Why should only rogues be able to detect traps? Because they're the only ones with that advanced level of training. It's a class thing. Wizards dont spend their time learning to arm and disarm traps. Rogues do. It's their specialty. Rogues see the little things others dont. Take this example.. throw out the pit traps.. that's too easy.
Your party walks up on a chest, now sure, anyone can just look at it.. but it's the highly trained rogue who's going to catch the little things that clue him into the trap because he knows what he's looking for. Not all traps are obvious. And realistically, if you take a party into a dungeon unprepared to check for traps, especially advanced mechanical traps, well then sorry, you deserve what you get. It's not up to the Dm to hand everything to everyone.
As a Dm, I strongly feel that it's up to the party to prepare themselves for what they must face. If they don't take a rogue, and they set off every trap, that's their fault. Not mine. As a house rule, I just refuse to water down my classes to allow them to be able to do things that other classes have specialized training in.
In past games I've run, when a party was walking into a situation where traps were likely, if they didn't have a rogue, they simply hired one, or they ate the traps.
But to keep this on topic, I stand by my opinion. I don't think ANY class should have access to the specialties of other classes, unless of course they are multiclassed. If you're going to do that (allow everyone to have trap detection ability) , you may as well just do away with classes all together, and just let everyone do everything. It just makes no sense to me. Just because I know first aid doesn't mean I can conduct advanced surgery. To each their own though.. that's the beauty of the game.
Or you open the chest from 30ft away with mage hand?
Or you have an unseen servant do it from 60ft?
Forcing a rogue to be in every party just to overcome something as simple as traps is exactly what they didn't want to do with this edition....imagine only clerics being able to heal people....we would be back in the Heal Bot days.
Rogues already have an advantage in that department.
They get thieves tool proficiency for free, and get expertise at level 1 with an option to take thieves tool for one of their options. Then two more expertise options at level 6. And at level 11 if you do tier 3/4 play, they get reliable talent. If you have a high dex rogue with thieves tool expertise and reliable talent all but the highest of lock DCs become trivial.
Having something like 'finding traps' being something only one class can do doesn't work in 5E. There are too many classes and party size is usually like 4-5.
It was perhaps another story back in the day when classes were more limited. When it was basically fighter/spellcaster/thief/cleric to my understanding. But in 5E, it's important to have other options for dealing with traps.
If nobody in the party feels like playing a rogue specifically there should be other options. And there are. Artificers with their emphasis on tools also get thieves too proficiency. And other classes can take backgrounds that give thieves tool proficiency etc. Allowing for other classes to be the ones finding and disarming traps but without forcing the party to bring one specific class. While also still making sure rogues, with their free TT proficiency and expertise options, can choose to excel in it from level 1.
SImilarly, if someone wants to play a 'healer' they have options other than cleric. If they want to play an archer, they can go ranger, fighter, rogue etc. I think it's a good thing that different niches can be tackled by different classes and styles. A party should prepare before going into a dungeon sure, but something as ubiquitous as traps should have only one solution of 'bring a rogue or else.'
Again, this is wildly off-topic for the thread, but in a game with thirteen classes and typical group size of 3-5, requiring any specific class for such basic gameplay activities as checking for traps is prima facie terrible game design.
Again, this is wildly off-topic for the thread, but in a game with thirteen classes and typical group size of 3-5, requiring any specific class for such basic gameplay activities as checking for traps is prima facie terrible game design.
Ayup. Party of three, like in one of my last groups? Better have one rogue for traps, one cleric or druid for healing and one wizard, sorcerer or bard for identification purposes and general arcane chicanery, I guess. No room for a dedicated tank (I'd say cue the cleric, but tank and healer being the same character is ridiculous) and the rogue will need to be built to handle survival challenges as well. Sounds like a swell proposition. Maybe I'll just have the players draw their character type from a hat, that way I can cut down on the arguments about who "gets" to play what.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Trying to shoehorn in some class or subclass into a game because the player thinks it is "cool" without looking at the bigger picture is stupid
The bigger picture of... having fun?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
More isn't always better, but it's also not inherently worse.
Rangers were buffed with Tashas, making them a lot more appealing IMO.
The points about artificers and rangers needing to fit the campaign, well that goes for anything really. That's just the sort of session 0 conversation the DM and players ought to be having regardless of what classes or setting or ruleset people have in mind.
I feel like every couple of weeks someone comes in to lament how misguided D&D has been in the past several years and how we all need to get back to the "good old days", and the solution to that is always just "Give people less options".
Trying to shoehorn in some class or subclass into a game because the player thinks it is "cool" without looking at the bigger picture is stupid
The bigger picture of... having fun?
And if the char does not fit in the setting, how is that "fun". Who, exactly is having "fun" when a char does not work in a setting?
Hello Arthur_Pewtey,
What setting can a ranger not work in? Can you give specific reasons on why they would not fit in this setting as well?
A Ranger in an urban setting hardly ever works, for starters. The char is nerfed right from the start. Can it be played? Sure. Is it much fun watching a ton of features not ever have an opportunity to be used? Nope.
There are a ton of subclasses that simply don't work in particular settings. Assassins hardly work in any setting. Artificers wreck low magic games. Druids in a city, same as a Ranger. Lawful good chars in murder hobo settings. Necromancers with an army of the dead wandering through city streets. The list goes on.
Those that think that all of the 132 subsclasses fit in any setting simply don't understand the game.
But that strays from the original intent of the thread. The Ranger class' handling of magic is weak, in an already weak class. One method would be to nerf other classes magic handling. We know that WOTC will never ever do that. Because it is not "cool", nor "fun", no matter how much it would improve overall game design. We have already seen in Tasha's precisely the opposite approach where spell handling is getting easier, not harder, for ALL classes.
I have stated before that if WOTC made a public statement that it was not introducing any more classes, subclasses, species, feats, spells, magic items etc, for a couple years, while it completely re-balanced each and every one of those areas, I would love it. But once again, that will never happen. That depresses sales, not increase them.
I disagree with your analysis. I played a horizon walker ranger for a 1-10 campaign. He was a criminal investigator. Every class feature was utilized to good effect during this campaign.
Favored enemy: humanoids, right down the board.
Primeval awareness: great for tracking my quarry in a large, dense city when they were not humanoids, which did happen from time to time. How often does some conspiracy turn out to have some fiendish mastermind? It’s not super uncommon from the adventure materials I have seen.
Land stride: skinned for a city setting. Instead of dense forest, there was dense crowds. In place of steep hills, there was demo’d buildings and stairs.
Hide in plain sight: Have you ever seen street performers that have made themselves look like automatons? How about the elven cloaks in LotR? Same thing, really.
This was all before I even got Tasha’s features, which were all fun, but not really necessary because my ranger was a very competent member of the party. I feel that horizon walker subclass features also were well-suited for my campaign.
My ranger was mechanically consistent, just flavored and skinned to fit the setting where appropriate. Your suggestion that people who think subclasses can work in any setting simply do not understand the game is hurtful. I could just as easily dismiss your views as a critical lack of imagination. That is not a very helpful statement though.
As for the topic of the thread, I did not feel that my spellcasting was weak. Limited, sure, but not weak exactly. I made careful choices based on how the game was progressing and most things were incredibly useful for me.
There are a ton of subclasses that simply don't work in particular settings. Assassins hardly work in any setting. Artificers wreck low magic games. Druids in a city, same as a Ranger. Lawful good chars in murder hobo settings. Necromancers with an army of the dead wandering through city streets. The list goes on.
You forgot Gatekeepers on your list
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Does an artificer really mess with a low magic setting any more than a wizard does?
There's also two things being conflated a bit I think. 'This thing does not work in my setting' like an artificer in a low magic setting, or the classic arguement of firearms etc in a setting where the DM doesnt' want firearms, are a matter of certain options not making sense in the setting.
The other thing is things not being particularly suited to a given campaign. A ranger in a city or an assassin in a dungeon delving campaign might not best suited to the adventure at hand by default, but they aren't causing tonal problems with the setting. But even then, that doesn't mean creative ways can't be found to use them out of their typical element either.
Like Erriku I’ve played a ranger in urban settings and found it to be a powerful character. Would it have helped to be able to prep spells each day? Of course, was it essential for play? No. Ranger is a martial oriented multiclass as a class. It draws from the combat leg, the exploration leg and the magic leg of the game with a touch of stealth tossed in. It’s spell power is limited, not because the class list is limited (especially after Xanther’s and Tasha’s) but because the individual ranger’s known list is severely limited. Having a way to make adjustments to the list more frequently than on leveling up (especially at medium to high levels) helps the ranger’s versatility. Whether that is full daily prepping or changing out 1 spell on a long rest or some other metric I am less concerned with than simply having a method. For now it will have to be a homebrew solution but I can hope for a change in 5.5/6 coming up in a couple of years. What would also help is actually knowing more spells. As some one pointed out back on page 2? Rangers get L/2(rounded up)+1 known spells, changing this to +wisdom bonus spells instead of +1spell would be a big help - especially with the expanded spell lists now available. Going back and adding a subclass spells known list like Xanthar’s and Tasha’s. Subclasses have would also help bring older subclasses up to par with newer ones.
Although a handbook ranger can’t use some of their base class abilities as well in an urban setting, like natural explorer, other abilities and spells at their disposal are more effective in the tightly packed and densely populated cityscape of an urban environment. Fog cloud, pass without trace, hunter’s mark, hail of thorns, speak with animals, spike growth, and conjure animals are all spells that do great or even better in an urban setting then out in the open. Favored enemy works just as well. Primeval awareness is a great ability in a city to keep quick tabs on “the norm”. Tasha’s options are even more agnostic. Making rangers more skirmishes than outdoor folks.
So this learned spells versus prepared spells original issue. Do arcane tricksters, eldritch knights, sorcerers, and warlocks not have the same issue as rangers? Or, because they aren’t being compared to paladins it’s “ok”?
So this learned spells versus prepared spells original issue. Do arcane tricksters, eldritch knights, sorcerers, and warlocks not have the same issue as rangers? Or, because they aren’t being compared to paladins it’s “ok”?
A ranger knows a number of spells as if (using the paladin as a comparison) they had a wisdom modifier of +1. This “punishes” the ranger with a high wisdom, sure, but avoids penalizing the ranger with a low wisdom. Most of the “better” ranger spells don’t even require a saving throw, so this alone frees a ranger from the MAD obstacles of say a paladin, a bard, (somewhat) a cleric, an eldritch knight, a blade singer, an arcane trickster, or gish warlock. Even a monk! The old constitution+spellcasting stat+attack stat issue that is so tough for many (excluding hex blade warlocks and to some degree clerics) is more or less avoided by rangers. What do they have, hail of thorns, ensnaring strike, and entangle, that use a saving throw? What else? Some of their most potent and frequently taken spells, say like hunter’s mark, spike growth, goodberry, pass without trace, fog cloud, conjure animals, plant growth, speak with animals, none of them give a hoot if the ranger has a wisdom score of 6!
Take the top tier ranger spells. The ones everyone picks most of the time. What would you switch out for if you could/can prepare spells? Find traps?! I’m not saying it wouldn’t be and feel “better”, but I am poking at the idea that is needed or weaker because you can’t.
Some other comments on strawman arguments and other things tossed into the discussion. 1) A necromancer with an army of undead behind them doesn’t work well in almost any setting - why? Not because of the necromancer, they are just another freaking mage to most everyone else, it’s the army of undead that doesn’t work so it’s a strawman argument. 2) yes the PHB ranger is really meant for wilderness use but even it can work well (not perfectly) in an urban setting. It’s better if you take humanoids (humans +?) for your first favored enemy and the DM is willing to homebrew “urban” as a terrain type, but even if you have aberrations or something else and a regular terrain type you can still track - which isn’t just following a trail it’s knowing enough about the thing to be able recognize clues to its actions, motivations, etc to figure out where to look for more tracks. There are a couple of great Louis L’amour short stories where the ranger hero ( mountain man/woodsman/range savvy plainsman) tracks the bbeg mostly by sitting in the cafe drinking coffee and asking questions. 3) If you have problems with the PHB ranger Tasha has solved most it’s “problems” with deft explorer, favored foe, and an expanded spell list to choose from. Since these are much less wilderness oriented they make an urban “bounty hunter” style ranger even easier to do. 4) Are any of these things we’ve been discussing likely to show up before 5.5/6? No, so we will have to homebrew - for that remember it’s far easier to start with a small change to your world, see how it works then add more, than it is to make big changes and have to retcon it later.
So this learned spells versus prepared spells original issue. Do arcane tricksters, eldritch knights, sorcerers, and warlocks not have the same issue as rangers? Or, because they aren’t being compared to paladins it’s “ok”?
Don’t forget Bards too.
And bards! Yes! Thank you. Do bards suck? No. Aren’t they a beloved class? Yes. Would they be better if they could prepare spells? Of course! Is it “balanced” as is? I say yes Is it “needed”? I say no.
Take the top tier ranger spells. The ones everyone picks most of the time. What would you switch out for if you could/can prepare spells? Find traps?! I’m not saying it wouldn’t be and feel “better”, but I am poking at the idea that is needed or weaker because you can’t.
That is why the first change I might make is changing the number of spells known not how frequently they can be changed, having even a few more spells might make needing to change them out redundant.
Also, the Tasha’s options have more or less dissolved the issue/argument/complaint of rangers “out of their element” is bad, for those that hate that, but even a city is surrounded by some kind of landscape. A forest or mountains for example. A ranger would be useful in an urban setting in and out of the city walls. More so than a none ranger. The handbook literally talks about the “outskirts” and “edges” of civilization. In the ranger class description.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Or you open the chest from 30ft away with mage hand?
Or you have an unseen servant do it from 60ft?
Forcing a rogue to be in every party just to overcome something as simple as traps is exactly what they didn't want to do with this edition....imagine only clerics being able to heal people....we would be back in the Heal Bot days.
Rogues already have an advantage in that department.
They get thieves tool proficiency for free, and get expertise at level 1 with an option to take thieves tool for one of their options. Then two more expertise options at level 6. And at level 11 if you do tier 3/4 play, they get reliable talent. If you have a high dex rogue with thieves tool expertise and reliable talent all but the highest of lock DCs become trivial.
Having something like 'finding traps' being something only one class can do doesn't work in 5E. There are too many classes and party size is usually like 4-5.
It was perhaps another story back in the day when classes were more limited. When it was basically fighter/spellcaster/thief/cleric to my understanding. But in 5E, it's important to have other options for dealing with traps.
If nobody in the party feels like playing a rogue specifically there should be other options. And there are. Artificers with their emphasis on tools also get thieves too proficiency. And other classes can take backgrounds that give thieves tool proficiency etc. Allowing for other classes to be the ones finding and disarming traps but without forcing the party to bring one specific class. While also still making sure rogues, with their free TT proficiency and expertise options, can choose to excel in it from level 1.
SImilarly, if someone wants to play a 'healer' they have options other than cleric. If they want to play an archer, they can go ranger, fighter, rogue etc. I think it's a good thing that different niches can be tackled by different classes and styles. A party should prepare before going into a dungeon sure, but something as ubiquitous as traps should have only one solution of 'bring a rogue or else.'
Again, this is wildly off-topic for the thread, but in a game with thirteen classes and typical group size of 3-5, requiring any specific class for such basic gameplay activities as checking for traps is prima facie terrible game design.
Ayup. Party of three, like in one of my last groups? Better have one rogue for traps, one cleric or druid for healing and one wizard, sorcerer or bard for identification purposes and general arcane chicanery, I guess. No room for a dedicated tank (I'd say cue the cleric, but tank and healer being the same character is ridiculous) and the rogue will need to be built to handle survival challenges as well. Sounds like a swell proposition. Maybe I'll just have the players draw their character type from a hat, that way I can cut down on the arguments about who "gets" to play what.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The bigger picture of... having fun?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
More isn't always better, but it's also not inherently worse.
Rangers were buffed with Tashas, making them a lot more appealing IMO.
The points about artificers and rangers needing to fit the campaign, well that goes for anything really. That's just the sort of session 0 conversation the DM and players ought to be having regardless of what classes or setting or ruleset people have in mind.
Hello Arthur_Pewtey,
What setting can a ranger not work in? Can you give specific reasons on why they would not fit in this setting as well?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I feel like every couple of weeks someone comes in to lament how misguided D&D has been in the past several years and how we all need to get back to the "good old days", and the solution to that is always just "Give people less options".
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I disagree with your analysis. I played a horizon walker ranger for a 1-10 campaign. He was a criminal investigator. Every class feature was utilized to good effect during this campaign.
Favored enemy: humanoids, right down the board.
Primeval awareness: great for tracking my quarry in a large, dense city when they were not humanoids, which did happen from time to time. How often does some conspiracy turn out to have some fiendish mastermind? It’s not super uncommon from the adventure materials I have seen.
Land stride: skinned for a city setting. Instead of dense forest, there was dense crowds. In place of steep hills, there was demo’d buildings and stairs.
Hide in plain sight: Have you ever seen street performers that have made themselves look like automatons? How about the elven cloaks in LotR? Same thing, really.
This was all before I even got Tasha’s features, which were all fun, but not really necessary because my ranger was a very competent member of the party. I feel that horizon walker subclass features also were well-suited for my campaign.
My ranger was mechanically consistent, just flavored and skinned to fit the setting where appropriate. Your suggestion that people who think subclasses can work in any setting simply do not understand the game is hurtful. I could just as easily dismiss your views as a critical lack of imagination. That is not a very helpful statement though.
As for the topic of the thread, I did not feel that my spellcasting was weak. Limited, sure, but not weak exactly. I made careful choices based on how the game was progressing and most things were incredibly useful for me.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
You forgot Gatekeepers on your list
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Does an artificer really mess with a low magic setting any more than a wizard does?
There's also two things being conflated a bit I think. 'This thing does not work in my setting' like an artificer in a low magic setting, or the classic arguement of firearms etc in a setting where the DM doesnt' want firearms, are a matter of certain options not making sense in the setting.
The other thing is things not being particularly suited to a given campaign. A ranger in a city or an assassin in a dungeon delving campaign might not best suited to the adventure at hand by default, but they aren't causing tonal problems with the setting. But even then, that doesn't mean creative ways can't be found to use them out of their typical element either.
Like Erriku I’ve played a ranger in urban settings and found it to be a powerful character. Would it have helped to be able to prep spells each day? Of course, was it essential for play? No. Ranger is a martial oriented multiclass as a class. It draws from the combat leg, the exploration leg and the magic leg of the game with a touch of stealth tossed in. It’s spell power is limited, not because the class list is limited (especially after Xanther’s and Tasha’s) but because the individual ranger’s known list is severely limited. Having a way to make adjustments to the list more frequently than on leveling up (especially at medium to high levels) helps the ranger’s versatility. Whether that is full daily prepping or changing out 1 spell on a long rest or some other metric I am less concerned with than simply having a method. For now it will have to be a homebrew solution but I can hope for a change in 5.5/6 coming up in a couple of years. What would also help is actually knowing more spells. As some one pointed out back on page 2? Rangers get L/2(rounded up)+1 known spells, changing this to +wisdom bonus spells instead of +1spell would be a big help - especially with the expanded spell lists now available. Going back and adding a subclass spells known list like Xanthar’s and Tasha’s. Subclasses have would also help bring older subclasses up to par with newer ones.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Although a handbook ranger can’t use some of their base class abilities as well in an urban setting, like natural explorer, other abilities and spells at their disposal are more effective in the tightly packed and densely populated cityscape of an urban environment. Fog cloud, pass without trace, hunter’s mark, hail of thorns, speak with animals, spike growth, and conjure animals are all spells that do great or even better in an urban setting then out in the open. Favored enemy works just as well. Primeval awareness is a great ability in a city to keep quick tabs on “the norm”. Tasha’s options are even more agnostic. Making rangers more skirmishes than outdoor folks.
So this learned spells versus prepared spells original issue. Do arcane tricksters, eldritch knights, sorcerers, and warlocks not have the same issue as rangers? Or, because they aren’t being compared to paladins it’s “ok”?
Don’t forget Bards too.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A ranger knows a number of spells as if (using the paladin as a comparison) they had a wisdom modifier of +1. This “punishes” the ranger with a high wisdom, sure, but avoids penalizing the ranger with a low wisdom. Most of the “better” ranger spells don’t even require a saving throw, so this alone frees a ranger from the MAD obstacles of say a paladin, a bard, (somewhat) a cleric, an eldritch knight, a blade singer, an arcane trickster, or gish warlock. Even a monk! The old constitution+spellcasting stat+attack stat issue that is so tough for many (excluding hex blade warlocks and to some degree clerics) is more or less avoided by rangers. What do they have, hail of thorns, ensnaring strike, and entangle, that use a saving throw? What else? Some of their most potent and frequently taken spells, say like hunter’s mark, spike growth, goodberry, pass without trace, fog cloud, conjure animals, plant growth, speak with animals, none of them give a hoot if the ranger has a wisdom score of 6!
Take the top tier ranger spells. The ones everyone picks most of the time. What would you switch out for if you could/can prepare spells? Find traps?! I’m not saying it wouldn’t be and feel “better”, but I am poking at the idea that is needed or weaker because you can’t.
Some other comments on strawman arguments and other things tossed into the discussion.
1) A necromancer with an army of undead behind them doesn’t work well in almost any setting - why? Not because of the necromancer, they are just another freaking mage to most everyone else, it’s the army of undead that doesn’t work so it’s a strawman argument.
2) yes the PHB ranger is really meant for wilderness use but even it can work well (not perfectly) in an urban setting. It’s better if you take humanoids (humans +?) for your first favored enemy and the DM is willing to homebrew “urban” as a terrain type, but even if you have aberrations or something else and a regular terrain type you can still track - which isn’t just following a trail it’s knowing enough about the thing to be able recognize clues to its actions, motivations, etc to figure out where to look for more tracks. There are a couple of great Louis L’amour short stories where the ranger hero ( mountain man/woodsman/range savvy plainsman) tracks the bbeg mostly by sitting in the cafe drinking coffee and asking questions.
3) If you have problems with the PHB ranger Tasha has solved most it’s “problems” with deft explorer, favored foe, and an expanded spell list to choose from. Since these are much less wilderness oriented they make an urban “bounty hunter” style ranger even easier to do.
4) Are any of these things we’ve been discussing likely to show up before 5.5/6? No, so we will have to homebrew - for that remember it’s far easier to start with a small change to your world, see how it works then add more, than it is to make big changes and have to retcon it later.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
And bards! Yes! Thank you. Do bards suck? No. Aren’t they a beloved class? Yes. Would they be better if they could prepare spells? Of course! Is it “balanced” as is? I say yes Is it “needed”? I say no.
That is why the first change I might make is changing the number of spells known not how frequently they can be changed, having even a few more spells might make needing to change them out redundant.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Also, the Tasha’s options have more or less dissolved the issue/argument/complaint of rangers “out of their element” is bad, for those that hate that, but even a city is surrounded by some kind of landscape. A forest or mountains for example. A ranger would be useful in an urban setting in and out of the city walls. More so than a none ranger. The handbook literally talks about the “outskirts” and “edges” of civilization. In the ranger class description.