From 1e thru 5e the ranger was, thematically, aimed at a wilderness/exploration motif. Somewhere during 5e the concept of the urban ranger seems to have taken over. I only briefly tried to play the Rat King UA version of this concept. It was interesting but I was not really satisfied. As I’ve said in a number of different posts I have had enough outdoors experience to have at least an idea of what a wilderness ranger’s skills enable them to do. I also worked years ago with a private detective following folks etc. so I have at least a faint idea of what an “urban ranger” does. While certain skills are somewhat interchangeable most of the pre1dnd abilities are essentially useless for an urban ranger. 1dnd has switched that around - there is actually nothing, thematically, that says wilderness with the possible exception of the swim speed. Can you create a wilderness ranger? Yes but equally you can create almost any sort of Gish you want. If you took away the swim speed and allowed the character to select the class of magic they used you could create essentially any Gish you wanted. So we have evolved from a woodland/nature warrior with spellcasting ability to a Gish chassis for any concept you might have. It’s really time to change the name. As a Gish chassis it’s actually pretty good, as a dedicated ranger ( nature oriented) it’s nonexistent. It’s no that you CAN’T make a nature ranger with it - you can but it as a class has no real feel that way. At this point in many ways I would be happier with a new (old) fighter or barbarian subclass that focused on the natural feel with a little magic.
I think that the UA version of the Class is great because it leaves most of the "Flavor" design space for the Subclasses so that each Subclass can feel like a whole new class each time you play. I think that is what Subclasses were originally meant to be, but fell short of that with most Classes. And lets be real, when it comes to mechanics, most of the heavy lifting for "Flavor" is done by the fluff.
Yes this (flavorless) iteration is great for building the Gish of your dreams. Yes, each creation can now look much like it’s own separate class. We will see how much flavor shows up in the subclasses in a future UA.
No, in the past much of the flavor was in actually useful features. But, as the game shifted away from “getting there is half the battle” to “getting there is boring- let’s just wave it away” the flavor for a ranger turned into fluff or worse.
My argument isn’t that you can’t build a ranger out of this class - you obviously can. It is that with the exceptions of the intro paragraph and the limiting of spellcasting to non evocation primal spells the class could have just as easily been renamed the SWORDMAGE class and the titles of the abilities changed with little or no tweaking of the mechanics of the class besides opening up a choice of spellcasting areas it would work for what everyone seems to want except the diehard old ranger fans like Stegodorkus and myself. In and of itself that is fine we could really use a Gish Chassis class but for the old diehards it would be nice to create a true ranger form even if it’s a subclass again of a martial class and not a separate class anymore
Yes this (flavorless) iteration is great for building the Gish of your dreams. Yes, each creation can now look much like it’s own separate class. We will see how much flavor shows up in the subclasses in a future UA.
No, in the past much of the flavor was in actually useful features. But, as the game shifted away from “getting there is half the battle” to “getting there is boring- let’s just wave it away” the flavor for a ranger turned into fluff or worse.
My argument isn’t that you can’t build a ranger out of this class - you obviously can. It is that with the exceptions of the intro paragraph and the limiting of spellcasting to non evocation primal spells the class could have just as easily been renamed the SWORDMAGE class and the titles of the abilities changed with little or no tweaking of the mechanics of the class besides opening up a choice of spellcasting areas it would work for what everyone seems to want except the diehard old ranger fans like Stegodorkus and myself. In and of itself that is fine we could really use a Gish Chassis class but for the old diehards it would be nice to create a true ranger form even if it’s a subclass again of a martial class and not a separate class anymore
The "Flavorful Features" trivialized the Exploration Pillar by removing the challenge completely. The Ranger didn't need to do anything other than be there. That was terrible design that made Exploration boring thus the game shifted away from “getting there is half the battle” to “getting there is boring- let’s just wave it away”. Now you actually need to roll those Survival and Nature checks instead of auto succeeding.
Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
These kind of Features not only hurt the Ranger, but hurt the game as a whole.
From 1e thru 5e the ranger was, thematically, aimed at a wilderness/exploration motif. Somewhere during 5e the concept of the urban ranger seems to have taken over. I only briefly tried to play the Rat King UA version of this concept. It was interesting but I was not really satisfied. As I’ve said in a number of different posts I have had enough outdoors experience to have at least an idea of what a wilderness ranger’s skills enable them to do. I also worked years ago with a private detective following folks etc. so I have at least a faint idea of what an “urban ranger” does. While certain skills are somewhat interchangeable most of the pre1dnd abilities are essentially useless for an urban ranger. 1dnd has switched that around - there is actually nothing, thematically, that says wilderness with the possible exception of the swim speed. Can you create a wilderness ranger? Yes but equally you can create almost any sort of Gish you want. If you took away the swim speed and allowed the character to select the class of magic they used you could create essentially any Gish you wanted. So we have evolved from a woodland/nature warrior with spellcasting ability to a Gish chassis for any concept you might have. It’s really time to change the name. As a Gish chassis it’s actually pretty good, as a dedicated ranger ( nature oriented) it’s nonexistent. It’s no that you CAN’T make a nature ranger with it - you can but it as a class has no real feel that way. At this point in many ways I would be happier with a new (old) fighter or barbarian subclass that focused on the natural feel with a little magic.
I think that the UA version of the Class is great because it leaves most of the "Flavor" design space for the Subclasses so that each Subclass can feel like a whole new class each time you play. I think that is what Subclasses were originally meant to be, but fell short of that with most Classes. And lets be real, when it comes to mechanics, most of the heavy lifting for "Flavor" is done by the fluff.
I think that's the problem I have with it. For the Ranger, most of the flavor comes from fluff. For Paladin it comes from both the fluff AND the abilities themselves.
I agree with a WildBill and kamchatmonk, this is a solid chassis for a generic 'gish,' maybe even a general 'hunter.' We have two real 'gish' classes in DnD - Paladin and Ranger.(For an arcane gish, we only have a scattering of subclasses) The Paladin just does a much better job of telling you what it is. Not only with the text, but the way the abilities work too.
If we were to describe the classes with ONLY a summary of their abilities, we can see the difference. We can remove the evocative names and the fluff text. And just look at the rules.
What is a Paladin?
A Paladin is a warrior with divine magic. She can sense the presence of celestial, fiends, and undead near her. She can heal wounds, diseases, and poisons with her touch. She specializes in styles of fighting, and can deal extra radiant damage with her attacks. She is immune to disease. She has an extra attack. She emits an aura that protects her allies, and one that makes them immune to fear. She does more radiant damage with her powerful strikes. She can remove spell effects with her touch.
Without any flavor text at all, this is very evocative of what a Paladin is. I could read only this list and imagine some kind of holy knight defender. But what is a Ranger in this UA?
A Ranger is a warrior with primal magic. She is good at two skills. She can deal extra damage on her attacks, and track the creature she hit better. She specializes in styles of fighting, and has an extra attack. She moves fast and can climb and swim. She is good at two more skills. She gains temporary HP and removes exhaustion when resting. She can turn invisible. She can see when blinded. She can do more damage on her attacks.
What is this class? It's hard to say. Extra generic damage, turning invisible, blindfighting? The only clues are the fact the magic is primal, there is a tracking element to one ability, and she can swim? It could be a hunter maybe. It does sound a little like the Predator honestly. But the whole thing is not nearly as immediately evocative as the Paladin is.
And maybe you're right. Maybe classes should be more generic, to let the subclasses do the work. In that case, we should probably just have 3 'gish' classes, or spell-warriors. Or even just one, and let the player pick the school of magic. That's what others were saying we seem to be circling back to.
In that case, then what is the Hunter subclass?
A Hunter is a spell-warrior that does more damage to things that are already hurt. She knows a creature's vulnerabilities. She can make a large but weak cone attack.
Eh...
I'm okay if they want to rewrite the whole class system to make generic templates of warriors, spellcasters, skill experts, and spell-warriors. The new Groups are almost there. But I doubt they are removing all the flavor from the Paladin's abilities. Or a Barbarian's rages. Or a Warlock's invocations. These are the things that make the class worthy of being a distinct choice.
Yes this (flavorless) iteration is great for building the Gish of your dreams. Yes, each creation can now look much like it’s own separate class. We will see how much flavor shows up in the subclasses in a future UA.
No, in the past much of the flavor was in actually useful features. But, as the game shifted away from “getting there is half the battle” to “getting there is boring- let’s just wave it away” the flavor for a ranger turned into fluff or worse.
My argument isn’t that you can’t build a ranger out of this class - you obviously can. It is that with the exceptions of the intro paragraph and the limiting of spellcasting to non evocation primal spells the class could have just as easily been renamed the SWORDMAGE class and the titles of the abilities changed with little or no tweaking of the mechanics of the class besides opening up a choice of spellcasting areas it would work for what everyone seems to want except the diehard old ranger fans like Stegodorkus and myself. In and of itself that is fine we could really use a Gish Chassis class but for the old diehards it would be nice to create a true ranger form even if it’s a subclass again of a martial class and not a separate class anymore
Said much better, and more succinctly, that my long post haha. Thank you.
Yes this (flavorless) iteration is great for building the Gish of your dreams. Yes, each creation can now look much like it’s own separate class. We will see how much flavor shows up in the subclasses in a future UA.
No, in the past much of the flavor was in actually useful features. But, as the game shifted away from “getting there is half the battle” to “getting there is boring- let’s just wave it away” the flavor for a ranger turned into fluff or worse.
My argument isn’t that you can’t build a ranger out of this class - you obviously can. It is that with the exceptions of the intro paragraph and the limiting of spellcasting to non evocation primal spells the class could have just as easily been renamed the SWORDMAGE class and the titles of the abilities changed with little or no tweaking of the mechanics of the class besides opening up a choice of spellcasting areas it would work for what everyone seems to want except the diehard old ranger fans like Stegodorkus and myself. In and of itself that is fine we could really use a Gish Chassis class but for the old diehards it would be nice to create a true ranger form even if it’s a subclass again of a martial class and not a separate class anymore
The "Flavorful Features" trivialized the Exploration Pillar by removing the challenge completely. The Ranger didn't need to do anything other than be there. That was terrible design that made Exploration boring thus the game shifted away from “getting there is half the battle” to “getting there is boring- let’s just wave it away”. Now you actually need to roll those Survival and Nature checks instead of auto succeeding.
Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
These kind of Features not only hurt the Ranger, but hurt the game as a whole.
I think we all agree that the features weren't designed well. But they really evoked a clear image of the fantasy to the reader. I just want the theme to still be present in the abilities. Like the proposal of making Pass Without a Trace a class feature instead of a spell. That's an ability that tells a story.
It could be something like:
Any creature you choose within 30 feet of you can use your Stealth skill modifier.
Or add your Wisdom bonus to their Stealth. Or whatever. Limit it to proficiency times per day. Do what you need to balance it. But an ability that lets you guide your party stealthily through the wilderness (or even cities, for the urban types) is thematically strong like the old rules, but better written, and good for every style of game. I'm just saying that it could be done, it just isn't yet.
Yes this (flavorless) iteration is great for building the Gish of your dreams. Yes, each creation can now look much like it’s own separate class. We will see how much flavor shows up in the subclasses in a future UA.
No, in the past much of the flavor was in actually useful features. But, as the game shifted away from “getting there is half the battle” to “getting there is boring- let’s just wave it away” the flavor for a ranger turned into fluff or worse.
My argument isn’t that you can’t build a ranger out of this class - you obviously can. It is that with the exceptions of the intro paragraph and the limiting of spellcasting to non evocation primal spells the class could have just as easily been renamed the SWORDMAGE class and the titles of the abilities changed with little or no tweaking of the mechanics of the class besides opening up a choice of spellcasting areas it would work for what everyone seems to want except the diehard old ranger fans like Stegodorkus and myself. In and of itself that is fine we could really use a Gish Chassis class but for the old diehards it would be nice to create a true ranger form even if it’s a subclass again of a martial class and not a separate class anymore
The "Flavorful Features" trivialized the Exploration Pillar by removing the challenge completely. The Ranger didn't need to do anything other than be there. That was terrible design that made Exploration boring thus the game shifted away from “getting there is half the battle” to “getting there is boring- let’s just wave it away”. Now you actually need to roll those Survival and Nature checks instead of auto succeeding.
Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
These kind of Features not only hurt the Ranger, but hurt the game as a whole.
I think we all agree that the features weren't designed well. But they really evoked a clear image of the fantasy to the reader. I just want the theme to still be present in the abilities. Like the proposal of making Pass Without a Trace a class feature instead of a spell. That's an ability that tells a story.
It could be something like:
Any creature you choose within 30 feet of you can use your Stealth skill modifier.
Or add your Wisdom bonus to their Stealth. Or whatever. Limit it to proficiency times per day. Do what you need to balance it. But an ability that lets you guide your party stealthily through the wilderness (or even cities, for the urban types) is thematically strong like the old rules, but better written, and good for every style of game. I'm just saying that it could be done, it just isn't yet.
Ok, lets apply the same logic you used for your Paladin vs Ranger comparison.
how does "Any Creature you choose within 30 feet of you can use your Stealth skill modifier" invoke Ranger more than Rogue?
Okay, fair. Maybe I should have thought about the details longer. The main point was that rules could be written to provide clear mechanical rules and benefits, unlike the old rules. And that they could fit more with the ranger theme, unlike the new ones. I just didn't do it very well.
I do think that Rangers, thematically, are more about helping their party Stealth. While rogues are more solo stealthers.
Lay on Hands alone could thematically be a Cleric ability too. But viewed with the whole of the Paladin's abilities, it helps evoke the larger theme of the class.
I think it kind of funny that people are complaining about the Ranger UA when the abilities presented mostly match what the Ranger's abilities have always been.
In 3.5 edition:
Favored Enemy (covered by Expertise in Nature and Hunter's Mark)
Tracking Feat (Expertise in Survival)
Wild Empathy (Expertise in Handle Animal)
Endurance Feat (Covered by Swim and Climb Speed)
Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight (Covered by Nature's Veil)
Limited Spellcasting (Half Caster Spellcasting)
Of course they don't have Evasion or a way to ignore difficult terrain like Woodland Stride, but most everything else is there. But Tireless and Feral Senses are pretty good abilities.
In 2nd Edition the Ranger had:
Two Weapon Fighting (Fighting Style)
Tracking (Now just part of Survival)
Hide in Shadow/Move Silently (now just general skills)
bonus to attack rolls against their Favored Enemy
a kind of Handle Animal ability (Now a skill)
Limited Priest Spells (Half Caster Spellcasting)
Sorry, I don't have my 1st edition books to reference any more, but I think you get the point by now.
Ranger's have always been "Wilderness Gish" with much of the Wilderness aspect being represented by Fluff.
It's true that a lot of the old abilities from early editions can now be covered by genetic skill expertise. The 5e version could not in many cases, but they weren't well defined.
I guess the reason it feels different now is that the old abilities were chosen for you. The older additions said that Rangers were good at tracking, hiding, and socializing with animals. It defined them. Now, you can copy most of those abilities by choosing Expertise in Survival, Stealth, and Animal Handling.
But you don't have to. You could choose instead to put your expertise in Arcana, Religion, History, and Acrobatics. You could be a parkouring historian. One that knows monster weaknesses from all those books, and shoots them good.
Now, I don't think that restricting the new Ranger's expertise choices to certain skills is a good idea. More flexible options to create characters is better. But by converting almost all of the old Ranger flavor to skill checks loses that thematic flavor. Some of the rules in 5e cannot be replicated by skills, but those are gone too.
So we have cleaner rules, but at the expense of the theme. Maybe most people don't care. But it's just sad to me. I just think we can have clean rules AND theme.
Yes this (flavorless) iteration is great for building the Gish of your dreams. Yes, each creation can now look much like it’s own separate class. We will see how much flavor shows up in the subclasses in a future UA.
No, in the past much of the flavor was in actually useful features. But, as the game shifted away from “getting there is half the battle” to “getting there is boring- let’s just wave it away” the flavor for a ranger turned into fluff or worse.
My argument isn’t that you can’t build a ranger out of this class - you obviously can. It is that with the exceptions of the intro paragraph and the limiting of spellcasting to non evocation primal spells the class could have just as easily been renamed the SWORDMAGE class and the titles of the abilities changed with little or no tweaking of the mechanics of the class besides opening up a choice of spellcasting areas it would work for what everyone seems to want except the diehard old ranger fans like Stegodorkus and myself. In and of itself that is fine we could really use a Gish Chassis class but for the old diehards it would be nice to create a true ranger form even if it’s a subclass again of a martial class and not a separate class anymore
The "Flavorful Features" trivialized the Exploration Pillar by removing the challenge completely. The Ranger didn't need to do anything other than be there. That was terrible design that made Exploration boring thus the game shifted away from “getting there is half the battle” to “getting there is boring- let’s just wave it away”. Now you actually need to roll those Survival and Nature checks instead of auto succeeding.
Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
These kind of Features not only hurt the Ranger, but hurt the game as a whole.
none of those things are done by survival roles. they are boons on top of such rolls or scenarios.
Auto success is not really a game problem otherwise there would be alot more hate for reliable talent. the problem is dms or players expecting a reduction of exploration to only the auto success abilities. wizards also have plenty of auto success spells to solve problems but they aren't really a problem because its treated as a piece of the scene rather than the whole.
As a secondary effect those rules give guidance as to when a dm is putting too much into one roll. for example tracking A rogue or bard with expertise in survival can know the direction but they don't get number, sizes or a good timeframe. Only a ranger can do that.
It's true that a lot of the old abilities from early editions can now be covered by genetic skill expertise. The 5e version could not in many cases, but they weren't well defined.
I guess the reason it feels different now is that the old abilities were chosen for you. The older additions said that Rangers were good at tracking, hiding, and socializing with animals. It defined them. Now, you can copy most of those abilities by choosing Expertise in Survival, Stealth, and Animal Handling.
But you don't have to. You could choose instead to put your expertise in Arcana, Religion, History, and Acrobatics. You could be a parkouring historian. One that knows monster weaknesses from all those books, and shoots them good.
Now, I don't think that restricting the new Ranger's expertise choices to certain skills is a good idea. More flexible options to create characters is better. But by converting almost all of the old Ranger flavor to skill checks loses that thematic flavor. Some of the rules in 5e cannot be replicated by skills, but those are gone too.
So we have cleaner rules, but at the expense of the theme. Maybe most people don't care. But it's just sad to me. I just think we can have clean rules AND theme.
Because of the changes in the game system and the way people play required the removal of "forced" abilities. People have always hated certain aspects of older editions. Like, "Why are Rogues and Rangers the only ones that can sneak around?" or "How come only Rangers can track or be good with animals?" These things were arbitrary and by removing those restrictions and moving to skills, Ranger was no longer the only class that could do what they do.
5e tried to make them really good at those things, but did it in such a way as to completely make what they were good at irrelevant and therefore simply ignored.
The UA has pulled back from that mistake by making them Experts but they don't completely negate a whole 3rd of the game simply by existing. They are really good at survival, but now survival still has a place in the game. They are really good at finding their way through the wilderness, but they have to actually make the checks instead of having GPS.
Things like Tireless is very thematic. They can go much longer in hostile environments because they can recover more easily than their counter parts. Feral Senses means that you are so attuned to your surroundings that you can sense things around you even if you can't see them. Nature's Veil is thematic because the forces of nature itself is working to hide you from your enemies.
Historically speaking, all the aspects of Ranger that make the Ranger feel like a Ranger has been in the fluff or in arbitrarily restriction that didn't make sense. The arbitrary restrictions had to go but we still have the Fluff and that Fluff combined with the mechanics gives us the same basic Ranger we have had in previous editions.
I see what you are saying, and I've said many of the same things. We agree a lot on what the problems were in the past. Just not on the solution that we're given for the future. And that's okay. This is what playtest feedback is all about
Like I said before, Tireless is thematic, but you get it too late. Feral Sense and Nature's Veil are... okay, thematically. But they come online WAY too late. These are Tier 3 levels, for heaven's sake. Tireless should be within the first 3 levels. Just being a Firbolg would let me turn invisible. At level 1, not level 13. And it wouldn't even cost a spell slot. Sure Nature's Veil let's you do it until the END of your next turn, not the beginning. But just make the ability the same as the Firbolg and give it to Ranger's at a reasonable level. Yes you can make Expertise work, but only if you let the fluff guide you. The fact that all the flavorful abilities come into play so late was one of the first problems I identified. It's far too late to help define the class.
I just don't know why it's so hard design theme into the formative levels too.
I see what you are saying, and I've said many of the same things. We agree a lot on what the problems were in the past. Just not on the solution that we're given for the future. And that's okay. This is what playtest feedback is all about
Like I said before, Tireless is thematic, but you get it too late. Feral Sense and Nature's Veil are... okay, thematically. But they come online WAY too late. These are Tier 3 levels, for heaven's sake. Tireless should be within the first 3 levels. Just being a Firbolg would let me turn invisible. At level 1, not level 13. And it wouldn't even cost a spell slot. Sure Nature's Veil let's you do it until the END of your next turn, not the beginning. But just make the ability the same as the Firbolg and give it to Ranger's at a reasonable level. Yes you can make Expertise work, but only if you let the fluff guide you. The fact that all the flavorful abilities come into play so late was one of the first problems I identified. It's far too late to help define the class.
I just don't know why it's so hard design theme into the formative levels too.
I honestly agree with most of this. Personally, I would like to see Woodland Stride make a come back. Let the Ranger move through difficult terrain, just don't extend it to everyone all the time.
I think the Extra Attack at 5th really hurts the progression. Since they want subclass abilities at levels 3 and 6, and a Feat is always at 4, it leaves this huge gap for other abilities from level 2 all the way up to level 7. And you don't really want to move Extra Attack to a later level, since 5 is kind of where it belongs for the overall power boost at that level across all classes.
I think the Extra Attack at 5th really hurts the progression. Since they want subclass abilities at levels 3 and 6, and a Feat is always at 4, it leaves this huge gap for other abilities from level 2 all the way up to level 7. And you don't really want to move Extra Attack to a later level, since 5 is kind of where it belongs for the overall power boost at that level across all classes.
Yeah, I was just looking at that. I would like to see something like Roving/Woodland Stride moved up, but there really isn't room for it.
So every 'fix' to Rangers has sacrificed more and more flavor to get the combat right.
I just can't really agree with this assertion that keeps being tossed around like it's a forgone fact.
It's more like: the old Ranger had several features that had no mechanical value whatsoever, but at least they had flavor. Those features have been steadily culled.
If the features could've been rehabilitated I'm sure they would've been. The fact is, they were beyond saving.
Do you honestly believe they had no mechanical value or are you being hyperbolic?
Does it matter?
I was being hyperbolic, certainly. Favored Enemy does technically do something. What it does isn't worth the cost of not having a real level 1 feature. Likewise for Natural Explorer. I would argue that Primeval Awareness is just about as close to "nothing" as you will ever get in this game. Land's Stride is another one of those technically not nothing effects that is practically nothing. Hide In Plain Sight is on the same level as Primeval Awareness. Vanish is the first Ranger-specific feature you get that's actually good, and it happens WAY too late. Feral Senses is two features, and one of them is LITERALLY nothing -- like, it actually, truly, honestly, doesn't do anything at all. And the other one is okay but not good. Finally, Foe Slayer is a pretty neat level 1 feature, that you get at level 20.
For what it's worth, I do feel like it's possible to rejigger these features so they're good. It seems possible. I'll even spoiler-tag some quick ideas for fun. But many have tried and none have succeeded. Looking at the evidence, I have to conclude it's a lost cause. The Ranger needs new features, not fixed versions of old features.
The Hyperbole shows a predisposition to not give a fair critique But being unable to find a use shows a dissonance between you and its function. once its understood then it can be evaluated.
your response seems like a mixture of the two.
I have found, Many tables have working interpretations of such features. In fact crawford is on the record for saying alot of players love the PHB ranger.( https://youtu.be/-vE28Saqcow?t=2256) But in 2016 the meme caught on "ranger Bad" so many people never even tried to use such abilities as the rules state. Saying the ranger bad Became the easiest way to build a youtube channel in 2017.
By the way functional versions of the phb skills do exist.
For primal awareness. I have found people who expect it to be locate creature have a bad time but players who want early notice setups appreciate it greatly.
For HIPS- I have seen 2 very functional interpretations. of the RAW. but in the end either way of using it to hide was on par with the the "epic boon of undetectability"
for feral senses: IT was a really important feature before blindfighting came into the game and even post blindfighting IT still stops dms from forcing you to make locate checks(at that level steath enemies can hide With a + 10 and under conditions putting ranger perception at disadvantage)
Okay I tried something. Just using the restrictions we have, and mostly keeping the abilities the same. I'm assuming that WotC wants the subclass abilities where they are. I only adjusted the abilities a little for power level. And I made up one (Wild Stride) to fill a gap. It's really more like... advanced roving with the spirit of woodland stride.
I think that the UA version of the Class is great because it leaves most of the "Flavor" design space for the Subclasses so that each Subclass can feel like a whole new class each time you play. I think that is what Subclasses were originally meant to be, but fell short of that with most Classes. And lets be real, when it comes to mechanics, most of the heavy lifting for "Flavor" is done by the fluff.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yes this (flavorless) iteration is great for building the Gish of your dreams. Yes, each creation can now look much like it’s own separate class. We will see how much flavor shows up in the subclasses in a future UA.
No, in the past much of the flavor was in actually useful features. But, as the game shifted away from “getting there is half the battle” to “getting there is boring- let’s just wave it away” the flavor for a ranger turned into fluff or worse.
My argument isn’t that you can’t build a ranger out of this class - you obviously can. It is that with the exceptions of the intro paragraph and the limiting of spellcasting to non evocation primal spells the class could have just as easily been renamed the SWORDMAGE class and the titles of the abilities changed with little or no tweaking of the mechanics of the class besides opening up a choice of spellcasting areas it would work for what everyone seems to want except the diehard old ranger fans like Stegodorkus and myself. In and of itself that is fine we could really use a Gish Chassis class but for the old diehards it would be nice to create a true ranger form even if it’s a subclass again of a martial class and not a separate class anymore
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The "Flavorful Features" trivialized the Exploration Pillar by removing the challenge completely. The Ranger didn't need to do anything other than be there. That was terrible design that made Exploration boring thus the game shifted away from “getting there is half the battle” to “getting there is boring- let’s just wave it away”. Now you actually need to roll those Survival and Nature checks instead of auto succeeding.
These kind of Features not only hurt the Ranger, but hurt the game as a whole.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think that's the problem I have with it. For the Ranger, most of the flavor comes from fluff. For Paladin it comes from both the fluff AND the abilities themselves.
I agree with a WildBill and kamchatmonk, this is a solid chassis for a generic 'gish,' maybe even a general 'hunter.' We have two real 'gish' classes in DnD - Paladin and Ranger.(For an arcane gish, we only have a scattering of subclasses) The Paladin just does a much better job of telling you what it is. Not only with the text, but the way the abilities work too.
If we were to describe the classes with ONLY a summary of their abilities, we can see the difference. We can remove the evocative names and the fluff text. And just look at the rules.
What is a Paladin?
A Paladin is a warrior with divine magic. She can sense the presence of celestial, fiends, and undead near her. She can heal wounds, diseases, and poisons with her touch. She specializes in styles of fighting, and can deal extra radiant damage with her attacks. She is immune to disease. She has an extra attack. She emits an aura that protects her allies, and one that makes them immune to fear. She does more radiant damage with her powerful strikes. She can remove spell effects with her touch.
Without any flavor text at all, this is very evocative of what a Paladin is. I could read only this list and imagine some kind of holy knight defender. But what is a Ranger in this UA?
A Ranger is a warrior with primal magic. She is good at two skills. She can deal extra damage on her attacks, and track the creature she hit better. She specializes in styles of fighting, and has an extra attack. She moves fast and can climb and swim. She is good at two more skills. She gains temporary HP and removes exhaustion when resting. She can turn invisible. She can see when blinded. She can do more damage on her attacks.
What is this class? It's hard to say. Extra generic damage, turning invisible, blindfighting? The only clues are the fact the magic is primal, there is a tracking element to one ability, and she can swim? It could be a hunter maybe. It does sound a little like the Predator honestly. But the whole thing is not nearly as immediately evocative as the Paladin is.
And maybe you're right. Maybe classes should be more generic, to let the subclasses do the work. In that case, we should probably just have 3 'gish' classes, or spell-warriors. Or even just one, and let the player pick the school of magic. That's what others were saying we seem to be circling back to.
In that case, then what is the Hunter subclass?
A Hunter is a spell-warrior that does more damage to things that are already hurt. She knows a creature's vulnerabilities. She can make a large but weak cone attack.
Eh...
I'm okay if they want to rewrite the whole class system to make generic templates of warriors, spellcasters, skill experts, and spell-warriors. The new Groups are almost there. But I doubt they are removing all the flavor from the Paladin's abilities. Or a Barbarian's rages. Or a Warlock's invocations. These are the things that make the class worthy of being a distinct choice.
I just wish the Ranger was treated as kindly.
Said much better, and more succinctly, that my long post haha. Thank you.
I think we all agree that the features weren't designed well. But they really evoked a clear image of the fantasy to the reader. I just want the theme to still be present in the abilities. Like the proposal of making Pass Without a Trace a class feature instead of a spell. That's an ability that tells a story.
It could be something like:
Any creature you choose within 30 feet of you can use your Stealth skill modifier.
Or add your Wisdom bonus to their Stealth. Or whatever. Limit it to proficiency times per day. Do what you need to balance it. But an ability that lets you guide your party stealthily through the wilderness (or even cities, for the urban types) is thematically strong like the old rules, but better written, and good for every style of game. I'm just saying that it could be done, it just isn't yet.
Ok, lets apply the same logic you used for your Paladin vs Ranger comparison.
how does "Any Creature you choose within 30 feet of you can use your Stealth skill modifier" invoke Ranger more than Rogue?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Okay, fair. Maybe I should have thought about the details longer. The main point was that rules could be written to provide clear mechanical rules and benefits, unlike the old rules. And that they could fit more with the ranger theme, unlike the new ones. I just didn't do it very well.
I do think that Rangers, thematically, are more about helping their party Stealth. While rogues are more solo stealthers.
Lay on Hands alone could thematically be a Cleric ability too. But viewed with the whole of the Paladin's abilities, it helps evoke the larger theme of the class.
I think it kind of funny that people are complaining about the Ranger UA when the abilities presented mostly match what the Ranger's abilities have always been.
In 3.5 edition:
Of course they don't have Evasion or a way to ignore difficult terrain like Woodland Stride, but most everything else is there. But Tireless and Feral Senses are pretty good abilities.
In 2nd Edition the Ranger had:
Sorry, I don't have my 1st edition books to reference any more, but I think you get the point by now.
Ranger's have always been "Wilderness Gish" with much of the Wilderness aspect being represented by Fluff.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's true that a lot of the old abilities from early editions can now be covered by genetic skill expertise. The 5e version could not in many cases, but they weren't well defined.
I guess the reason it feels different now is that the old abilities were chosen for you. The older additions said that Rangers were good at tracking, hiding, and socializing with animals. It defined them. Now, you can copy most of those abilities by choosing Expertise in Survival, Stealth, and Animal Handling.
But you don't have to. You could choose instead to put your expertise in Arcana, Religion, History, and Acrobatics. You could be a parkouring historian. One that knows monster weaknesses from all those books, and shoots them good.
Now, I don't think that restricting the new Ranger's expertise choices to certain skills is a good idea. More flexible options to create characters is better. But by converting almost all of the old Ranger flavor to skill checks loses that thematic flavor. Some of the rules in 5e cannot be replicated by skills, but those are gone too.
So we have cleaner rules, but at the expense of the theme. Maybe most people don't care. But it's just sad to me. I just think we can have clean rules AND theme.
none of those things are done by survival roles. they are boons on top of such rolls or scenarios.
Auto success is not really a game problem otherwise there would be alot more hate for reliable talent. the problem is dms or players expecting a reduction of exploration to only the auto success abilities. wizards also have plenty of auto success spells to solve problems but they aren't really a problem because its treated as a piece of the scene rather than the whole.
As a secondary effect those rules give guidance as to when a dm is putting too much into one roll. for example tracking A rogue or bard with expertise in survival can know the direction but they don't get number, sizes or a good timeframe. Only a ranger can do that.
Because of the changes in the game system and the way people play required the removal of "forced" abilities. People have always hated certain aspects of older editions. Like, "Why are Rogues and Rangers the only ones that can sneak around?" or "How come only Rangers can track or be good with animals?" These things were arbitrary and by removing those restrictions and moving to skills, Ranger was no longer the only class that could do what they do.
5e tried to make them really good at those things, but did it in such a way as to completely make what they were good at irrelevant and therefore simply ignored.
The UA has pulled back from that mistake by making them Experts but they don't completely negate a whole 3rd of the game simply by existing. They are really good at survival, but now survival still has a place in the game. They are really good at finding their way through the wilderness, but they have to actually make the checks instead of having GPS.
Things like Tireless is very thematic. They can go much longer in hostile environments because they can recover more easily than their counter parts. Feral Senses means that you are so attuned to your surroundings that you can sense things around you even if you can't see them. Nature's Veil is thematic because the forces of nature itself is working to hide you from your enemies.
Historically speaking, all the aspects of Ranger that make the Ranger feel like a Ranger has been in the fluff or in arbitrarily restriction that didn't make sense. The arbitrary restrictions had to go but we still have the Fluff and that Fluff combined with the mechanics gives us the same basic Ranger we have had in previous editions.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I see what you are saying, and I've said many of the same things. We agree a lot on what the problems were in the past. Just not on the solution that we're given for the future. And that's okay. This is what playtest feedback is all about
Like I said before, Tireless is thematic, but you get it too late. Feral Sense and Nature's Veil are... okay, thematically. But they come online WAY too late. These are Tier 3 levels, for heaven's sake. Tireless should be within the first 3 levels. Just being a Firbolg would let me turn invisible. At level 1, not level 13. And it wouldn't even cost a spell slot. Sure Nature's Veil let's you do it until the END of your next turn, not the beginning. But just make the ability the same as the Firbolg and give it to Ranger's at a reasonable level. Yes you can make Expertise work, but only if you let the fluff guide you. The fact that all the flavorful abilities come into play so late was one of the first problems I identified. It's far too late to help define the class.
I just don't know why it's so hard design theme into the formative levels too.
I honestly agree with most of this. Personally, I would like to see Woodland Stride make a come back. Let the Ranger move through difficult terrain, just don't extend it to everyone all the time.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah. Woodland Stride is a cool one. I wonder if it would be too much to include it in Roving.
I think the Extra Attack at 5th really hurts the progression. Since they want subclass abilities at levels 3 and 6, and a Feat is always at 4, it leaves this huge gap for other abilities from level 2 all the way up to level 7. And you don't really want to move Extra Attack to a later level, since 5 is kind of where it belongs for the overall power boost at that level across all classes.
Yeah, I was just looking at that. I would like to see something like Roving/Woodland Stride moved up, but there really isn't room for it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think I would be ok with Roving or Woodland Stride (or a combined version of the two) being added along side the Fighting Style at level 2.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The Hyperbole shows a predisposition to not give a fair critique But being unable to find a use shows a dissonance between you and its function. once its understood then it can be evaluated.
your response seems like a mixture of the two.
I have found, Many tables have working interpretations of such features. In fact crawford is on the record for saying alot of players love the PHB ranger.( https://youtu.be/-vE28Saqcow?t=2256) But in 2016 the meme caught on "ranger Bad" so many people never even tried to use such abilities as the rules state. Saying the ranger bad Became the easiest way to build a youtube channel in 2017.
By the way functional versions of the phb skills do exist.
For primal awareness. I have found people who expect it to be locate creature have a bad time but players who want early notice setups appreciate it greatly.
For HIPS- I have seen 2 very functional interpretations. of the RAW. but in the end either way of using it to hide was on par with the the "epic boon of undetectability"
for feral senses: IT was a really important feature before blindfighting came into the game and even post blindfighting IT still stops dms from forcing you to make locate checks(at that level steath enemies can hide With a + 10 and under conditions putting ranger perception at disadvantage)
Okay I tried something. Just using the restrictions we have, and mostly keeping the abilities the same. I'm assuming that WotC wants the subclass abilities where they are. I only adjusted the abilities a little for power level. And I made up one (Wild Stride) to fill a gap. It's really more like... advanced roving with the spirit of woodland stride.
1 - Expertise, Spellcasting, Roving (+5' speed, climb, swim)
2 - Fighting Style, Favored Enemy
3 - Subclass
4 - Feat
5 - Extra Attack
6 - Subclass
7 - Tireless
8 - Feat
9 - Nature's Veil (ends at start of next turn, PB x per day)
10 - Subclass
11 - Expertise
12 - Feat
13 - Wild Stride (+5' more speed, not affected by difficult terrain, maybe advantage against being restrained?)
14 - Subclass
15 - Feral Senses
16 - Feat
17 - either nothing like it is now, or maybe extend Nature's Veil to the end of your next turn
18 - Foe Slayer I guess? It's kind of a sad capstone
19 - Feat
20 - Epic Boon