Again, highlighting the fact that there are no ways for non-casters to interact with the world beyond ability checks or to have unique abilities to contribute in social or exploration situations other than spells.
Rangers aren't "non-casters." See that big word on their class table that says "Spellcasting?" That means they cast spells.
Never said they were, but they are still supposedly those who would be most trained and versed in surviving in the wilderness and navigating through treacherous terrain, but they have zero features that give them any sort of unique ability to overcome such obstacles or challenges outside of magic.
And every martial is in the same boat, where they can roll better on ability checks (if they're lucky) but have no tools that open up unique options and opportunities for them in the same way that magic enables casters to solve problems with ease.
Spellcasting gives a lot of nature and survival options for the ranger. Deft Explorer gives them double proficiency, which could be used on any explorer or survivalist-related skill they select. Expertise will bridge any skillcheck gap a rogue might have on checks like survival and rangers will be more focused on wisdom checks. Roving will increase their speed for walking, climbing, and swimming, Tireless removes exhaustion that can be gained from exploration pushes or harsh environment, Nature's Veil now gives automatic invisibility (don't even need proficiency in stealth to match a rogue here in some situations), Feral Senses gives blindsight to 30 ft. (that's huge).
There really are a lot of ranger things that specifically boost their ability to transverse and survive in nature. A lot. A rogue can do very well with, say a 2014 Scout, but I do not believe that they can match the focus that rangers are given in this respect.
im not going to lie i have no idea why everyone else hates ranger i thought it was the Hunters mark thing (my main reason for disliking it but homebrew fixes all) whats everyone elses reasons? seems to be changing every day lol
im not going to lie i have no idea why everyone else hates ranger i thought it was the Hunters mark thing (my main reason for disliking it but homebrew fixes all) whats everyone elses reasons? seems to be changing every day lol
To be honest, I feel like a lot of it is motivated reasoning.
im not going to lie i have no idea why everyone else hates ranger i thought it was the Hunters mark thing (my main reason for disliking it but homebrew fixes all) whats everyone elses reasons? seems to be changing every day lol
A significant number of the class's features are devoted to forcing the use of a first-level spell, limiting other options and treating a versatile class as if damage is its only important feature. On top of that, the Ranger loses flavourful features that suit its identity as an expert of exploration, a trend across 2024 redesigns. The end result is a mediocre class because its versatility and variety goes down the drain in favour of making the class revolve around a boring spell that further limits its ability to do anything but damage.
I disagree. I pointed out several features that are specifically designed to make the ranger an expert of exploration over and above any other class. There are a number of features devoted to Hunter's Mark, but complaining about this is a bit like complaining about a bard having a focus on Bardic Inspiration, or a barbarian who doesn't want to have so much of their features devoted to augmenting Rage.
Spellcasting allows the ranger to be very versatile as well. They can swap spells on rests to meet the anticipated needs of the day. That is pretty versatile. A lot of their flavorful features were just bad. Hide in Plain Sight is a perfect example. It was burdensome to perform and it was essentially half a feature, of which the second half come in a few levels later in Vanish; one full feature for the cost of two.
Got it. No one is allowed to have features you don't approve of. If you made use of those features because you had a DM that didn't only care about combat, or have the slightest shred of creativity on your own part? Then 2024 5e is not the game for you, thanks for playing, don't let the door hit you on the way out. 2024 5e is only for people who want to use one spell, one weapon setup, and then look down on anyone else stupid enough to do anything differently.
You are implying much in this post, but very little of it is true or helpful to the discussion.
And every martial is in the same boat, where they can roll better on ability checks (if they're lucky) but have no tools that open up unique options and opportunities for them in the same way that magic enables casters to solve problems with ease.
It's my experience that spells have a lot more limits, caveats and provisos than beliefs like this tend to indicate. They are only auto-win silver bullets to those who don't take the time to read them properly and truly understand what they can and can't do.
As for ability checks, those being the primary mechanism for martials to interact with the non-combat pillars is completely fine. As those pillars are much more open-ended than combat, their resolution mechanic being similarly open-ended makes perfect sense.
Yeah, there's barely any fun out of combat features for Rangers. Most of the features are just combat things and some skill check boosts.
I'm having a hard time deciding if i like the new Ranger or not, If i think its better than old ranger or not.
Getting features replaced by spells isnt fun at all.
I dont know if Ill be able to decide until i have the new PHB in hand, with all the details of the class, subclas features and spells.
But right now, 2024 Ranger is looking pretty boring and dull. Like, the 2024 Ranger cant do anything any other class cant do, on top of better features.
Nope, it's true. Every Ranger build will be a dual-wield build using a shortsword and scimitar, to optimize on Hunter's Mark. None of them will do anything that makes them any better in exploration and survival scenarios than any other class; in fact, a Bard who has never step foot into the woods would make a better survivalist than any Ranger.
The Ranger has no ability to know anything or possess any unique knowledge or training about the focus of their class identity that a random Wizard who gets a lucky roll cannot know.
Friend, I think you're heavily overestimating how useful or unique the old Ranger's non-spellcasting abilities actually were. Please identify the parts of the old Ranger's kit that granted them the "ability to know anything or possess any unique knowledge or training about the focus of their class identity that a random Wizard who gets a lucky roll cannot know."
Players have been clamoring for changes to the Ranger since 2014, and a big part of the reason is that many of its class features have always been replicable with lucky skill checks.
Got it. No one is allowed to have features you don't approve of. If you made use of those features because you had a DM that didn't only care about combat, or have the slightest shred of creativity on your own part? Then 2024 5e is not the game for you, thanks for playing, don't let the door hit you on the way out. 2024 5e is only for people who want to use one spell, one weapon setup, and then look down on anyone else stupid enough to do anything differently.
You are implying much in this post, but very little of it is true or helpful to the discussion.
Nope, it's true. Every Ranger build will be a dual-wield build using a shortsword and scimitar, to optimize on Hunter's Mark. None of them will do anything that makes them any better in exploration and survival scenarios than any other class; in fact, a Bard who has never step foot into the woods would make a better survivalist than any Ranger.
The Ranger has no ability to know anything or possess any unique knowledge or training about the focus of their class identity that a random Wizard who gets a lucky roll cannot know.
What is the goal with this post? You have very specifically avoided every point I have made that disproves virtually every argument you have made here. This is just hyperbole and catastrophic thinking. Lucky rolls are just that: lucky. They are not common, else they would not be lucky. Who cares if a wizard occasionally knows more on the great outdoors than a ranger.
Once again, there are a lot of features that the new ranger is getting with a large focus on exploration. This focus will be better than every other class. The flavor features you lament the removal of were bad features that met a thematic demand but offered poor solutions to meet the mechanical needs of a exploration class. This has been addressed in the rebuild of the ranger. You may not like the changes but to say that they make for a worse ranger is a claim that is going to need a lot better reasoning to support than you have been willing to offer so far.
You may not like the changes but to say that they make for a worse ranger is a claim that is going to need a lot better reasoning to support than you have been willing to offer so far.
You may not like the changes but to say that they make for a worse ranger is a claim that is going to need a lot better reasoning to support than you have been willing to offer so far.
I think you're expecting a lot.
To your point, I think a lot of people have been doom-posting based on what has been revealed so far and what they know from the 2014 Ranger spellcasting. The thing is, we don't yet know how spellcasting has changed but based on the comments from those that have early copies it is a marked improvement over the 2014 Ranger. However, if when everything is revealed it's still not enough, then people can go ahead and knock themselves out doom-posting
Getting features replaced by spells isnt fun at all.
Honest question: why? What is so gosh-darned un-fun about spells on a spellcasting class
But they marketed the Ranger class as one of the Expert classes, not a spellcasting class. Theres nothing wrong with having spells as a class with spellcasting, I just feel they removed too many unique features that Rangers had that added flavor and uniqueness to Ranger, and just gave them expertise and told us to just use spells and that will replace all the explorer features unique to Ranger. It makes me feel like I might just pick another class, since the spells they tell you to use arent even unique to Ranger.
The changes have me worried and sad about my favroite class and I dont know i am just being pessimistic and affected to D&D content creator, but the changes just dont look like much fun. It's hard to stay positive and see the good in the new Ranger when all my favorite creators say they dont like the new Ranger at all.
I don't like spells, so I wish Ranger could have "passive magic" instead (like the Adepts of Shadowrun), or able to trade spells for other.
I'm sorry, what is it about these spells that's worrying you?
It's not about "these" spells, it's about spells in general, I believe spells is too artificial and treachery lol, I prefer more "natural" magic, like inner or those level-0 or I would trade all my spells for more feats or skills
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vifarc Cordelibre, the most unique ranger-tank, the wood-elf heavy-ranger.
So let's sum it up like this: which of these, from the following list, is the most interesting and thematic feature for a Ranger?
You can gather food and other supplies more effectively and without dropping your guard, travel more effectively and safely, and can't get lost.
You can detect whether any creatures of a given type are in the area.
You can traverse difficult terrain without penalty, take no damage from non-magical plants, and have advantage against magically-manipulated plants.
You can create camouflage to give yourself a significant Stealth benefit.
You can easily hide, and can't be tracked by mundane means.
You can't lose concentration on one 1st-level spell.
Ribbon, ribbon, Roving makes this unnecessary, you left out everything that makes the "camouflage" utterly useless in practice, Veil is better in every way, always relevant.
There's no question, aside from this: Why can't those features exist alongside any new abilities the Ranger receives? If they were lacking, why not improve them instead of throwing them out entirely?
Because keeping those nonsense ribbons perpetuates the idea that you need a class coupon to do those things. "I can never get lost!" Yeah that's called Expertise in Survival. "I can find food!" Yeah, that's also expertise in Survival. "I can tell if there's a type of creature somewhere in the area!" ...you get the idea.
I don't like spells, so I wish Ranger could have "passive magic" instead (like the Adepts of Shadowrun), or able to trade spells for other.
I'm sorry, what is it about these spells that's worrying you?
It's not about "these" spells, it's about spells in general, I believe spells is too artificial and treachery lol, I prefer more "natural" magic, like inner or those level-0 or I would trade all my spells for more feats or skills
So let's sum it up like this: which of these, from the following list, is the most interesting and thematic feature for a Ranger?
You can gather food and other supplies more effectively and without dropping your guard, travel more effectively and safely, and can't get lost.
You can detect whether any creatures of a given type are in the area.
You can traverse difficult terrain without penalty, take no damage from non-magical plants, and have advantage against magically-manipulated plants.
You can create camouflage to give yourself a significant Stealth benefit.
You can easily hide, and can't be tracked by mundane means.
You can't lose concentration on one 1st-level spell.
There's no question, aside from this: Why can't those features exist alongside any new abilities the Ranger receives? If they were lacking, why not improve them instead of throwing them out entirely?
The simple answer is that they didn't appeal to players who wanted what the Ranger became: a class fixated around the use of one specific ability out of a mindset of Almighty Damage Per Round. Social and exploration abilities, and the players who value them, are second-class in 2024's design philosophy. The approach of "Expertise or other bonuses to ability checks are all you need" are meant to placate players who only care about combat and numbers.
These features can't exist alongside the new Ranger abilities because of the concept of a power budget. You can't just bolt unlimited abilities onto a class, and they've made the 2024 Ranger straightforwardly more powerful in combat and general skill use; that power had to come from somewhere, and they chose to take it from the abilities that most players didn't like. Secondary question: why do you specifically describe what all the Ranger's passive abilities do, but when it comes to Hunter's Mark you just say it's "a first level spell"? Is it because if you described Hunter's Mark, it would in fact sound pretty thematically appropriate for a Ranger to be able to focus on tracking a quarry and bringing it down?
I'm obviously not going to convince you and that's fine; frankly, I broadly agree that D&D's design philosophy skews too heavily towards combat features for my tastes, and 5.24 does seem to be moving further in that direction. Ranger is just a weird place to take this stand, in my opinion. The 5e Ranger is filled with features that just ignore mechanics; you don't drop your guard while you forage, so you can ignore posting a watch while your party travels. You gather twice as much food and water when you forage, so your party can ignore food and water management in all but the harshest environments. You ignore difficult terrain, and you don't have to choose between moving quickly or quietly. You don't get lost, you don't take damage from mundane plants, you can't be tracked except by magic. The 2014 Ranger is the least interesting class to me (and apparently a lot of other players, if survey results are to be believed!) because so much of what it does is invisible; it's all about the things you don't do and the things that can't happen to you. This new Ranger is somewhat more focused on combat, sure, but it's also more focused on doing things the players will actually see happening, rather than on limiting the ways your DM is allowed to complicate the game.
I don't like spells, so I wish Ranger could have "passive magic" instead (like the Adepts of Shadowrun), or able to trade spells for other.
I'm sorry, what is it about these spells that's worrying you?
It's not about "these" spells, it's about spells in general, I believe spells is too artificial and treachery lol, I prefer more "natural" magic, like inner or those level-0 or I would trade all my spells for more feats or skills
So let's sum it up like this: which of these, from the following list, is the most interesting and thematic feature for a Ranger?
You can gather food and other supplies more effectively and without dropping your guard, travel more effectively and safely, and can't get lost.
You can detect whether any creatures of a given type are in the area.
You can traverse difficult terrain without penalty, take no damage from non-magical plants, and have advantage against magically-manipulated plants.
You can create camouflage to give yourself a significant Stealth benefit.
You can easily hide, and can't be tracked by mundane means.
You can't lose concentration on one 1st-level spell.
There's no question, aside from this: Why can't those features exist alongside any new abilities the Ranger receives? If they were lacking, why not improve them instead of throwing them out entirely?
The simple answer is that they didn't appeal to players who wanted what the Ranger became: a class fixated around the use of one specific ability out of a mindset of Almighty Damage Per Round. Social and exploration abilities, and the players who value them, are second-class in 2024's design philosophy. The approach of "Expertise or other bonuses to ability checks are all you need" are meant to placate players who only care about combat and numbers.
These features can't exist alongside the new Ranger abilities because of the concept of a power budget. You can't just bolt unlimited abilities onto a class, and they've made the 2024 Ranger straightforwardly more powerful in combat and general skill use; that power had to come from somewhere, and they chose to take it from the abilities that most players didn't like. Secondary question: why do you specifically describe what all the Ranger's passive abilities do, but when it comes to Hunter's Mark you just say it's "a first level spell"? Is it because if you described Hunter's Mark, it would in fact sound pretty thematically appropriate for a Ranger to be able to focus on tracking a quarry and bringing it down?
I'm obviously not going to convince you and that's fine; frankly, I broadly agree that D&D's design philosophy skews too heavily towards combat features for my tastes, and 5.24 does seem to be moving further in that direction. Ranger is just a weird place to take this stand, in my opinion. The 5e Ranger is filled with features that just ignore mechanics; you don't drop your guard while you forage, so you can ignore posting a watch while your party travels. You gather twice as much food and water when you forage, so your party can ignore food and water management in all but the harshest environments. You ignore difficult terrain, and you don't have to choose between moving quickly or quietly. You don't get lost, you don't take damage from mundane plants, you can't be tracked except by magic. The 2014 Ranger is the least interesting class to me (and apparently a lot of other players, if survey results are to be believed!) because so much of what it does is invisible; it's all about the things you don't do and the things that can't happen to you. This new Ranger is somewhat more focused on combat, sure, but it's also more focused on doing things the players will actually see happening, rather than on limiting the ways your DM is allowed to complicate the game.
A lot of this comes from what thematically makes a Ranger, well...a Ranger; everyone has a different idea of this. The inspiration for the 5E Ranger came from Aragorn from LOTR, except Aragorn is actually more of a Fighter, with some Paladin and a little Ranger sprinkled on top. Because of this conundrum, the Ranger is where it was in 2014, then TCE tried to improve it, but it's still thematically flawed. Now they're giving us a version that it's an improvement from TCE, but people still complain because what their idea of a Ranger is is not WotC's vision of what a Ranger should be.
They took unique thins to Ranger and just told us to use skill checks and spells to replicate them. That just leaves us with some pretty boring combat skills relying on Hunters Mark that we get too late in the levels to compete with other classes combat features and spells other classes also can do. They nerfed a bunch of Tashas features by using Wis modifier instead of prof bonus.
To me, it feels like I can choose other classes and do everything the Ranger can do now, but better and with even more features in general.
The nice thing is thats its more streamlined and its clearer and more useful, but its also very bland. That makes me sad because Ranger is my favorite class.
I think the Ranger has always been a challenge to get right, because it’s such a broad concept as a character. Thinking about it from the perspective of the class groups that featured in the earlier UAs, the Ranger could quite comfortably have been placed in the Warrior (Fighter, Barbarian, Monk) or the Priest (Cleric, Druid, Paladin) groups, instead of the Expert group (with the Bard and Rogue). There are a few classes that would naturally fit in a couple of groups (Paladin: Priest/Warrior; Bard: Expert/Mage), but no others in three. Balancing a class with such a broad remit and still feeling that it is competitive in each area can’t be straightforward…
But they marketed the Ranger class as one of the Expert classes, not a spellcasting class. Theres nothing wrong with having spells as a class with spellcasting, I just feel they removed too many unique features that Rangers had that added flavor and uniqueness to Ranger, and just gave them expertise and told us to just use spells and that will replace all the explorer features unique to Ranger. It makes me feel like I might just pick another class, since the spells they tell you to use arent even unique to Ranger.
The changes have me worried and sad about my favroite class and I dont know i am just being pessimistic and affected to D&D content creator, but the changes just dont look like much fun. It's hard to stay positive and see the good in the new Ranger when all my favorite creators say they dont like the new Ranger at all.
Bards are included in the Expert classification and they are full spellcasters. The Expert grouping did not imply that they cannot be spellcasters. In fact, they said that in addition to all gaining Expertise, the Expert group takes pieces from other groups because they are polymaths. Bards are full spellcasters, rangers are half, and rogues are martial.
What feature did they remove from the ranger that had flavor and uniqueness, and also made it a good class? Because the flavor features that I am seeing are also the features that drove players to play other classes because those other classes could do what the ranger did, but better. I don't have a dog in the fight, but there is the old argument that the 2014 fighter is a vastly better ranger than the 2014 ranger is. I do not believe that is going to be an argument we see going forward though.
If flavor over functionality is important enough that you feel you had something taken away from you, why not just add flavor like spellcasters often do for their spells? I am playing in a game as a wizard right now and there is very little lore on spellcasting, so I flavor my spells as drawing equations in the air. Our artificer had wooden orbs that he has enchanted with spells. Mechanically, both are just Spellcasting with no functional difference. When you get Nature's Veil and want to flavor that as slathering yourself with mud to become invisible, why not? You'd get the flavor and the functionality at the same time.
Spellcasting gives a lot of nature and survival options for the ranger. Deft Explorer gives them double proficiency, which could be used on any explorer or survivalist-related skill they select. Expertise will bridge any skillcheck gap a rogue might have on checks like survival and rangers will be more focused on wisdom checks. Roving will increase their speed for walking, climbing, and swimming, Tireless removes exhaustion that can be gained from exploration pushes or harsh environment, Nature's Veil now gives automatic invisibility (don't even need proficiency in stealth to match a rogue here in some situations), Feral Senses gives blindsight to 30 ft. (that's huge).
There really are a lot of ranger things that specifically boost their ability to transverse and survive in nature. A lot. A rogue can do very well with, say a 2014 Scout, but I do not believe that they can match the focus that rangers are given in this respect.
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
im not going to lie i have no idea why everyone else hates ranger i thought it was the Hunters mark thing (my main reason for disliking it but homebrew fixes all) whats everyone elses reasons? seems to be changing every day lol
To be honest, I feel like a lot of it is motivated reasoning.
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 disagree. I pointed out several features that are specifically designed to make the ranger an expert of exploration over and above any other class. There are a number of features devoted to Hunter's Mark, but complaining about this is a bit like complaining about a bard having a focus on Bardic Inspiration, or a barbarian who doesn't want to have so much of their features devoted to augmenting Rage.
Spellcasting allows the ranger to be very versatile as well. They can swap spells on rests to meet the anticipated needs of the day. That is pretty versatile. A lot of their flavorful features were just bad. Hide in Plain Sight is a perfect example. It was burdensome to perform and it was essentially half a feature, of which the second half come in a few levels later in Vanish; one full feature for the cost of two.
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
After watching XP to Level 3's new video, I am now less happy about the new ranger.
You are implying much in this post, but very little of it is true or helpful to the discussion.
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
It's my experience that spells have a lot more limits, caveats and provisos than beliefs like this tend to indicate. They are only auto-win silver bullets to those who don't take the time to read them properly and truly understand what they can and can't do.
As for ability checks, those being the primary mechanism for martials to interact with the non-combat pillars is completely fine. As those pillars are much more open-ended than combat, their resolution mechanic being similarly open-ended makes perfect sense.
Yeah, there's barely any fun out of combat features for Rangers. Most of the features are just combat things and some skill check boosts.
I'm having a hard time deciding if i like the new Ranger or not, If i think its better than old ranger or not.
Getting features replaced by spells isnt fun at all.
I dont know if Ill be able to decide until i have the new PHB in hand, with all the details of the class, subclas features and spells.
But right now, 2024 Ranger is looking pretty boring and dull. Like, the 2024 Ranger cant do anything any other class cant do, on top of better features.
Friend, I think you're heavily overestimating how useful or unique the old Ranger's non-spellcasting abilities actually were. Please identify the parts of the old Ranger's kit that granted them the "ability to know anything or possess any unique knowledge or training about the focus of their class identity that a random Wizard who gets a lucky roll cannot know."
Players have been clamoring for changes to the Ranger since 2014, and a big part of the reason is that many of its class features have always been replicable with lucky skill checks.
What is the goal with this post? You have very specifically avoided every point I have made that disproves virtually every argument you have made here. This is just hyperbole and catastrophic thinking. Lucky rolls are just that: lucky. They are not common, else they would not be lucky. Who cares if a wizard occasionally knows more on the great outdoors than a ranger.
Once again, there are a lot of features that the new ranger is getting with a large focus on exploration. This focus will be better than every other class. The flavor features you lament the removal of were bad features that met a thematic demand but offered poor solutions to meet the mechanical needs of a exploration class. This has been addressed in the rebuild of the ranger. You may not like the changes but to say that they make for a worse ranger is a claim that is going to need a lot better reasoning to support than you have been willing to offer so far.
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
Honest question: why? What is so gosh-darned un-fun about spells on a spellcasting class?
I think you're expecting a lot.
To your point, I think a lot of people have been doom-posting based on what has been revealed so far and what they know from the 2014 Ranger spellcasting. The thing is, we don't yet know how spellcasting has changed but based on the comments from those that have early copies it is a marked improvement over the 2014 Ranger. However, if when everything is revealed it's still not enough, then people can go ahead and knock themselves out doom-posting
But they marketed the Ranger class as one of the Expert classes, not a spellcasting class. Theres nothing wrong with having spells as a class with spellcasting, I just feel they removed too many unique features that Rangers had that added flavor and uniqueness to Ranger, and just gave them expertise and told us to just use spells and that will replace all the explorer features unique to Ranger. It makes me feel like I might just pick another class, since the spells they tell you to use arent even unique to Ranger.
The changes have me worried and sad about my favroite class and I dont know i am just being pessimistic and affected to D&D content creator, but the changes just dont look like much fun. It's hard to stay positive and see the good in the new Ranger when all my favorite creators say they dont like the new Ranger at all.
It's not about "these" spells, it's about spells in general, I believe spells is too artificial and treachery lol, I prefer more "natural" magic, like inner or those level-0
or I would trade all my spells for more feats or skills
Vifarc Cordelibre, the most unique ranger-tank, the wood-elf heavy-ranger.
Ribbon, ribbon, Roving makes this unnecessary, you left out everything that makes the "camouflage" utterly useless in practice, Veil is better in every way, always relevant.
I'll take the last one thanks.
Because keeping those nonsense ribbons perpetuates the idea that you need a class coupon to do those things. "I can never get lost!" Yeah that's called Expertise in Survival. "I can find food!" Yeah, that's also expertise in Survival. "I can tell if there's a type of creature somewhere in the area!" ...you get the idea.
It's... it's a class that gets spellcasting. How much "marketing" did you need exactly?
Then play a Fighter, Rogue, or Monk.
These features can't exist alongside the new Ranger abilities because of the concept of a power budget. You can't just bolt unlimited abilities onto a class, and they've made the 2024 Ranger straightforwardly more powerful in combat and general skill use; that power had to come from somewhere, and they chose to take it from the abilities that most players didn't like. Secondary question: why do you specifically describe what all the Ranger's passive abilities do, but when it comes to Hunter's Mark you just say it's "a first level spell"? Is it because if you described Hunter's Mark, it would in fact sound pretty thematically appropriate for a Ranger to be able to focus on tracking a quarry and bringing it down?
I'm obviously not going to convince you and that's fine; frankly, I broadly agree that D&D's design philosophy skews too heavily towards combat features for my tastes, and 5.24 does seem to be moving further in that direction. Ranger is just a weird place to take this stand, in my opinion. The 5e Ranger is filled with features that just ignore mechanics; you don't drop your guard while you forage, so you can ignore posting a watch while your party travels. You gather twice as much food and water when you forage, so your party can ignore food and water management in all but the harshest environments. You ignore difficult terrain, and you don't have to choose between moving quickly or quietly. You don't get lost, you don't take damage from mundane plants, you can't be tracked except by magic. The 2014 Ranger is the least interesting class to me (and apparently a lot of other players, if survey results are to be believed!) because so much of what it does is invisible; it's all about the things you don't do and the things that can't happen to you. This new Ranger is somewhat more focused on combat, sure, but it's also more focused on doing things the players will actually see happening, rather than on limiting the ways your DM is allowed to complicate the game.
A lot of this comes from what thematically makes a Ranger, well...a Ranger; everyone has a different idea of this. The inspiration for the 5E Ranger came from Aragorn from LOTR, except Aragorn is actually more of a Fighter, with some Paladin and a little Ranger sprinkled on top. Because of this conundrum, the Ranger is where it was in 2014, then TCE tried to improve it, but it's still thematically flawed. Now they're giving us a version that it's an improvement from TCE, but people still complain because what their idea of a Ranger is is not WotC's vision of what a Ranger should be.
They took unique thins to Ranger and just told us to use skill checks and spells to replicate them. That just leaves us with some pretty boring combat skills relying on Hunters Mark that we get too late in the levels to compete with other classes combat features and spells other classes also can do. They nerfed a bunch of Tashas features by using Wis modifier instead of prof bonus.
To me, it feels like I can choose other classes and do everything the Ranger can do now, but better and with even more features in general.
The nice thing is thats its more streamlined and its clearer and more useful, but its also very bland. That makes me sad because Ranger is my favorite class.
I think the Ranger has always been a challenge to get right, because it’s such a broad concept as a character. Thinking about it from the perspective of the class groups that featured in the earlier UAs, the Ranger could quite comfortably have been placed in the Warrior (Fighter, Barbarian, Monk) or the Priest (Cleric, Druid, Paladin) groups, instead of the Expert group (with the Bard and Rogue). There are a few classes that would naturally fit in a couple of groups (Paladin: Priest/Warrior; Bard: Expert/Mage), but no others in three. Balancing a class with such a broad remit and still feeling that it is competitive in each area can’t be straightforward…
Bards are included in the Expert classification and they are full spellcasters. The Expert grouping did not imply that they cannot be spellcasters. In fact, they said that in addition to all gaining Expertise, the Expert group takes pieces from other groups because they are polymaths. Bards are full spellcasters, rangers are half, and rogues are martial.
What feature did they remove from the ranger that had flavor and uniqueness, and also made it a good class? Because the flavor features that I am seeing are also the features that drove players to play other classes because those other classes could do what the ranger did, but better. I don't have a dog in the fight, but there is the old argument that the 2014 fighter is a vastly better ranger than the 2014 ranger is. I do not believe that is going to be an argument we see going forward though.
If flavor over functionality is important enough that you feel you had something taken away from you, why not just add flavor like spellcasters often do for their spells? I am playing in a game as a wizard right now and there is very little lore on spellcasting, so I flavor my spells as drawing equations in the air. Our artificer had wooden orbs that he has enchanted with spells. Mechanically, both are just Spellcasting with no functional difference. When you get Nature's Veil and want to flavor that as slathering yourself with mud to become invisible, why not? You'd get the flavor and the functionality at the same time.
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