Hello, I know this is kinda late, but I was thinking about the new Ranger, and while I agree that the changes are good to the combat itself and I don't dislike them, I think that the Ranger feels, at least at low level, less an explorer and more a fighting focused class. I don't think that the Natural Explorer from the 5e was the best solution to get that natural expert feeling because you depended completely on the enviroment, but I think that was the correct feel.
Summarizing up, I like the idea of a core ability enviromentally based to the ranger, or some kind of subclass based on that.
The satisfaction ratings scare me because people who like monks or fighters like it but they out weigh people who "main play" rangers. I know a couple of ranger that feel discouraged/disenfranchised . Few stood up for beastmaster traits that got removed but druid got community outrage.
The new design is too spell focused for things that were covered via features. And now spell designs (lists/prepared) make it less individual.
In particular I liked having ignored difficult terrain as it seemed ranger specific. Extra movement feels monk like (and Can be gotten via spells for a cost)
I don't mind natural explorer at a most tables. The "Situational" aspect is hard to measure and I think most creative players got a balanced use out of it. But with the satisfaction ratings it's unlikely to be reintegrated in any form.
It depends to some degree on what they are doing with skills. If foraging for example is a sliding scale of how much you gather based on your skill check expertise may cover the foraging portion, letting a high enough survival check have the party avoid difficult terrain while traveling again expertise fills the void.
I never liked the idea of favored terrains as outside of the terrain now you are just a dude with normal survival skills. So if it can be reflected in just high DCs which are hard to hit without expertise I think it can work, the increased movement and movement modes feel very fitting for a fast moving ranger to me.
The only rangery thing to me lost is Primeval Awareness. Everything else feels like expertise in survival is potentially a solid replacement on a thematic level, whether the skill can cover those abilities is unknown.
As an aside I am not happy with what they did for them in combat. The no concentration hunters mark comes in too low making it too good of a dip and after level 5 they stagnate, spells advance too slowly for half casters and they gain no extra attacks etc. Personally level 11 I'd have hunters mark do 2d6, and level 17 3d6. Also maybe 1/2 casters should get their new spell level every 3 levels instead of every 4, heck have them end with more low level spells than full casters but still have it cap at 5th level spells. Getting access to 5th level spells at 17th level especially when they are not unique ranger spells scaled for your 1/2 casting is very underwhelming.
I think that the generalization of spell lists is creating a problem with half casters, since full casters now hace access to the same spells but with slots of more level.
Also about ouside combat, in one dnd you can just pick one or two levels of rogue and then focus on druid and, at least at low/mid level you will have more utility than a Ranger at exploring, since you have expertise, cunning action, and a full caster spell list with the wild shape ability that gives you more mobility in terms of different kinds of speed.
Btw sorry for answering that late, i rarely go to see the forums XD
Yeah, i got that feeling, and also the thing is that you can get the same results with different clases that aren't a Ranger, so now you just can ignore the Ranger existence by player another character with the same abilities an mechanics, at least at low-mid level
Also the thing with natural explorer was that sometimes it was useless, since there are times where you just don't know in what environment you would be.
But yeah, since the satisfaction ratings are good I doubt it will be reviewed.
You may get some similar themes with a rogue/druid multi class but that is what the PH half casters pretty much are. They are a mult class formed into a concrete hybrid class. I do agree that the loss of class specific spells may cause a issue, maybe like people were suggesting in the paladin, some class spells should become class features even if they use spell slots and act like spells in all other ways being a class feature and not a actual spell protects them not only from the generic lists but the weird interaction with bards.
I didn't thought about Magical Secrets interactions, but I agree that they are strange, also because I think they can choose two spells whenever they prepare spell, so they can adaptate to all the situations if they have some time.
About half casters, I think that it depends about the kind of half caster the character is. If we are talking about half casters being the main class and not a subclass I disagree, because while I agree that Rangers are hybrids of Druids and Rogues, and Paladins are hybrids of Clerics and Fighters (we can include Artificers as hybrids of Rogues (or something that gain ability with tools and expertise) and Wizards) the results are different that when you take a subclass half caster or a multiclass half caster. When they were the main class, they had their own identity and abilities, such as Smite or Auras in the case of paladins, Natural explorer and natural enemy in the case of Ranger, and infusions in the case of artificer, that made them more than just a mix. But since the Ranger now just get expertise it is just that, a mix. At least Paladins mantain their identities.
I also feel like losing identity with the ranger, exploring and tracking, surviving in the wild with ease, moving or hiding in the wild with great efficiency, having some connection with the animals and acting as a group to stalk their prey/targets, Thematically I liked the version of 5e, before Tasha, but only at the thematic level because unfortunately it was not a good class, I would prefer more useful and less circumstantial features that derive from that version, along with an animal companion (Let it take more emphasis and be improved with a subclass but that is common for all), that way it would be differentiated and it would make sense to be a separate class. Not like something in between druid and another class, they must share some spells, maybe be their link to society, but that's it.
When comparing the three experts, bards and rogues get expertise plus a skill modifier they use to mechanically support being an expert.
For bards it's inspiration. If they can't they can get someone who has a better shot.
For rogues they get reliable talent. What they are good at they rarely fail.
For rangers they got a "bag of utility" sometimes stacked advantage via FE, sometimes free actions, sometimes better resources to carry over, sometimes ignored terrain issues. They had primal awareness.
Now most were preparation and planning tools but it made them unique at certain skills. They were powerful when all used but required planning ahead. If you did you got usually two or three things to work every adventure. That made them experts.
So,what can be a tacked on feature that creates some of the skill value back and meets part way between
My thoughts:
1. They need a detection or unique sense boon. Wrap some natural explorer tracking, PA, an FE bits back in.
2. Return some form of ranger unique Ignored difficult terrain.
3. Return some prep time features spread thinner than NE(powerful but "situational"). EXAMPLE: Maybe long rest downtime for foraging,harvesting or tool crafting or extra watch time.
P.S
I apologize for my use of "situational" as it is a vague claim that creates self reinforced negative outlook while making any justifiable analysis impossible.
Hopefully (if they decide to let it still existing) the beastmaster will get a better treatment than un 5e base.
And yeah, I agree that some useful features would be great, even better if they are unique features of the Rangers (also the spell treatment in one dnd as you mention is pretty strange and in some ways bad, not only in spellcasters getting new spells but also in spells themselfs, just like the find steed of the paladin)
Don't worry, I understand that you refer to features that fit some concrete situations perfectly but normally are difficult to use.
I completely agree with this, Ranger are experts of tracking, traveling and environments itselfs, their features need to reflect what they are meant to be (the second one can be easy to add in the new roving feature, it isn't a broken addition). The first one is specially ausent since the third one can be compensated via spells and expertise, but tracking isn't that easy to compensate
this may have been covered already, but I'm a little disappointed that they don't have a Ranger variant that doesn't use magic, kind of like the 3.5 version of Scout. I know that Scout is now a part of Rogue, but I would have liked to see it rather be a variant of Ranger. I think it would play better, and makes more sense. Plus they could have created some subclass features that still benefitted from Stealth, but didn't include Sneak Attack.
As a current Ranger player, I like the 1DD Ranger quite a bit. I think for the class in general I had three main concerns: 1) I don't like what they're doing with all the spellcasters, capping the number of spells they can prepare of each level based on how many spell slots they have of that level. It feels like an arbitrary limitation. 2) Giving them four Expertise skills feels like it might be too many. I think I'd like to swap one or two of them out for something more exploration or wilderness focused. 3) Giving them class features(Favored Enemy and Nature's Veil) that require the use of spell slots, a resource they do not have in abundance. I would prefer that Rangers get a limited number of free uses, and the ability to expend spell slots for extra uses(which is a design mechanic they began using in some of the more recent books). Even one free use per Short Rest would be a significant improvement.
With the Hunter, I felt they streamlined it too much, taking away the choices for each subclass feature. What I did like was the Hunter's Lore feature, I think it would be great if each Ranger subclass had their own enhancement to Hunter's Mark, the way Bard Colleges have their own unique uses for Bardic Inspiration. I'd also like to see something similar with Warlocks and Eldritch Blast.
As a current Ranger player, I like the 1DD Ranger quite a bit. I think for the class in general I had three main concerns: 1) I don't like what they're doing with all the spellcasters, capping the number of spells they can prepare of each level based on how many spell slots they have of that level. It feels like an arbitrary limitation. 2) Giving them four Expertise skills feels like it might be too many. I think I'd like to swap one or two of them out for something more exploration or wilderness focused. 3) Giving them class features(Favored Enemy and Nature's Veil) that require the use of spell slots, a resource they do not have in abundance. I would prefer that Rangers get a limited number of free uses, and the ability to expend spell slots for extra uses(which is a design mechanic they began using in some of the more recent books). Even one free use per Short Rest would be a significant improvement.
With the Hunter, I felt they streamlined it too much, taking away the choices for each subclass feature. What I did like was the Hunter's Lore feature, I think it would be great if each Ranger subclass had their own enhancement to Hunter's Mark, the way Bard Colleges have their own unique uses for Bardic Inspiration. I'd also like to see something similar with Warlocks and Eldritch Blast.
I think these are great ideas. I love being able to succesful lead my party through a blizard, keeping them feed, and not lost while tracking our prey or avoiding the enemy. I'm hoping some free uses will allow this flavor to continue
lvl 1 expertise, spell list of a druid, d10 all weapon and armor mastery, and cantrips :') I mean whats the point having "half caster" on rougly the same level as caster on early game.
Feels a bit more legit than paladin tho.
I do like the survival aspect and class apt; roving etc. that have been kept. But should implement another low one apt instead of the swarming early magic levels... its senseless.
Hello, I know this is kinda late, but I was thinking about the new Ranger, and while I agree that the changes are good to the combat itself and I don't dislike them, I think that the Ranger feels, at least at low level, less an explorer and more a fighting focused class. I don't think that the Natural Explorer from the 5e was the best solution to get that natural expert feeling because you depended completely on the enviroment, but I think that was the correct feel.
Summarizing up, I like the idea of a core ability enviromentally based to the ranger, or some kind of subclass based on that.
The satisfaction ratings scare me because people who like monks or fighters like it but they out weigh people who "main play" rangers. I know a couple of ranger that feel discouraged/disenfranchised . Few stood up for beastmaster traits that got removed but druid got community outrage.
The new design is too spell focused for things that were covered via features. And now spell designs (lists/prepared) make it less individual.
In particular I liked having ignored difficult terrain as it seemed ranger specific. Extra movement feels monk like (and Can be gotten via spells for a cost)
I don't mind natural explorer at a most tables. The "Situational" aspect is hard to measure and I think most creative players got a balanced use out of it. But with the satisfaction ratings it's unlikely to be reintegrated in any form.
It depends to some degree on what they are doing with skills. If foraging for example is a sliding scale of how much you gather based on your skill check expertise may cover the foraging portion, letting a high enough survival check have the party avoid difficult terrain while traveling again expertise fills the void.
I never liked the idea of favored terrains as outside of the terrain now you are just a dude with normal survival skills. So if it can be reflected in just high DCs which are hard to hit without expertise I think it can work, the increased movement and movement modes feel very fitting for a fast moving ranger to me.
The only rangery thing to me lost is Primeval Awareness. Everything else feels like expertise in survival is potentially a solid replacement on a thematic level, whether the skill can cover those abilities is unknown.
As an aside I am not happy with what they did for them in combat. The no concentration hunters mark comes in too low making it too good of a dip and after level 5 they stagnate, spells advance too slowly for half casters and they gain no extra attacks etc. Personally level 11 I'd have hunters mark do 2d6, and level 17 3d6. Also maybe 1/2 casters should get their new spell level every 3 levels instead of every 4, heck have them end with more low level spells than full casters but still have it cap at 5th level spells. Getting access to 5th level spells at 17th level especially when they are not unique ranger spells scaled for your 1/2 casting is very underwhelming.
I think that the generalization of spell lists is creating a problem with half casters, since full casters now hace access to the same spells but with slots of more level.
Also about ouside combat, in one dnd you can just pick one or two levels of rogue and then focus on druid and, at least at low/mid level you will have more utility than a Ranger at exploring, since you have expertise, cunning action, and a full caster spell list with the wild shape ability that gives you more mobility in terms of different kinds of speed.
Btw sorry for answering that late, i rarely go to see the forums XD
Yeah, i got that feeling, and also the thing is that you can get the same results with different clases that aren't a Ranger, so now you just can ignore the Ranger existence by player another character with the same abilities an mechanics, at least at low-mid level
Also the thing with natural explorer was that sometimes it was useless, since there are times where you just don't know in what environment you would be.
But yeah, since the satisfaction ratings are good I doubt it will be reviewed.
You may get some similar themes with a rogue/druid multi class but that is what the PH half casters pretty much are. They are a mult class formed into a concrete hybrid class. I do agree that the loss of class specific spells may cause a issue, maybe like people were suggesting in the paladin, some class spells should become class features even if they use spell slots and act like spells in all other ways being a class feature and not a actual spell protects them not only from the generic lists but the weird interaction with bards.
I didn't thought about Magical Secrets interactions, but I agree that they are strange, also because I think they can choose two spells whenever they prepare spell, so they can adaptate to all the situations if they have some time.
About half casters, I think that it depends about the kind of half caster the character is. If we are talking about half casters being the main class and not a subclass I disagree, because while I agree that Rangers are hybrids of Druids and Rogues, and Paladins are hybrids of Clerics and Fighters (we can include Artificers as hybrids of Rogues (or something that gain ability with tools and expertise) and Wizards) the results are different that when you take a subclass half caster or a multiclass half caster. When they were the main class, they had their own identity and abilities, such as Smite or Auras in the case of paladins, Natural explorer and natural enemy in the case of Ranger, and infusions in the case of artificer, that made them more than just a mix. But since the Ranger now just get expertise it is just that, a mix. At least Paladins mantain their identities.
I also feel like losing identity with the ranger, exploring and tracking, surviving in the wild with ease, moving or hiding in the wild with great efficiency, having some connection with the animals and acting as a group to stalk their prey/targets, Thematically I liked the version of 5e, before Tasha, but only at the thematic level because unfortunately it was not a good class, I would prefer more useful and less circumstantial features that derive from that version, along with an animal companion (Let it take more emphasis and be improved with a subclass but that is common for all), that way it would be differentiated and it would make sense to be a separate class. Not like something in between druid and another class, they must share some spells, maybe be their link to society, but that's it.
When comparing the three experts, bards and rogues get expertise plus a skill modifier they use to mechanically support being an expert.
For bards it's inspiration. If they can't they can get someone who has a better shot.
For rogues they get reliable talent. What they are good at they rarely fail.
For rangers they got a "bag of utility" sometimes stacked advantage via FE, sometimes free actions, sometimes better resources to carry over, sometimes ignored terrain issues. They had primal awareness.
Now most were preparation and planning tools but it made them unique at certain skills. They were powerful when all used but required planning ahead. If you did you got usually two or three things to work every adventure. That made them experts.
So,what can be a tacked on feature that creates some of the skill value back and meets part way between
My thoughts:
1. They need a detection or unique sense boon. Wrap some natural explorer tracking, PA, an FE bits back in.
2. Return some form of ranger unique Ignored difficult terrain.
3. Return some prep time features spread thinner than NE(powerful but "situational"). EXAMPLE: Maybe long rest downtime for foraging,harvesting or tool crafting or extra watch time.
P.S
I apologize for my use of "situational" as it is a vague claim that creates self reinforced negative outlook while making any justifiable analysis impossible.
Hopefully (if they decide to let it still existing) the beastmaster will get a better treatment than un 5e base.
And yeah, I agree that some useful features would be great, even better if they are unique features of the Rangers (also the spell treatment in one dnd as you mention is pretty strange and in some ways bad, not only in spellcasters getting new spells but also in spells themselfs, just like the find steed of the paladin)
Don't worry, I understand that you refer to features that fit some concrete situations perfectly but normally are difficult to use.
I completely agree with this, Ranger are experts of tracking, traveling and environments itselfs, their features need to reflect what they are meant to be (the second one can be easy to add in the new roving feature, it isn't a broken addition). The first one is specially ausent since the third one can be compensated via spells and expertise, but tracking isn't that easy to compensate
this may have been covered already, but I'm a little disappointed that they don't have a Ranger variant that doesn't use magic, kind of like the 3.5 version of Scout. I know that Scout is now a part of Rogue, but I would have liked to see it rather be a variant of Ranger. I think it would play better, and makes more sense. Plus they could have created some subclass features that still benefitted from Stealth, but didn't include Sneak Attack.
Loved the 3.5 Scout, may it rest in peace!
As a current Ranger player, I like the 1DD Ranger quite a bit. I think for the class in general I had three main concerns: 1) I don't like what they're doing with all the spellcasters, capping the number of spells they can prepare of each level based on how many spell slots they have of that level. It feels like an arbitrary limitation. 2) Giving them four Expertise skills feels like it might be too many. I think I'd like to swap one or two of them out for something more exploration or wilderness focused. 3) Giving them class features(Favored Enemy and Nature's Veil) that require the use of spell slots, a resource they do not have in abundance. I would prefer that Rangers get a limited number of free uses, and the ability to expend spell slots for extra uses(which is a design mechanic they began using in some of the more recent books). Even one free use per Short Rest would be a significant improvement.
With the Hunter, I felt they streamlined it too much, taking away the choices for each subclass feature. What I did like was the Hunter's Lore feature, I think it would be great if each Ranger subclass had their own enhancement to Hunter's Mark, the way Bard Colleges have their own unique uses for Bardic Inspiration. I'd also like to see something similar with Warlocks and Eldritch Blast.
I think these are great ideas. I love being able to succesful lead my party through a blizard, keeping them feed, and not lost while tracking our prey or avoiding the enemy. I'm hoping some free uses will allow this flavor to continue
lvl 1 expertise, spell list of a druid, d10 all weapon and armor mastery, and cantrips :')
I mean whats the point having "half caster" on rougly the same level as caster on early game.
Feels a bit more legit than paladin tho.
I do like the survival aspect and class apt; roving etc. that have been kept.
But should implement another low one apt instead of the swarming early magic levels... its senseless.