers shouldn't cast spells."
"Rangers should be stealthy."
"Rangers should be the best at ______________."
"Rangers should be a jack-of-all trades."
"Rangers should be outdoor experts."
"Rangers should be combat skirmishers."
It goes on and on and on. The contentment and satisfactory rating with players will never be any higher than it is with just one set of rules. Please one group, piss off the other groups. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The best solution to the issue is what the came up with in the end, and that is the build-a-bear build-your-own-ranger set of optional class ability swaps. Even then it won't work completely because we all still don't agree what a ranger is at it's core.
Paladin? Armor, smite, and heal.
Rogue? Sneak attack and skills.
Wizard? Spells, books, and options through magic.
i mean most people vaguely agree that a ranger is some kind of nature-y person who uses weapons of some variety to kill things at least on occasion, but that is about it, it really is just a loose set of semi-connected ideas more than anything, guess that is the appeal of pathfinder, getting to customize a lot of abillities to your liking and choose whatever you think fits, maybe such a direction is where we might see 6e headed, "here is a bunch of abillities you can choose from, do whatever the hell you want"
This is actually not just a 5th edition problem. This is something that has been hanging over the heads of Rangers for a long time. it hasn't been since the PHB of 2nd edition when things were broken down as to how they related to the core classes, or if they were something different, that Ranger has had this issue. Even in 3rd edition most people did not necessarily understand that Ranger was originally a fighter subset. All that congealed at all was "naturey" "archery or dual wield" and potentially "animal companion" and that was it. Everything else got a ton of different answers based in some form on how they felt about those three options and which were most important to them. 5e actually tries to give them a bit more focus but gets lost in all the options. And the class in general gets more and more lost the farther things get from the subset breakdown system of presentation that was in 2nd edition.
Thuogh I will say Rangers in some ways are a kind of advanced class. There are a few really and with differing levels of advancement. Monk is another one that a lot of people have trouble understanding but they at least get Melee and punches things. Druid is a 3rd because of everything they can do. And I would have said Bard but 5e Bards are super simplified from anything that they were in previous editions.
I wonder whether the use of the term popularity is representing the amount of players playing it, or the satisfaction though. If it isn't bottom third satisfaction wise why would they work on it? I can definitely see Ranger being very popular in terms of people picking up the game and having a preconceived idea of the Ranger, playing it, therefore it having a high popularity, but not necessarily enjoying the experience.
You can read it in many ways I guess.
the more powerful effect in terms of boosting damage is not adding your wisdom modifier to your damage roll but adding your wisdom modifier to your attack roll, as it means that you go from not hitting your target and not dealing damage to hitting your target and dealing damage, you go from dealing 0 points of damage with an attack to dealing 1d8 + 1d6 + 5 + (bonus from magic weapon, if any) damage, or 1d8 + 1d6 + 15 if you are using sharpshooter with that attack, a much higher increase than merely making a hit dealing 1d8 + 1d6 + 5 to dealing 1d8 + 1d6 + 10
(see https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612195-Foe-Slayer-Damage-Calculation-Spreadsheet and https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/ranger/67150-foe-slayer-revelations for math on this topic, cannot find if anyone has compared it to the fighter's fourth extra attack (probably will not compare well still but who knows right?)
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
perception is seeing/ hearing/ smelling stuff that is hard to physically see/ hear/ smell, investigation is more about putting clues together and noticing things that are in plain view that others might overlook
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
It is super amusing to see you get mad at Jounichi for putting words in your mouth after this little gem.
We've never had an interaction on this forum before. And yet you seem to know me so well that you feel comfortable in your knowledge of how I approach the game and that I should be considering reorienting myself.
I invite you to introspect on why you think you know me and all these optimizers so well to be making these kinds of assumptions.
@Dravaal: you made a lot of really good points in that longer post. In particular about a large "new player" base and the steeper learning curve of the Ranger. Making the class more accessible through new options is only a net positive IMO.
Here's a thought: streamlining the mechanics of the Ranger can help the roleplaying experience. I'm one of those that much prefers expertise over Natural Explorer. I find with NE my thought process is always interrupted by a "does this work mechanically" that invariably disrupts the moment (even if just a little, it does add up in a session). Meanwhile expertise feels invisible, in a good way. I can focus on my actions from a roleplaying perspective and know that what I want to do will benefit from my class feature. No stopping to ask a question, just announce my actions and intentions and roll with the moment.
There was a really nice post about how to better manage announcing Natural Explorer and stuff. Lost it. Was a really good post so whoever posted that, kudos. Anyways, it's definitely possible to smooth out the play patterns to a large extent with the PHB ranger abilities. But the fact that it takes that effort and extra gameplay skill is something. Something not everyone has, or wants to have to manage.
first of all that punctuation mark probably should not have been there and really threw me off
second of all Frank's point still stands even if you do not specifically dump constiution for int, you could absolutely do an array of like str 10, dex 15, con 13, int 12, wis 14, cha 8 without too much trouble, yes you can argue that +1 to int is still not a lot and does not let you quite excell at intelegence based checks quite as well as a rouge might but you could still have decent int and that is the point.
And honestly if your race does not grant you an ASI to con and you wanna keep your 14 and 15 in dexterity and wisdom then it is entirely reasonable to have a constiution score of 10 instead of 13, not gonna make much of a difference to your available hit points until much later on (compared to having a constiution modifier of +1) and if you are gonna avoid melee combat like the plague anyways what the hell, go for it, your somewhat high hit dice will still give you an reasonable amount of hit points for emergencies where you need to stab someone with a rapier or your dual shortswords, not like con will suddenly be a complete dump stat.
as for the validity of extremely low-con characters they will lead to more interesting strategic desicions at least, and playing a physically fragile character, perhaps one who is sick and weak could probably be a lot of fun, but it is a very specific type of build for a very specific type of player who enjoys a very specific type of game play
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Cheers. I think that first impressions of a class are very important, and that for a lot of people PHB Ranger probably does seem less accessible. The benefits of Deft Explorer and Favoured Foe are much easier to see off the bat, which as you say can only be a good thing for people giving it a chance.
I think one of the key strengths of 5E is the accessibility, I started back when 3E came out, and it will always hold a special place in my heart and I love the way your characters come together and the prestige class options and different paths to take to a prestige class. But, 5E is so popular because it is so much easier to get into, to run, than 3/3.5. That accessibility that is key to 5E is probably most lacking in the Ranger, which because it sometimes requires that little bit more busy work, which can be a little jarring. Each person will be different, some people revel in the complexity, but 5E's strength is probably in the less is more philosophy.
JC talking about the UA release that eventually became Tasha's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_pFVwBwgSA
Don't forget the first UA they released!
It too made the Ranger abilities more accessible.
Overall it's a good move to add the options.
you gotta be more specific here, do you mean the straight up weird first UA ranger variant that used double hit dice or the revised ranger?
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Unlike every other base class in the game, ask 100 people what a ranger is or should be and you will get 100 answers. THAT is the core defining issue with the class in 5E. THAT is why we have all been talking in this forum and others like it since the beginning.
"Rangers should be a fighter subclass."
"Rangers are druid/fighters."
"Rangers are rogue/druids."
"Rangers are fighter/rogues."
"Rangers should cast spells."
"Rangers shouldn't cast spells."
"Rangers should be stealthy."
"Rangers should be the best at ______________."
"Rangers should be a jack-of-all trades."
"Rangers should be outdoor experts."
"Rangers should be combat skirmishers."
It goes on and on and on. The contentment and satisfactory rating with players will never be any higher than it is with just one set of rules. Please one group, piss off the other groups. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The best solution to the issue is what the came up with in the end, and that is the
build-a-bearbuild-your-own-ranger set of optional class ability swaps. Even then it won't work completely because we all still don't agree what a ranger is at it's core.Paladin? Armor, smite, and heal.
Rogue? Sneak attack and skills.
Wizard? Spells, books, and options through magic.
This hits the nail on the head:
and why I tell newer people/DMs who get beeer people, that Ranger is one of the hardest classes to play, because it requires a degree of knowledge of the skills/abilities/mechanics, as well as the player having personal experience enough playing to know how to best utilize them.
ranger is a hard mode class. To solo.
but, you often see it dipped into for multicoasses and such all the time. And that would NOT be the case if the class indeed sucked. It’s dipped into a lot, because of how great it is.
Watch me on twitch
Good Point!
Revised Ranger
i mean most people vaguely agree that a ranger is some kind of nature-y person who uses weapons of some variety to kill things at least on occasion, but that is about it, it really is just a loose set of semi-connected ideas more than anything, guess that is the appeal of pathfinder, getting to customize a lot of abillities to your liking and choose whatever you think fits, maybe such a direction is where we might see 6e headed, "here is a bunch of abillities you can choose from, do whatever the hell you want"
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
“...guess that is the appeal of pathfinder, getting to customize a lot of abillities to your liking and choose whatever you think fits...” ...just like 4E, Tasha’s, and I’m sure 6E.
Except all of that customizability is not what people really use it for. They say they like the options but they tend not to use most of those options. There are a lot of set builds and pretty much every guide goes into long extensive diatribes why various of those options are just plain bad. Some don't even bother to make room for multiple personal styles of play. Others that do are basically a confusing mess because they don't make it very clear when and where they are doing so.
Use them or not, people love having the options. But I agree with you. This is a great video speaking to this very point. It's worth a watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grMYFTuarT8
As does this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fyninGp92g
I agree often I've thought if they just labeled ranger as an advanced class people would complain a lot less.
Here's the thing though with the current ranger (and even pre-tasha's for the most part ) I can build A mostly ranger build for each of those as long as I'm willing to sacrifice something to get there. The huge potential excites many people but a lot only focus on what they Had to sacrifice.
This is actually not just a 5th edition problem. This is something that has been hanging over the heads of Rangers for a long time. it hasn't been since the PHB of 2nd edition when things were broken down as to how they related to the core classes, or if they were something different, that Ranger has had this issue. Even in 3rd edition most people did not necessarily understand that Ranger was originally a fighter subset. All that congealed at all was "naturey" "archery or dual wield" and potentially "animal companion" and that was it. Everything else got a ton of different answers based in some form on how they felt about those three options and which were most important to them. 5e actually tries to give them a bit more focus but gets lost in all the options. And the class in general gets more and more lost the farther things get from the subset breakdown system of presentation that was in 2nd edition.
Thuogh I will say Rangers in some ways are a kind of advanced class. There are a few really and with differing levels of advancement. Monk is another one that a lot of people have trouble understanding but they at least get Melee and punches things. Druid is a 3rd because of everything they can do. And I would have said Bard but 5e Bards are super simplified from anything that they were in previous editions.
To help determine use of the new Tasha's Ranger options I added this poll.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/ranger/106363-poll-are-you-using-the-new-tashas-ranger-options