That's just one person's "class fantasy". I might be wrong, but I'm thinking that most people just want the class to be functional.
People do want it to be functional, but being functional isn't all that much a part of the class identity. Honestly, the best way of filling the core identity in 2014 is to ignore the Ranger class and build a Scout Rogue.
Skill checks can only go so far and their use is more dm dependent than the phb features.
At least a phb ranger can say I am faster than the bard with expertise. Or I get these exact details(time,# etc) Other classes get info based on dm whimsy.
It isn't just about flavor it's about quantifying their expert nature into mechanics.
If you don't trust your DM to provide sufficient benefit to getting a 25+ skill check then you should not be playing with that DM. No amount of rules can make a game fun, if the DM is a d*ck.
believe it or not wanting defined skills is not just for dick dms. frankly with a good dm the phb ranger is the best balanced class in the game. (it can also be over powered or under powered with a bad dm) Now IF only I quantified what a good (or bad dm) means we could analyze How to get reliable results. See having things defined allows for clear discussion rather than assumptions.
by placing solid rules it creates reliable expectations shared between the player and dm. It prevents Patrick Rothfuss style feature "overuse" from players. It allows predictable planning rather than in the moment calls. In the moment calls are usually not good because outside factors can subtly change a persons perspective. (this is literally what mentalists magicians take advantage of to guide people into what they want). for example time left in the session might mean the amount of information given in a skill check is lower at the beginning (when you have time) and gives a lot more near the end(when people are tired or ready to end for the night).
It does not help that the skills as written with the difficulties as described cover just a very mundane range of abilities. Yes, yes a good DM blah blah. But that excuse falls flat, if you need a good DM to make things work it wont work at a lot of tables. Maybe they should change things so it works with a below average DM.
People do want it to be functional, but being functional isn't all that much a part of the class identity. Honestly, the best way of filling the core identity in 2014 is to ignore the Ranger class and build a Scout Rogue.
Or take Expertise in nature and survival skills as ranger, no? If your entire fantasy begins and ends with only ever being an outdoorsman that trivializes exploration by just being in the party... It's like the idea that all paladins must be lawful good. Used to be "class fantasy", but paladin grew out of these pants.
Or take Expertise in nature and survival skills as ranger, no? If your entire fantasy begins and ends with only ever being an outdoorsman that trivializes exploration by just being in the party... It's like the idea that all paladins must be lawful good. Used to be "class fantasy", but paladin grew out of these pants.
Expertise wasn't an option for the 2014 ranger. The core fantasy of the ranger is the outdoorsman that trivializes exploration. That doesn't mean that's the only thing your character should be, it just means you should expect to go beyond that core in some way.
Expertise wasn't an option for the 2014 ranger. The core fantasy of the ranger is the outdoorsman that trivializes exploration. That doesn't mean that's the only thing your character should be, it just means you should expect to go beyond that core in some way.
Well it's a bad core idea then. Being limited to outdoorsmanship (only on specific terrains, I might add) is bad. Trivializing a whole pillar of the game is bad.
Well it's a bad core idea then. Being limited to outdoorsmanship (only on specific terrains, I might add) is bad. Trivializing a whole pillar of the game is bad.
There's a ton of abilities that trivialize pillars of the game.
So, it comes back to the question of what a Ranger could bring to the table that would make a party happy to have them around. Along with them being doubly glad to contribute.
If it comes to the idea that another class would be a better ranger than the ranger, there's a problem. Especially in the context of having equal and worthwhile opportunities to shine at the table.
The whole point is being happy to play a ranger. So, what is missing? What might fix it?
I made my views clear in the opening post, but what about you?
Expertise wasn't an option for the 2014 ranger. The core fantasy of the ranger is the outdoorsman that trivializes exploration. That doesn't mean that's the only thing your character should be, it just means you should expect to go beyond that core in some way.
Well it's a bad core idea then. Being limited to outdoorsmanship (only on specific terrains, I might add) is bad. Trivializing a whole pillar of the game is bad.
Exactly. A character that guides the party through one specific type of hazardous terrain should be a temporary sidekick / NPC not a full party member. It's the problem with the core concept of the 5e Ranger. Wilderness guides are great, but they usually stay and watch over the camp while the adventurers go delve into the ancient ruins to retrieve the magical artifact.
ETA: Nobody remembers the name of Edmund Hillary's Sherpa guide.
In the three pillars of D&D, combat, exploration, and social, Rangers are good in combat and exploration.
However exploration is pretty much unsupported in D&D, and for what little is left, Rogue or (especially) Bard is perfectly capable of handling it, while still being good (or great) in the social and combat pillars.
That leaves Ranger with the combat branch where, yes, they are good, but they're competing with Fighters and Paladins who do it better, and pretty much every mage class which dominate in combat.
They are better than Monks though, so they've got that going for them, which is nice.
Part of the problem for the concept is the D&D world is pretty mundane. Sure, yes you can go to hell or something but its not like WoW where there are zones and now you are in a level 50 zone with level 50 environmental hazards. You might be in a area with powerful monsters but its still pretty much just a forest. Yes a DM, blah blah. But if the exploration tier leveled and got dangers appropriate to level 15 characters and the rangers abilities were especially good in dealing with them in a way a decent roll on survival from a rando with a decent wisdom couldn't it could be a solid niche. And expertise does not cut it as on a d20 the rando rolling enough higher than the expert so the expertise meant nothing is not that rare.
Skills in general go from totally incompetent person, to like Olympic athlete in range where you are trying to pretend Olympic athlete competes well against super powers. And as I do not see them changing their die system and bounded accuracy concept, then imo expert abilities should lean more heavily into non skill based feats showing superhuman levels of "skill". A ranger shouldn't be rolling survival to track the enemy at level 10, rolling survival to track people is for mere mortals, they should be pointing to their left and saying they are 2 miles that way. They should have almost precognitive levels of senses for danger. At higher levels give them their own ranges for all ranged weapons like 1 mile is their short range.
I'm very happy with the current ranger. Instead of being a mess of useless ribbons like 2014 or being functional yet a bit bland like Tasha's, we now have a version that is a true wilderness expert, including being the Best at Tracking (Expertise + Terrain Advantage + divinations), great at combat (Martial weapons + fighting style + weapon mastery), and great at scouting (Roving + Tireless + Nature's Veil). And all of that is before we get to the subclasses. It's right where I want it to be.
I agree with this. It isn’t bad at all. I would like to see Find familiar added to the primal list because it makes sense and I’d like to see the cantrips restored, maybe conjured barrage combined with the other similar spell as a level up instead of wasting two spots for basically the same spell. My big issue continues to be with Beast Master. They had a good thing going with the drake warden that was a really good step in the right direction and then they went back to Tasha’s thing. I still strongly agree that your beast should level up and grow as you do, meaning size, power, and ability. I don’t know why exactly you can’t summon a creature you can ride as a medium creature but I feel like you should be able to. The other option if not a little crazier would be beast master allowing the summoning of multiple creatures that you can control. Lastly, they got rid of the generic stat blocks for the Druid, why can’t they do the same for the ranger? It’s not difficult.
At the risk of committing a faux pas, as I haven't had time to read everybody's replies, I have to say I strongly agree with what the OP has posted. I mightn't take exactly those suggestions as to how I'd change it, but the underpinning logic and the message are dead-on.
Personally, the fact that all the classes are just getting saddled with class-specific prepared spells per day is a really lazy design choice. The loss of cantrips doesn't bother me, admittedly. To the contrary, I'd prefer have weapon mastery, although on the same terms as a War Cleric as presented in this UA: 1 weapon mastery per day. 2 is, realistically, as many as you're going to need, so giving the "hybrid classes" 2 weapon mastery options per day basically gives them everything a fully-fledged warrior would have (Fighter's later class features notwithstanding).
Rather, I agree with your fundamental point that the proposed changes do nothing to build towards a mechanically or thematically rewarding Ranger. Weapon mastery instead of Cantrips? I'll take it. Conjure Volley and Conjure Barrage? What on earth does that do? What identity does that reinforce?
Deft Explorer is also silly to me. On one hand, you could say it's overly-specific in all the ways that compromised the 5e Ranger. On the other, you could say it's basically redundant. How likely is a party to be travelled through more than 2 biomes in the same long rest period? I far more anticipate that this is just going to be a permanently utilisable boon with extra steps in the phrasing. And again, it's focusing in all the wrong places.
If I were to suggest a basic amendment to what they're proposing, I'd honestly suggest just scrapping the 'Hunter' subclass and building it's core features in as decision points on the base Ranger. To address one half of the OP: Hunter does not have a distinguishable identity beyond it's core class. It's just 'Ranger-Ranger', as far as I can see. Abandon it and assimilate it's features into the core class and you have a class with a satisfactory number of decision points, some defensive and offensive quirks that allow it to serve a warrior role, alongside it's primal spell list allowing it to serve a Druid role. Just give them Survival as a proficiency at lvl1 and be done with it - bring back Expertise in full and give up on this Deft Explorer thing. That allows them to serve their expert role. And certainly, certainly borrow the formula of 'Hunter's Lore' from the 'Hunter' subclass and build that into every Ranger subclass.
How flavourful would it be at lvl6 for a Ranger subclass to get a modification on it's Hunter's Mark? A Beastmaster's companion gains the benefit of the Ranger's Hunter's Mark. A Gloomstalker is always considered to be lightly obscured/have half cover against it's quarry. A Fey Wanderer's prey has disadvantage on saving throws to resist the Ranger's charm and fear effects. Simple; flavourful; does a great deal to address the use of Hunter's Mark as a core feature of the class. If I'm being honest, I think nerfing the spell (or relying on it at all) is kind of a flawed premise, but this is the best means by which I think they could invest in it as a meaningful option mechanically and thematically.
Alas, poor Ranger. It has always been one of my favourite classes, and there's some chronic inability of the writers to get it right. Even in 2e and 3.5e it wasn't able to keep up. I don't know what it is about this class, but I just have to hope our collective feedback will drive the team to start working on the foundations of the class, instead of doing... whatever they think they've done in the latest UA.
And I will conclude to thank the OP and assert that this is all just my opinion. I can't claim to speak on anyone else's behalf, but I'm reassured to see that the general responses on this thread suggest we might be able to get more alterations out of WOTC.
How likely is a party to be travelled through more than 2 biomes in the same long rest period?
Depends on the campaign, in one of my campaigns we've spend the entire thing either in the ocean or on the coast. In the other campaign we teleported across the continent with the help of NPCs pretty frequently and often travelled between forest, mountain, arctic, and swamps.
To address one half of the OP: Hunter does not have a distinguishable identity beyond it's core class. It's just 'Ranger-Ranger', as far as I can see.
The Hunter isn't that Ranger-y though, it's basically stealing a bunch of features from Rogue. It's more like a RangerxRogue MC than a Ranger-Ranger.
Am I the only one who considers Exploration to be more than just overland travel? In my mind navigating a dungeon or scouting out an enemy stronghold are both examples of the Exploration Pillar too, and that seems way easier to develop class features for than overland travel, which is mainly handled via skill checks.
Roving is probably my favorite of the UA ranger features because it makes rangers better at doing things like swimming across rivers, climbing up trees to get a better vantage point, running and jumping between rooftops, and scaling palace walls. It feels like a good translation of a wilderness survivalist's skill set that can be applied outside the forest.
Feral Senses is another great feature, in my opinion. It just comes online so late into the game that it might as well not exist. Getting something like Blindsight to represent a uniquely honed sense of smell and hearing is a strong mechanic that is also quite flavorful while also making rangers better at exploring dark tunnels and fighting guerilla wars in the Underdark.
Features that make the ranger better at maneuvering through complex/difficult terrain, overcoming sensory limitations most PCs have, and having new ways of interacting with their environment would all be much more welcome than features that auto-succeed on what would normally just be a skill check.
Exploration is about finding cool world build POI.
World building includes mundane things like food and warmth but also odd uses for tools (like fixing a broken wagon wheel or finding the sprites lost mount)
Exploration should also be the place where odd ribbon mechanics shine. Finding unique traits to take advantage of (like a vampire an moving water or the cursed creature turned to stone).
Every class can engage with it because they all have tools and skills the ranger should be the A or S tier class to do it (or at least getting you between them)
Exploration is about finding cool world build POI.
....
Every class can engage with it because they all have tools and skills the ranger should be the A or S tier class to do it (or at least getting you between them)
The problem is that in most games it is not at all difficult for PCs to find points of interest, because points of interest are where plot happens and DMs generally want plot to happen - spending 4 real life hours with the party lost and wandering around a featureless forest is really really boring for everyone involved so most DMs make it idiot-proof by e.g. giving the PCs a map with key locations marked on it, having easy to find / obvious clues to lead them to it, or other "sign posting" that the PCs should go check out the thing.
Likewise, overland travel is boring after about level 5, no level 5 PC is scared of a couple of bears or a pack of wolves. Food and Water is trivially easy to magically conjure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
People do want it to be functional, but being functional isn't all that much a part of the class identity. Honestly, the best way of filling the core identity in 2014 is to ignore the Ranger class and build a Scout Rogue.
It does not help that the skills as written with the difficulties as described cover just a very mundane range of abilities. Yes, yes a good DM blah blah. But that excuse falls flat, if you need a good DM to make things work it wont work at a lot of tables. Maybe they should change things so it works with a below average DM.
Or take Expertise in nature and survival skills as ranger, no? If your entire fantasy begins and ends with only ever being an outdoorsman that trivializes exploration by just being in the party... It's like the idea that all paladins must be lawful good. Used to be "class fantasy", but paladin grew out of these pants.
Expertise wasn't an option for the 2014 ranger. The core fantasy of the ranger is the outdoorsman that trivializes exploration. That doesn't mean that's the only thing your character should be, it just means you should expect to go beyond that core in some way.
Well it's a bad core idea then. Being limited to outdoorsmanship (only on specific terrains, I might add) is bad. Trivializing a whole pillar of the game is bad.
There's a ton of abilities that trivialize pillars of the game.
So, it comes back to the question of what a Ranger could bring to the table that would make a party happy to have them around. Along with them being doubly glad to contribute.
If it comes to the idea that another class would be a better ranger than the ranger, there's a problem. Especially in the context of having equal and worthwhile opportunities to shine at the table.
The whole point is being happy to play a ranger. So, what is missing? What might fix it?
I made my views clear in the opening post, but what about you?
Not "a ton". But it's nothing good. Trivializing stuff makes you not play a part of the game. I don't play DnD to end up not playing DnD.
edit: double post
The ranger needs an identity outside of the core concept, because the core concept is simply too limited to actually be a good class.
Exactly. A character that guides the party through one specific type of hazardous terrain should be a temporary sidekick / NPC not a full party member. It's the problem with the core concept of the 5e Ranger. Wilderness guides are great, but they usually stay and watch over the camp while the adventurers go delve into the ancient ruins to retrieve the magical artifact.
ETA: Nobody remembers the name of Edmund Hillary's Sherpa guide.
In the three pillars of D&D, combat, exploration, and social, Rangers are good in combat and exploration.
However exploration is pretty much unsupported in D&D, and for what little is left, Rogue or (especially) Bard is perfectly capable of handling it, while still being good (or great) in the social and combat pillars.
That leaves Ranger with the combat branch where, yes, they are good, but they're competing with Fighters and Paladins who do it better, and pretty much every mage class which dominate in combat.
They are better than Monks though, so they've got that going for them, which is nice.
Part of the problem for the concept is the D&D world is pretty mundane. Sure, yes you can go to hell or something but its not like WoW where there are zones and now you are in a level 50 zone with level 50 environmental hazards. You might be in a area with powerful monsters but its still pretty much just a forest. Yes a DM, blah blah. But if the exploration tier leveled and got dangers appropriate to level 15 characters and the rangers abilities were especially good in dealing with them in a way a decent roll on survival from a rando with a decent wisdom couldn't it could be a solid niche. And expertise does not cut it as on a d20 the rando rolling enough higher than the expert so the expertise meant nothing is not that rare.
Skills in general go from totally incompetent person, to like Olympic athlete in range where you are trying to pretend Olympic athlete competes well against super powers. And as I do not see them changing their die system and bounded accuracy concept, then imo expert abilities should lean more heavily into non skill based feats showing superhuman levels of "skill". A ranger shouldn't be rolling survival to track the enemy at level 10, rolling survival to track people is for mere mortals, they should be pointing to their left and saying they are 2 miles that way. They should have almost precognitive levels of senses for danger. At higher levels give them their own ranges for all ranged weapons like 1 mile is their short range.
I agree with this. It isn’t bad at all. I would like to see Find familiar added to the primal list because it makes sense and I’d like to see the cantrips restored, maybe conjured barrage combined with the other similar spell as a level up instead of wasting two spots for basically the same spell.
My big issue continues to be with Beast Master. They had a good thing going with the drake warden that was a really good step in the right direction and then they went back to Tasha’s thing. I still strongly agree that your beast should level up and grow as you do, meaning size, power, and ability. I don’t know why exactly you can’t summon a creature you can ride as a medium creature but I feel like you should be able to. The other option if not a little crazier would be beast master allowing the summoning of multiple creatures that you can control. Lastly, they got rid of the generic stat blocks for the Druid, why can’t they do the same for the ranger? It’s not difficult.
Hey there,
At the risk of committing a faux pas, as I haven't had time to read everybody's replies, I have to say I strongly agree with what the OP has posted. I mightn't take exactly those suggestions as to how I'd change it, but the underpinning logic and the message are dead-on.
Personally, the fact that all the classes are just getting saddled with class-specific prepared spells per day is a really lazy design choice. The loss of cantrips doesn't bother me, admittedly. To the contrary, I'd prefer have weapon mastery, although on the same terms as a War Cleric as presented in this UA: 1 weapon mastery per day. 2 is, realistically, as many as you're going to need, so giving the "hybrid classes" 2 weapon mastery options per day basically gives them everything a fully-fledged warrior would have (Fighter's later class features notwithstanding).
Rather, I agree with your fundamental point that the proposed changes do nothing to build towards a mechanically or thematically rewarding Ranger. Weapon mastery instead of Cantrips? I'll take it. Conjure Volley and Conjure Barrage? What on earth does that do? What identity does that reinforce?
Deft Explorer is also silly to me. On one hand, you could say it's overly-specific in all the ways that compromised the 5e Ranger. On the other, you could say it's basically redundant. How likely is a party to be travelled through more than 2 biomes in the same long rest period? I far more anticipate that this is just going to be a permanently utilisable boon with extra steps in the phrasing. And again, it's focusing in all the wrong places.
If I were to suggest a basic amendment to what they're proposing, I'd honestly suggest just scrapping the 'Hunter' subclass and building it's core features in as decision points on the base Ranger. To address one half of the OP: Hunter does not have a distinguishable identity beyond it's core class. It's just 'Ranger-Ranger', as far as I can see. Abandon it and assimilate it's features into the core class and you have a class with a satisfactory number of decision points, some defensive and offensive quirks that allow it to serve a warrior role, alongside it's primal spell list allowing it to serve a Druid role. Just give them Survival as a proficiency at lvl1 and be done with it - bring back Expertise in full and give up on this Deft Explorer thing. That allows them to serve their expert role. And certainly, certainly borrow the formula of 'Hunter's Lore' from the 'Hunter' subclass and build that into every Ranger subclass.
How flavourful would it be at lvl6 for a Ranger subclass to get a modification on it's Hunter's Mark? A Beastmaster's companion gains the benefit of the Ranger's Hunter's Mark. A Gloomstalker is always considered to be lightly obscured/have half cover against it's quarry. A Fey Wanderer's prey has disadvantage on saving throws to resist the Ranger's charm and fear effects. Simple; flavourful; does a great deal to address the use of Hunter's Mark as a core feature of the class. If I'm being honest, I think nerfing the spell (or relying on it at all) is kind of a flawed premise, but this is the best means by which I think they could invest in it as a meaningful option mechanically and thematically.
Alas, poor Ranger. It has always been one of my favourite classes, and there's some chronic inability of the writers to get it right. Even in 2e and 3.5e it wasn't able to keep up. I don't know what it is about this class, but I just have to hope our collective feedback will drive the team to start working on the foundations of the class, instead of doing... whatever they think they've done in the latest UA.
And I will conclude to thank the OP and assert that this is all just my opinion. I can't claim to speak on anyone else's behalf, but I'm reassured to see that the general responses on this thread suggest we might be able to get more alterations out of WOTC.
Depends on the campaign, in one of my campaigns we've spend the entire thing either in the ocean or on the coast. In the other campaign we teleported across the continent with the help of NPCs pretty frequently and often travelled between forest, mountain, arctic, and swamps.
The Hunter isn't that Ranger-y though, it's basically stealing a bunch of features from Rogue. It's more like a RangerxRogue MC than a Ranger-Ranger.
Am I the only one who considers Exploration to be more than just overland travel? In my mind navigating a dungeon or scouting out an enemy stronghold are both examples of the Exploration Pillar too, and that seems way easier to develop class features for than overland travel, which is mainly handled via skill checks.
Roving is probably my favorite of the UA ranger features because it makes rangers better at doing things like swimming across rivers, climbing up trees to get a better vantage point, running and jumping between rooftops, and scaling palace walls. It feels like a good translation of a wilderness survivalist's skill set that can be applied outside the forest.
Feral Senses is another great feature, in my opinion. It just comes online so late into the game that it might as well not exist. Getting something like Blindsight to represent a uniquely honed sense of smell and hearing is a strong mechanic that is also quite flavorful while also making rangers better at exploring dark tunnels and fighting guerilla wars in the Underdark.
Features that make the ranger better at maneuvering through complex/difficult terrain, overcoming sensory limitations most PCs have, and having new ways of interacting with their environment would all be much more welcome than features that auto-succeed on what would normally just be a skill check.
No. If you've only got three pillars, the exploration pillar pretty has to be 'all travel and investigation'.
Exploration is about finding cool world build POI.
World building includes mundane things like food and warmth but also odd uses for tools (like fixing a broken wagon wheel or finding the sprites lost mount)
Exploration should also be the place where odd ribbon mechanics shine. Finding unique traits to take advantage of (like a vampire an moving water or the cursed creature turned to stone).
Every class can engage with it because they all have tools and skills the ranger should be the A or S tier class to do it (or at least getting you between them)
The problem is that in most games it is not at all difficult for PCs to find points of interest, because points of interest are where plot happens and DMs generally want plot to happen - spending 4 real life hours with the party lost and wandering around a featureless forest is really really boring for everyone involved so most DMs make it idiot-proof by e.g. giving the PCs a map with key locations marked on it, having easy to find / obvious clues to lead them to it, or other "sign posting" that the PCs should go check out the thing.
Likewise, overland travel is boring after about level 5, no level 5 PC is scared of a couple of bears or a pack of wolves. Food and Water is trivially easy to magically conjure.