I realize that as a combat build the UA ranger is, in most folks opinion, an improvement over the old PHB ranger but at what cost? It is ssentially back to being a fighter subclass with spellcasting and all the old “Woodsmany” abilities essentially rolled into expertise in nature and survival ( which we haven’t seen a new version of yet). I realize that many folks couldn’t care less and play mostly non woodsy ranger but …. So, what is missing and how Dow nature and survival skills have to be rewritten to both give the “woodsy” ranger back their expertise and make them superior to scout rogues ( in nature) as they should be?
People have a hard time even with consistent definition of explaining or understanding the exploration pillar. This is part of the reason people think "martials" have little to do during such gameplay(untrue but common).
In dungeon world (a powered by the apacylpse game) every one picks a role (each with its own benefits or risks) this is why the "auto-success complaint" is so crappy. Even with a ranger doing two jobs auto-success at one there's still lots to do.
Many players(or dms) don't really want to engage unless it's spelled out specifically.
It's like pulling teeth to get players to try harvesting poisons. Free damage IMO. Foraging, downtime ect is almost as bad.
At least the new exhaustion rules will probably lead to dms handing it out while traveling or surviving hazardous environmental challenges.
To me there needs to be both "fast" and "long resolution mechanics" for such activities that way even if you focus on combat there are active benefits for the choices made.
I don't really see what the issue is. Being good at Survival and Nature is how you be woodsy and outdoorsy. You'll probably also have magical and feat options to double down on that if you want. Many of the old passive abilities were inherently problematic anyways.
I'm not sure I really agree with the last part of your premise either, there's no reason why a rogue who invests in that kind of thing shouldn't also be great at it.
Turn that last part around to see it - or pick your favorite class - should a ranger be able to do everything a rogue can do as well as a rogue does it ( including sneak attack)? Another way of phrasing it might be - if anyone can do what a ranger does in the woods what makes the ranger unique? Take the expertise away from the ranger and it’s just a fighter Gish subclass, but the rogue can take the same expertises as the ranger and can still do a Gish subclass so again what makes the ranger unique and worthwhile taking instead of the rogue or the homebrew fighter- caster subclass, etc.
Scout Rogue still can't compete with ranger because it doesn't get the primal spells, which I think is what Wizards are pushing in this playtest material. Time will tell what direction they head down.
Turn that last part around to see it - or pick your favorite class - should a ranger be able to do everything a rogue can do as well as a rogue does it ( including sneak attack)? Another way of phrasing it might be - if anyone can do what a ranger does in the woods what makes the ranger unique? Take the expertise away from the ranger and it’s just a fighter Gish subclass, but the rogue can take the same expertises as the ranger and can still do a Gish subclass so again what makes the ranger unique and worthwhile taking instead of the rogue or the homebrew fighter- caster subclass, etc.
I see a lot of Ranger players want urban themed options, so they want to step on the Rogue's toes, which is interesting.
All that said, I do find this playtest Ranger a lacking in flavour, although mechanically it is a better fit for what most players want. I just wish they'd add more non-combat options.
The Outlander background gives players a survivalist, natural explorer character. Do we really need a whole class for that?
Maybe not, when I started ranger was a fighter subclass that got spells at upper levels and there were no backgrounds. Now it’s a fighter with the outlander background and primal spells from L1 we have almost come full circle.
So what makes the Ranger unique? It’s a true Gish now with spells from L1, albeit control and movement spells not evocation spells. As written you don’t have to take nature and survival or the outlander background so it technically need not have anything to do with the wilderness. So it’s basically lost it’s origin and become a primal Gish class not a wilderness class. We will have to wait and see what they do with the warriors and mages groups but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Paladin became the clerical Gish (which it really is already), the barbarian got more of a wilderness feel, and the Bladesinger became the arcane Gish that it already is. Sadly, as our world becomes more and more urban the interest in ( and knowledge of how to deal with) nature exploration and overland travel sans roads has pretty much fled the game.
I think the real problem is that the Exploration Pillar of gameplay is unpopular with the greater majority of 5e players. The idea that you can travel at an increased rate doesn't matter when most tables just kind of "skip" from one town to the other, maybe make the players roll on a table to see if bandits jump out at them on the way. Even with tables that do actually treat Exploration as a major gameplay element, there's often a willingness, or even a preference, to use skills like Survival or Nature proficiency to stand in for a lot of the features that Rangers were originally known for.
Yes, the exploration ranger is dead. Because the exploration pillar is dead. It was dead on arrival in 2014.
I would appreciate its revival, but I've seen many people try and none succeed. Until you can revive exploration, there's simply no need for the exploration ranger.
Consider that in The Lord of the Rings (at least in the movies), Aragorn's signature moves are 1) being uncommonly brave, 2) being close with the famously distant elves, 3) knowing what's going on when nobody else does. His bravery isn't about facing his one favored enemy, because you see him take on the Ringwraiths, the orcs, and the army of the dead, all of whom are allegedly too horrible to face. His iconic companion isn't a wolf, but an elf woman who disappears for most of the story and never bites anyone. And his special knowledge isn't "how to navigate this perilous open meadow," it's "what's this hobbit hiding?" and "what happened here?" Moreover, his signature weapon isn't a bow, it's a big two-handed sword. You'd be forgiven for mistaking Aragorn for a Paladin! He lacks basically all the defining characteristics of modern D&D rangers, and yet, he's the original.
There's surely room for a ranger that isn't a World of Warcraft Hunter. At least, Tolkien thought so.
Yes, the exploration ranger is dead. Because the exploration pillar is dead. It was dead on arrival in 2014.
I would appreciate its revival, but I've seen many people try and none succeed. Until you can revive exploration, there's simply no need for the exploration ranger.
Consider that in The Lord of the Rings (at least in the movies), Aragorn's signature moves are 1) being uncommonly brave, 2) being close with the famously distant elves, 3) knowing what's going on when nobody else does. His bravery isn't about facing his one favored enemy, because you see him take on the Ringwraiths, the orcs, and the army of the dead, all of whom are allegedly too horrible to face. His iconic companion isn't a wolf, but an elf woman who disappears for most of the story and never bites anyone. And his special knowledge isn't "how to navigate this perilous open meadow," it's "what's this hobbit hiding?" and "what happened here?" Moreover, his signature weapon isn't a bow, it's a big two-handed sword. You'd be forgiven for mistaking Aragorn for a Paladin! He lacks basically all the defining characteristics of modern D&D rangers, and yet, he's the original.
There's surely room for a ranger that isn't a World of Warcraft Hunter. At least, Tolkien thought so.
Te big problem with using anything Tolkien is the lack of clear and obvious magic, so no Aragorn doesn’t use any magic either. We hear about his woodcraft earlier in his history but we see little if any of it in the end story that we get. So yes he is much more like a Paladin than a ranger. Sadly high fantasy has little if any ranger stories that show the woods craft and exploration ( I’ve heard of a couple but haven’t read them), better “ Ranger” stories seem to appear in westerns with stories of the mountain men and earlier frontiersmen. Go figure, American heroes like Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, kit Carson, etc are a better source for fantasy fiction than most fantasy characters.
The closest we get to Aragorn showing his woods craft and magic are the trip from Bree to Rivendell and his use of the Kingsfoil plant to cure/ease exposure/wounds from the ringwraiths etc.
Turn that last part around to see it - or pick your favorite class - should a ranger be able to do everything a rogue can do as well as a rogue does it ( including sneak attack)?
Kind of moving the goalposts there, aren't you? Being good at surviving in the wilds is not "everything a ranger can do" ... it's not even most of what they can do. Niche protection is bad for the game, and an overly strong emphasis on niche protection is part of why the exploration pillar was in such a bad state in 5e.
Changing the ranger in the way it has been is honestly better for exploration in games, not worse.
Niche protection as the cause of the exploration pillar's failure, eh? You might be right. There are these features from Ranger and Druid that let them move freely through plants... But hardly any plants to actually move through. Why? Because nobody else can do it, maybe. That's certainly one way of looking at it.
In my experience, people aren't looking for *structure* for their exploration play, unless they're in a dungeon. And a Ranger doesn't help you explore a dungeon. A Ranger only has mechanics (structure) for exploring in the spaces where structure is not desired. Getting lost in a forest is not interesting, by and large. Getting lost in overland travel is just a meaningless delay, or, at best, a binary fail state for the timed mission you were on. Oops, the Ranger failed his check, and now you're too late. Nobody wants this, so the solution has usually been, skip past it, or at the very least, treat it as a montage, not a structured challenge. In contrast, getting lost in a dungeon has effects on the short-term game loops of combat and resting. Effects that don't simply constitute a failure state. There's a nuanced sliding scale of meaningful consequences, when you're exploring a dungeon.
If the Ranger were to be the essential explorer, it would need to be focused squarely on dungeon exploration. That way, its features would actually get used and matter.
I played with the Tasha's rules using expertise in Survival. It worked great. I always felt like an expert woodsman.
I don't think there is a problem. We don't need ribbon abilities that bypass gameplay.
Yep. Exactly that. Remember bard. Bard is supposed to be a master of social pillar. Yet which of his features llet him be super-duper social? Actually, none of them. It's all in the spells and other stuff that lets bard use his words to heal, buff, etc. Same with the ranger.
You're partially right. And that's part of the problem with the ranger. Its features are aimed primarily at an underutilized pillar of the game, which makes them weirdly bad at their supposed strengths in scene-level encounter. Their unique abilities basically don't give them any benefits in those scenarios. On the other hand, in campaigns where the consequences of wilderness survival are supposed to be relevant (admittedly rare as they are), the ranger is kind of toxic because of those same features.
Which is why I think pushing the mechanics onto skills and spells allows a better balance of 'montage time' and 'dungeon/scene' level benefits, while smoothing out the curve.
But again, 'essential explorer' also shouldn't be a class-level role in the first place. Something rangers are naturally inclined for and naturally good at, but not something they should 'own', and putting too much weight there has been the source of many of the ranger's complaints anyways.
Don’t misunderstand me - I do like the mechanics of the new ranger. What I don’t like is that it has lost its flavor. There is no significant reason to keep calling it a ranger just rename it Gish Class and let/assign subclasses pick the type of spells they choose from (Arcane/Clerical/Primal), if I want a “Ranger” I can make one, if I want an “urban ranger” maybe I pick a different type of magic but use the same chassis. I can imagine that I. 10-12 years as we are moving on to DnD 7e we will be back to 4 basic very generic classes and a whole bunch of subclasses or options to choose from as we level up.
My question for those that are saying lack of flavor right now. Have you play tested the new ranger? At what levels? What spells did you pick? What skill expertise? What races and first level feat did you pick?
I personally have not gotten a chance to play ranger. Going to play with bard next after playing with a halfling rogue with the musician feat.
I, at least, Was looking for flavor in the text of new class. I am running a L3 ranger as an NPC in a campaign I’m running right now. After 40 years of playing rangers as well as RL experience I can make Just about anything play like I envision a ranger should be played. There used to be things that made the ranger standout, that highlighted his skills and abilities in the wilderness. Now there is very little of that - yes he has primal spells and only he and the Druid have them AT THE MOMENT. However I suspect that the Sorceror will still be a known caster not a prepared caster and there will be at least 1 subclass of sorceror that is allowed primal spells so then how does the ranger differentiate him/herself from a fighter-sorceror multiclass with nature, survival and primal spells or are they effectively the same?
I realize that as a combat build the UA ranger is, in most folks opinion, an improvement over the old PHB ranger but at what cost? It is ssentially back to being a fighter subclass with spellcasting and all the old “Woodsmany” abilities essentially rolled into expertise in nature and survival ( which we haven’t seen a new version of yet). I realize that many folks couldn’t care less and play mostly non woodsy ranger but ….
So, what is missing and how Dow nature and survival skills have to be rewritten to both give the “woodsy” ranger back their expertise and make them superior to scout rogues ( in nature) as they should be?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
People have a hard time even with consistent definition of explaining or understanding the exploration pillar. This is part of the reason people think "martials" have little to do during such gameplay(untrue but common).
In dungeon world (a powered by the apacylpse game) every one picks a role (each with its own benefits or risks) this is why the "auto-success complaint" is so crappy. Even with a ranger doing two jobs auto-success at one there's still lots to do.
Many players(or dms) don't really want to engage unless it's spelled out specifically.
It's like pulling teeth to get players to try harvesting poisons. Free damage IMO. Foraging, downtime ect is almost as bad.
At least the new exhaustion rules will probably lead to dms handing it out while traveling or surviving hazardous environmental challenges.
To me there needs to be both "fast" and "long resolution mechanics" for such activities that way even if you focus on combat there are active benefits for the choices made.
The Outlander background gives players a survivalist, natural explorer character. Do we really need a whole class for that?
I played with the Tasha's rules using expertise in Survival. It worked great. I always felt like an expert woodsman.
I don't think there is a problem. We don't need ribbon abilities that bypass gameplay.
I don't really see what the issue is. Being good at Survival and Nature is how you be woodsy and outdoorsy. You'll probably also have magical and feat options to double down on that if you want. Many of the old passive abilities were inherently problematic anyways.
I'm not sure I really agree with the last part of your premise either, there's no reason why a rogue who invests in that kind of thing shouldn't also be great at it.
Turn that last part around to see it - or pick your favorite class - should a ranger be able to do everything a rogue can do as well as a rogue does it ( including sneak attack)? Another way of phrasing it might be - if anyone can do what a ranger does in the woods what makes the ranger unique? Take the expertise away from the ranger and it’s just a fighter Gish subclass, but the rogue can take the same expertises as the ranger and can still do a Gish subclass so again what makes the ranger unique and worthwhile taking instead of the rogue or the homebrew fighter- caster subclass, etc.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Scout Rogue still can't compete with ranger because it doesn't get the primal spells, which I think is what Wizards are pushing in this playtest material. Time will tell what direction they head down.
I see a lot of Ranger players want urban themed options, so they want to step on the Rogue's toes, which is interesting.
All that said, I do find this playtest Ranger a lacking in flavour, although mechanically it is a better fit for what most players want. I just wish they'd add more non-combat options.
Maybe not, when I started ranger was a fighter subclass that got spells at upper levels and there were no backgrounds. Now it’s a fighter with the outlander background and primal spells from L1 we have almost come full circle.
So what makes the Ranger unique? It’s a true Gish now with spells from L1, albeit control and movement spells not evocation spells. As written you don’t have to take nature and survival or the outlander background so it technically need not have anything to do with the wilderness. So it’s basically lost it’s origin and become a primal Gish class not a wilderness class.
We will have to wait and see what they do with the warriors and mages groups but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Paladin became the clerical Gish (which it really is already), the barbarian got more of a wilderness feel, and the Bladesinger became the arcane Gish that it already is. Sadly, as our world becomes more and more urban the interest in ( and knowledge of how to deal with) nature exploration and overland travel sans roads has pretty much fled the game.
RIP Ranger.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I think the real problem is that the Exploration Pillar of gameplay is unpopular with the greater majority of 5e players. The idea that you can travel at an increased rate doesn't matter when most tables just kind of "skip" from one town to the other, maybe make the players roll on a table to see if bandits jump out at them on the way. Even with tables that do actually treat Exploration as a major gameplay element, there's often a willingness, or even a preference, to use skills like Survival or Nature proficiency to stand in for a lot of the features that Rangers were originally known for.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Like I said: RIP Ranger ( leas the wieners vesion)
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Yes, the exploration ranger is dead. Because the exploration pillar is dead. It was dead on arrival in 2014.
I would appreciate its revival, but I've seen many people try and none succeed. Until you can revive exploration, there's simply no need for the exploration ranger.
Consider that in The Lord of the Rings (at least in the movies), Aragorn's signature moves are 1) being uncommonly brave, 2) being close with the famously distant elves, 3) knowing what's going on when nobody else does. His bravery isn't about facing his one favored enemy, because you see him take on the Ringwraiths, the orcs, and the army of the dead, all of whom are allegedly too horrible to face. His iconic companion isn't a wolf, but an elf woman who disappears for most of the story and never bites anyone. And his special knowledge isn't "how to navigate this perilous open meadow," it's "what's this hobbit hiding?" and "what happened here?" Moreover, his signature weapon isn't a bow, it's a big two-handed sword. You'd be forgiven for mistaking Aragorn for a Paladin! He lacks basically all the defining characteristics of modern D&D rangers, and yet, he's the original.
There's surely room for a ranger that isn't a World of Warcraft Hunter. At least, Tolkien thought so.
Te big problem with using anything Tolkien is the lack of clear and obvious magic, so no Aragorn doesn’t use any magic either. We hear about his woodcraft earlier in his history but we see little if any of it in the end story that we get. So yes he is much more like a Paladin than a ranger. Sadly high fantasy has little if any ranger stories that show the woods craft and exploration ( I’ve heard of a couple but haven’t read them), better “ Ranger” stories seem to appear in westerns with stories of the mountain men and earlier frontiersmen. Go figure, American heroes like Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, kit Carson, etc are a better source for fantasy fiction than most fantasy characters.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The closest we get to Aragorn showing his woods craft and magic are the trip from Bree to Rivendell and his use of the Kingsfoil plant to cure/ease exposure/wounds from the ringwraiths etc.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Kind of moving the goalposts there, aren't you? Being good at surviving in the wilds is not "everything a ranger can do" ... it's not even most of what they can do. Niche protection is bad for the game, and an overly strong emphasis on niche protection is part of why the exploration pillar was in such a bad state in 5e.
Changing the ranger in the way it has been is honestly better for exploration in games, not worse.
Niche protection as the cause of the exploration pillar's failure, eh? You might be right. There are these features from Ranger and Druid that let them move freely through plants... But hardly any plants to actually move through. Why? Because nobody else can do it, maybe. That's certainly one way of looking at it.
In my experience, people aren't looking for *structure* for their exploration play, unless they're in a dungeon. And a Ranger doesn't help you explore a dungeon. A Ranger only has mechanics (structure) for exploring in the spaces where structure is not desired. Getting lost in a forest is not interesting, by and large. Getting lost in overland travel is just a meaningless delay, or, at best, a binary fail state for the timed mission you were on. Oops, the Ranger failed his check, and now you're too late. Nobody wants this, so the solution has usually been, skip past it, or at the very least, treat it as a montage, not a structured challenge. In contrast, getting lost in a dungeon has effects on the short-term game loops of combat and resting. Effects that don't simply constitute a failure state. There's a nuanced sliding scale of meaningful consequences, when you're exploring a dungeon.
If the Ranger were to be the essential explorer, it would need to be focused squarely on dungeon exploration. That way, its features would actually get used and matter.
Yep. Exactly that. Remember bard. Bard is supposed to be a master of social pillar. Yet which of his features llet him be super-duper social? Actually, none of them. It's all in the spells and other stuff that lets bard use his words to heal, buff, etc. Same with the ranger.
You're partially right. And that's part of the problem with the ranger. Its features are aimed primarily at an underutilized pillar of the game, which makes them weirdly bad at their supposed strengths in scene-level encounter. Their unique abilities basically don't give them any benefits in those scenarios. On the other hand, in campaigns where the consequences of wilderness survival are supposed to be relevant (admittedly rare as they are), the ranger is kind of toxic because of those same features.
Which is why I think pushing the mechanics onto skills and spells allows a better balance of 'montage time' and 'dungeon/scene' level benefits, while smoothing out the curve.
But again, 'essential explorer' also shouldn't be a class-level role in the first place. Something rangers are naturally inclined for and naturally good at, but not something they should 'own', and putting too much weight there has been the source of many of the ranger's complaints anyways.
Don’t misunderstand me - I do like the mechanics of the new ranger. What I don’t like is that it has lost its flavor. There is no significant reason to keep calling it a ranger just rename it Gish Class and let/assign subclasses pick the type of spells they choose from (Arcane/Clerical/Primal), if I want a “Ranger” I can make one, if I want an “urban ranger” maybe I pick a different type of magic but use the same chassis. I can imagine that I. 10-12 years as we are moving on to DnD 7e we will be back to 4 basic very generic classes and a whole bunch of subclasses or options to choose from as we level up.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
My question for those that are saying lack of flavor right now. Have you play tested the new ranger? At what levels? What spells did you pick? What skill expertise? What races and first level feat did you pick?
I personally have not gotten a chance to play ranger. Going to play with bard next after playing with a halfling rogue with the musician feat.
I, at least, Was looking for flavor in the text of new class. I am running a L3 ranger as an NPC in a campaign I’m running right now. After 40 years of playing rangers as well as RL experience I can make Just about anything play like I envision a ranger should be played. There used to be things that made the ranger standout, that highlighted his skills and abilities in the wilderness. Now there is very little of that - yes he has primal spells and only he and the Druid have them AT THE MOMENT. However I suspect that the Sorceror will still be a known caster not a prepared caster and there will be at least 1 subclass of sorceror that is allowed primal spells so then how does the ranger differentiate him/herself from a fighter-sorceror multiclass with nature, survival and primal spells or are they effectively the same?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.