# Ranger playtest discussion



## Neonchameleon

This was always going to be a big one.

The ranger ceases to be a "spells known" class and has now become a "spells prepared" class with two cantrips. Favoured enemy means they also always have Hunter's Mark prepared - and hunter's mark no longer takes concentration.

Natural explorer has been replaced by Deft Explorer - but the two languages at L1 have been replaced by a second expertise.

Rangers no longer have access to the Dueling fighting style. It's _just_ Archery, Defense, or Two Weapon Fighting (which no longer uses a bonus action but is otherwise seemingly unchanged).

Hide in Plain Sight and Banish have both been dropped for Nature's Veil.

The Hunter's been done dirty. At level 3 they all get Colossus Slayer. At level 6 they now know immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities of the target of their mark. And the Multiattack has become "Always have the awful Conjure Barrage spell prepared and can undercast it", somehow making it worse; I don't care if it is a 60ft cone, a 1d8 damage spell is a waste of an action at level 11.

In summary giving the Ranger Spells Prepared is a boon in terms of strength but IMO will lead to less interesting characters. Giving the ranger cantrips is _good_. (Especially given that this means Rangers can go the Shilleleagh approach and there's even a potential for Magic Stone). And it's otherwise tweaks on the Tasha's version that appears equivalent but slightly blander


----------



## Gorck

Neonchameleon said:


> Favored enemy means they also always have Hunter's Mark prepared - and hunter's mark no longer takes concentration.



It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.  Rangers in my groups have always tended to spend all their spell slots on Hunter's Mark and none on their other spells.  That's why I enjoyed the Tasha's addition of Favored Foe because it didn't use up a slot, which gave the Ranger more flexibility to cast other spells.  But maybe that's not a problem in other people's groups.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

why is the multi attack feature a spell... then again a lot of things are spells I think should just be 'things rangers can do'

I like that the extra attack of 2 weap doesn't take a bonus action, but other then hunters mark the ranger needs more to use it... maybe give them cunning action at a higher level to make them more mobile. (with my luck if I suggest it they will give them misty step or something)


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

All in all, a huge improvement for the main class, a huge downgrade for the archetype!

Classic Hunter on this class chassis would be pretty good.


----------



## DEFCON 1

I don't believe WotC's ever going to get rid of spells on the Ranger because using the spell slot system mechanically allows Rangers to have a heck of a lot more and varied features and abilities at their fingertips than if they just had a list of "things Rangers can do" in the class feature list.

That list would probably max out at like a half-dozen things over the entire 20 levels.  Spells give out over a dozen different things to the Ranger at 1st level alone.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

DEFCON 1 said:


> I don't believe WotC's ever going to get rid of spells on the Ranger because using the spell slot system mechanically allows Rangers to have a heck of a lot more and varied features and abilities at their fingertips than if they just had a list of "things Rangers can do" in the class feature list.
> 
> That list would probably max out at like a half-dozen things over the entire 20 levels.  Spells give out over a dozen different things to the Ranger at 1st level alone.



I mean, they really need to get rid of spellcasting.

It's not like most of the things the spells can do fit Rangers thematically or are at all interesting. The vast majority of people who actually play Rangers aren't going to miss them, I'd suggest.

You know what they actually need to do? Bring back Wardens. Spellcasting Rangers should become Wardens, the weird Druid-hybrid class. Spell-less Rangers become Katniss Everdeen and her ilk.


----------



## Digdude@1970

In the video, the tone of Crawford seems to worry that they think this version of the Ranger is too powerful and may need to be nerfed at some later date. To me, it still does not seem powerful enough. I think it needs some better built in class features, but Im not sold on what or how since I dont know what the other classes have been tweaked to.


----------



## Vael

This all seems reasonable to me. I get that some would prefer a Ranger without spells, and this is going the other direction, but this feels cleaner to give Rangers access to the Snare spell than write up a way to make snares that more or less mimics the spell.


----------



## Sacrosanct

I think this is a case where we really need to see how this ranger plays out in play rather than whiteroom the whole thing.  I suspect gaining access to cantrips (and spells a lower level) will be a pretty big deal.  Cantrips especially, with how they can be swapped out after every long rest.  And a free hunter's mark frees up spell slots for other purposes.


----------



## OB1

Hunters mark not costing concentration for the Ranger is also huge.  Not only do you not have to worry about it getting lost because you are damaged, you can also have another concentration spell up at the same time.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

OB1 said:


> Hunters mark not costing concentration for the Ranger is also huge.  Not only do you not have to worry about it getting lost because you are damaged, you can also have another concentration spell up at the same time.



i hope we see heex work for warlock that way


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Digdude@1970 said:


> In the video, the tone of Crawford seems to worry that they think this version of the Ranger is too powerful and may need to be nerfed at some later date.



Holy hell really? If he thinks that about this, then WotC really do have it in for Rangers. This is not a powerful class/subclass. Low DPS, mediocre utility, not tanky. It's arguably better in the Exploration pillar than it was, but given it should be KING of the exploration pillar, well, that's not saying much lol.


----------



## Minigiant

First Glance.

They powered up the ranger by taking out all the flavor.

Favored enemy deflavored. Subclass deflavored. Tier 3 and 4 stuff still weak.

More when I get off work.


----------



## Vael

I didn't get that read from Jeremy, it read more as "this is a playtest, *nothing is set in stone*".

Assuming other prepared spellcasting classes will follow the same prepared spells = spell slots, it is amusing that the Ranger will have more spells available to it than its Druid cousin, since Rangers get 2 cantrips, 2 1st level spells and Hunter's Mark.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Remember spells are going to change too. Conjure Barrage could get buffed.


----------



## Neonchameleon

MonsterEnvy said:


> Remember spells are going to change too. Conjure Barrage could get buffed.



However they had spells changing in this playtest packet. Conjure Barrage was not on that list - and if there was any time to buff conjure barrage then it was now.

Meaning we have to talk about this and feedback it if we think it should happen.


----------



## Puddles

I think Favoured Enemy should be renamed something like “Readied Hunter” if this is the rule they are going for. The rule seems neat, it just lacks much association with the rule it is replacing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MonsterEnvy said:


> Remember spells are going to change too. Conjure Barrage could get buffed.



the lowering the spell slot intrigues me

I think if you 'down cast' fireball down to a 2nd level spell cut the AoE down and lower the damage 2d it would STILL be good.


----------



## Clint_L

A bit underwhelmed. Why not just make Hunter's Mark a class feature that doesn't use a spell slot? It's basically mandatory to keep rangers competitive. 

The extra expertise is nice; better than the extra languages, but I would like to see Survival become an automatic class feature. Rangers should always have advantage on survival checks. It's the entire basis of their class flavour.

Oof, that level 11 conjure barrage "feature" is weak; hunters should automatically add an extra d8 to the damage dice.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Clint_L said:


> A bit underwhelmed. Why not just make Hunter's Mark a class feature that doesn't use a spell slot? It's basically mandatory to keep rangers competitive.



I think Hex and Hunters mark should both be class features, and deal d6's equal to half your prof (so 1,2 or 3 d6)
I think sneak attack should be lowered to d4 at first level then at 2nd d4s equal to prof at 2nd and up grade to d6 at level 4ish and maybe d8's in the teens for levels.


Clint_L said:


> The extra expertise is nice; better than the extra languages, but I would like to see Survival become an automatic class feature. Rangers should always have advantage on survival checks. It's the entire basis of their class flavour.



at least they suggest it. 


Clint_L said:


> Oof, that level 11 conjure barrage "feature" is weak; hunters should automatically add an extra d8 to the damage dice.



I don't understand why it is a spell not just a multi attack feature.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> the lowering the spell slot intrigues me
> 
> I think if you 'down cast' fireball down to a 2nd level spell cut the AoE down and lower the damage 2d it would STILL be good.



But note that's because Fireball is, by design, overpowered. It's intentional and acknowledged as such by the designers. If you do it to non-OP spells it gets a bit less cool. But it's an interesting concept.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't understand why it is a spell not just a multi attack feature.



I honestly wonder if they're trolling, in the sense of pushing the Ranger far in the "magic ranger" direction to see how people react.


----------



## Stalker0

I think this is a scenario where people are focusing on the abilities....and ignoring the spells. The spells are what make this class, even if you don't like a spelled ranger, you HAVE to include that in your assessment.

Rangers now have Expertise AND Guidance along with the Enhance ability spell they already had....they are skill gods.

Rangers can now change their spells EVERY SINGLE DAY. That is a huge boost in flexibility.

They now get a barkskin that doesn't suck. They get heat metal now. Healing word is on the menu now.

To me the biggest "issue" is the loss of explore abilities. They don't have any exploring type stuff anymore...like at all.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I miss primal intuition... I liked that in tasha's guide.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Stalker0 said:


> I think this is a scenario where people are focusing on the abilities....and ignoring the spells. The spells are what make this class, even if you don't like a spelled ranger, you HAVE to include that in your assessment.
> 
> Rangers now have Expertise AND Guidance along with the Enhance ability spell they already had....they are skill gods.
> 
> Rangers can now change their spells EVERY SINGLE DAY. That is a huge boost in flexibility.
> 
> They now get a barkskin that doesn't suck. They get heat metal now. Healing word is on the menu now.
> 
> To me the biggest "issue" is the loss of explore abilities. They don't have any exploring type stuff anymore...like at all.



Perfectly good points. The trouble is that the spells make the class into... not a Ranger.

Like, there's a conception of what a Ranger is, even in a D&D sense, and it's not a dude who casts a bunch of spells to buff his skills, or has awesome combat magic. Even though they do now.  What we have here is a weird mess. There are, as you point out, ways to exploit that mess and make it effective. They're not what people would expect or necessarily want from the class, but they do exist.

And yeah as you say, their environment-related abilities are now pretty much entirely gone, and because of the way subclasses are designed, there's not a great deal of room to bring them back there.


----------



## Weiley31

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't understand why it is a spell not just a multi attack feature.



Perhaps under this new way of system thinking with the new UA, Experts aren't really mult-attackers. That would be more of a Warrior grouping thing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Weiley31 said:


> Perhaps under this new way of system thinking with the new UA, Experts aren't really mult-attackers. That would be more of a Warrior grouping thing.



maybe buy the Ranger is already dipping into the warrior group with fighting style (and I assume extra attack)


----------



## Digdude@1970

Stalker0 said:


> I think this is a scenario where people are focusing on the abilities....and ignoring the spells. The spells are what make this class, even if you don't like a spelled ranger, you HAVE to include that in your assessment.
> 
> Rangers now have Expertise AND Guidance along with the Enhance ability spell they already had....they are skill gods.
> 
> Rangers can now change their spells EVERY SINGLE DAY. That is a huge boost in flexibility.
> 
> They now get a barkskin that doesn't suck. They get heat metal now. Healing word is on the menu now.
> 
> To me the biggest "issue" is the loss of explore abilities. They don't have any exploring type stuff anymore...like at all.



Hope that is not a preview of the death of the exploration pillar.


----------



## Weiley31

GMforPowergamers said:


> maybe buy the Ranger is already dipping into the warrior group with fighting style (and I assume extra attack)



Which would/does fit into the Paradigm of the classes withing the Expert Grouping will be known for "borrowing" things from other groupings.


----------



## Haplo781

GMforPowergamers said:


> why is the multi attack feature a spell... then again a lot of things are spells I think should just be 'things rangers can do'



Because muh realism


----------



## Haplo781

Vael said:


> I didn't get that read from Jeremy, it read more as "this is a playtest, *nothing is set in stone*".
> 
> Assuming other prepared spellcasting classes will follow the same prepared spells = spell slots, it is amusing that the Ranger will have more spells available to it than its Druid cousin, since Rangers get 2 cantrips, 2 1st level spells and Hunter's Mark.



Druids will get free Healing Word tho


----------



## Minigiant

D


Haplo781 said:


> Because muh realism



More muh page space.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, they really need to get rid of spellcasting.
> 
> It's not like most of the things the spells can do fit Rangers thematically or are at all interesting. The vast majority of people who actually play Rangers aren't going to miss them, I'd suggest.
> 
> You know what they actually need to do? Bring back Wardens. Spellcasting Rangers should become Wardens, the weird Druid-hybrid class. Spell-less Rangers become Katniss Everdeen and her ilk.



Shrug.  Hey, people like what they like... but to me a spell-less Ranger that replaces spells with "Ranger features" results in the exact same thing-- a Ranger that does nature stuff.  And to me... there is no actual difference between the game telling me that the Ranger PC healing someone via herbalism and herbs versus healing someone via Cure Wounds, or that the Ranger giving his party a bonus to stealth checks via some weird Ranger stealth feature versus casting Pass Without Trace.  If the results are mechanically the same, I don't see the need for two different names and mechanical systems to represent it.  But I know a lot of folks here on EN World get all bent out of shape about "too much magic" thing... so it is what it is.  I just don't think the WotC designers have nearly the same problem with magic that the players here do, so everyone's kinda out of luck.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Vael said:


> I didn't get that read from Jeremy, it read more as "this is a playtest, *nothing is set in stone*".
> 
> Assuming other prepared spellcasting classes will follow the same prepared spells = spell slots, it is amusing that the Ranger will have more spells available to it than its Druid cousin, since Rangers get 2 cantrips, 2 1st level spells and Hunter's Mark.




I guess real full casters (not bard) will get something to compensate. Wizard already has arcane recovery.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think Hex and Hunters mark should both be class features, and deal d6's equal to half your prof (so 1,2 or 3 d6)



Sounds like something that would fit, if we were to do a weird thing like group classes by role... Strikers?


----------



## Neonchameleon

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't understand why it is a spell not just a multi attack feature.



Because the designers of original 5e decided to make just about everything that was even vaguely beyond the norm that wasn't hit points into a spell.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

I think it's fine to have a half-caster Druid in the game. Ranger just happens to be what that's called now.

WotC have no idea what else it could even be, so fighty-druidsy-petsy it is.


----------



## TheSword

I really like the changes to the class. Very good. I play a lot of rangers. Hunters mark change is substantial, being able to stack it with buff spells is excellent. I actually think Hunters mark is a very flavorful spell. 

Obviously hunter is less powerful, but the. Again the abilities were often circumstantial in that subclass. I’m glad that hunter won’t become the only go to (I hope!

Cantrips are very nice, as is an extra expertise. It’s a straight upgrade for me. Bravo.


----------



## Minigiant

The thing for me is I felt the ranger is a monster hunter and wilderness escort. So it used the best tools available: weapons, skills, and magic. The ranger would *sneak* up on the orcs, *shoot* an arrow, and the arrow would *blow the hell* up after hitting the lead orc.

The 5e and playtest ranger boost the magic without boosting what the point of the magic is. Magic with the weapon and skill buff spells is royally missing the point to me. Sometimes it makes me think I'm the one playing rangers weird. This playtest ranger is a huge departure from the ranger fantasy for me and feels more than throwing crazy ideas at the wall.


----------



## Charlaquin

I hate this ranger. It’s a round-up half caster with all of the non-evocation primal spells, and lost all of its interesting exploration abilities. That’s exactly the opposite of the direction I want to see the ranger move in.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Incidentally... I do appreciate WotC changing the _Barkskin_ spell.  It was my one barest toe dip into the "WOTC MAKES CRAP!" clarion call that so many people love to trumpet year after year and book after book that to see it changed is nice.

Granted... I dunno if anyone is still ever gonna CAST it... but I'm happy to see it adjusted nonetheless.


----------



## Weiley31

Charlaquin said:


> I hate this ranger. It’s a round-up half caster with all of the non-evocation primal spells, and lost none of its interesting exploration abilities. That’s exactly the opposite of the direction I want to see the ranger move in.



I'd say just keep the Cantrips and the Hunter's Mark. That's about it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Weiley31 said:


> I'd say just keep the Cantrips and the Hunter's Mark. That's about it.



I’m not a fan of cantrips on rangers. To me, rangers rely on skill and training, not magic. Ritual casting would be fine, but the less spellcasting the better, and especially not infinitely-spamable cantrips.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, they really need to get rid of spellcasting.
> 
> It's not like most of the things the spells can do fit Rangers thematically or are at all interesting. The vast majority of people who actually play Rangers aren't going to miss them, I'd suggest.
> 
> You know what they actually need to do? Bring back Wardens. Spellcasting Rangers should become Wardens, the weird Druid-hybrid class. Spell-less Rangers become Katniss Everdeen and her ilk.



If Ranger lost its spellcasting, I'd want to see a new primal half caster to get added to fill that gap. The alternate 4e class options for a primal themed half caster would be warden, seeker, or shaman.


----------



## TheSword

Frozen_Heart said:


> If Ranger lost its spellcasting, I'd want to see a new primal half caster to get added to fill that gap. The alternate 4e class options for a primal themed half caster would be warden, seeker, or shaman.



A ranger without spellcasting is a fighter.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

TheSword said:


> A ranger without spellcasting is a fighter.



You spelt scout rogue wrong.

I could see a spell-less ranger class working though, as long as there was a primal half caster to replace it.


----------



## TheSword

Charlaquin said:


> I hate this ranger. It’s a round-up half caster with all of the non-evocation primal spells, and lost none of its interesting exploration abilities. That’s exactly the opposite of the direction I want to see the ranger move in.



So you want a round down half caster with only evocation wizard spells, and losing all its interesting exploration abilities?


----------



## Charlaquin

TheSword said:


> So you want a round down half caster with only evocation wizard spells, and losing all its interesting exploration abilities?



I want less casting instead of more, and more non-magical exploration abilities instead of less (“lost none of” was a typo, should either have been “none of” or “lost all of”).


----------



## TheSword

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not a fan of cantrips on rangers. To me, rangers rely on skill and training, not magic. Ritual casting would be fine, but the less spellcasting the better, and especially not infinitely-spamable cantrips.



I’m not sure these will be spamable. Or even used in combat in a lot of occasions. They’re flavourful, appropriate and in keeping with the theme.

Druidcraft, Guidance, Mending, Message, Poison Spray, Produce Flame, Resistance, Shillelagh, Spare the Dying, Thorn Whip.


----------



## Charlaquin

TheSword said:


> I’m not sure these will be spamable. Or even used in combat in a lot of occasions. They’re flavourful, appropriate and in keeping with the theme.
> 
> Druidcraft, Guidance, Mending, Message, Poison Spray, Produce Flame, Resistance, Shillelagh, Spare the Dying, Thorn Whip.



Four of those are combat cantrips, and in my opinion none of the combat ones are on-theme for the Ranger, nor are Druidcraft or Message.


----------



## TheSword

Charlaquin said:


> Four of those are combat cantrips, and in my opinion none of them, save maybe Mending and Spare the Dying are thematic for the ranger in my opinion.



Yes but not spamable combat cantrips. They are each used for pretty specific foes or vulnerabilities. No ranger is going to be thorn whipping every round. But they might do it when they need to reposition someone.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Charlaquin said:


> Four of those are combat cantrips, and in my opinion none of the combat ones are on-theme for the Ranger, nor are Druidcraft or Message.



I think it depends on the ranger - but I can _definitely_ see Shilelagh as on theme.


----------



## Charlaquin

TheSword said:


> Yes but not spamable combat cantrips. They are each used for pretty specific foes or vulnerabilities. No ranger is going to be thorn whipping every round. But they might do it when they need to reposition someone.



All cantrips are spamable, by virtue of being at-will and unlimited. Casting spells is hardly a thing I want rangers to do _at all_, let alone with no limitations. At least with leveled spells they only get a few per day. They don’t need and shouldn’t have cantrips on top of that, in my opinion.


----------



## Charlaquin

Neonchameleon said:


> I think it depends on the ranger - but I can _definitely_ see Shilelagh as on theme.



Ehh, I guess.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Frozen_Heart said:


> If Ranger lost its spellcasting, I'd want to see a new primal half caster to get added to fill that gap. The alternate 4e class options for a primal themed half caster would be warden, seeker, or shaman.



Yeah earlier in the thread (or a different one?) I was suggesting Warden. I think that makes the most sense and offers the most non-covered ground.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Charlaquin said:


> Four of those are combat cantrips, and in my opinion none of the combat ones are on-theme for the Ranger, nor are Druidcraft or Message.




I think this ship has sailed long ago... Now we should concentrate on getting the best half caster ranger possible.

The trend of this UA is evolution, not revolution. Which overall is a nice thing.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah earlier in the thread (or a different one?) I was suggesting Warden. I think that makes the most sense and offers the most non-covered ground.



Yeah of the other options, shaman seems largely folded into druid, while seeker would basically be a half caster ranger.

Warden offers its own really unique theme and mechanics in comparison.


----------



## Zubatcarteira

I want to be hopeful for the changes in this edition, but then they think going from d6 to d10 is a good capstone for a whole class, and I just give up.


----------



## Charlaquin

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think this ship has sailed long ago... Now we should concentrate on getting the best half caster ranger possible.
> 
> The trend of this UA is evolution, not revolution. Which overall is a nice thing.



Sure, but to me “the best half-caster ranger possible” does not round up and does not have cantrips. To me, the best half-caster ranger possible is one that relies the least on the spellcasting it’s stuck with to be effective. Preferably with some non-spell ability it can expend spell slots to power, Paladin smite style.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

In my own homebrew, Rangers can treat their favored terrains as a giant ''components pouch'' meaning they always have the components on hands to work their magic. This way their actions are still magical/supernatural, but they are not really wiggling their hands, chanting MANOS POTENTIS AHHHHH in the middle of the woods; they are gathering various mystical ingredients from nature and mixing them to create a magical effect.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

DEFCON 1 said:


> Shrug.  Hey, people like what they like... but to me a spell-less Ranger that replaces spells with "Ranger features" results in the exact same thing-- a Ranger that does nature stuff.  And to me... there is no actual difference between the game telling me that the Ranger PC healing someone via herbalism and herbs versus healing someone via Cure Wounds, or that the Ranger giving his party a bonus to stealth checks via some weird Ranger stealth feature versus casting Pass Without Trace.  If the results are mechanically the same, I don't see the need for two different names and mechanical systems to represent it.  But I know a lot of folks here on EN World get all bent out of shape about "too much magic" thing... so it is what it is.  I just don't think the WotC designers have nearly the same problem with magic that the players here do, so everyone's kinda out of luck.



WotC have consistently had no idea what a Ranger is, or what to do with, or how to make really anyone happy with Ranger for three editions now. It's one of the very few classes which was a total mess (thematically, at least) in 4th edition, as well as in 3E and 5E.

If they would like, "pick a lane" as people say, and drive it with the Ranger we could at least say "This is WotC's vision of the Ranger!", and agree with it or not. But we can't even say that. WotC are just sliding all over the road like someone about to get arrested for being 5x over the legal limit.

If they're supposed to be reliant on magic, and magic to be a major part of what a Ranger is, that needs to be part of the lore of the Ranger class, rather than being a brief aside, despite being the entire core and crux of their abilities, which it demonstrably is, people have argued well that it is.

Like, check it out if you have Beyond: Ranger

The Ranger description goes for _five paragraphs_ of flavour and really building the class up before briefly mentioning (literally two fairly short sentences!) that they can do magic! Then we get another two paragraphs with magic unmentioned! PICK A LANE!

What is this class? Is it a nature magician who also does some fighting and skill stuff? Okay, if so, fine, but that's not how you're presenting it in terms of descriptions. It's not what players expect. But it is how it exists in the rules. Even moreso in 1D&D than 5E, this is a nature magician who can fight more than anything else.

What's particularly striking to me is that new players love the Ranger concept (which doesn't really include magic, note, it's a brief aside at most), but then the actual mechanical class, they often find very off-putting. Far too much of the class' power is in the spells, and the spells are boring and weird and don't at all seem like anything Katniss, Aragorn, or Drizzt would do. Or even in most cases a videogame hunter-type (who tend to have flashier abilities). That you see no difference  is fine for you, but then if you really feel that way, why don't we give Fighters some spells to cover the abilities, and just re-theme them, for example? Why don't we do that with all classes? I mean Rogues would gain a gigantic advantage if they could cast some spells and we could theme them as Rogue abilities! Why not? Why is it fine here and not there?

TLDR: The real "magic problem" with Rangers is that it's not part of their D&D/class lore in any real/serious way, and no iconic or memorable Ranger-type characters in fiction - which is a_ common _archetype, note much more common than, say, Bard! - use Ranger-style magic at all. YET the Ranger class in 5E is totally reliant on magic to do its job (as has been well argued).


----------



## Minigiant

Ruin Explorer said:


> TLDR: The real "magic problem" with Rangers is that it's not part of their D&D/class lore in any real/serious way, and no iconic or memorable Ranger-type characters in fiction - which is a_ common _archetype, note much more common than, say, Bard! - use Ranger-style magic at all. YET the Ranger class in 5E is totally reliant on magic to do its job (as has been well argued).




The iconic Ranger is characters are video game characters like WOW's Rexxar or LOL's Ashe as only video games have the level of magic spells and magic items close to D&D.

The biggest sticking point with D&D is there is too much magic around in both mid school and modern base D&D. *No ranger would not use it*.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Minigiant said:


> The iconic Ranger is characters are video game characters like WOW's Rexxar or LOL's Ashe as only video games have the level of magic spells and magic items close to D&D.



They're simply not, though. Rexxar is an obscure-but-nerd-popular WoW/WC3 character known only to fairly serious Warcraft fans.

He is in no way iconic outside of WoW/WC3. He is not well-known. He is not a trope-forming character ("lol basically batman" memes are about as famous as he got), nor is he a character most people aspire to be. And even after all that? HE DOESN'T USE MAGIC IN WOW! Canonically he not a spellcaster of any kind, and doesn't even use Hunter magic. Abilities-wise, and you can look this up, the NPC has _Warrior_ abilities!

In the long-forgotten HotS, he's a Beastmaster, but doesn't use any magic not directly relating to his animals. This is strictly non-canon though, a lot of HotS characters have wildly divergent abilities from their WoW/WC3 self.

Ashe doesn't have any Ranger abilities, isn't really a "nature person" beyond being the leader of a "horde", and her magical abilities are those of an Arcane Archer in D&D terms. The only things even making you think she's a ranger are:

A) She has a bow.

and

B) She's technically a rip-off of Sylvanas from WC3/DotA, who is an ex-Ranger who became sort of Death Archer.

She's also not exactly one of the top-flight LoL characters. She's no Jinx, Ahri, Garen, Teemo or the like. She's one of the basically second-tier (arguably pushing third-tier at this point) characters in terms of how popular she is. People don't even do 10% as much fan art of her as the top-tier ones. Literally the only reason she's even remotely known is that she's a tutorial character (or was, I dunno if it still works that way).

So the idea that she's particularly iconic is also pretty questionable, given she's a rip-off of a WoW character, and not even a Ranger in any meaningful sense.



Minigiant said:


> The biggest sticking point with D&D is there is too much magic around in both mid school and modern base D&D. *No ranger would not use it*.



I don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm afraid. Perhaps could you rephrase significantly?


----------



## TheSword

Charlaquin said:


> All cantrips are spamable, by virtue of being at-will and unlimited. Casting spells is hardly a thing I want rangers to do _at all_, let alone with no limitations. At least with leveled spells they only get a few per day. They don’t need and shouldn’t have cantrips on top of that, in my opinion.



To me to qualify as spamable as spell needs the circumstances to favour casting it repeatedly as well as the means to do so.

You may be able to repeatedly cast thorn whip but you are highly unlikely to ever find it useful - so as far as I’m concerned I don’t think it is spamable.

I actually think I you can easily play a low magic Aragorn ranger with the new rules. You take guidance and resistance as cantrips and your ranger spells are things like cure wounds, lesser resistance, detect poison, goodberry, augury, etc. none of which are flashy or out of theme for a ranger knowledgeable in herbs and nature


----------



## TheSword

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, but to me “the best half-caster ranger possible” does not round up and does not have cantrips. To me, the best half-caster ranger possible is one that relies the least on the spellcasting it’s stuck with to be effective. Preferably with some non-spell ability it can expend spell slots to power, Paladin smite style.



The ranger only rounded down for the purposes of multi-classing. The single class ranger already rounds up.

What is the virtue of a non spell smite, rather than a spell smite?

Ranger magic synergises plenty with their fighting, they have a decent number of bonus action spells, healing and utility. Rangers are unique and play well with lots of party types. They’re a Jack of all trades, just favoring the fighting side, while the bard favors the magic.


----------



## Charlaquin

TheSword said:


> To me to qualify as spamable as spell needs the circumstances to favour casting it repeatedly as well as the means to do so.
> 
> You may be able to repeatedly cast thorn whip but you are highly unlikely to ever find it useful - so as far as I’m concerned I don’t think it is spamable.



But the ability to cast it as often as they want is athematic to the ranger in my opinion.


TheSword said:


> I actually think I you can easily play a low magic Aragorn ranger with the new rules. You take guidance and resistance as cantrips and your ranger spells are things like cure wounds, lesser resistance, detect poison, goodberry, augury, etc. none of which are flashy or out of theme for a ranger knowledgeable in herbs and nature



Their _effects_ are not necessarily out of theme, but them being spells is. Moreover, the ability to take a bunch of bad spells doesn’t make a non-spellcasting ranger actually a viable option to play.


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Digdude@1970 said:


> In the video, the tone of Crawford seems to worry that they think this version of the Ranger is too powerful and may need to be nerfed at some later date. To me, it still does not seem powerful enough.



I saw the video after reading comments about how this Ranger still isn't good enough, so I got a laugh out of Crawford's "oh man, this new Ranger is probably really OP".


----------



## Horwath

I was excited for ranger playtest, then I saw rangers AGAIN with spells?!?

Can we get a martial ranger? Please?

Or at least ranger with spellcasting ability that explicitly says that ranger spell DO NOT HAVE VERBAL components.

You are not stealthy guerrilla fighter if you have to yell out your spellcasting.


----------



## Charlaquin

TheSword said:


> The ranger only rounded down for the purposes of multi-classing. The single class ranger already rounds up.



No it doesn’t? The 2014 ranger follows the standard spell slot progression at half their level rounded down - they get new spell slots on even-numbered levels, starting from 2nd. This UA ranger follows the standard spell slot progression at half their level rounded up - they get new spell slots at odd-numbered levels, starting from 1st.


TheSword said:


> What is the virtue of a non spell smite, rather than a spell smite?



Giving you a use for spell slots that aren’t spells.


----------



## Charlaquin

Hexmage-EN said:


> I saw the video after reading comments about how this Ranger still isn't good enough, so I got a laugh out of Crawford's "oh man, this new Ranger is probably really OP".



They got nerfed like crazy if you ask me.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Hexmage-EN said:


> I saw the video after reading comments about how this Ranger still isn't good enough, so I got a laugh out of Crawford's "oh man, this new Ranger is probably really OP".



I mean Crawford is the dude who things that natural weapons that do 1d6 damage are a hugely advantageous racial feature on-par with Darkvision or Spellcasting, so unfortunately he clearly has some issues around balancing things.


----------



## Horwath

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean Crawford is the dude who things that natural weapons that do 1d6 damage are a hugely advantageous racial feature on-par with Darkvision or Spellcasting, so unfortunately he clearly has some issues around balancing things.



well, at least we got hunters mark back like in UA for rangers back then.

let's see how long will it last this time.


----------



## Minigiant

Ruin Explorer said:


> They're simply not, though. Rexxar is an obscure-but-nerd-popular WoW/WC3 character known only to fairly serious Warcraft fans.



Rexxar actually gets most of his popularity for the once *massively* popular game Hearthstone where he hits you with magic arrows and traps and hasbears and pigs run over you.

A nice chunk Beastmasters popularity built on MMORPG rangers/hunters and Hearthstone ME GO FACE HUNTER decks from video games.



Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't really understand what you're saying here, I'm afraid. Perhaps could you rephrase significantly?




The ranger is described a tracker and slay of wildnerness monsters. They are not going to ignore all the abundance of utility and slaying magic dumped into D&D since 2000. 

The nonmagical ranger only makes sense if you go the 4e route and make it a walking blender or SMG and churn out some much raw damage you don't need utility as you turn everything into a slurry with your massive offensive prowess.


----------



## TheSword

Charlaquin said:


> No it doesn’t? The 2014 ranger follows the standard spell slot progression at half their level rounded down - they get new spell slots on even-numbered levels, starting from 2nd. This UA ranger follows the standard spell slot progression at half their level rounded up - they get new spell slots at odd-numbered levels, starting from 1st.
> 
> Giving you a use for spell slots that aren’t spells.



Ranger spell progression from the PHB and in the current SRD.






This is the UA ranger. So wrong on both counts I’m afraid.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Minigiant said:


> The ranger is described a tracker and slay of wildnerness monsters. They are not going to ignore all the abundance of utility and slaying magic dumped into D&D since 2000.



The same logic applies to Fighters, Rogues, etc. Especially Rogues. If we apply this logic, the default subclass for all Rogues should be Arcane Trickster, and other kinds of Rogues should be seen as weird freaks.

Your 4E comment is weird as hell because the 4E Ranger is heavily magical, and it was a common complaint because it didn't need to be, but was anyway.


----------



## Horwath

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean Crawford is the dude who things that natural weapons that do 1d6 damage are a hugely advantageous racial feature on-par with Darkvision or Spellcasting, so unfortunately he clearly has some issues around balancing things.



If you add that you can make one natural attack as Bonus action then it gets to the level of Darkvision/spellcasting.
also with option to do 1d4 damage if based on Dex.


----------



## Neonchameleon

TheSword said:


> The ranger only rounded down for the purposes of multi-classing. The single class ranger already rounds up.
> 
> What is the virtue of a non spell smite, rather than a spell smite?
> 
> Ranger magic synergises plenty with their fighting, they have a decent number of bonus action spells, healing and utility. Rangers are unique and play well with lots of party types. They’re a Jack of all trades, just favoring the fighting side, while the bard favors the magic.



What's the virtue of a ranger existing at all? Flavour and fun.

For me there are a number of reasons I want a spell-less ranger including:

For the archetype - as mentioned both Aragorn and Katniss were and Drizzt for all practical purposes was. The archetype is not that of a caster
Because I want to see more interesting and varied characters rather than the same cookie cutter abilities (and ones that do better than the 2014 ranger)
Because I sometimes want to run more varied campaigns and this includes low to no magic and at the moment the range of non-casters is extremely narrow.

(And @TheSword I don't think "Page not found" was meant to be a joke about ranger spell progression but the attachment doesn't seem to work for me?)


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Ruin Explorer said:


> What is this class? Is it a nature magician who also does some fighting and skill stuff? Okay, if so, fine, but that's not how you're presenting it in terms of descriptions. It's not what players expect.



"It's not what players expect" is a massive assumption here.

I started in 3.5, so if anything the initial nonmagical 4E Ranger was the anomaly. It got followed up by the explicitly magical Seeker class before the magic-using Ranger returned in Essentials (when WotC was likely trying to win back older players who were put-off by 4E). Given that early 5E was essentially the attempt to disown 4E and return to "Iconic" D&D, it seems half-caster Rangers are what WotC has seen the majority expects.

Me personally, I feel like two-weapon fighting fits the Ranger less than magic does. The Ranger fights at range, and the Fighter is a melee attacker. Melee Rangers and Ranged Fighters are playing against type.

I'm admittedly also biased in that the Fey Wanderer, the most magical Ranger of all, is my favorite Ranger subclass by far


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Horwath said:


> If you add that you can make one natural attack as Bonus action then it gets to the level of Darkvision/spellcasting.
> also with option to do 1d4 damage if based on Dex.



Yeah that's probably right if it's:

A) At will

B) Uses a stat bonus (probably STR)

Because that's roughly equivalent to being able to Dual-wield, but you can also carry a Shield, so would be pretty nice.

But there are no races in D&D 5E which can do that (unlike PF1E, which has several). At best you're getting stuff like Lizardfolk which can do that PB/long rest, which is just not that great. I don't think there's even a race which has Finesse/DEX as an option for their natural weapons outside of 3PP material (correct me if I'm wrong).


----------



## Charlaquin

TheSword said:


> Ranger spell progression from the PHB and in the current SRD.
> 
> View attachment 262663



Yes that is half round down - gaining new slots on even-numbered levels starting with 2nd, exactly like I described. The table from the UA is half round up - gaining new slots on odd-numbered levels starting with 1st, which it now shares with the Artificer.


----------



## TheSword

Neonchameleon said:


> What's the virtue of a ranger existing at all? Flavour and fun.
> 
> For me there are a number of reasons I want a spell-less ranger including:
> 
> For the archetype - as mentioned both Aragorn and Katniss were and Drizzt for all practical purposes was. The archetype is not that of a caster
> Because I want to see more interesting and varied characters rather than the same cookie cutter abilities (and ones that do better than the 2014 ranger)
> Because I sometimes want to run more varied campaigns and this includes low to no magic and at the moment the range of non-casters is extremely narrow.
> 
> (And @TheSword I don't think "Page not found" was meant to be a joke about ranger spell progression but the attachment doesn't seem to work for me?)



I appreciate that… it’s a fighter now. Drizzt is predominantly a fighter that’s been decided a while back. Aragorn is a fighter, Katniss is definitely a fighter. They are all fighters. (Though you can skin Aragon as a ranger with his herbcraft and elven Magic)


----------



## TheSword

Charlaquin said:


> Yes that is half round down - gaining new slots on even-numbered levels starting with 2nd, exactly like I described. The table from the UA is half round up - gaining new slots on odd-numbered levels starting with 1st, which it now shares with the Artificer.



At fifth level a ranger has the spellcasting of a 3rd level caster - for both tables. How is that half round down? At 9th level they have the casting of a 5th level caster. I’ve just posted you the tables.


----------



## Minigiant

Ruin Explorer said:


> The same logic applies to Fighters, Rogues, etc. Especially Rogues. If we apply this logic, the default subclass for all Rogues should be Arcane Trickster, and other kinds of Rogues should be seen as weird freaks.



The Rogue's iconic features are clearly defined and allowed to be pursued fully via their skills. Stealth, lockpicking, and trap disarming have clear rules and don't need magic to be done.

The whole reason why the first D&D rangers had magic is because the community as a whole *wouldn't *let you heal, cure, talk to animals, create traps, alarm a campsite, call beasts, or even do detectivework by rolling 18 in Nature or Survival. but the community will allow all that be low level magic. So why wouldn't the ranger snag this low level magic?


----------



## Horwath

TheSword said:


> Aragorn is a fighter,



Being a Dunedine RANGER, I would say that Aragorn is a ranger.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Hexmage-EN said:


> "It's not what players expect" is a massive assumption here.



No.

It's long and repeated experience. It's absolutely not assumption.

On the direct contrary, the first time it happened I was surprised as hell. I had assumed, subconsciously, that this class was what people expected. It was only when the player really started tuning out of the magic stuff as they levelled up that I realized it wasn't, and from talking to her.


Hexmage-EN said:


> Given that early 5E was essentially the attempt to disown 4E and return to "Iconic" D&D, it seems half-caster Rangers are what WotC has seen the majority expects.



The majority of older players, who they were trying to win back, sure. Because they were aiming solely at D&D veterans. People who played previous editions, especially 3E.

The majority of people who play D&D now? No. I don't believe it. We've gone from 10m at most to at least 30m active players (now, not ever). The vast majority of those people are new to D&D with 5E. The vast majority of them are under 30. This is WotC's figures. Not my assumptions.



Hexmage-EN said:


> I'm admittedly also biased in that the Fey Wanderer, the most magical Ranger of all, is my favorite Ranger subclass by far



Magic absolutely fits that subclass, but it's one of the wackiest and least "Ranger-y" of the subclasses. I'm not saying it's not cool or you shouldn't like it, it is cool, but it's pretty far out there. It's like when my favourite Bard kit in 2E was the Blade, which like, barely a Bard (it is very much NOT my favourite subclass in 5E lol, shocked it even made it).

I feel like stuff like the Fey Wanderer could exist in a "spell-less" Ranger in the same way Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight exist.


----------



## Horwath

TheSword said:


> At fifth level a ranger has the spellcasting of a 3rd level caster - for both tables. How is that half round down? At 9th level they have the casting of a 5th level caster. I’ve just posted you the tables.



as for artificer, we always used round up.

you gain new levels of spells at levels 5/9/13/17, it fits that you gain one more spell to prepare.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Minigiant said:


> The whole reason why the first D&D rangers had magic is because the community as a whole *wouldn't *let you heal, cure, talk to animals, create traps, alarm a campsite, call beasts, or even do detectivework by rolling 18 in Nature or Survival. but the community will allow all that be low level magic. So why wouldn't the ranger snag this low level magic?



That's literally nonsensical. You're combining metagame stuff with in-game stuff and it's just wildly nonsensical. You can't do that. You're basically turning the Ranger into Deadpool, breaking the Fourth Wall here lol.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Horwath said:


> Being a Dunedine RANGER, I would say that Aragorn is a ranger.



Part of the problem is that Fighter is too broad and vague an archetype, and should probably have been ditched in favour of 2-3 classes in 2E.


----------



## TheSword

Horwath said:


> as for artificer, we always used round up.
> 
> you gain new levels of spells at levels 5/9/13/17, it fits that you gain one more spell to prepare.



Yes, the same as the base ranger tables I’ve just posted from the PHB and the UA.

The only difference is that when they multiclass in 5e rangers round down.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> The Rogue's iconic features are clearly defined and allowed to be pursued fully via their skills. Stealth, lockpicking, and trap disarming have clear rules and don't need magic to be done.
> 
> The whole reason why the first D&D rangers had magic is because the community as a whole *wouldn't *let you heal, cure, talk to animals, create traps, alarm a campsite, call beasts, or even do detectivework by rolling 18 in Nature or Survival. but the community will allow all that be low level magic. So why wouldn't the ranger snag this low level magic?



To heck with the community. Particularly the community of the time. We have a new community of D&D players now, let’s let rangers do those things without magic.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TheSword said:


> I appreciate that… it’s a fighter now. Drizzt is predominantly a fighter that’s been decided a while back. Aragorn is a fighter, Katniss is definitely a fighter. They are all fighters. (Though you can skin Aragon as a ranger with his herbcraft and elven Magic)



Sorry, no, that doesn't work.

Fighters aren't skilled in D&D.

Katniss, who I suspect you're unfamiliar with is ultra-skilled. That's her main thing. She'd definitely be the "Expert" archetype. She'd definitely have Expertise in Nature and probably Stealth. She's not an ambusher either - she frequently and successfully fights straight-up (and doesn't really like ambushing humans).

You must be thinking of some other D&D variant where Fighters aren't as bad as they are in 5E outside combat. 13th Age? Pathfinder 2E?


----------



## TheSword

Horwath said:


> Being a Dunedine RANGER, I would say that Aragorn is a ranger.



Well a ranger is also a car, a boy scout, a form of policeman and a moon vehicle. I don’t think the name of a single character defines an entire class that has come a long way since 1954


----------



## TheSword

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sorry, no, that doesn't work.
> 
> Fighters aren't skilled in D&D.
> 
> Katniss, who I suspect you're unfamiliar with is ultra-skilled. That's her main thing. She'd definitely be the "Expert" archetype. She'd definitely have Expertise in Nature and probably Stealth. She's not an ambusher either - she frequently and successfully fights straight-up (and doesn't really like ambushing humans).
> 
> You must be thinking of some other D&D variant where Fighters aren't as bad as they are in 5E outside combat. 13th Age? Pathfinder 2E?



Yes they are. They take the skilled feat - in fact they have multiple opportunities to do so. Or they take Skill expert to become really good at something.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TheSword said:


> Yes they are. They take the skilled feat - in fact they have multiple opportunities to do so. At least two at first level.



No, they aren't.

All classes have the same opportunity, and indeed all other classes can do more out of combat than a Fighter, with no exceptions. Skilled doesn't give you Expertise. Fighters are unarguably the least-able class in 5E outside combat.

There's no good reason for that. It doesn't fit the fantasy. It doesn't fit fantasy literature or tropes, but WotC did it anyway, just like in 3E and 4E.


----------



## Neonchameleon

TheSword said:


> I appreciate that… it’s a fighter now. Drizzt is predominantly a fighter that’s been decided a while back. Aragorn is a fighter, Katniss is definitely a fighter. They are all fighters. (Though you can skin Aragon as a ranger with his herbcraft and elven Magic)



Except no. Aragorn, the Ranger of the North is a _fighter_? Boromir's a fighter. Gimli's a fighter. If _Aragorn_ is a fighter then it says something about how bad 5e is at handling classic fiction. And no Drizzt is literally the iconic ranger. If the Ranger as a class is not able to handle the literal person it was based on and the literal iconic 2e ranger then the Ranger as a class is not fit for purpose. 

And we're also at the point that the Ranger class _does not even cover the D&D ranger_. The 1e and 2e rangers could not cast spells before level 8 - and 1e was soft-capped at about level 10. This all-magic-all-the-time ranger doesn't cover historic D&D rangers; it is its own unique thing. The _only_ ranger it's remotely close to is the 3.5 one (with the 3.0 one not even being very good at archery). 

And that's the problem with this playtest ranger. It does nothing really to represent any fictional archetype, not even that of a D&D ranger. And it is basically a bland collection of mechanics because it's trying to invent its archetype out of thin air, having rejected both its core inspiration as a class in Aragorn and even the iconic D&D ranger in Drizzt. As @Ruin Explorer has been saying all along WotC doesn't know what to do with the ranger which is why it's an obviously mechanics first class.

Would you therefore accept that as it's clear that the Ranger is unable to handle any sort of its fictional inspirations we rename the class _Hedge Wizard_ because it's a caster who spends time in hedges and generally trying to get through life with wilderness lore and magic in medium quantities? That would free the Ranger name up to cover the _actual_ ranger archetype that the current ranger is a miserable failure at covering and that all of Aragorn, Drizzt, and Katniss come under.


----------



## TheSword

Ruin Explorer said:


> No, they aren't.
> 
> All classes have the same opportunity, and indeed all other classes can do more out of combat than a Fighter, with no exceptions. Skilled doesn't give you Expertise. Fighters are unarguably the least-able class in 5E outside combat.
> 
> There's no good reason for that. It doesn't fit the fantasy. It doesn't fit fantasy literature or tropes, but WotC did it anyway, just like in 3E and 4E.



Fighters get more feats = more flexibility.

Skill Expert does give you expertise.

You’ve got it the wrong way round Katniss is a fighter because she doesn’t use magic. Not the ranger is wrong because Katniss doesn’t have magic.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Neonchameleon said:


> And that's the problem with this playtest ranger. It does nothing really to represent any fictional archetype, not even that of a D&D ranger.



Extremely well-put.


----------



## The Glen

It's underwhelming and flavorless.  Hunters mark will turn into an action tax.  Round 1 you cast hunters mark while everybody else attacks.

It needs to seriously bolster the party in the wilderness.  Give them abilities that trigger automatically.  Not automatic success like the current version but quality of life improvements.  Move at fastest March speed and still be able to search.  Better healing in favored terrain.  Extra knowledge on possible enemies.

Rogues and bards might be cool in the city, but in the wilderness, the ranger is the apotheosis of cool.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TheSword said:


> Katniss is a fighter because she doesn’t use magic. Period.



LOL circular logic. And Feats don't help you when they don't even provide access to what you need, which they don't. Again you seem to be thinking of some other D&D-related game, where what you say might be true, but it's not even arguable in 5E.


----------



## Minigiant

Ruin Explorer said:


> That's literally nonsensical. You're combining metagame stuff with in-game stuff and it's just wildly nonsensical. You can't do that. You're basically turning the Ranger into Deadpool, breaking the Fourth Wall here lol.



The point is the in-game is based on the metagame. 

A ranger who hunts dragons and other elemental monsters will want resistences.  A ranger who needs info in a wilderness will want to be able to speak with animals and plants. A ranger who needs to hinder runners will want snares. The community wouldn't let you do this without casting spells and adds those spells o the game. So the ranger who still wants to do these things won't ignore the magic.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Minigiant said:


> The point is the in-game is based on the metagame.
> 
> A ranger who hunts dragons and other elemental monsters will want resistences.  A ranger who needs info in a wilderness will want to be able to speak with animals and plants. A ranger who needs to hinder runners will want snares. The community wouldn't let you do this without casting spells and adds those spells o the game. So the ranger who still wants to do these things won't ignore the magic.



No. As I've said, this is a nonsensical conflation of metagame and ingame. You're using metagame reasoning for why an ingame Ranger would make choices. The Ranger would breaking the fourth wall to even think like that. I'm sorry but that's literally not a rational argument.

And it's still nonsensical because Rogues are far more advantaged by spells than Rangers are. If you're going with "but the metagame" then Rogues should be all over spells.


----------



## Minigiant

Charlaquin said:


> To heck with the community. Particularly the community of the time. We have a new community of D&D players now, let’s let rangers do those things without magic.



The community barely lets the fighter do cool  stuff with swords. Good luck getting them to let your ranger ask a dog with the bad man with a big hat went without magic fingers.


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Speaking of Ranger vs Rogue, I always thought it was odd that the Rogue was the one who got "Steady Aim" (basically, use a Bonus Action and don't move to get advantage on an attack) and the Ranger didn't.


----------



## TheSword

Neonchameleon said:


> Except no. Aragorn, the Ranger of the North is a _fighter_? Boromir's a fighter. Gimli's a fighter. If _Aragorn_ is a fighter then it says something about how bad 5e is at handling classic fiction. And no Drizzt is literally the iconic ranger. If the Ranger as a class is not able to handle the literal person it was based on and the literal iconic 2e ranger then the Ranger as a class is not fit for purpose.
> 
> And we're also at the point that the Ranger class _does not even cover the D&D ranger_. The 1e and 2e rangers could not cast spells before level 8 - and 1e was soft-capped at about level 10. This all-magic-all-the-time ranger doesn't cover historic D&D rangers; it is its own unique thing. The _only_ ranger it's remotely close to is the 3.5 one (with the 3.0 one not even being very good at archery).
> 
> And that's the problem with this playtest ranger. It does nothing really to represent any fictional archetype, not even that of a D&D ranger. And it is basically a bland collection of mechanics because it's trying to invent its archetype out of thin air, having rejected both its core inspiration as a class in Aragorn and even the iconic D&D ranger in Drizzt. As @Ruin Explorer has been saying all along WotC doesn't know what to do with the ranger which is why it's an obviously mechanics first class.
> 
> Would you therefore accept that as it's clear that the Ranger is unable to handle any sort of its fictional inspirations we rename the class _Hedge Wizard_ because it's a caster who spends time in hedges and generally trying to get through life with wilderness lore and magic in medium quantities? That would free the Ranger name up to cover the _actual_ ranger archetype that the current ranger is a miserable failure at covering and that all of Aragorn, Drizzt, and Katniss come under.



Ranger is its own fictional archetype developed through D&D, just like the Druid is. Neither of these classes particularly existed in fiction outside of D&D and similar characters are almost always better described as wizards, sorcerers or priests.

I think you need to check your updates. Drizzt was a ranger in earlier editions but since 5e has been predominantly a fighter. 

The reason Tolkien’s characters are all fighters is because Tolkien came before D&D and D&D introduced magic to classes waaaaaay back. Because magic is fun, and people like using it. It’s why we have Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, Bards, Rangers, and Paladins.

It seems like there are a few very vocal people who seem to want to turn the clock back 35 years. It ain’t never gonna happen, I’m sorry to say.


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> I want less casting instead of more, and more non-magical exploration abilities instead of less (“lost none of” was a typo, should either have been “none of” or “lost all of”).



Welcome to 1D&D, you've already lost that battle.

Look at the last playtest: nearly every race has some type of spellcasting or supernatural ability (like tremorsense). Several feats (and thus backgrounds) give magical abilities. 1D&D is doubling down on easy access to magic, not removing it. I'm fairly sure most PCs are going to have access to magic, be it from race, feat or class/subclass. 

Anyone hoping for low magic D&D should start looking for a good fantasy heartbreaker, because D&D is stepping on the gas.


----------



## Hexmage-EN

The Glen said:


> It's underwhelming and flavorless.  Hunters mark will turn into an action tax.  Round 1 you cast hunters mark while everybody else attacks.
> 
> It needs to seriously bolster the party in the wilderness.  Give them abilities that trigger automatically.  Not automatic success like the current version but quality of life improvements.  Move at fastest March speed and still be able to search.  Better healing in favored terrain.  Extra knowledge on possible enemies.
> 
> Rogues and bards might be cool in the city, but in the wilderness, the ranger is the apotheosis of cool.



The problem here is that the wilderness exploration features of the 2014 5E Ranger are either arguably too good or completely useless depending on how much the DM focuses on wilderness exploration in their campaign. I imagine that's why Tasha's presented more optional alternative features for the Ranger than other classes.


----------



## TheSword

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL circular logic. And Feats don't help you when they don't even provide access to what you need, which they don't. Again you seem to be thinking of some other D&D-related game, where what you say might be true, but it's not even arguable in 5E.



Survival is a fighter skill. I can can use Skill Expert at first level to have expertise in survival and proficiency in knowledge nature. Fighters can do plenty… and we’re back to the same old nonsense about fighters. Not going there again. It’s a thread about the ranger rules.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TheSword said:


> Survival is a fighter skill. I can can use Skill Expert at first level to have expertise in survival and proficiency in knowledge nature. Fighters can do plenty… and we’re back to the same old nonsense about fighters. Not going there again.



It's not "nonsense". I'm only talking facts. You're trying to make up that Fighters have out-of-combat capabilities, when they have absolutely the least of any class in D&D 5E. Also, no you can't have "Skill Expert" at first level in 1D&D. We don't even know if it'll exist, and even if it does, the 1D&D versions of Human don't have access to it. Which is I presume how you were getting it (VHuman), given Fighters don't get a Feat until L4.


----------



## TheSword

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's not "nonsense". I'm only talking facts. You're trying to make up that Fighters have out-of-combat capabilities, when they have absolutely the least of any class in D&D 5E.



I’ve just posted all I need to do to recreate Katniss. Which was my position. I’m not making anything up - the structures are plain to read.

There’s a lot of incorrect information flying around here. Not least that ranger casting rounds down which is demonstrably wrong.


----------



## Hexmage-EN

Remathilis said:


> Anyone hoping for low magic D&D should start looking for a good fantasy heartbreaker, because D&D is stepping on the gas.



4E actually has a ton of options for nonmagical characters. Fighter,  Ranger (pre-Essentials), Rogue, and Warlord gives you a completely nonmagical party. IIRC the Fighter had more potential abilities to choose from than the Wizard had spells to choose from by the end of 4E.


----------



## Neonchameleon

TheSword said:


> Ranger is its own fictional archetype developed through D&D, just like the Druid is. Neither of these classes particularly existed in fiction outside of D&D and similar characters are almost always better described as wizards, sorcerers or priests.



1: This is untrue. Ranger as an archetype has a _massive_ presence outside D&D. 
2: _So what?_ The archetypal D&D ranger is Drizzt Do'urden. If the class is meant to cover the "fictional archetype developed through D&D" then it should at the very least cover the archetypal example of that fictional archetype. But it fails at that to the point that you claim that the most archetypal D&D ranger should be a member of another class.


TheSword said:


> I think you need to check your updates. Drizzt was a ranger in earlier editions but since 5e has been predominantly a fighter.



All of which says that if the ranger "is its own fictional archetype developed through D&D" and it is failing to cover far the most famous ranger in D&D then the class doesn't even cover the only source for its own archetype.

So what you are saying here is that the class fails to do what you say is the justification for the class. It's a zombie class - a collection of disjoint mechanics with no fictional inspiration and no roleplaying pointers. Which is why the One D&D ranger is such a soulless collection of mechanics where the mechanics are their own justifications.


----------



## HammerMan

I find they seem to be doubling down on everything is spells.


----------



## HammerMan

Hexmage-EN said:


> 4E actually has a ton of options for nonmagical characters. Fighter,  Ranger (pre-Essentials), Rogue, and Warlord gives you a completely nonmagical party. IIRC the Fighter had more potential abilities than the Wizard had spells to choose from by the end of 4E.



I loved and miss the “no magic but just as capable” martial parties.


----------



## Neonchameleon

TheSword said:


> and we’re back to the same old nonsense about fighters. Not going there again. It’s a thread about the ranger rules.



The fighter is _literally the worst out of combat class_. If you don't want that brought up then try not suggesting that a very much skills based character should come from the class with the least out of combat ability.


----------



## The Glen

Hexmage-EN said:


> The problem here is that the wilderness exploration features of the 2014 5E Ranger are either arguably too good or completely useless depending on how much the DM focuses on wilderness exploration in their campaign. I imagine that's why Tasha's presented more optional alternative features for the Ranger than other classes.



And that's a big problem.  Rangers as written made wilderness adventures toothless because it was an automatic success.  I would change it by having two sets of rules for survival.  One for rangers and one for everybody else.  Ranger gets two favored terrain types and a new one every time the pb goes up.  Give the Rangers specific bonuses over other players and they will remind the dms of those rules.  Everybody wants their moment in the spotlight.  Even if they have to ahem the dm.


----------



## Horwath

if we really need to have spellcasting ranges(which we don't), then let's steal from paladins.

2nd level ability:

Elemental strike.
When you hit with a weapon or unarmed attack you can spend a spell slot to deal extra damage.

damage is chosen out of acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison or thunder damage.

extra damage is 2d6 for 1st level spell and extra +1d6 per spell level higher.
max of 6d6 for 5th level spell slot.

11th level ranger ability
all your attacks deal extra +1d6 damage chosen out of acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison or thunder.


----------



## Minigiant

Hexmage-EN said:


> 4E actually has a ton of options for nonmagical characters. Fighter,  Ranger (pre-Essentials), Rogue, and Warlord gives you a completely nonmagical party. IIRC the Fighter had more potential abilities than the Wizard had spells to choose from by the end of 4E.




The 4e original Ranger was just a damage focused archer or TWF warrior. It had almost no wilderness stuff unless you multiclassed or took the Ritual Caster feat. 

Unill the community lets rangers speakwith/call animals/plants/fey,  find quarry, resist the wild, or create level appropriate traps, camps, and heals without magic, the D&D ranger will end up using magic.


----------



## TheSword

Neonchameleon said:


> 1: This is untrue. Ranger as an archetype has a _massive_ presence outside D&D.
> 2: _So what?_ The archetypal D&D ranger is Drizzt Do'urden. If the class is meant to cover the "fictional archetype developed through D&D" then it should at the very least cover the archetypal example of that fictional archetype. But it fails at that to the point that you claim that the most archetypal D&D ranger should be a member of another class.
> 
> All of which says that if the ranger "is its own fictional archetype developed through D&D" and it is failing to cover far the most famous ranger in D&D then the class doesn't even cover the only source for its own archetype.
> 
> So what you are saying here is that the class fails to do what you say is the justification for the class. It's a zombie class - a collection of disjoint mechanics with no fictional inspiration and no roleplaying pointers. Which is why the One D&D ranger is such a soulless collection of mechanics where the mechanics are their own justifications.



It’s a hybrid Warrior-Druid. It always has been. I think you’re reading far more into things than you need to.

Drizzt was  archetypal ranger because in AD&D that suited. Over 30 years the class has gained more and more magic (because magic is fun) But Drizzt is already written. So now Drizzt fits fighter better than Ranger. So what? I don’t expect the game to stand still or regress because a character written 30 years ago says so (or indeed 65 years ago)

In fact what am I saying. Drizzt has been predominantly fighter for ages. Since Homeland at least. He didn’t train as a ranger until he met Montolio years and years after training and living as a fighter. In 3.5 he was an 8th level fighter, 6th level ranger, with a smattering of rogue.

The game has many influences. It doesn’t have to be all Tolkein and Salvatore though.


----------



## Raith5

I am really surprised they added cantrips as a class feature - a ranger casting thornwhip does not feel like a ranger at all. I wish hunters mark was a class feature and the spell casting was in a subclass.

I also really dread the expansion of expertise. I just recently played a rogue with expertise and rolling any skill checks with expertise was anticlimatic and cheesy. I wished they changed expertise to something else like making skill checks a bonus or free action - rather than trampling over bounded accuracy.


----------



## jasper

Hunter;s Lore  At level 6 they now know immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities of the target of their mark. 
I think this a null. Unless you have a lot of new people playing, they know the monster's stats.


----------



## TheSword

Neonchameleon said:


> The fighter is _literally the worst out of combat class_. If you don't want that brought up then try not suggesting that a very much skills based character should come from the class with the least out of combat ability.



And yet, still not bad at it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TheSword said:


> It’s a hybrid Warrior-Druid. It always has been.



Absolutely false.

Did you not start playing D&D until 3.5E?

If not, what's your excuse for saying that? In 1E and 2E a Ranger doesn't even get spells until LEVEL 8.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Neonchameleon said:


> The fighter is _literally the worst out of combat class_.



It's kinda in the name...


----------



## Neonchameleon

TheSword said:


> It’s a hybrid Warrior-Druid. It always has been. I think you’re reading far more into things than you need to.



I think you're utterly ignoring the real world meanings of the word "ranger". Such as Forest Rangers and Army Rangers. Who are wilderness specialists who get on with very little magic and a lot of knowledge and training.


TheSword said:


> The game has many influences. It doesn’t have to be all Tolkein and Salvatore.



Indeed it doesn't. Which is why we're bringing in examples like Katniss Everdeen. You on the other hand are refusing to accept that the ranger is based on anything other than D&D _as it has existed since 2014_. There is more to both fiction and reality than a single minded focus on the current edition of D&D while going out of your way to strain out any outside influences, whether from earlier editions, whether from what the class was based on, or whether from almost contemporary fiction.

In the end all you have left is navel gazing and mechanics if you don't accept anything from outside D&D for a class based on an archetype that actually came from the real world.


----------



## TheSword

Ruin Explorer said:


> Absolutely false.
> 
> Did you not start playing D&D until 3.5E?
> 
> If not, what's your excuse for saying that? In 1E and 2E a Ranger doesn't even get spells until LEVEL 8.



I started playing in AD&D. Yes. They got spells at level 8. As I said Druid-Warrior hybrid. That became more pronounced with every edition. Welcome to 1D&D


----------



## Horwath

Ruin Explorer said:


> Absolutely false.
> 
> Did you not start playing D&D until 3.5E?
> 
> If not, what's your excuse for saying that? In 1E and 2E a Ranger doesn't even get spells until LEVEL 8.



even in 3.5e you were bottom of the barrel spellcaster.

that is why there were several spell-less ranger ACFs in later splat books.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TheSword said:


> I started playing in AD&D. Yes. They got spells at level 8. As I said Druid-Warrior hybrid. That became more pronounced with every edition. Welcome to 1D&D



LOL.

It's absolutely false to say it became more pronounced with each edition. 3.5E was the first time it was even arguable - before that they were Fighters with some wilderness abilities who might eventually gain a few very low-level spells. 4E didn't make it more the case, as Hexmage has reminded me. 5E is the first edition where Rangers "went hard" on spells, and 1D&D is even more extreme than that.


----------



## TheSword

Neonchameleon said:


> I think you're utterly ignoring the real world meanings of the word "ranger". Such as Forest Rangers and Army Rangers. Who are wilderness specialists who get on with very little magic and a lot of knowledge and training.
> 
> Indeed it doesn't. Which is why we're bringing in examples like Katniss Everdeen. You on the other hand are refusing to accept that the ranger is based on anything other than D&D _as it has existed since 2014_. There is more to both fiction and reality than a single minded focus on the current edition of D&D while going out of your way to strain out any outside influences, whether from earlier editions, whether from what the class was based on, or whether from almost contemporary fiction.
> 
> In the end all you have left is navel gazing and mechanics if you don't accept anything from outside D&D for a class based on an archetype that actually came from the real world.




It really isn’t just the current edition. The ranger has had magic at early levels for the last 25 years. It has become more magical over that time not less. So no, I don’t think Katniss has had a great deal of influence on the Ranger class. She might have had a fair bit of influence on archery in 5e just as film Legolas did. But not on the ranger.

I think it’s brilliant that WOC is giving martials more spells to affect things. I really couldn’t care less that it isn’t through non-Magical means.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TheSword said:


> The ranger has had magic at early levels for the last 25 years.



?!??!!??! That would start us in 1997. Late 2E.

That's not how time works. You perhaps mean 2003 and thus 19 years? Which is false because it include 4E, but whatever.


TheSword said:


> So no, I don’t think Katniss has had a great deal of influence on the Ranger class. She might have had a fair bit of influence on archery in 5e just as film Legolas did. But not on the ranger.



I agree but that's a HUGE PROBLEM.

Because players want Katniss types (and not they don't want them to be Fighters, jesus lol).

Whereas the dilettantes at WotC just have no idea what a Ranger is so keep coming up with random ideas about what it might be and hoping one sticks.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL.
> 
> It's absolutely false to say it became more pronounced with each edition. 3.5E was the first time it was even arguable - before that they were Fighters with some wilderness abilities who might eventually gain a few very low-level spells. 4E didn't make it more the case, as Hexmage has reminded me. 5E is the first edition where Rangers "went hard" on spells, and 1D&D is even more extreme than that.



Technically the 3.0 Ranger was as good at spellcasting as the 3.5 Ranger and worse at absolutely everything else. Meaning it was more arguable in 3.0 - but the 3.0 Ranger was so awful that no one remembers it as an argument for anything.

But both of them got literally zero first level spells per day at 4th level and 1 at 6th. Which in practice meant that a seventh level ranger with a wis 14 could cast two first level spells per day or as many as a first level druid with wis 14.


----------



## Horwath

Ruin Explorer said:


> Because players want Katniss types (and not they don't want them to be Fighters, jesus lol).



Give option to fighter to trade away heavy armor proficiency for another skill and you have Katniss/Legolas


----------



## TheSword

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL.
> 
> It's absolutely false to say it became more pronounced with each edition. 3.5E was the first time it was even arguable - before that they were Fighters with some wilderness abilities who might eventually gain a few very low-level spells. 4E didn't make it more the case, as Hexmage has reminded me. 5E is the first edition where Rangers "went hard" on spells, and 1D&D is even more extreme than that.



1e and AD&D - Magic at 8th level 
3e - Magic at 4th level
4e - Who cares
5e - Magic at 2nd level
1D&D - Magic at 1st level

So not false at all.


----------



## Horwath

Neonchameleon said:


> Technically the 3.0 Ranger was as good at spellcasting as the 3.5 Ranger and worse at absolutely everything else. Meaning it was more arguable in 3.0 - but the 3.0 Ranger was so awful that no one remembers it as an argument for anything.
> 
> But both of them got literally zero first level spells per day at 4th level and 1 at 6th. Which in practice meant that a seventh level ranger with a wis 14 could cast two first level spells per day or as many as a first level druid with wis 14.



3.0 ranger was only worth as 1st level.

you got Track and TWF+Ambidex, yes, you needed 2 feats to dual wield in 3.0 with some marginal competence.
Also you got double of skill points at 1st level.

So, it was, Ranger1 then fighter X


----------



## Neonchameleon

TheSword said:


> It really isn’t just the current edition. The ranger has had magic at early levels for the last 25 years.



If you mean _23 years_ then at fifth level a ranger got zero spells per day. (Zero is not none in 3.X as you got bonus spells from your stat). And first I don't count fifth level as early levels - and second having zero first level spells per day is only having magic in the most technical sense.

So throughout the run of 3.X at low level the ranger had little enough magic you needed to squint to see it.

Meanwhile in 4e, no. No the ranger didn't have magic in general.

The first time the ranger _actually_ got any significant magic at low levels was in 4e when they got two (not zero) first level spells at second level - and by fifth level (when the 3.0 and 3.5 ranger had zero spells per day) they had four first level spell slots and two second level.

So it's been less than ten years when the ranger has had magic at early levels.  The _only_ edition where the ranger gets magic at early levels is 5e. And the 5e ranger has been universally considered the worst class and the one that needed the most serious patches.


TheSword said:


> I think it’s brilliant that WOC is giving martials more spells to affect things. I really couldn’t care less that it isn’t through non-Magical means.



And I do.


----------



## The Glen

Horwath said:


> So, it was, Ranger1 then ANYTHING ELSE



3.0 ranger was the most front loaded class in all of D&D, it was almost solely responsible for the change in multi-tasking rules in 3.5 and got all the starting abilities kicked to later levels.  Ruined my rogue/barbarian/ranger build overnight


----------



## Minigiant

Ruin Explorer said:


> Because players want Katniss types (and not they don't want them to be Fighters, jesus lol).



Your players maybe.

The last few rangers I've played with that weren't me were based on Kiba Inuzuka, Sango, Cheetah, Geralt, Jon Snow, and Doom Guy.


----------



## Charlaquin

The Glen said:


> It's underwhelming and flavorless.  Hunters mark will turn into an action tax.  Round 1 you cast hunters mark while everybody else attacks.



Hunter’s Mark is a bonus action to cast. Always has been.


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> Welcome to 1D&D, you've already lost that battle.
> 
> Look at the last playtest: nearly every race has some type of spellcasting or supernatural ability (like tremorsense). Several feats (and thus backgrounds) give magical abilities. 1D&D is doubling down on easy access to magic, not removing it. I'm fairly sure most PCs are going to have access to magic, be it from race, feat or class/subclass.
> 
> Anyone hoping for low magic D&D should start looking for a good fantasy heartbreaker, because D&D is stepping on the gas.



I’m fine with access to magic, especially magic that isn’t just spells. It’s spellcasting that doesn’t fit the ranger archetype.


----------



## TheSword

Neonchameleon said:


> If you mean _23 years_ then at fifth level a ranger got zero spells per day. (Zero is not none in 3.X as you got bonus spells from your stat). And first I don't count fifth level as early levels - and second having zero first level spells per day is only having magic in the most technical sense.
> 
> So throughout the run of 3.X at low level the ranger had little enough magic you needed to squint to see it.
> 
> Meanwhile in 4e, no. No the ranger didn't have magic in general.
> 
> The first time the ranger _actually_ got any significant magic at low levels was in 4e when they got two (not zero) first level spells at second level - and by fifth level (when the 3.0 and 3.5 ranger had zero spells per day) they had four first level spell slots and two second level.
> 
> So it's been less than ten years when the ranger has had magic at early levels.  The _only_ edition where the ranger gets magic at early levels is 5e. And the 5e ranger has been universally considered the worst class and the one that needed the most serious patches.
> 
> And I do.



Well I don’t think that’s quite true. If a 3e ranger wanted to cast spells they had a Wisdom 12+ so did get spells at 4th level and therefore faster and to a greater extent than AD&D Or 1e. With wands and scrolls granting even more accessibility to spells in that edition.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> Unill the community lets rangers speakwith/call animals/plants/fey,  find quarry, resist the wild, or create level appropriate traps, camps, and heals without magic, the D&D ranger will end up using magic.



Ok. We’re the community. So let’s allow rangers to do that. Stop using “the community” as an excuse and be the change you want to see in the world.


----------



## Minigiant

Charlaquin said:


> I’m fine with access to magic, especially magic that isn’t just spells. It’s spellcasting that doesn’t fit the ranger archetype.



Spells fit the D&D archetype. 
The issue again is outside of video games and anime, ranger characters are in low magic and no magic settings. They only don't use spell in those setting because spells don't exist or are hard to get in the setting.

Jon Snow would be shooting _lightning arrows_ at the Night King and reviving his buddies if Westeros had usable magic.


----------



## Raith5

Hexmage-EN said:


> Speaking of Ranger vs Rogue, I always thought it was odd that the Rogue was the one who got "Steady Aim" (basically, use a Bonus Action and don't move to get advantage on an attack) and the Ranger didn't.




I agree that it is weird.  I just played a Rouge Scout with steady aim and he felt more rangery than any ranger I have played in 5e. But in many respects steady aim is too powerful/too easy a way to get advantage. I wish steady aim granted a class ability which created a hunters mark type of damage boost, rather than granted advantage.


----------



## The Glen

If you want to make the rangers stand out make them as self sufficient as possible.  Give them the ability to act as if they have a toolkit in their favored environment even if they don't. Steal from famous scenes for examples.  Use the expanded rules for tools and the ranger starts racking up free abilities.

Trapkit.  We have a vine and a rock (predator)
Herbalism.  Go get these plants to cure the poison (LOTR)
Carpentry.  We need a small village for seven people (Gilligan's Island)


----------



## TwoSix

Ranger shouldn't be a half caster.

It should be a full caster, with limited access to the primal spell list.  (Just Abjuration, Divination, and Transmutation.)  

Same idea for paladins.  

What I'd really like to see is the base spell slot table tuned down (maybe to 2/2/2/1/1/1/1/1/1), and then class features grant higher spell frequency for the more dedicated caster classes, like wizard and sorcerer.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> Your players maybe.
> 
> The last few rangers I've played with that weren't me were based on Kiba Inuzuka, Sango, Cheetah, Geralt, Jon Snow, and Doom Guy.



All characters famous for casting spells


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> Spells fit the D&D archetype.



For some characters, sure.


Minigiant said:


> The issue again is outside of video games and anime, ranger characters are in low magic and no magic settings.



So low-magic is part of the character archetype.


Minigiant said:


> They only don't use spell in those setting because spells don't exist or are hard to get in the setting.
> 
> Jon Snow would be shooting _lightning arrows_ at the Night King and reviving his buddies if Westeros had usable magic.



Then he wouldn’t be Jon Snow.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, they really need to get rid of spellcasting.
> 
> It's not like most of the things the spells can do fit Rangers thematically or are at all interesting. The vast majority of people who actually play Rangers aren't going to miss them, I'd suggest.
> 
> You know what they actually need to do? Bring back Wardens. Spellcasting Rangers should become Wardens, the weird Druid-hybrid class. Spell-less Rangers become Katniss Everdeen and her ilk.



Wardens are cool; the version made by Mage Hand Press is solid and fun.


----------



## TwoSix

Micah Sweet said:


> Wardens are cool; the version made by Mage Hand Press is solid and fun.



Kibbles also has a Warden version, I playtested it last week.  Loads of fun.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Vael said:


> This all seems reasonable to me. I get that some would prefer a Ranger without spells, and this is going the other direction, but this feels cleaner to give Rangers access to the Snare spell than write up a way to make snares that more or less mimics the spell.



It's certainly simpler, which we all know is a top priority.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> I miss primal intuition... I liked that in tasha's guide.



Tasha's is still on WotC's Approved list.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Digdude@1970 said:


> Hope that is not a preview of the death of the exploration pillar.



Perhaps they're abandoning it to 3pp designers who actually care about it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

DEFCON 1 said:


> Shrug.  Hey, people like what they like... but to me a spell-less Ranger that replaces spells with "Ranger features" results in the exact same thing-- a Ranger that does nature stuff.  And to me... there is no actual difference between the game telling me that the Ranger PC healing someone via herbalism and herbs versus healing someone via Cure Wounds, or that the Ranger giving his party a bonus to stealth checks via some weird Ranger stealth feature versus casting Pass Without Trace.  If the results are mechanically the same, I don't see the need for two different names and mechanical systems to represent it.  But I know a lot of folks here on EN World get all bent out of shape about "too much magic" thing... so it is what it is.  I just don't think the WotC designers have nearly the same problem with magic that the players here do, so everyone's kinda out of luck.



This is what I've been saying.  For whatever reason, WotC does not care about this concern.


----------



## Haplo781

My ideal ranger would be like 90% martial but have the ability to cast primal spells with the ritual tag.

They'd also have Hunter's Mark as just a thing they can do without needing spell slots.


----------



## Minigiant

Charlaquin said:


> So low-magic is part of the character archetype.



No. It's that most fantasy outside of video games and anime is low magic.
D&D isn't low magic. Hasn't been since the mid 90s.



Charlaquin said:


> Then he wouldn’t be Jon Snow.



Sure he would.Jon Snow only doesn't use magic because there wasn't have any to have.

Eventually the Starks used every bit of magic they had access to.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> My ideal ranger would be like 90% martial but have the ability to cast primal spells with the ritual tag.
> 
> They'd also have Hunter's Mark as just a thing they can do without needing spell slots.



That sounds like a cool ranger.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> No. It's that most fantasy outside of video games and anime is low magic.



It’s still part of the archetype.


Minigiant said:


> D&D isn't low magic. Hasn't been since the mid 90s.



Ok?


Minigiant said:


> Sure he would.Jon Snow only doesn't use magic because there wasn't have any to have.



But if there had been, it would have been a different story, and he would have been a different character.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> Welcome to 1D&D, you've already lost that battle.
> 
> Look at the last playtest: nearly every race has some type of spellcasting or supernatural ability (like tremorsense). Several feats (and thus backgrounds) give magical abilities. 1D&D is doubling down on easy access to magic, not removing it. I'm fairly sure most PCs are going to have access to magic, be it from race, feat or class/subclass.
> 
> Anyone hoping for low magic D&D should start looking for a good fantasy heartbreaker, because D&D is stepping on the gas.



Plenty of room for low-magic fans over here in Level Up-ville.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Hunter was a more or less unique subclass in having specific feature choices to make at various levels. I really wish they would have embraced that approach for more subclasses (not all, but giving every class at least one flexible subclass that worked like that would be better). Instead they nerfed Hunters.

That said, while I don't think the level 6 ability to know vulnerabilities, etc of an enemy they Hunter's Mark is particularly powerful, I really like it. It gives the character a unique, evocative combat roll of being the guy who can tell everyone how to best kill the enemy. It should probably be a base class feature, as it seems a waste to lock something that feels both not overpowered and suitable to any Ranger behind just one subclass.


----------



## Haplo781

Benjamin Olson said:


> Hunter was a more or less unique subclass in having specific feature choices to make at various levels. I really wish they would have embraced that approach for more subclasses (not all, but giving every class at least one flexible subclass that worked like that would be better). Instead they nerfed Hunters.
> 
> That said, while I don't think the level 6 ability to know vulnerabilities, etc of an enemy they Hunter's Mark is particularly powerful, I really like it. It gives the character a unique, evocative combat roll of being the guy who can tell everyone how to best kill the enemy. It should probably be a base class feature, as it seems a waste to lock something that feels both not overpowered and suitable to any Ranger behind just one subclass.



Sir this is 5e... err 1DD. Meaningful choices are verboten.


----------



## Azzy

Personally, on first blush I like the new ranger. I wish hunter's mark from favored enemy didn't take a spell slot, but otherwise not bad. They screwed the Hunter subclass, though.


----------



## Gladius Legis

Charlaquin said:


> lost all of its interesting exploration abilities..



Wait, what interesting exploration abilities did the 5e Ranger have to lose in the first place?


----------



## Gladius Legis

TheSword said:


> Drizzt was a ranger in earlier editions but since 5e has been predominantly a fighter.



Since 3e, actually. He even had a level in Barbarian in 3e, which was pants-on-head stupid.


----------



## Eubani

As times moves along D&D classes seem to get more and more self-referential, so it will get harder and harder to compare classes like Ranger with other media. Magic wise I would have liked to see a greater attempt to do a more skill/tool based magic instead of spells.


----------



## TheSword

Gladius Legis said:


> Since 3e, actually. He even had a level in Barbarian in 3e, which was pants-on-head stupid.



I think it was based on his time in Sojourn when he was living in the wilderness surviving and just went into a battle trance every time something entered his domain. Was he called the slayer or something similar. They did a similar thing with Rhyld when they statted him for 3e.


----------



## Minigiant

Interesting..

Lightning arrow also does d8s. Why isn't Lightning Arrow an option to downcast? Or will that be another subclass.


Would the Fey Wanderer get to cast Elemental weapon as psychic? 
The Horizon Walker cast Elemental Weapon as force?
The beast spells are in EEPC and XGTE. So what spell does the Beastmaster get to alter?
What about the gloomstalker? There's no "shoot darkness at the enemy" spell. Darkness isn't even on the Primal spell list.


----------



## Branduil

I'm not sure what the Hunter subclass did to deserve a nerf.

While the Hunter's Mark boost is nice, they should really just go all the way and make it an at-will ability. It won't break the game WotC, I promise.


----------



## Horwath

Branduil said:


> I'm not sure what the Hunter subclass did to deserve a nerf.
> 
> While the Hunter's Mark boost is nice, they should really just go all the way and make it an at-will ability. It won't break the game WotC, I promise.



I agree with this.

Make it an Action even to balance in combat usage.

Hunter's mark:
range 150ft
Action to use
You mark your target and deal extra +1d6 damage with every attack.
you gain advantage on Perception, Investigation, Insight and Survival checks vs. your target.
Mark lasts until the end of your next long rest or until you mark a new target.
at 5th level you can have 2 targets marked.
at 11th level mark lasts until you dismiss it or you mark a 3rd target.
at 18th level mark deals +2d6 damage extra


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Branduil said:


> I'm not sure what the Hunter subclass did to deserve a nerf.
> 
> While the Hunter's Mark boost is nice, they should really just go all the way and make it an at-will ability. It won't break the game WotC, I promise.




I am sorry, but can't see the nerf for the hunter class.
They took the best options and killed the useless lvl 11 ability.


----------



## Stalker0

I agree wtih the notion that it would be nice to understand what characters are supposed to use this spell heavy ranger. Aka what archetypes are we really going for here?

Now that said, when it comes to a Katniss or a Aragorn....simply put they are fighters in 5e with some natural trappings. An outlander background with a little bit of survival skill, maybe the healer feat, and really your good to go. You could also argue a fighter/rogue multiclass if you need a bit more skill focus. But you really don't need this ranger to play this characters.


----------



## Lojaan

Considering the expert classes can put their expertise in any skill, I guess the 'no magic' ranger is... a rogue?


----------



## Minigiant

UngeheuerLich said:


> I am sorry, but can't see the nerf for the hunter class.
> They took the best options and killed the useless lvl 11 ability.



Conjure barrage is _trash_ unless your DM is sending 1HD kobolds and goblins at you at level 11 *all the time*. Not orcs. Goblins.

Volley >>>>>> Conjure Barrage as a 1st level spell


----------



## Neonchameleon

Gladius Legis said:


> Wait, what interesting exploration abilities did the 5e Ranger have to lose in the first place?



They lost just about everything even vaguely exploration themed; they took the Tasha's explorer ability and turned it into its parts.

Which (ironically given other exchanges) means basically what's left is "magical fighter". And the problem with the original 2014 ranger wasn't the theming - it's that the Natural Explorer and Primal Awareness abilities were all useless


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> Conjure barrage is _trash_ unless your DM is sending 1HD kobolds and goblins at you at level 11 *all the time*. Not orcs. Goblins.
> 
> Volley >>>>>> Conjure Barrage as a 1st level spell




But you can cast it as level 3 spell.
That said, volley was equally trash, but at least the better of the two options.

Also, the ranger subclasses were all not playing well with their own abilities and the ranger base class, which also had some problems. 

- bonus action starved

- the only spell they ever used was hunter's mark, because of concentration.

- extra attack worked woth the attack action, as does twf. Volley and Multiattack were not based on an action (not attack action).

So even if the power level is not hit correctly, the ranger is a lot more fun this way, as the abilities at least are all useful and work well with each other.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Neonchameleon said:


> They lost just about everything even vaguely exploration themed; they took the Tasha's explorer ability and turned it into its parts.




At least they have expertise now. And at least abilities that sounded fun on paper but were very unfun in play are removed.

I think the tasha's primal awareness is missing though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> Interesting..
> 
> Lightning arrow also does d8s. Why isn't Lightning Arrow an option to downcast? Or will that be another subclass.




I think this might become a general or more widely used rule if it is liked, if I interpret what Crawford told us in the video correctly.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

UngeheuerLich said:


> But you can cast it as level 3 spell.




Which still does 3d8 dmg? Which is the whole problem with the spell. At lv9+ when you get access to it, that is not exactly a worthwhile value.

I mean, it's funny how it enables Ranger to Dynasty Warriors an army of nobodies, but besides that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Which still does 3d8 dmg? Which is the whole problem with the spell. At lv9+ when you get access to it, that is not exactly a worthwhile value.
> 
> I mean, it's funny how it enables Ranger to Dynasty Warriors an army of nobodies, but besides that.




As I already said elsewhere: the spell is bad and in need of a general buff.
A 3rd level spell should do at least 4d8 damage (thunderwave upcast) if not 5d8.

Buff the spell in general and you are looking at a good ability.


----------



## Minigiant

UngeheuerLich said:


> But you can cast it as level 3 spell.



For 3d8 damage with a low DC in a 60 cone

You could Volley for 1d8+Dex + Other bonuses* at will *before. 



UngeheuerLich said:


> - the only spell they ever used was hunter's mark, because of concentration.



No. The only spell they used was HM because most other ranger combat spells stunked and your campagin ended before you got them. The only good ones were.

Hunter's Mark
Spike Growth
Lightning Arrow
Swift Quiver
And Conjure X spells

The main problem the ranger had is the the design team thought the Ranger was too powerful but the fandom thought the Ranger was too weak. If you listen to Crawford and Kendrick they think this ranger is very strong. It's _stronger_ but *it's still weak* unless the high level feats are designed to buff it.

1d10 Hunter's Mark at level 18. Let's throw a party.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> For 3d8 damage with a low DC in a 60 cone
> 
> 
> 
> could Volley for 1d8+Dex + Other bonuses* at will *before.
> 
> 
> No. The only spell they used was HM because most other ranger combat spells stunked and your campagin ended before you got them. The only good ones were.
> 
> Hunter's Mark
> Spike Growth
> Lightning Arrow
> Swift Quiver
> And Conjure X spells
> 
> The main problem the ranger had is the the design team thought the Ranger was too powerful but the fandom thought the Ranger was too weak. If you listen to Crawford and Kendrick they think this ranger is very strong. It's _stronger_ but *it's still weak* unless the high level feats are designed to buff it.
> 
> 1d10 Hunter's Mark at level 18. Let's throw a party.




To reiterate once again: the spell is bad (as most other ranger combat spells) , but the ability it replaced was even worse.
Hunters mark costs your concentration as does swift quiver... So bad synergy.

The ranger was strong. "Fandom" in "loud voices" or optimizers think it is bad. 
At our table ranger is well loved and powerful. 
I have 2 problems with the ranger: it was hit with the nerf hammer (or colletaral damage by general rules changes) short before release, leaving him with abilities that did not play well together. This was noticed and critizised by me and our first ranger player who continued to play his DnDnext ranger. 

So even if the numbers are not correct now, at least the chassis works much more seemlessly. 

Numbers can still be balanced.


----------



## Minigiant

UngeheuerLich said:


> To reiterate once again: the spell is bad (as most other ranger combat spells) , but the ability it replaced was even worse.



Again Volley is way better than Conjure Barrage by a lot.

Downcasting Conjure Barrage is cool. But it is *weak*. Ranger's already get Hail of Thorns that _does almost the same thing_ and that spell is also weak.



UngeheuerLich said:


> The ranger was strong. "Fandom" in "loud voices" or optimizers think it is bad.



The ranger was "strong". It had a ton of exploits. Conjure spells. GWM/SS abuse stacked on Hunter's mark. Dipping into rogue or fighter easy.



UngeheuerLich said:


> So even if the numbers are not correct now, at least the chassis works much more seemlessly.
> 
> Numbers can still be balanced.



Seemless doesn't mean strong.

You were not supposed to stack buffs in 5e. That's the whole point of Concentration.

People wanted to stack buffs because the ranger was weak and if you stacked Hunter's Mark with other spells, the class would feel strong. Concentrationless Hunter's Mark is meh because Cordon of Arrows and Hail of Thorns, the spell that don't compete with Hunter's mark anymore are bad.The Good Ranger spells, Swift Quiver and Lightning Arrow are "high level" for rangers.

Concentraionless HM means every combat heavy ranger will be spamming Conjure Animals, Enchance Ability, Entangle, and Pass Without Trace because there aren't many other good ranger spells. That's not going to get annoying for DMs.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> Again Volley is way better than Conjure Barrage by a lot.




Volley was just the better of two bad options. Volley was ok. 



> The ranger was "strong". It had a ton of exploits. Conjure spells. GWM/SS abuse stacked on Hunter's mark. Dipping into rogue or fighter easy.




The rangers in my group were strong without exploits.

To the rest. I refuse to look at numbers at this time. Seemless is more important here. Numbers can be tweaked later.
The ranger in 5e, without tasha, though in no way underpowered is just not really fun:
Twf with animal companion :/.
Hunters mark and twf first round :/.
Melee and concentration :/. 
Swift quiver and hinter's mark :/. 
Multiattack* feature and extra attack or twf or the hunter level 3 feature that gives an extra attack :/ :/ :/ :/. 

All needlessly annoying. The ranger in the playtest seems to not have those issues.

*Edit: with multiattack I meant whirlwind in this case!


----------



## Minigiant

UngeheuerLich said:


> Twf with animal companion :/



That is a TWF problem.



UngeheuerLich said:


> Hunters mark and twf first round :/.



See above



UngeheuerLich said:


> Melee and concentration



So you want buffs that cant be knocked off and stack them? That's really strong.


UngeheuerLich said:


> Swift quiver and hinter's mark :/.



Stacking combat buffs?


UngeheuerLich said:


> Multiattack feature and extra attack or twf or the hunter level 3 feature that gives an extra attack :/ :/ :/ :/.



You want to be able to Whirlwind attack, Horderbreaker attack, Extra Attack, and TWF Attack with one action?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> So you want buffs that cant be knocked off and stack them? That's really strong.
> 
> Stacking combat buffs?
> 
> You want to be able to Whirlwind attack, Horderbreaker attack, Extra Attack, and TWF Attack with one action?




No. But if a class relies so much on one ability, that ability should stick.

And no, I don't want it. This is why I welcome the removel of such a crappy feature that in all relevant cases lowers your damage output.


----------



## Minigiant

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. But if a class relies so much on one ability, that ability should stick.
> 
> And no, I don't want it. This is why I welcome the removel of such a crappy feature that in all relevant cases lowers your damage output.



But that's the problem. Rangers shouldn't be relying solely on Hunters Mark and trying to stack on everything and always have it up..

The Ranger's other spells should be better and be viable options which support other builds. Bring back Bladethrist for TWF rangers. Magic Fang for Beastmasters. Fix Barkskin for GWF rangers. Create low level arrow spells for archery rangers.

As a DM, I converted a bunch of old ranger spells and many of the problems went away.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

I know that after playing a Ranger with Favored Foe now, when it's gone and Hunter's Mark spam is back, I'm out of the Ranger game.


----------



## Neonchameleon

UngeheuerLich said:


> At least they have expertise now. And at least abilities that sounded fun on paper but were very unfun in play are removed.
> 
> I think the tasha's primal awareness is missing though.



The Tasha's Ranger has Expertise. And the Ranger has lurched from "interesting fluff, awful mechanics" to "boring fluff, competent mechanics". And while a D+ is a better grade than an F it's still bad. (And yes Primal Awareness is missing - it's far too fluffy and interesting for this mechanics-only offering)


UngeheuerLich said:


> To reiterate once again: the spell is bad (as most other ranger combat spells) , but the ability it replaced was even worse.



No it wasn't assuming we're talking about Volley. The old Multiattack cost no resources  rather than burning a third level spell slot. It didn't have to target your friends if they were in the hideously big area. It made use of things like your fighting style, your feats, your equipment, and even your primary stat. And, for that matter, Hunter's Mark.

Volley was worth using if there were four enemies within a 20ft area, and worth considering if there were three. How often this came up was DM dependent.

Meanwhile Conjure Barrage gets none of those benefits. It just hits a wide area for 3d8 damage which is ... not quite enough to kill an orc on average rolls if the orc fails its saving throw. It's therefore much more niche thanks to the friendly fire issue. And while it can hordebreak the wizard's fireball is easier to use, harder to save against, and does more average damage on a passed saving throw than conjure barrage does on a failed one. So you're trying to do with your third level slot things wizards are better at doing with theirs.

Volley is more flexible and more generally useful than conjure barrage would be even if you didn't have to burn a third level slot every time you wanted to cast it (or a lower level slot for significantly less damage).


UngeheuerLich said:


> Hunters mark costs your concentration as does swift quiver... So bad synergy.



And fixing this is a genuine improvement.


UngeheuerLich said:


> So even if the numbers are not correct now, at least the chassis works much more seemlessly.



The problem is that there's nothing interesting on that chassis. The first ability you get that says ranger rather than fighter or druid to me is 'Roamin' ' at level 7 I think.


UngeheuerLich said:


> Numbers can still be balanced.



But the fluff is also needed. The PHB ranger was all ribbon ability fluff. This thing is all bland mechanics.


----------



## Neonchameleon

UngeheuerLich said:


> The ranger in 5e, without tasha, though in no way underpowered is just not really fun:
> Twf with animal companion :/.



The animal companion on its own was a problem. It turned your game into an escort mission.


UngeheuerLich said:


> Hunters mark and twf first round :/.
> Melee and concentration :/.
> Swift quiver and hinter's mark :/.
> Multiattack feature and extra attack or twf or the hunter level 3 feature that gives an extra attack :/ :/ :/ :/.



Agreed. This part has been fixed - at the cost of pure blandness. The ranger here is now just a hybrid.


UngeheuerLich said:


> All needlessly annoying. The ranger in the playtest seems to not have those issues.



It just lacks anything interesting or rangerish. It's a cube of tofu.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Neonchameleon said:


> But the fluff is also needed. The PHB ranger was all ribbon ability fluff. This thing is all bland mechanics.




In cooking, you need to get the base right first and then add some spice.


----------



## Horwath

UngeheuerLich said:


> In cooking, you need to get the base right first and then add some spice.



this.

PHB ranger was all spice on some cheap, out of date minced meat.


----------



## Neonchameleon

UngeheuerLich said:


> In cooking, you need to get the base right first and then add some spice.



And this isn't cooking.

Also classes aren't a base. The core mechanics are a base. And testing a recipie should include some spice even if the proportions are off. Right now what we're being presented with is a meal where everything is boiled to a mush.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Neonchameleon said:


> And this isn't cooking.
> 
> Also classes aren't a base. The core mechanics are a base. And testing a recipie should include some spice even if the proportions are off. Right now what we're being presented with is a meal where everything is boiled to a mush.




You started with tofu...

Of course classes are the base (for that class).
And I don't disagree with you. It needs some flavour. But I don't want the mechanical mess that os the 5e ranger, especially the hunter subclass.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Horwath said:


> this.
> 
> PHB ranger was all spice on some cheap, out of date minced meat.



And this ranger is a mix of boiled potatoes, boiled rice, and boiled tofu calling itself a meal. Neither is good.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Neonchameleon said:


> And this ranger is a mix of boiled potatoes, boiled rice, and boiled tofu calling itself a meal. Neither is good.




But you can make a palatable meal with some spice here.

Spoiled meat stays spoiled meat.
And as the 5e ranger, it might taste good at first, but after a while your get stomach aches...


----------



## Neonchameleon

UngeheuerLich said:


> You started with tofu...
> 
> Of course classes are the base (for that class).
> And I don't disagree with you. It needs some flavour. But I don't want the mechanical mess that os the 5e ranger, especially the hunter subclass.



No one wants that. But that's not the only trap to avoid. This is falling into a different one. It's Yet Another Caster with almost no reason to exist other than to fill in a square. It's the PHB Sorcerer


----------



## Horwath

Neonchameleon said:


> It's the PHB Sorcerer



talk about a useless class.
Tasha's really resurrected the sorcerer.


----------



## Neonchameleon

UngeheuerLich said:


> But you can make a palatable meal with some spice here.



What you have here is the equivalent of an MRE. I mean sure it qualifies as food with or without spice but it's not exactly appetising.


UngeheuerLich said:


> Spoiled meat stays spoiled meat.
> And as the 5e ranger, it might taste good at first, but after a while your get stomach aches...



No one is advocating for every ability being a ribbon ability.


----------



## Minigiant

UngeheuerLich said:


> But you can make a palatable meal with some spice here.
> 
> Spoiled meat stays spoiled meat.
> And as the 5e ranger, it might taste good at first, but after a while your get stomach aches...




But the playtest ranger looke like they got not spoiled but not gourmet meat then forgot to go to the seasoning aisle.

So it's edible now but bland.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Neonchameleon said:


> No one is advocating for every ability being a ribbon ability.




And I never said, ribbon abilities should stay away from the ranger.


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> I’m fine with access to magic, especially magic that isn’t just spells. It’s spellcasting that doesn’t fit the ranger archetype.



But that's the trick, it's ALL spells. 

Spells are what they use to cover 90%* of magical effects. It's why many invocations end up being access to a spell (slow, bane, mage armor). It's why a robust psionics was abandoned for psionic spells and subclasses. Spells are a known quantity, an understood mechanic, and an easy way to expand the game later. In short, they are the hammer WotC has elected to use, and everything else is just a nail.

If it helps, think of spells akin to 4e powers, save they are explicitly magical.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> But the playtest ranger looke like they got not spoiled but not gourmet meat then forgot to go to the seasoning aisle.
> 
> So it's edible now but bland.




At least it is edible. Now we get slightly better quality meat and send it on exactly this trip.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Remathilis said:


> But that's the trick, it's ALL spells.
> 
> Spells are what they use to cover 90%* of magical effects. It's why many invocations end up being access to a spell (slow, bane, mage armor). It's why a robust psionics was abandoned for psionic spells and subclasses. Spells are a known quantity, an understood mechanic, and an easy way to expand the game later. In short, they are the hammer WotC has elected to use, and everything else is just a nail.
> 
> If it helps, think of spells akin to 4e powers, save they are explicitly magical.




And feats will cover the rest.


----------



## TwoSix

This is a lot of food metaphors.  Are we sure Ranger isn't just pineapple pizza?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

TwoSix said:


> This is a lot of food metaphors.  Are we sure Ranger isn't just pineapple pizza?




It was until yesterday.
Now it is magharita.


----------



## TwoSix

UngeheuerLich said:


> It was until yesterday.
> Now it is magharita.



So we're saying the ranger is bland, but it's looking for its lost shaker of salt?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

TwoSix said:


> So we're saying the ranger is bland, but it's looking for its lost shaker of salt?




And some extra topping...


----------



## Charlaquin

Gladius Legis said:


> Wait, what interesting exploration abilities did the 5e Ranger have to lose in the first place?



Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, Land’s Stride…


----------



## FireLance

In my somewhat jaded, looking back at 4E perspective, rangers need to have spells because there's a vocal contingent who is going to be upset at any powerful ability from any class that's explicitly called out as non-magical. I recall the most common answer to the question, at what level should a ranger be able to non-magically create the effects of _Leomund's tiny hut_ was effectively "never". 

So, it seems to me that the best way to get around it is to make the spell-less ranger a subclass and give them ways to expend spell slots to create effects that are flavored as non-magical (including the ability to create a non-magical equivalent of _Leomund's tiny hut_ when they can cast third-level spells).


----------



## Horwath

Charlaquin said:


> Natural Explorer,



Horrible. nothing lost here


Charlaquin said:


> Primeval Awareness,



Even worse


Charlaquin said:


> Land’s Stride…



This was actually somewhat useful, and about 6 or 7 levels too late.


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> But that's the trick, it's ALL spells.
> 
> Spells are what they use to cover 90%* of magical effects. It's why many invocations end up being access to a spell (slow, bane, mage armor). It's why a robust psionics was abandoned for psionic spells and subclasses. Spells are a known quantity, an understood mechanic, and an easy way to expand the game later. In short, they are the hammer WotC has elected to use, and everything else is just a nail.
> 
> If it helps, think of spells akin to 4e powers, save they are explicitly magical.



Well, I want rangers’ magical abilities to be among the 10% that aren’t spells. A couple of spells might be acceptable, particularly if they’re rituals. But for the most part, waving magic wands and chanting incantations is just not a ranger thing to do in my book.


----------



## Gladius Legis

Charlaquin said:


> Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, Land’s Stride…



Natural Explorer, you mean that ability that, if it came into play at all, dealt with the exploration pillar by ... skipping it entirely?

Primeval Awareness, you mean that ability that was literally less precise in your favored terrains than out of it? And that you only ever used at all when you had spell slots left over for the day? And didn't tell you anything beyond what a few skill checks could?

Land Stride, I'll give you. I'd like to see that return in some form.

But those other two? Nah, good riddance to bad rubbish.


----------



## Charlaquin

Horwath said:


> Horrible. nothing lost here
> 
> Even worse
> 
> This was actually somewhat useful, and about 6 or 7 levels too late.



I disagree. But, if they felt these a features needed replacing, they should have been replaced. With other exploration abilities.


----------



## TwoSix




----------



## Charlaquin

Gladius Legis said:


> Natural Explorer, you mean that ability that, if it came into play at all, dealt with the exploration pillar by ... skipping it entirely?



It did no such thing. It allowed you to stay alert to danger while performing another exploration task, and gave you an extra benefit to the tracking and foraging tasks. It also prevented you from getting lost in your favored terrain(s) which is far from the only exploration hazard.


Gladius Legis said:


> Primeval Awareness, you mean that ability that was literally less precise in your favored terrains than out of it? And that you only ever used at all when you had spell slots left over for the day? And didn't tell you anything beyond what a few skill checks could?



Not the strongest ability, probably should have let you know more details about your quarry. But hey, at least it gave you something actually ranger-y to spend all those stupid spell slots on. And, if that was deemed not good enough? Fine, but at least bring back Primal Awareness from Tasha’s then.


----------



## Horwath

Charlaquin said:


> It did no such thing. It allowed you to stay alert to danger while performing another exploration task, and gave you an extra benefit to the tracking and foraging tasks. It also prevented you from getting lost in your favored terrain(s) which is far from the only exploration hazard.
> 
> Not the strongest ability, probably should have let you know more details about your quarry. But hey, at least it gave you something actually ranger-y to spend all those stupid spell slots on. And, if that was deemed not good enough? Fine, but at least bring back Primal Awareness from Tasha’s then.



Natural explorer should have been global ability (not being 100% dependent on DM charity) that gives you:

You can always stay alert to danger while doing other tasks,
You have advantage on Survival checks
You can use stealth while moving at normal pace, and with disadvantage while moving at fast pace.


Then if you just need to have favored terrains, all terrains should give global benefit that is most useful in that terrain.

Arctic:
cold resistance and advantage on saves vs cold.
Advantage on acrobatics to retain balance.

Desert:
fire resistance and advantage on saves vs heat/fire
You can survive twice the time without food and/or water

Urban: 
gain proficiency in 2 skills from:
History, Insight, Deception, Intimidation, Persuation
Learn 2 languages

Underdark:
Gain or improve darkvision by 60ft
You can Hide as Bonus action

Plains:
improve base speed by 10ft
you can Dash as Bonus action

Swamp:
resistance and advantage vs poisons
immunity do diseases(non magical)

Aquatic:
breathe water
swim speed

Forest:
Climb speed
proficiency in athletics or expertise


----------



## Digdude@1970

FireLance said:


> In my somewhat jaded, looking back at 4E perspective, rangers need to have spells because there's a vocal contingent who is going to be upset at any powerful ability from any class that's explicitly called out as non-magical. I recall the most common answer to the question, at what level should a ranger be able to non-magically create the effects of _Leomund's tiny hut_ was effectively "never".
> 
> So, it seems to me that the best way to get around it is to make the spell-less ranger a subclass and give them ways to expend spell slots to create effects that are flavored as non-magical (including the ability to create a non-magical equivalent of _Leomund's tiny hut_ when they can cast third-level spells).



I like the idea of this being a ranger exclusive ability. This way, if you want the total protection of LTH, then bring a Ranger!!


----------



## Gladius Legis

Charlaquin said:


> It did no such thing. It allowed you to stay alert to danger while performing another exploration task, and gave you an extra benefit to the tracking and foraging tasks. It also prevented you from getting lost in your favored terrain(s) which is far from the only exploration hazard.



Any character can stay alert to danger if their Perception is good enough. And while getting lost isn't the only hazard, it is about the only one that dumps you in the exploration pillar for any length of gameplay time. So, yeah, skipping.



> And, if that was deemed not good enough? Fine, but at least bring back Primal Awareness from Tasha’s then.



So, spells.


----------



## Eric V

You know how both fighter and rogue, as base classes, have no spells but offer subclasses that use magic?

Yeah, ranger should follow their lead.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Maybe Natural Explorer and non-Tasha Primeval Awareness could be remodeled either as a spell or a feat? It was a relatively cool exploration feature; not worth a full class feature, but it was thematic at least.


----------



## Minigiant

Horwath said:


> Natural explorer should have been global ability (not being 100% dependent on DM charity) that gives you:
> 
> You can always stay alert to danger while doing other tasks,
> You have advantage on Survival checks
> You can use stealth while moving at normal pace, and with disadvantage while moving at fast pace.
> 
> 
> Then if you just need to have favored terrains, all terrains should give global benefit that is most useful in that terrain.
> 
> Arctic:
> cold resistance and advantage on saves vs cold.
> Advantage on acrobatics to retain balance.
> 
> Desert:
> fire resistance and advantage on saves vs heat/fire
> You can survive twice the time without food and/or water
> 
> Urban:
> gain proficiency in 2 skills from:
> History, Insight, Deception, Intimidation, Persuation
> Learn 2 languages
> 
> Underdark:
> Gain or improve darkvision by 60ft
> You can Hide as Bonus action
> 
> Plains:
> improve base speed by 10ft
> you can Dash as Bonus action
> 
> Swamp:
> resistance and advantage vs poisons
> immunity do diseases(non magical)
> 
> Aquatic:
> breathe water
> swim speed
> 
> Forest:
> Climb speed
> proficiency in athletics or expertise



I suggest the same thing since 2012.. Many have afterwards.

WOTC is just so afraid of the idea.


----------



## The Glen

Wizards likes to stay close to formula. There's a reason why most races get dark vision and now they even come with their own spells. They've been adding spells to every class. In Tasha's the fighter Barbarian and Rogue subclasses all had some sort of magical ability attached. They need to think outside the box. Give us something that stands out from the others


----------



## Neonchameleon

Natural explorer was a good idea terribly implimented. Giving rangers abilities based on their favoured terrain was a good idea. But where it went wrong was that it gave them abilities in that terrain rather than transferrable abilities they learned from the terrain but could use anywhere.

So for example a mountain specialist in the 2014 PHB got a collection of abilities like "tracks better on a mountain" and "forages better on a mountain". What they should have gained was abilities like a climb speed, expertise in athletics, and the ability to easily guide people in climbing because as a mountain ranger they spend a lot of time (a) climbing and (b) doing mountain rescue. But these abilities apply anywhere, so the expert mountain climber can also climb buildings pretty easily.


----------



## Charlaquin

Horwath said:


> Natural explorer should have been global ability (not being 100% dependent on DM charity) that gives you:
> 
> You can always stay alert to danger while doing other tasks,
> You have advantage on Survival checks
> You can use stealth while moving at normal pace, and with disadvantage while moving at fast pace.
> 
> 
> Then if you just need to have favored terrains, all terrains should give global benefit that is most useful in that terrain.
> 
> Arctic:
> cold resistance and advantage on saves vs cold.
> Advantage on acrobatics to retain balance.
> 
> Desert:
> fire resistance and advantage on saves vs heat/fire
> You can survive twice the time without food and/or water
> 
> Urban:
> gain proficiency in 2 skills from:
> History, Insight, Deception, Intimidation, Persuation
> Learn 2 languages
> 
> Underdark:
> Gain or improve darkvision by 60ft
> You can Hide as Bonus action
> 
> Plains:
> improve base speed by 10ft
> you can Dash as Bonus action
> 
> Swamp:
> resistance and advantage vs poisons
> immunity do diseases(non magical)
> 
> Aquatic:
> breathe water
> swim speed
> 
> Forest:
> Climb speed
> proficiency in athletics or expertise



That would be great, yeah.


----------



## Charlaquin

Gladius Legis said:


> Any character can stay alert to danger if their Perception is good enough.



Not true. Staying alert to danger is a travel task one has to choose, at the expense of other travel tasks (unless one is a ranger).


Gladius Legis said:


> And while getting lost isn't the only hazard, it is about the only one that dumps you in the exploration pillar for any length of gameplay time. So, yeah, skipping.



What do you mean? Exploration has many hazards.


Gladius Legis said:


> So, spells.



Right, which I don’t love, but it’s better than taking away the Ranger’s exploration abilities and replacing them with nothing at all.


----------



## Horwath

The Glen said:


> Wizards likes to stay close to formula. There's a reason why most races get dark vision and now they even come with their own spells. They've been adding spells to every class. In Tasha's the fighter Barbarian and Rogue subclasses all had some sort of magical ability attached. They need to think outside the box. Give us something that stands out from the others



if they want to stay at the formula, then we do not need all this classes.

then we need;

warrior type:
d12 HD. extra attacks at levels 5,11,17

some kind of gish/half caster:
d10 HD
spell levels 1-5
extra attack at 5th level(bladesinger style), bonus action attack after casting a spell at 11th, 

2/3rd caster: 
d8 HD
spell levels 1-7

full caster:
d6 HD
spell levels 1-9, or maybe 10th level spells at 19th level

give a feat or two every class level and build on.


----------



## Mort

FireLance said:


> In my somewhat jaded, looking back at 4E perspective, rangers need to have spells because there's a vocal contingent who is going to be upset at any powerful ability from any class that's explicitly called out as non-magical. I recall the most common answer to the question, at what level should a ranger be able to non-magically create the effects of _Leomund's tiny hut_ was effectively "never".
> 
> So, it seems to me that the best way to get around it is to make the spell-less ranger a subclass and give them ways to expend spell slots to create effects that are flavored as non-magical (including the ability to create a non-magical equivalent of _Leomund's tiny hut_ when they can cast third-level spells).




I was going to post basically the same thing. Having the abilities be spells is the "safe" option to appease the VERY vocal "but it's not realistic...." crowd.

Take Nature's Veil (13th level ability) bonus action to become invisible until your next turn. This is something that, I think, a ranger should be able to do. By 13th level they become so good (and fast) blending into terrain that invisible is a good term. There are LOTS of examples in film of special forces (or the like) appearing out of nowhere because "they're just that good." But make it a "normal" ability and it guarantees endless quibbling about how is that "realistic." 

Make it a magical ability? You might get a few complaints of how too much is magic, but there will be NO complaints (especially during play) that the ranger can turn invisible. It's irritating, but I can certainly see why WoTC chose the side it did.


----------



## Gladius Legis

Charlaquin said:


> Not true. Staying alert to danger is a travel task one has to choose, at the expense of other travel tasks (unless one is a ranger).



Two words: Passive Perception.


Charlaquin said:


> What do you mean? Exploration has many hazards.



None of which Natural Explorer really addressed. Otherwise, all its abilities do is prevent you from getting lost and making sure you have enough food and travel at standard pace, which in execution leads you to skipping exploration entirely.


Charlaquin said:


> Right, which I don’t love, but it’s better than taking away the Ranger’s exploration abilities and replacing them with nothing at all.



3 of the 5 Primal Awareness spells have the ritual tag. Which in 1D&D any spellcaster can now cast without using up spell slots.

And since Rangers are now prepared casters, you can just prepare those as you need them. This new Ranger also has more spells prepared than the old Ranger, even with Primal Awareness, knew at the same levels.


----------



## Minigiant

Eric V said:


> You know how both fighter and rogue, as base classes, have no spells but offer subclasses that use magic?
> 
> Yeah, ranger should follow their lead.



You know the number one reason why this won't happen you wouldn't like it if they did this.

If you get nonspell ranger features, guess

who chooses which nature features you get
how many features you get
how often you get to use it
how often your options are updated in new books....


WOTC tied a nonspell ranger twice, the community *hated* it.


----------



## Mort

Gladius Legis said:


> Two words: Passive Perception.




A PC not expressly focused on danger detection (as in doing one of the other travel tasks like Navigating, foraging or mapping) cannot contribute their Passive Pereption to the task of noticing threats. A ranger can do another task AND be on the lookout for danger - that's an exception.


----------



## Eric V

Minigiant said:


> WOTC tied a nonspell ranger twice, the community *hated* it.



They did?


----------



## Zubatcarteira

The 2014 Ranger had a bunch of features that were non-magical, and a lot of them were awful or outright useless. Definitely more of an issue with the design, Primeval Awareness was bad and it was magical as well, they just have to make non-magical features that don't suck.


----------



## gorice

The real test of the ranger's wilderness abilities is going to be how skills interact with changes to the exploration rules (if at all). Personally, I much prefer design where the designer trusts an existing system (i.e. skills) and makes it work across multiple situations, rather than adding lots of finicky ribbon abilities.



The Glen said:


> It's underwhelming and flavorless.  Hunters mark will turn into an action tax.  Round 1 you cast hunters mark while everybody else attacks.



I really hate it when they design abilities that are just buttons you have to push in order to push other buttons. Like, what actually is a hunter's mark? Or a smite, for that matter? It's a button youh push to make numbers go up. There's no flavour, and no interaction with the fictional world.

Anyway, I think PF2 nailed the feel of the ranger pretty nicely. Note that the ranger is not a spellcaster, but has the _option_ to choose feats that give them weird but subtle (for Pathfinder) nature magic.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Minigiant said:


> You know the number one reason why this won't happen you wouldn't like it if they did this.
> 
> If you get nonspell ranger features, guess
> 
> who chooses which nature features you get
> how many features you get
> how often you get to use it
> how often your options are updated in new books....
> 
> 
> WOTC tied a nonspell ranger twice, the community *hated* it.



Level Up did it, and it's great.


----------



## Mort

The Glen said:


> It's underwhelming and flavorless.  Hunters mark will turn into an action tax.  Round 1 you cast hunters mark while everybody else attacks.



It's a bonus action, so you can cast it AND attack - that's the appeal. It's what rangers have been doing anyway. At least now it's less of a spell tax (it's always known and always prepared) and it no longer takes concentration.


----------



## Gladius Legis

As for the Hunter's Multiattack, this new one obviously sucks, but it's not like the old one was great, either. They really just need to make it a meaningful expansion of the Attack Action, so that Multiattacking doesn't cancel out things that specifically only work with Attack Actions. Like, something simple like you can use your Attack Action to attack up to 4 times as long as each attack is against a different target, or something like that.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I've always felt that Geralt would be a Ranger in D&D, except that his spells are very much based on Arcane spells like Burning Hands, Thunderwave and Shield.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Kobold Avenger said:


> I've always felt that Geralt would be a Ranger in D&D, except that his spells are very much based on Arcane spells like Burning Hands, Thunderwave and Shield.



AD&D rangers used arcane spells too.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

For the Hunter if they're going to lean on using Conjure Barrage for shooting off volleys of arrows, maybe they should be allowed to cast it as a Bonus Action or as an Attack in the Action Action.


----------



## billd91

Charlaquin said:


> To heck with the community. Particularly the community of the time. We have a new community of D&D players now, let’s let rangers do those things without magic.



Yes, we have a new community of D&D players... that has been playing rangers with magical abilities throughout 5e's increasingly popular tenure, more magic than the 1e-3e time frame. So, why would you expect them to want a magicless ranger?


----------



## niklinna

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, they really need to get rid of spellcasting.
> 
> It's not like most of the things the spells can do fit Rangers thematically or are at all interesting. The vast majority of people who actually play Rangers aren't going to miss them, I'd suggest.
> 
> You know what they actually need to do? Bring back Wardens. Spellcasting Rangers should become Wardens, the weird Druid-hybrid class. Spell-less Rangers become Katniss Everdeen and her ilk.



Rangers should just be the warlocks of martials, with a shopping list of special abilities that you only get to pick 8 from, and at least three of them are viewed as mandatory upgrades to your basic bow & arrow or two-weapon fighting ability. Oh and you only get two attacks per short rest but they do maximum damage. ;-)


----------



## ehren37

Charlaquin said:


> Four of those are combat cantrips, and in my opinion none of the combat ones are on-theme for the Ranger, nor are Druidcraft or Message.



Message seems exactly the sort of thing a scout type character should have. Druidcraft is just lame all around though, particularly compared to prestidigitation.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Charlaquin said:


> Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, Land’s Stride…




I hope you mean the abilities from tasha. The PHB abilities of similar name were very underwhelming...


----------



## CreamCloud0

Please note i say this not having seen any of the 1dnd materials but speak of the ranger in a general sense.

The ranger to me...it shouldn’t not get magic but it’s fundamental abilities shouldn’t require magic to perform, enhance them yes, but not require, if rogues get expertise in thieves tools why don’t rangers have it for herbalism kit and/or survival skill, rangers don’t even get standard proficiency in herbalism kit naturally how does that make sense?

Rangers to me are survivalists and that brings a decent jack of all trades selection of abilities: stealth, mixed melee and ranged combat, exploration, tracking, knowledge of all things nature, primal magic and nonmagical healing, _Now I reiterate what i said at the start of my post here:_ I don’t mean to remove the magical healing of the ranger but make it support their nonmagic capabilities, make their magic be what magic has always meant to be in comparison to nonmagic solutions: the quick, reliable and powerful BUT LIMITED alternative to what the nonmagic version can churn out all day at a slightly lower quality, I really feel like dnd needs a nonmagic healer and similarly I feel that the ranger could fit that niche excellently with herbalism and tinctures and brewing potions.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

multi attack used to be:

*Volley.* You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range. You must have ammunition for each target, as normal, and you make a separate attack roll for each target
now it's
You    now    always    have    Conjure    Barrage prepared,     and    it    doesn’t    count    against    the    number    of    Spells     you    can    prepare. You    can    also    cast    the    Spell    with    1st- and    2ndlevel    Spell    Slots.    When    you    do    so,    the    Spell’s damage    is    reduced

You throw a nonmagical weapon or fire a piece of nonmagical ammunition into the air to create a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward and then disappear. Each creature in a 60-foot cone must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> multi attack used to be:
> 
> *Volley.* You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range. You must have ammunition for each target, as normal, and you make a separate attack roll for each target
> now it's
> You    now    always    have    Conjure    Barrage prepared,     and    it    doesn’t    count    against    the    number    of    Spells     you    can    prepare. You    can    also    cast    the    Spell    with    1st- and    2ndlevel    Spell    Slots.    When    you    do    so,    the    Spell’s damage    is    reduced
> 
> You throw a nonmagical weapon or fire a piece of nonmagical ammunition into the air to create a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward and then disappear. Each creature in a 60-foot cone must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component




Or whirlwind attack... which was not playing nice with any ranger build except maybe duelling style, but even then it was only powering up a rather underpowered style.

A melee ranger can now just throw a dagger in the air and do some area damage. BUFF the spell and the ability is ok. Maybe allow it to be used prof bonus per day for free.


----------



## Gammadoodler

gorice said:


> I really hate it when they design abilities that are just buttons you have to push in order to push other buttons. Like, what actually is a hunter's mark? Or a smite, for that matter? It's a button youh push to make numbers go up. There's no flavour, and no interaction with the fictional world.



With smite, you at least have a "Pelor powers my strikes" kind of logic you can apply.

Hunters Mark, you go from:
"I'm watching you.." to..
"I'm magically watching you"..

I'd rather see something like the UA Ranger's favored enemy bonuses, but maybe be able to switch them out after a long rest or something. Flavor it as something like:

"When you start your day, choose a creature type from _<creature type list_>. You make subtle modifications to your weapons and armor to more effectively counter the foes you plan to face. This may include dipping ammunition in holy water, coating blades with special toxins, etching runes onto the face of a shield, etc. Until you finish a long rest your weapons do <_pick a die size or flat number_> additional damage, you gain <_pick some kind of protection saves, AC, damage resistance, etc._> and <_pick some exploration benefit_> against the selected creature types. At levels <_..pick some levels_> you can select an additional creature type as part of these preparations and/or the resulting benfit increases to <_..pick reasonable benefit increase_>"

Like, it could be an ability that functions very similarly to how real hunters plan their loadouts for the type of wild game they are hunting.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> But that's the problem. Rangers shouldn't be relying solely on Hunters Mark and trying to stack on everything and always have it up..




This is also a valid stance. Other spells should be buffed anyway...

but if the ranger is balanced around the usage of hunter's mark as the paladin is balanced around smites, then by all means, allow the ranger to use hunter's mark and also use some other fun spells

You can go either way. WotC chose the way to make hunter's mark finally the ranger thing which they were not totally sure of in the 2014 PHB.

You could also give the ranger something else and then allow hunter's mark to be only a normal spell for them.


----------



## shadowoflameth

Neonchameleon said:


> This was always going to be a big one.
> 
> The ranger ceases to be a "spells known" class and has now become a "spells prepared" class with two cantrips. Favoured enemy means they also always have Hunter's Mark prepared - and hunter's mark no longer takes concentration.
> 
> Natural explorer has been replaced by Deft Explorer - but the two languages at L1 have been replaced by a second expertise.
> 
> Rangers no longer have access to the Dueling fighting style. It's _just_ Archery, Defense, or Two Weapon Fighting (which no longer uses a bonus action but is otherwise seemingly unchanged).
> 
> Hide in Plain Sight and Banish have both been dropped for Nature's Veil.
> 
> The Hunter's been done dirty. At level 3 they all get Colossus Slayer. At level 6 they now know immunities, resistances, and vulnerabilities of the target of their mark. And the Multiattack has become "Always have the awful Conjure Barrage spell prepared and can undercast it", somehow making it worse; I don't care if it is a 60ft cone, a 1d8 damage spell is a waste of an action at level 11.
> 
> In summary giving the Ranger Spells Prepared is a boon in terms of strength but IMO will lead to less interesting characters. Giving the ranger cantrips is _good_. (Especially given that this means Rangers can go the Shilleleagh approach and there's even a potential for Magic Stone). And it's otherwise tweaks on the Tasha's version that appears equivalent but slightly blander



IMHO (which may change) The spell casting changes help the ranger a lot. Remember that they are restricted by school.
The Hunter's Mark is simple and it makes Favored Enemy not situational. The enemy that you dedicate your life to defeating can just be flavor in your backstory.
Rover is strong but situational. There may be possible abuses but in most games, I think they would be minor and rare.
Natural Explorer and the expertise in relevant skills seems OK and makes thematic sense.
Most Rangers pick archery anyway but we don't know how accessible other styles will be so I don't think the loss of dueling is a grand emergency.
Nature's Veil could be done more simply and shouldn't need a spell slot to make you invisible at 13th level. Just say if you hide in a natural setting you become invisible until you are revealed.

The Hunter I have mixed feelings about. 
Hunter's Prey at 3rd is OK. a D8 isn't a lot but for a 3rd level ability, I think that's OK. 
Hunter's Lore is strong but situational and it makes thematic sense. 
Conjure Barrage is bad as written. Downcasting is more of a bad thing. Just give the ranger an extra attack against the target of Hunter's Mark. (or write a version of Conjure Barrage that makes it worthwhile to use at 11th level).

Overall, I'm optimistic for the ranger. I do wonder if all classes will be preparers who know the whole list. If so, what will the wizard do? The scribing and learning of new spells would be meaningless. I suppose we'll see what they are thinknig in the arcane playtest.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Gammadoodler said:


> With smite, you at least have a "Pelor powers my strikes" kind of logic you can apply.
> 
> Hunters Mark, you go from:
> "I'm watching you.." to..
> "I'm magically watching you"..
> 
> I'd rather see something like the UA Ranger's favored enemy bonuses, but maybe be able to switch them out after a long rest or something. Flavor it as something like:
> 
> "When you start your day, choose a creature type from _<creature type list_>. You make subtle modifications to your weapons and armor to more effectively counter the foes you plan to face. This may include dipping ammunition in holy water, coating blades with special toxins, etching runes onto the face of a shield, etc. Until you finish a long rest your weapons do <_pick a die size or flat number_> additional damage, you gain <_pick some kind of protection saves, AC, damage resistance, etc._> and <_pick some exploration benefit_> against the selected creature types. At levels <_..pick some levels_> you can select an additional creature type as part of these preparations and/or the resulting benfit increases to <_..pick reasonable benefit increase_>"
> 
> Like, it could be an ability that functions very similarly to how real hunters plan their loadouts for the type of wild game they are hunting.




I like that ability on top of hunter's mark. I'd also like a similar ability that lets the ranger attune to a surrounding in a few days.

The benefits could be, that when you prepare for a foe, you automatically gain the effect of hunter's mark without casting the spell and when you prepare for a surrounding, you get advantage on some checks.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

CreamCloud0 said:


> If rogues get expertise in thieves tools



They actually don't anymore..


----------



## Neonchameleon

shadowoflameth said:


> IMHO (which may change) The spell casting changes help the ranger a lot. Remember that they are restricted by school.



IMO the change to prepared casting actively _hurts_ the ranger thematically. Fundamentally they mean that a newbie ranger is going to spend much more time and focus on their spells - and they have fewer non-casting abilities to go with it. The Ranger, rather than being a wilderness focused ranger is now basically a pretty much pure jack of all trades. If I were trying to create a "Generic (high magic) Adventurer from the School of Hard Knocks" class it would look very like the ranger, roving and all.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> multi attack used to be:
> 
> *Volley.* You can use your action to make a ranged attack against any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point you can see within your weapon’s range. You must have ammunition for each target, as normal, and you make a separate attack roll for each target
> now it's
> You    now    always    have    Conjure    Barrage prepared,     and    it    doesn’t    count    against    the    number    of    Spells     you    can    prepare. You    can    also    cast    the    Spell    with    1st- and    2ndlevel    Spell    Slots.    When    you    do    so,    the    Spell’s damage    is    reduced
> 
> You throw a nonmagical weapon or fire a piece of nonmagical ammunition into the air to create a cone of identical weapons that shoot forward and then disappear. Each creature in a 60-foot cone must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component



It's actually so dumb I'm not even worried about it. It'll get absolutely SHREDDED by the surveys. The sheer laziness of "Oh your multiattack ability? I guess a spell?!" is just absolutely galling, the downcasting mechanic, which is novel, is cute, but just means that it would be literally useless by the time you got it.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Similar to how you could gain generally applicable abilities related to your chosen terrain (movement speed for plains etc), you could get abilities related to your favored enemy (fey hunter has advantage vs illusions/charms, giant hunter has access to oversized weaponry etc)

One can wish.


----------



## Gammadoodler

UngeheuerLich said:


> I like that ability on top of hunter's mark. I'd also like a similar ability that lets the ranger attune to a surrounding in a few days.
> 
> The benefits could be, that when you prepare for a foe, you automatically gain the effect of hunter's mark without casting the spell and when you prepare for a surrounding, you get advantage on some checks.



I suppose keeping a resource cost way to get access to the benefits for unselected enemy types makes a kind of sense (even if I kinda hate hunters mark for being gamist spellcating rather than thematic spellcasting). 

I like the idea of prepping for an environment too. Like Natural Explorer's issue is that it's not flexible enough to prevent long stretches of total uselessness but its so good when it applies that it removes all tension from exploration activities. It shouldn't be that hard to fix. Move the decision point to the adventuring day level rather than at level up, and replace some of the auto-wins with advantaged die rolls. Seems ezpz.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Downcasting spells could be a cool mechanic for the Sorcerer though. It'd help with the few spells known if you could up/down-cast Fireball and change its elemental type with metamagic!

For a Volley or Multi-attack, I'd make it that, as an Action, a ranger can do a single attack against each creature within X radius centered on them, moving without AoO between targets if necessary. Like a low-key Steelwind Strike, if you will. Pretty bad for focused damage, but pretty cool for mob slaying.


----------



## Bill Zebub

TheSword said:


> A ranger without spellcasting is a fighter.



A fighter with spellcasting is a Gish. Sooo….


----------



## Tutara

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Downcasting spells could be a cool mechanic for the Sorcerer though. It'd help with the few spells known if you could up/down-cast Fireball and change its elemental type with metamagic!




I like the idea of the sorcerer having many more low level spell slots, but progressing slower in terms of getting higher level slots. Different to the wizard, and very different to the warlock's 'few but powerful' spell slots.

The ability to downcast would fit that really well. You're all about quantity not quality. Shabby 4D6 fireballs for days.


----------



## Haplo781

Remathilis said:


> But that's the trick, it's ALL spells.
> 
> Spells are what they use to cover 90%* of magical effects. It's why many invocations end up being access to a spell (slow, bane, mage armor). It's why a robust psionics was abandoned for psionic spells and subclasses. Spells are a known quantity, an understood mechanic, and an easy way to expand the game later. In short, they are the hammer WotC has elected to use, and everything else is just a nail.
> 
> If it helps, think of spells akin to 4e powers, save they are explicitly magical.



Hey remember how people complained (and still do) that 4e classes are lIteRallY aLl thE SamE because they had a unified progression?

Well now every ability that isn't swinging a pointy stick is "a wizard did it."


----------



## ehren37

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's actually so dumb I'm not even worried about it. It'll get absolutely SHREDDED by the surveys. The sheer laziness of "Oh your multiattack ability? I guess a spell?!" is just absolutely galling, the downcasting mechanic, which is novel, is cute, but just means that it would be literally useless by the time you got it.



Hybrids really need their own spell lists, otherwise all damage spells are trash by the time they can be cast. Making me roll multiple saves for a piddly d8 damage at 11th freakin level level is a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## ehren37

Haplo781 said:


> Hey remember how people complained (and still do) that 4e classes are lIteRallY aLl thE SamE because they had a unified progression?
> 
> Well now every ability that isn't swinging a pointy stick is "a wizard did it."



Hey now, sometimes a cleric or druid did it!


----------



## Neonchameleon

ehren37 said:


> Hybrids really need their own spell lists, otherwise all damage spells are trash by the time they can be cast. Making me roll multiple saves for a piddly d8 damage at 11th freakin level level is a waste of everyone's time.



And the spell in question would still not be taken often against fireball as a third level spell if you literally doubled the damage it did. (6d8<8d6. And a 60ft cone covers only about 1.5 times the area of a 20ft radius sphere while the sphere with its 150ft range is far _far_ easier both to deploy against cover and to deploy without inflicting friendly fire). As it only does 3d8 damage it's an awful example of a third level spell.

But it is an example of a hybrid having their own spell list; the spell in 5e is ranger-exclusive. Which only adds insult to injury.


----------



## Charlaquin

ehren37 said:


> Message seems exactly the sort of thing a scout type character should have. Druidcraft is just lame all around though, particularly compared to prestidigitation.



Sending psychic telegrams does not seem like the sort of thing a ranger should do _at all_. Animal Messanger maybe, but message? No way.


----------



## Charlaquin

UngeheuerLich said:


> I hope you mean the abilities from tasha. The PHB abilities of similar name were very underwhelming...



I pretty much prefer the PHB versions across the board.


----------



## niklinna

Branduil said:


> I'm not sure what the Hunter subclass did to deserve a nerf.
> 
> While the Hunter's Mark boost is nice, they should really just go all the way and make it an at-will ability. It won't break the game WotC, I promise.



It isn't nerfed. It's _simplified_. So, you know, more people will feel comfortable playing it. Because it's absolutely too complicated right now, that's why everybody is so unhappy with the Ranger class.... Imagine if we had to choose from two dozen special abilities every couple levels! Heads would explode.

Oh wait warlock again.


----------



## Weiley31

Gladius Legis said:


> Since 3e, actually. He even had a level in Barbarian in 3e, which was pants-on-head stupid.



I mean, 3.0/3.5 multiclassing was hella stupid at times too as well so it legit tracks.
_I know some people LOVED their system mastery, but mother of mercy I didn't want to get a college degree for Multi-Classing to be able to tie my shoe and all that._


----------



## niklinna

Weiley31 said:


> I mean, 3.0/3.5 multiclassing was hella stupid at times too as well so it legit tracks.
> _I know some people LOVED their system mastery, but mother of mercy I didn't want to get a college degree for Multi-Classing to be able to tie my shoe and all that._



Having seen some of Treantmonk's videos, I'd say a college degree in Multi-Classing looks to still be very much A Thing.


----------



## niklinna

Remathilis said:


> But that's the trick, it's ALL spells.
> 
> Spells are what they use to cover 90%* of magical effects. It's why many invocations end up being access to a spell (slow, bane, mage armor). It's why a robust psionics was abandoned for psionic spells and subclasses. Spells are a known quantity, an understood mechanic, and an easy way to expand the game later. In short, they are the hammer WotC has elected to use, and everything else is just a nail.
> 
> If it helps, think of spells akin to 4e powers, save they are explicitly magical.



Really all they had to do was have "spells" be descriptions of abilities with effects, that could be produced in various means, one of them being "casting a spell" (with VSM components and short cast times for use in combat), resulting in the effect being magical. Several abilities in the game do in fact duplicate the effects of spells without actually being magical or using the spellcasting rules. It's just ad-hoc instead of a designed system, as individual situations crop up where they need a certain effect, the spell desription is close enough, so hey let's save a few column inches and refer to that.


----------



## niklinna

UngeheuerLich said:


> It was until yesterday.
> Now it is magharita.



Genuine pizza margherita is actually pretty awesome! Simple doesn't have to equal bland. But it does demand top-quality ingredients, not hothouse gas-ripened tomatoes and such.


----------



## Neonchameleon

niklinna said:


> Really all they had to do was have "spells" be descriptions of abilities with effects, that could be produced in various means, one of them being "casting a spell" (with VSM components and short cast times for use in combat), resulting in the effect being magical. Several abilities in the game do in fact duplicate the effects of spells without actually being magical or using the spellcasting rules. It's just ad-hoc instead of a designed system, as individual situations crop up where they need a certain effect, the spell desription is close enough, so hey let's save a few column inches and refer to that.



The problem with spells used this way is threefold

There's baggage that comes with using the spells mechanic. Like dispels/counterspell/anti magic fields. It's a definite worldbuilding choice
It sets everything onto the same "X times per day" schedule. 4e's AEDU was far more varied because it put things onto different schedules (which is why most of my favourite Invocations _aren't_ spells or when they are they don't use spell resources).
It makes everything feel homogenous with the same flavour rather than with none. As if everyone's a prosthetic forehead wizard
Edit: And by changing the Ranger from a "spells known" class where you can easily curate how your own ranger's metaphor works to a "spells prepared class" where every ranger has access to all ranger spells they've doubled down on how much it needs to be magic.


----------



## niklinna

Neonchameleon said:


> The problem with spells used this way is threefold
> 
> There's baggage that comes with using the spells mechanic. Like dispels/counterspell/anti magic fields. It's a definite worldbuilding choice



That's why I specified having different mechanics for triggering the effects of what are now only considered magical spells that you cast with VSM components.


Neonchameleon said:


> It sets everything onto the same "X times per day" schedule. 4e's AEDU was far more varied because it put things onto different schedules (which is why most of my favourite Invocations _aren't_ spells or when they are they don't use spell resources).



This is already the case in 5e. (The new bits that recharge when you roll initiative were a pleasant surprise, actually, even if they come online very late.) My comment was based on the logic that given this is how WotC have been moving, a single catalog of special effects, with differing ways to trigger those, would save a bit of trouble. Of course that's treading into the horribly fraught territory of "power sources", which certain parts of the community...object to.



Neonchameleon said:


> It makes everything feel homogenous with the same flavour rather than with none. As if everyone's a prosthetic forehead wizard



Again, this is already the direction WotC is heading. I'd much rather have distinct abilities that are explicitly not magic, but it seems if an existing spell remotely does anything like a potential mundane ability, WotC just latch on to that.



Neonchameleon said:


> Edit: And by changing the Ranger from a "spells known" class where you can easily curate how your own ranger's metaphor works to a "spells prepared class" where every ranger has access to all ranger spells they've doubled down on how much it needs to be magic.



Yep.


----------



## Haplo781

niklinna said:


> Really all they had to do was have "spells" be descriptions of abilities with effects, that could be produced in various means, one of them being "casting a spell" (with VSM components and short cast times for use in combat), resulting in the effect being magical. Several abilities in the game do in fact duplicate the effects of spells without actually being magical or using the spellcasting rules. It's just ad-hoc instead of a designed system, as individual situations crop up where they need a certain effect, the spell desription is close enough, so hey let's save a few column inches and refer to that.



That's confusing. We need a word for "spells" that aren't spells.

Like, I dunno, "power".


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

billd91 said:


> Yes, we have a new community of D&D players... that has been playing rangers with magical abilities throughout 5e's increasingly popular tenure, more magic than the 1e-3e time frame. So, why would you expect them to want a magicless ranger?



Yeah, this is something that's been bugging me about the whole "Rangers shouldn't have magic" mindset that this forum seems to love for some reason. We have a generation of newer players that have only every played Spellcasting Rangers. To them, Rangers are half-casters. It's core to the class's identity to a lot of newer players. Just go check the discussions on the Ranger on sites where the community is much younger than this one (D&D Beyond and Reddit for example). 

5e is the most popular edition of the game and has more newer players than any other edition. The game is 8 years old now, and a huge chunk of the majority of the modern fanbase is only familiar with Rangers that can cast spells. I don't think that changing the class so much that it doesn't get spells would fly. 

And, to those saying "but Aragorn, Drizzt, and Katniss can't cast spells and they're rangers!", class identity never maps perfectly onto pop culture. Conan the *Barbarian *is a Fighter/Rogue. Charlemagne's Paladins didn't have divine magic. D&D Druids are a strange combination of Shamans/Elementalists. Clerics are all war-priests for some reason that have no historical basis.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> They actually don't anymore..



They do if they choose Expertise in Sleight of Hand. Ability Checks with Thieves' Tools are based on Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) now.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 5e is the most popular edition of the game and has more newer players than any other edition. The game is 8 years old now, and a huge chunk of the majority of the modern fanbase is only familiar with Rangers that can cast spells. I don't think that changing the class so much that it doesn't get spells would fly.



That doesn't mean it couldn't be eased back heavily. And it doesn't mean that turning the Ranger into a Spells Prepared class so every single ranger gets access to every single level appropriate ranger spell isn't a huge leap in the wrong direction.

As I've mentioned although Paladins have as much casting on paper as rangers it doesn't feel remotely as casting based even now because the Smite feature is so good and Lay on Hands covers the healing. This means that it's relatively rare that a paladin uses a first or second level spell slot on casting a spell.

I think rangers would be helped by a couple of equivalent utility based 'this is a good use of low level spell slots that isn't actually a spell' things so they don't have do to muuch more than coincidental casting. I mean for example, rather than Goodberry, I'd like Rangers to be able to burn a first level slot on Healing Herbs that you need a short rest to use but heal 2d6+stat mod hp (making them more effective than Cure Wounds by a non-cleric) and some guidance abilities for second level spell slots (the entire party gets advantage on a skill the Ranger is trained in as a second level slot, with a secondary effect based on the skill). Between those and Hunter's Mark although the ranger has slots a ranger need not actually cast spells on your average day until level in the double digits.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And, to those saying "but Aragorn, Drizzt, and Katniss can't cast spells and they're rangers!", class identity never maps perfectly onto pop culture. Conan the *Barbarian *is a Fighter/Rogue. Charlemagne's Paladins didn't have divine magic. D&D Druids are a strange combination of Shamans/Elementalists. Clerics are all war-priests for some reason that have no historical basis.



But none of those are people _you meet right now in the real world._ Forest Rangers and Army Rangers both are. I doubt that one modern player in three has heard of Charlemagne's paladins or read any Conan.

And the only thing wrong with clerics compared to modern fantasy archetypes is that some of them should be robe-wearers. Although I suspect that can be managed by Divine Soul Sorcerers.


----------



## niklinna

Haplo781 said:


> That's confusing. We need a word for "spells" that aren't spells.
> 
> Like, I dunno, "power".



I already poked that bear once in this thread.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Neonchameleon said:


> That doesn't mean it couldn't be eased back heavily. And it doesn't mean that turning the Ranger into a Spells Prepared class so every single ranger gets access to every single level appropriate ranger spell isn't a huge leap in the wrong direction.



People hate Known spells. Prepared spells is objectively superior and it's been a really common request on sites like D&D Beyond and Reddit for them to transition to Prepared casting.


Neonchameleon said:


> As I've mentioned although Paladins have as much casting on paper as rangers it doesn't feel remotely as casting based even now because the Smite feature is so good and Lay on Hands covers the healing. This means that it's relatively rare that a paladin uses a first or second level spell slot on casting a spell.



I'm pretty sure Smite is going to change quite a bit in the Priest UA. And, I've DMed for several paladins and rangers, and both of them cast spells about equally in my experience.


Neonchameleon said:


> I think rangers would be helped by a couple of equivalent utility based 'this is a good use of low level spell slots that isn't actually a spell' things so they don't have do to muuch more than coincidental casting. I mean for example, rather than Goodberry, I'd like Rangers to be able to burn a first level slot on Healing Herbs that you need a short rest to use but heal 2d6+stat mod hp (making them more effective than Cure Wounds by a non-cleric) and some guidance abilities for second level spell slots (the entire party gets advantage on a skill the Ranger is trained in as a second level slot, with a secondary effect based on the skill). Between those and Hunter's Mark although the ranger has slots a ranger need not actually cast spells on your average day until level in the double digits.



Making abilities that consume spell slots might as well be the same thing as making a new spell.


Neonchameleon said:


> But none of those are people _you meet right now in the real world._ Forest Rangers and Army Rangers both are. I doubt that one modern player in three has heard of Charlemagne's paladins or read any Conan.
> 
> And the only thing wrong with clerics compared to modern fantasy archetypes is that some of them should be robe-wearers. Although I suspect that can be managed by Divine Soul Sorcerers.



People know what the Knights Templar are. And forest rangers equivalent class in D&D having a mystical connection in a fantasy world where nature is magical is logical.

Also, the idea that Divine Soul Sorcerers are D&D's version of real world priests/clergy is funny. I think that changing the cleric class to not automatically get proficiency with weapons and armor would be a good move to further separate the thematic and mechanical niches of paladins and clerics and also make clerics fit real-world priests better.


----------



## TheSword

Haplo781 said:


> Hey remember how people complained (and still do) that 4e classes are lIteRallY aLl thE SamE because they had a unified progression?
> 
> Well now every ability that isn't swinging a pointy stick is "a wizard did it."



Yes. Things that look like spells, act like spells and have effects  like spells… are actually spells.

Shock horror. Stop the press.


----------



## Haplo781

TheSword said:


> Yes. Things that look like spells, act like spells and have aftereffects  like spells… are actually spells.
> 
> Shock horror. Stop the press. How can you survive workouts this superfluous guidance.



Cool except that now your nonmagical volley of arrows can be counterspelled.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I dunno. We all have different images in our heads, but I think of Paladins as infused with divine power, so it makes sense (to me) that they cast spells, whereas Rangers are knowledgeable and tough as nails, but not very magical. 

But I also think it’s a losing battle.


----------



## Minigiant

Bill Zebub said:


> Rangers are knowledgeable



This is the core issue.

"rangers are knowledgeable" doesn't say anything.

50% of stuff people attribute to Ranger Knowledge is only allowed to be done with magic in D&D.

That number grows to 100% past level 9 or so when the OP magic, mystic nature, and fantastic monster show up.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> People hate Known spells. Prepared spells is objectively superior and it's been a really common request on sites like D&D Beyond and Reddit for them to transition to Prepared casting.



_Some people_ hate Known Spells - and others hate _too few_ known spells but are more than fine if there are _enough_ known spells. The Sorcerer was literally invented to be a Known Spells class because some people really wanted it to exist. But the implementation of Known Spells at the launch of 5e was obviously terrible because the known spells casters knew fewer spells than the prepared casters could have prepared at any one time. So people wanted it changed - and these calls to have it changed have almost vanished since Tasha's put in good sorcerer subclasses and brought the ranger up to four rather than two spells per spell level known.

So what you are saying here is that because some people like crunchy peanut butter and others like smooth peanut butter we should listen only to the people who like crunchy and erase smooth from existence based on there having been a few jars of rancid smooth peanut butter. Rather than have some classes (e.g. the Paladin) having prepared casting and others (e.g. the Ranger) having known spells.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Making abilities that consume spell slots might as well be the same thing as making a new spell.



No it isn't. Or more accurately _for people who don't care and think that all magic is fine_ they are the same thing. For those who don't like Everything Is A Spell then they mostly aren't.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> People know what the Knights Templar are. And forest rangers equivalent class in D&D having a mystical connection in a fantasy world where nature is magical is logical.



You can have a mystical connection without being loaded down with spells. _All editions before 5e managed to have very few ranger spells per day._


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Also, the idea that Divine Soul Sorcerers are D&D's version of real world priests/clergy is funny.



That's because you're inventing something I didn't say.

If we look at e.g. WoW or Final Fantasy the clerical healer, whether White Robe or Priest wears cloth armour. That's the archetype that needs covering - either by adapting the cleric to an unarmoured variant or taking the Divine Soul sorcerer that's already unarmoured (and is already a Spells Known class so it covers things the cleric doesn't).


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I think that changing the cleric class to not automatically get proficiency with weapons and armor would be a good move to further separate the thematic and mechanical niches of paladins and clerics and also make clerics fit real-world priests better.



It would also divorce the Cleric from literally every previous D&D edition. Before 4e all clerics in all basic books (there were some specialty exceptions in splatbooks) were proficient with all armour. Meanwhile for weapon proficiency the cleric only gets simple weapons by default - which is only a slightly larger list than the wizard. This also goes back throughout the history of D&D.


----------



## Neonchameleon

TheSword said:


> Yes. Things that look like spells, act like spells and have aftereffects  like spells… are actually spells.
> 
> Shock horror. Stop the press. How can you survive workouts this superfluous guidance.



And 4e powers did not look like spells or act like spells or have aftereffects like spells in most cases unless they were spells.

But the anti-4e Waaaghabl would call _Sweeping Blow_ a spell because it basically acted like Whirlwind Attack.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Neonchameleon said:


> _Some people_ hate Known Spells - and others hate _too few_ known spells but are more than fine if there are _enough_ known spells. The Sorcerer was literally invented to be a Known Spells class because some people really wanted it to exist. But the implementation of Known Spells at the launch of 5e was obviously terrible because the known spells casters knew fewer spells than the prepared casters could have prepared at any one time. So people wanted it changed - and these calls to have it changed have almost vanished since Tasha's put in good sorcerer subclasses and brought the ranger up to four rather than two spells per spell level known.
> 
> So what you are saying here is that because some people like crunchy peanut butter and others like smooth peanut butter we should listen only to the people who like crunchy and erase smooth from existence based on there having been a few jars of rancid smooth peanut butter. Rather than have some classes (e.g. the Paladin) having prepared casting and others (e.g. the Ranger) having known spells.



What I'm saying is that WotC has done research and found that the majority of people like the core concepts of spellcasters that use Known spells, but found that they don't like the Known Spellcasting system. They said as much in the recent UA video "interviews". The majority of people don't like Known Spells. Not just because they give less options to choose than Prepared Casting, but because you sacrifice the versatility of changing your spells on a long rest. Known Spells is just not good design for the majority of 5e players, according to recent surveys. I'm sorry if you like it, but the majority of people don't, so WotC are changing the spellcasting classes to better serve the tastes of the majority. 


Neonchameleon said:


> No it isn't. Or more accurately _for people who don't care and think that all magic is fine_ they are the same thing. For those who don't like Everything Is A Spell then they mostly aren't.



If a feature consumes spell slots in order to use, does similar effects to a spell, and has most of the normal restrictions of a spell (action/bonus action/reaction to use, limited range, etc), it's practically just a spell that is granted by a class feature. 


Neonchameleon said:


> You can have a mystical connection without being loaded down with spells. _All editions before 5e managed to have very few ranger spells per day._



And that has changed. As has the amount and ages of people that play D&D compared to previous editions. To the majority of players, half-casting rangers is what rangers are. Their role has been defined in 5e.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And that has changed. As has the amount and ages of people that play D&D compared to previous editions. To the majority of players, half-casting rangers is what rangers are. Their role has been defined in 5e.



No, it hasn't.

You have no basis for that rather extreme claim and no supporting evidence. The surveys cited previously are from much earlier. WotC have made Rangers a confusing mess for three editions now, and that's what they are in 5E and 1D&D - a confusing mess. A confusing mess that doesn't even meet what their own research indicated was most important, note!


----------



## Branduil

The non-spellcasting 4e Ranger was the only time the Ranger truly felt fun to me. You can make valid arguments it lacked the exploration features a Ranger needs, but it was at the very least very good at its role, and it successfully recreated the feeling of being Legolas, so it recreated one archetypal Ranger, which is more than you can say for most of the D&D iterations.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Ruin Explorer said:


> No, it hasn't.
> 
> You have no basis for that rather extreme claim and no supporting evidence. The surveys cited previously are from much earlier. WotC have made Rangers a confusing mess for three editions now, and that's what they are in 5E and 1D&D - a confusing mess. A confusing mess that doesn't even meet what their own research indicated was most important, note!



5e has sold better than any previous edition, gained the most newer players that have never played TTRPGs before, and significantly lowered the average age of the fanbase. The generation that makes up the biggest chunk of D&D 5e's player base is Gen Z, most of which probably started with 5e. Maybe my claim of "majority" is a bit of an exaggeration, but clearly, to a huge chunk of the player base, the only version of the Ranger they have experienced is the Half-Casting Ranger in 5e. 

I agree that the ranger is a poorly defined mess. However, I don't think that spellcasting is the reason for that. I don't think that the majority of players would want a non-Half-Casting Ranger. I think your view that Rangers shouldn't be spellcasting is unsupported and likely in the minority.


----------



## Haplo781

Branduil said:


> The non-spellcasting 4e Ranger was the only time the Ranger truly felt fun to me. You can make valid arguments it lacked the exploration features a Ranger needs, but it was at the very least very good at its role, and it successfully recreated the feeling of being Legolas, so it recreated one archetypal Ranger, which is more than you can say for most of the D&D iterations.



PHB Ranger with Hunter utilities is about the flavor I'd like to see in 1DD.


----------



## Minigiant

Branduil said:


> The non-spellcasting 4e Ranger was the only time the Ranger truly felt fun to me. You can make valid arguments it lacked the exploration features a Ranger needs, but it was at the very least very good at its role, and it successfully recreated the feeling of being Legolas, so it recreated one archetypal Ranger, which is more than you can say for most of the D&D iterations.




the 4e Ranger in 5e is a Fighter.

4e took the 3e fighter and cut it in half and replaced the 3e ranger with the Archery and TWF part of the fighter. 5e stitched them back together and remade the 3e ranger. 

The 3e ranger kinda sucked though until WOTC made a ton of exclusive feats and spells for it.

Guess what the 5e ranger *doesn't* have.


----------



## Eric V

Minigiant said:


> The 4e original Ranger was just a damage focused archer or TWF warrior.* It had almost no wilderness stuff* unless you multiclassed or took the Ritual Caster feat.



I think you are forgetting the utility powers...


----------



## Haplo781

Eric V said:


> I think you are forgetting the utility powers...



They existed. The problem is that they competed for the same slots as utilities that help you in combat.


----------



## Eric V

Haplo781 said:


> They existed. The problem is that they competed for the same slots as utilities that help you in combat.



If one actually wants wilderness stuff, it's not a competition.

Rangers didn't need additional combat enhancements, anyway.


----------



## Minigiant

Eric V said:


> I think you are forgetting the utility powers...



Nope.

Only 2 of the 4e PHB1 Ranger's 16 Utility powers strickly helps you in wilderness exploration: Careful Advise and Skilled Companion. Both compete with combat utilities as well.

2 more kinda sorta do via ignoring terrain and boosting speed for 1 turn.


----------



## Haplo781

Eric V said:


> If one actually wants wilderness stuff, it's not a competition.
> 
> Rangers didn't need additional combat enhancements, anyway.



The problem is that, in D&D, combat takes up about 90% of the rules and is basically guaranteed to happen once a session or so.

Wilderness exploration may or may not ever come up and if it does you can handle it with some skill checks.

So why blow a utility slot (of which you get 7 over 30 levels) on a power that you might not use in a typical session, when you can pick one that you know will come up every time you play?


----------



## Remathilis

Minigiant said:


> Nope.
> 
> Only 2 of the 4e PHB1 Ranger's 16 Utility powers strickly helps you in wilderness exploration: Careful Advise and Skilled Companion. Both compete with combat utilities as well.
> 
> 2 more kinda sorta do via ignoring terrain and boosting speed for 1 turn.



I think there are a lot of people forgetting what the classes looked like in 2008 vs what they looked like after 3 years of expansion, including monthly Dragon options.


----------



## Minigiant

Eric V said:


> If one actually wants wilderness stuff, it's not a competition.
> 
> Rangers didn't need additional combat enhancements, anyway.



It wasn't really. The combat utilities at those levels weren't that good.

The point was it was "Shift Wis Mod squares" OR "give an ally Wis Mod bonus to a skill check."

The exploration bits were skill challenges and Rituals. Rangers didn't get rituals and the fighter would blow the skill challenge with their low Stealth/Perception/Survival/Dungeoneering.


----------



## Eric V

Remathilis said:


> I think there are a lot of people forgetting what the classes looked like in 2008 vs what they looked like after 3 years of expansion, including monthly Dragon options.



True, I am remembering the ranger in our group near the end of our 4e campaign and there were a lot more options by then.

That's still the 4e ranger, though, yes?


----------



## James Gasik

4e Rangers did have a few magical powers though, since they had a slice of the Primal power source- I remember a teleport that gave me +5 to all defenses for a turn, another teleport that linked two squares on the battlefield so you could blink from one to another, and a power that let you reshape the terrain.

As for Rangers and magic, well, other than 4e and some variant options to remove spells in 3e (which were strictly worse than having access to magic in the first place), Rangers have had magic as long as I've been playing the game.  So I'm not sure why anyone would want to make them less magical just because.

Now wanting actual class features instead of spells?  That would be nice, but it's obviously not WotC's bag- even in 3e, you needed specialty spells to make Rangers really good (outside of the Sword of the Arcane Order).  In fact, there was a spell that let you shoot a volley of arrows, as I recall.

WotC is obviously more comfortable cranking out a bunch of new spells than they are with making class and subclass abilities, so I'm terrified of what a spell-less Ranger would look like, if they made one.


----------



## Minigiant

James Gasik said:


> 4e Rangers did have a few magical powers though, since they had a slice of the Primal power source- I remember a teleport that gave me +5 to all defenses for a turn, another teleport that linked two squares on the battlefield so you could blink from one to another, and a power that let you reshape the terrain.



The 4e ranger didn'tget these powers in the PHB.
The 4e PHB Ranger was just *HIGH DAMAGE* and "Shift X squares so the monster couldn't hit you".

Most came in later books or in Essentials when the edition was being redone.


----------



## Micah Sweet

James Gasik said:


> 4e Rangers did have a few magical powers though, since they had a slice of the Primal power source- I remember a teleport that gave me +5 to all defenses for a turn, another teleport that linked two squares on the battlefield so you could blink from one to another, and a power that let you reshape the terrain.
> 
> As for Rangers and magic, well, other than 4e and some variant options to remove spells in 3e (which were strictly worse than having access to magic in the first place), Rangers have had magic as long as I've been playing the game.  So I'm not sure why anyone would want to make them less magical just because.
> 
> Now wanting actual class features instead of spells?  That would be nice, but it's obviously not WotC's bag- even in 3e, you needed specialty spells to make Rangers really good (outside of the Sword of the Arcane Order).  In fact, there was a spell that let you shoot a volley of arrows, as I recall.
> 
> WotC is obviously more comfortable cranking out a bunch of new spells than they are with making class and subclass abilities, so I'm terrified of what a spell-less Ranger would look like, if they made one.



This is why you need to think outside the Wizard of the Coast.


----------



## James Gasik

Minigiant said:


> The 4e ranger didn'tget these powers in the PHB.
> The 4e PHB Ranger was just *HIGH DAMAGE* and "Shift X squares so the monster couldn't hit you".
> 
> Most came in later books or in Essentials when the edition was being redone.



Oh is that important?  I mean, they didn't have specialty spells or variant options (like being spell less) in the 3e PHB either.  I was just looking at the class overall.


----------



## James Gasik

Micah Sweet said:


> This is why you need to think outside the Wizard of the Coast.



If you have a problem with things, yes.  But as this is a thread about the playtest for the WotC Ranger, it seems odd to say "there's no problem, you can always play a 3pp version!".

Was that the Oberoni fallacy?  My goodness, that takes me back.


----------



## Micah Sweet

James Gasik said:


> If you have a problem with things, yes.  But as this is a thread about the playtest for the WotC Ranger, it seems odd to say "there's no problem, you can always play a 3pp version!".
> 
> Was that the Oberoni fallacy?  My goodness, that takes me back.



Well, a lot of people on this 1DD thread seem to have a problem with things, things which others have claimed are unlikely to be fixed by WotC.  I'm one of them.  Why not offer an alternative?


----------



## James Gasik

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, a lot of people on this 1DD thread seem to have a problem with things, things which others have claimed are unlikely to be fixed by WotC.  I'm one of them.  Why not offer an alternative?



I'm not looking to pick a fight or anything, if 3pp D&D is better than 5e or 1D&D, or whatever else it ends up being called, and people want that, that's fine.  I like the cut of Adventure in Rokugan's jib, myself.  But I'm not sure if "1D&D playtest discussion" is the best place to shill, personally.


----------



## Micah Sweet

James Gasik said:


> I'm not looking to pick a fight or anything, if 3pp D&D is better than 5e or 1D&D, or whatever else it ends up being called, and people want that, that's fine.  I like the cut of Adventure in Rokugan's jib, myself.  But I'm not sure if "1D&D playtest discussion" is the best place to shill, personally.



Fair enough.  Hard to resist when I see Level Up doing so many things so much better.  I'll try to dial it back.


----------



## FireLance

I honestly think that the only way to satisfy a majority of the player base is to have the Expert group comprising the Artificer, Bard, and Rogue, the Mage group comprising the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard, the Priest group comprising the Cleric, Druid, and Paladin, the Warrior group comprising the Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk, and the Ranger group comprising the non-magical ranger (Scout?), the warlock-like supernatural ranger (Seeker?), and the half-spellcaster ranger (Warden?).


----------



## Branduil

FireLance said:


> I honestly think that the only way to satisfy a majority of the player base is to have the Expert group comprising the Artificer, Bard, and Rogue, the Mage group comprising the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard, the Priest group comprising the Cleric, Druid, and Paladin, the Warrior group comprising the Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk, and the Ranger group comprising the non-magical ranger (Scout?), the warlock-like supernatural ranger (Seeker?), and the half-spellcaster ranger (Warden?).



Sounds like they should just make the Spellcaster Ranger its own subclass. This would also give significantly more room to the base Ranger class to have meaningful, flavorful mechanics which define it as a wilderness survivor and hunter.


----------



## Islayre d'Argolh

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sorry, no, that doesn't work.
> 
> Fighters aren't skilled in D&D.
> 
> Katniss, who I suspect you're unfamiliar with is ultra-skilled. That's her main thing. She'd definitely be the "Expert" archetype. She'd definitely have Expertise in Nature and probably Stealth. She's not an ambusher either - she frequently and successfully fights straight-up (and doesn't really like ambushing humans).
> 
> You must be thinking of some other D&D variant where Fighters aren't as bad as they are in 5E outside combat. 13th Age? Pathfinder 2E?



Katniss took Prodigy/Skilled Expert (as a variant human) and the Ambush maneuver (as a Battlemaster).

So d20+Wis+PBX2 on Survival Checks and d20+Dex+PB+d8 on Stealth Checks.

Done.


----------



## Minigiant

FireLance said:


> I honestly think that the only way to satisfy a majority of the player base is to have the Expert group comprising the Artificer, Bard, and Rogue, the Mage group comprising the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard, the Priest group comprising the Cleric, Druid, and Paladin, the Warrior group comprising the Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk, and the Ranger group comprising the non-magical ranger (Scout?), the warlock-like supernatural ranger (Seeker?), and the half-spellcaster ranger (Warden?).






Branduil said:


> Sounds like they should just make the Spellcaster Ranger its own subclass. This would also give significantly more room to the base Ranger class to have meaningful, flavorful mechanics which define it as a wilderness survivor and hunter.




The 3 biggest hindrances with a nonmagical Ranger are

those who want it can't agree on what it gets
it will likely scale bad
It won't be as good as the half caster
For example look at the Level Up Ranger.

It has 2 pages of choosable exploration knacks. WOTC isn't going to do that. They will choose or survey chooses and you'll get stuck with whatever 4 features picked.
None of the knacks are above level 10 in requirements. The knacks are all Tier 1 and Tier 2. WOTC is even worse at making Tier 1 and 2 stuff.
The spellcasting subclass the Wildborn is *by far* the strongest subclass


----------



## TheSword

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, a lot of people on this 1DD thread seem to have a problem with things, things which others have claimed are unlikely to be fixed by WotC.  I'm one of them.  Why not offer an alternative?



It just seems that way.

It’s actually a small number of people with a lot of problems.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> The 4e ranger didn'tget these powers in the PHB.
> The 4e PHB Ranger was just *HIGH DAMAGE* and "Shift X squares so the monster couldn't hit you".
> 
> Most came in later books or in Essentials when the edition was being redone.




The ranger was especially nice in essentials.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Minigiant said:


> The 3 biggest hindrances with a nonmagical Ranger are
> 
> those who want it can't agree on what it gets
> it will likely scale bad
> It won't be as good as the half caster
> For example look at the Level Up Ranger.
> 
> It has 2 pages of choosable exploration knacks. WOTC isn't going to do that. They will choose or survey chooses and you'll get stuck with whatever 4 features picked.
> None of the knacks are above level 10 in requirements. The knacks are all Tier 1 and Tier 2. WOTC is even worse at making Tier 1 and 2 stuff.
> The spellcasting subclass the Wildborn is *by far* the strongest subclass



I like this breakdown and find it interesting the counterpoint to it. 

1. Hard to say what 1D&D will do, but in 5e, there are at least a few ranger-only spells. The amount of design work to produce those is effectively identical to producing non-magical options. 
2. This is one of those things that is probably true but doesn't have to be. Scaling is pure mechanics, the same is true of...
3. Nonmagical features don't need to have noncompetitive mechanics.

For myself, I'm ok with a Ranger that can cast. It's just strange to me that there is this near total unwillingness to explore any non-garbage power budget options outside of spellcasting.


----------



## Bill Zebub

TheSword said:


> It’s actually a small number of people with a lot of problems.




I may have a new .sig


----------



## Minigiant

Gammadoodler said:


> I like this breakdown and find it interesting the counterpoint to it.
> 
> 1. Hard to say what 1D&D will do, but in 5e, there are at least a few ranger-only spells. The amount of design work to produce those is effectively identical to producing non-magical options.
> 2. This is one of those things that is probably true but doesn't have to be. Scaling is pure mechanics, the same is true of...
> 3. Nonmagical features don't need to have noncompetitive mechanics.
> 
> For myself, I'm ok with a Ranger that can cast. It's just strange to me that there is this near total unwillingness to explore any non-garbage power budget options outside of spellcasting.



It's because of a self fulfilling issue.

Many groups are PURE COMBAT or barely do exploration. Especially post level 5 exploration.

So few know how to run it except for the groups who do.

So when people ask all you get is "I wanna craft potions and hide in grass".


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Minigiant said:


> It's because of a self fulfilling issue.
> 
> Many groups are PURE COMBAT or barely do exploration. Especially post level 5 exploration.
> 
> So few know how to run it except for the groups who do.
> 
> So when people ask all you get is "I wanna craft potions and hide in grass".



This is true and to break out of it would require adventure design where there are specific guidance on exploration stuff.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Minigiant said:


> It's because of a self fulfilling issue.
> 
> Many groups are PURE COMBAT or barely do exploration. Especially post level 5 exploration.
> 
> So few know how to run it except for the groups who do.
> 
> So when people ask all you get is "I wanna craft potions and hide in grass".



Except that we're only orthogonally discussing exploration. There could be more nonmagical Combat solutions too, and the counterpoints would all still apply.

It'd be nice if more was done with exploration, but it's not like that's the only way to figure out a nonmagical Ranger.


----------



## Minigiant

Gammadoodler said:


> Except that we're only orthogonally discussing exploration. There could be more nonmagical Combat solutions too, and the counterpoints would all still apply.
> 
> It'd be nice if more was done with exploration, but it's not like that's the only way to figure out a nonmagical Ranger.



The exploration pillar plus healing IS why rangers have magic.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Minigiant said:


> The exploration pillar plus healing IS why rangers have magic.



Is this a 1D&D opinion? A thematic opinion? Something else? 

Because it is not an opinion well supported by the existing 5e Ranger spell list which includes a bunch of summons, aoe damage, damage mitigation spells, and the (now) definitive ranger spell hunter's mark a (mostly) damage rider spell.


----------



## James Gasik

Gammadoodler said:


> Is this a 1D&D opinion? A thematic opinion? Something else?
> 
> Because it is not an opinion well supported by the existing 5e Ranger spell list which includes a bunch of summons, aoe damage, damage mitigation spells, and the (now) definitive ranger spell hunter's mark a (mostly) damage rider spell.



Perhaps that's the issue, then?  Not that Rangers have magic, but that their magic lacks identity?


----------



## Minigiant

Gammadoodler said:


> Is this a 1D&D opinion? A thematic opinion? Something else?
> 
> Because it is not an opinion well supported by the existing 5e Ranger spell list which includes a bunch of summons, aoe damage, damage mitigation spells, and the (now) definitive ranger spell hunter's mark a (mostly) damage rider spell.



The ranger had spells to get healing, scrying, speaking to animals, speaking to plants, communing with nature, curing poisons, ESP, etc to copy Aragorn and the Rangers of LOTR.

It expanded with D&DS more magical highlights over time with summons, gaining scent, turning into animals, teleports, jumping in trees, breathing water, ignoring sandstorms, predicting weather, resisting elements.

Rangers barely had damage and damage mitigation spells. The exploration spells came first.


----------



## Minigiant

James Gasik said:


> Perhaps that's the issue, then?  Not that Rangers have magic, but that their magic lacks identity?




Their magic has an identity.

The problem is WOTC doesn't give them exploration spells anymore so people miss the fact that that was the whole point of the magic.


----------



## Remathilis

L







Minigiant said:


> The 3 biggest hindrances with a nonmagical Ranger are
> 
> those who want it can't agree on what it gets
> it will likely scale bad
> It won't be as good as the half caster




What I think it comes down to is this burning desire by some players to have non-magical "magic". You see it in discussions of fighters. You see it in discussions of nonmagical rangers. You even see it in discussions of psionics. There is a vocal group of players who want all the benefits of magic without casting spells, and usually that equates to "no components, can't be dispelled/countered, etc." Which of course are all big elements of balancing spellcasting. I'm not saying people want nonmagical magic to cheese the system, but hot damn are there a lot of people who want powers akin to spellcasting without actually calling it spellcasting.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> L
> 
> What I think it comes down to is this burning desire by some players to have non-magical "magic". You see it in discussions of fighters. You see it in discussions of nonmagical rangers. You even see it in discussions of psionics. There is a vocal group of players who want all the benefits of magic without casting spells, and usually that equates to "no components, can't be dispelled/countered, etc." Which of course are all big elements of balancing spellcasting. I'm not saying people want nonmagical magic to cheese the system, but hot damn are there a lot of people who want powers akin to spellcasting without actually calling it spellcasting.



Its just possible that the process of casting spells as 5e defines it doesn't appeal to everyone, for every type of PC, in every situation.

Weird.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> Its just possible that the process of casting spells as 5e defines it doesn't appeal to everyone, for every type of PC, in every situation.
> 
> Weird.



I get it. I too would like all the benefits of spellcasting without having to worry about verbal and somatic components, costly material components, anti-magic, magic resistance, dispel magic, counterspell, spell slots, loss of concentration, etc.


----------



## Branduil

Maybe the reason players want the benefits of spellcasting is because they recognize that every edition sans 4 is quite favorable to spellcasters.


----------



## James Gasik

Branduil said:


> Maybe the reason players want the benefits of spellcasting is because they recognize that every edition sans 4 is quite favorable to spellcasters.



Even 4e, once you take rituals into account.  Martial Practices weren't anything in the same ballpark.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Remathilis said:


> I get it. I too would like all the benefits of spellcasting without having to worry about verbal and somatic components, costly material components, anti-magic, magic resistance, dispel magic, counterspell, spell slots, loss of concentration, etc.



It's weird to me that when there is a disagreement about class thematics, so many people are willing to attribute the other side's position to a pure bad faith desire for power creep.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Remathilis said:


> L
> 
> What I think it comes down to is this burning desire by some players to have non-magical "magic". You see it in discussions of fighters. You see it in discussions of nonmagical rangers. You even see it in discussions of psionics. There is a vocal group of players who want all the benefits of magic without casting spells, and usually that equates to "no components, can't be dispelled/countered, etc." Which of course are all big elements of balancing spellcasting. I'm not saying people want nonmagical magic to cheese the system, but hot damn are there a lot of people who want powers akin to spellcasting without actually calling it spellcasting.



Then on the flip side there is also a vocal group that do not want anything sniffing of magic that are not spells.


----------



## gorice

Remathilis said:


> L
> 
> What I think it comes down to is this burning desire by some players to have non-magical "magic". You see it in discussions of fighters. You see it in discussions of nonmagical rangers. You even see it in discussions of psionics. There is a vocal group of players who want all the benefits of magic without casting spells, and usually that equates to "no components, can't be dispelled/countered, etc." Which of course are all big elements of balancing spellcasting. I'm not saying people want nonmagical magic to cheese the system, but hot damn are there a lot of people who want powers akin to spellcasting without actually calling it spellcasting.



Put simply: I think a lot of people want non-magical characters to be able to do cool things and have interesting choices. It's not about gaming the system, its about a fantasy in which people who aren't wizards also get to be interesting.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> I get it. I too would like all the benefits of spellcasting without having to worry about verbal and somatic components, costly material components, anti-magic, magic resistance, dispel magic, counterspell, spell slots, loss of concentration, etc.



So your argument is that everything should operate just like spells, with all the stuff you listed, regardless of the fictional justification for having the ability?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Remathilis said:


> L
> 
> What I think it comes down to is this burning desire by some players to have non-magical "magic". You see it in discussions of fighters. You see it in discussions of nonmagical rangers. You even see it in discussions of psionics. There is a vocal group of players who want all the benefits of magic without casting spells, and usually that equates to "no components, can't be dispelled/countered, etc." Which of course are all big elements of balancing spellcasting. I'm not saying people want nonmagical magic to cheese the system, but hot damn are there a lot of people who want powers akin to spellcasting without actually calling it spellcasting.



Whereas what I think it comes down to is this burning desire by some players to declare anything that goes above and beyond what an average D&D player can do physically to be magic. And then to boost the wizard by allowing them to do almost anything (except healing) that anyone else can do that's preternatural.

Magic is magic. But not everything in myth or story that's preternatural is or should be magic.


----------



## Neonchameleon

gorice said:


> Put simply: I think a lot of people want non-magical characters to be able to do cool things and have interesting choices. It's not about gaming the system, its about a fantasy in which people who aren't wizards also get to be interesting.



Indeed.

I also grew up on Arthurian myth. Galahad's strength was as the strength of ten because his heart was pure. Not because he woke up every day. looked in his spellbook, and cast Giant's Strength. When The Green Knight let his head be cut off and put it back it wasn't because he was using an anti-decapitation spell or a death ward. It was because he was who he was. 

I also grew up on Greek myth. When Hercules tagged out Atlas and literally held up the world on his shoulders it wasn't because he cast either a super-strength spell or cast Telekinesis on the World. When he cleaned the Augean Stables by rerouting two rivers he didn't reroute them by casting Control Water. And yes he was a demigod - but _so was Circe_. If demigods aren't allowed for inspiration we should cut the wizards back to realistic inspirations as well.

I just don't get the desire to turn the back on D&D's inspirations and declare that anything going above and beyond the norm must be a spell.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Islayre d'Argolh said:


> Katniss took Prodigy/Skilled Expert (as a variant human) and the Ambush maneuver (as a Battlemaster).
> 
> So d20+Wis+PBX2 on Survival Checks and d20+Dex+PB+d8 on Stealth Checks.
> 
> Done.



Good god, this is some truly profound internet point-missing during attempted point-scoring.

I've explained this a lot of time now, so nothing is to be gained explaining it again, but "WHOOSH" right over your head.


----------



## Haplo781

Neonchameleon said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I also grew up on Arthurian myth. Galahad's strength was as the strength of ten because his heart was pure. Not because he woke up every day. looked in his spellbook, and cast Giant's Strength. When The Green Knight let his head be cut off and put it back it wasn't because he was using an anti-decapitation spell or a death ward. It was because he was who he was.
> 
> I also grew up on Greek myth. When Hercules tagged out Atlas and literally held up the world on his shoulders it wasn't because he cast either a super-strength spell or cast Telekinesis on the World. When he cleaned the Augean Stables by rerouting two rivers he didn't reroute them by casting Control Water. And yes he was a demigod - but _so was Circe_. If demigods aren't allowed for inspiration we should cut the wizards back to realistic inspirations as well.
> 
> I just don't get the desire to turn the back on D&D's inspirations and declare that anything going above and beyond the norm must be a spell.



It's the height of irony when people dismiss Heracles and Cu Chulainn because demigod when the main inspiration for wizards are Merlin and Gandalf...


----------



## fuindordm

My perspective on mundane extraordinary abilities is quite simple.
If the Ranger casts hunter's mark, it is an explicitly magical ability that is functionally identical to other spells. The effect can be dispelled, the casting can be interrupted, etc. etc. The Ranger has learned how to cast magic--you can't just hand-wave it as extraordinary skill because mechanically it is not.
If the Ranger has a class ability with benefits similar to hunter's mark, then the class is free to define it as a non-magical, skill-based, ability. It can"t be dispelled, and it doesn't interact with any other ability that affects or restricts magic. 
I would prefer D&D to have MORE options for extraordinary mundane characters, not fewer. 
I would prefer D&D to have MORE variety in the way class powers are constructed and balanced, not fewer.
I don't think forcing abilities into the spell system makes them any easier or harder to balance against other abilities.
Making most class abilities default to their equivalent spell, and giving most classes spell slots, sacrifices interesting play, immersion, and campaign options for the sake of mechanical 'simplicity', as if WotC are terrified of having players learn new rules for new classes. 

I'm quite happy with mundane abilities being limited use, X/day or X/encounter, or drawing from a pool like the battlemaster. I am very frustrated with the tendency to grant almost every class spells by default.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> I get it. I too would like all the benefits of spellcasting without having to worry about verbal and somatic components, costly material components, anti-magic, magic resistance, dispel magic, counterspell, spell slots, loss of concentration, etc.



This is a truly ghastly response and indicates that you do not, in fact, get it, and indeed are in fact, about one step away from _actual trolling_. Certainly you're making either an accusation _of_ bad faith, or an argument _in_ bad faith. You pick.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Haplo781 said:


> It's the height of irony when people dismiss Heracles and Cu Chulainn because demigod when the main inspiration for wizards are Merlin and Gandalf...



It is truly astonishing how many people forget Gandalf is a Maiar, and that's where his magic comes from.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Ruin Explorer said:


> It is truly astonishing how many people forget Gandalf is a Maiar, and that's where his magic comes from.



Gandalf and Saruman are Celestials, Merlin is a Cambion, Circe and Medea are descended from Helios, Morgan Le Fay is a faerie queen, most mages in Norse Mythology are gods/giants. I could go on.

The amount of people that say "Martial characters shouldn't be powerful like Hercules and Cu Chulainn because those warriors were demigods!" while ignoring the fact that a ton of popular wizards/enchanters from mythology also had similar divine origins truly baffles me.


----------



## James Gasik

Ruin Explorer said:


> It is truly astonishing how many people forget Gandalf is a Maiar, and that's where his magic comes from.



What I find so odd about this is, just about any time his name is brought up in a thread, the fact that he's basically an angel/demigod is almost immediately added to the discussion.

And yet, he's held up as an archetypical Wizard, along with that Tiefling, Merlin...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

James Gasik said:


> What I find so odd about this is, just about any time his name is brought up in a thread, the fact that he's basically an angel/demigod is almost immediately added to the discussion.
> 
> And yet, he's held up as an archetypical Wizard, along with that Tiefling, Merlin...



Yeah, it's like, people know, but for some reason it's totally okay for Gandalf or Merlin to be a non-human being who draws power from that, but not, like Herakles. That's right out. That's cheating!

Also man the amount of Ged/Sparrowhawk erasure from D&D players is nuts. Far more of an actual Wizard than either of those two jerks!

It's at times like these you understand very well why Earthdawn, attempting to "fix" D&D (quite successfully if it wasn't for their system being a huge mess of dice), gave all the classes a universal power-origin.


----------



## James Gasik

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah, it's like, people know, but for some reason it's totally okay for Gandalf or Merlin to be a non-human being who draws power from that, but not, like Herakles. That's right out. That's cheating!
> 
> Also man the amount of Ged/Sparrowhawk erasure from D&D players is nuts. Far more of an actual Wizard than either of those two jerks!



Yeah, there's lots of *actual *examples of Wizards out there, like Belgarath, Skeeve, Grey Star, Lythande, or even that Dumbledore guy!


----------



## Haplo781

James Gasik said:


> Yeah, there's lots of *actual *examples of Wizards out there, like Belgarath, Skeeve, Grey Star, Lythande, or even that Dumbledore guy!



Weird how despite HP being a global phenomenon there hasn't been anyone clamoring to make wizards play like that.

Oh right, because HP wizards are actually not that strong.


----------



## Zubatcarteira

Wizards in HP are born with their power, they can use it instinctually as children, and just go to school to learn to control it. More like a Sorcerer.


----------



## James Gasik

Haplo781 said:


> Weird how despite HP being a global phenomenon there hasn't been anyone clamoring to make wizards play like that.
> 
> Oh right, because HP wizards are actually not that strong.



Really?  They can use their magic all day long without cost, there's spells for _everything_, especially in the expanded material, you can make magical objects and potions, harvest magical materials, and talented wizards don't even need wands!  Plus you can throw out curses and death spells at will that apparently don't even have saving throws!


----------



## ersatzphil

Ruin Explorer said:


> Also man the amount of Ged/Sparrowhawk erasure from D&D players is nuts. Far more of an actual Wizard than either of those two jerks!



It's also insane to me how little-known the Earthsea novels seem to be among the current D&D community, particularly as the Moonshae Isles were more or less explicitly "let's put an Earthsea region into the Forgotten Realms". Though at the same time, I remember Sparrowhawk's best friend (who's name escapes me) singing a song to heal his wounds - very bard-y.


----------



## James Gasik

Zubatcarteira said:


> Wizards in HP are born with their power, they can use it instinctually as children, and just go to school to learn to control it. More like a Sorcerer.



Sorcerers don't even need that.  Given that they don't seem to use mana, I'm more inclined to think they're Psions, lol.


----------



## Haplo781

James Gasik said:


> Really?  They can use their magic all day long without cost, there's spells for _everything_, especially in the expanded material, you can make magical objects and potions, harvest magical materials, and talented wizards don't even need wands!  Plus you can throw out curses and death spells at will that apparently don't even have saving throws!



That's a 3.5 warlock.


----------



## James Gasik

ersatzphil said:


> It's also insane to me how little-known the Earthsea novels seem to be among the current D&D community, particularly as the Moonshae Isles were more or less explicitly "let's put an Earthsea region into the Forgotten Realms". Though at the same time, I remember Sparrowhawk's best friend (who's name escapes me) singing a song to heal his wounds - very bard-y.



I brought up Earthsea the other day to a friend of mine, and she was like "oh, like the Miyazaki movie?!".

I sighed.  I mean, I like Studio Ghibli as much as the next fellow, but there's so much more to Earthsea...

A lot of the fantasy I read as a kid seems to have been forgotten, like the Shannara stuff- Druids like Allanon are obviously Wizards!


----------



## James Gasik

Haplo781 said:


> That's a 3.5 warlock.



Close, though their Hexes are far less limited, since one Wizard can learn a ton of them.  Either way though, I wouldn't call them weak- sure, a gun could take one out, but it's not like there aren't magical creatures like giants and dragons in their world too.


----------



## Haplo781

James Gasik said:


> Close, though their Hexes are far less limited, since one Wizard can learn a ton of them.  Either way though, I wouldn't call them weak- sure, a gun could take one out, but it's not like there aren't magical creatures like giants and dragons in their world too.



Well my point is that they don't get to break reality over their knees the way D&D casters can - no wish, plane shift, no AoEs, disguise self is only available via potion ane higher level polymorph effects don't seem to exist, etc.

We'd hear a lot less about MCD if casters were only able to do what HP wizards can.


----------



## Minigiant

gorice said:


> Put simply: I think a lot of people want non-magical characters to be able to do cool things and have interesting choices. It's not about gaming the system, its about a fantasy in which people who aren't wizards also get to be interesting.



I think there are people who want an exploration character with combat strength and an combat character with exploration strength.

The issue is Exploration past Tier 2 in D&D is magical. *Full Stop.*

So it's two group fighting for the soul of the class.


----------



## Neonchameleon

ersatzphil said:


> It's also insane to me how little-known the Earthsea novels seem to be among the current D&D community, particularly as the Moonshae Isles were more or less explicitly "let's put an Earthsea region into the Forgotten Realms". Though at the same time, I remember Sparrowhawk's best friend (who's name escapes me) singing a song to heal his wounds - very bard-y.



A Wizard of Earthsea was published in 1968 - 54 years ago. By the standards of fantasy books _from the 1960s_ it's very well known.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

James Gasik said:


> Yeah, there's lots of *actual *examples of Wizards out there, like Belgarath, Skeeve, Grey Star, Lythande, or even that Dumbledore guy!



Isn't Belgarath more of a mega-Cleric than a Wizard, even though he looks and acts like a Wizard?


Minigiant said:


> I think there are people who want an exploration character with combat strength and an combat character with exploration strength.



Every full caster in 5E is strong in combat and exploration.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

James Gasik said:


> Really?  They can use their magic all day long without cost, there's spells for _everything_, especially in the expanded material, you can make magical objects and potions, harvest magical materials, and talented wizards don't even need wands!  Plus you can throw out curses and death spells at will that apparently don't even have saving throws!



Hey according to Rowling there's even a spell for cleaning up after you poop in a corner and those wizards use it!  You could probably use Prestidigitation to do that but eeeeesh maybe don't...









						J.K. Rowling Revealed Why All Wizards Used to Poop Their Robes
					

Wingardium Levi-NOPE-sa.




					www.teenvogue.com


----------



## Haplo781

Ruin Explorer said:


> Hey according to Rowling there's even a spell for cleaning up after you poop in a corner and those wizards use it!  You could probably use Prestidigitation to do that but eeeeesh maybe don't...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J.K. Rowling Revealed Why All Wizards Used to Poop Their Robes
> 
> 
> Wingardium Levi-NOPE-sa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.teenvogue.com



It's called prestidigitation...


----------



## Minigiant

Ruin Explorer said:


> Every full caster in 5E is strong in combat and exploration.



eh somewhat depending on your table.

My point is tha if your DM throws a Tier 3 exploration challenge at a nonmagical D&D PC, said PC needs houserules like Levelup or they will *fail hard.

That's the issue of the ranger. The ranger is supposed to be good Tier 3 and Tier 4 exploration challenges. but the only ways that have an over 50% community satisfaction rate to beat those in D&D are magical.*


----------



## ersatzphil

James Gasik said:


> A lot of the fantasy I read as a kid seems to have been forgotten, like the Shannara stuff- Druids like Allanon are obviously Wizards!



I've actually had a @Snarf Zagyg style post brewing in my head for some time now about "D&D as oral tradition" vs. the Exploration pillar of play - most new players haven't read (in my experience) much in the way of older fantasy novels. I love Tolkien as much as anyone, but LotR definitely sucks all of the air out of the room for whatever reason. For Sparrowhawk / Fafhrd and the Grey Mauser / the Fellowship, getting to a new place is a big deal and a significant element of the story, while Tony Stark / Homelander / whoever can pop off to the Middle East for a big fight for the afternoon and be home in NYC for dinner. I really think that the received ideas / tropes of fantasy have shifted for the current generation.


----------



## Islayre d'Argolh

Ruin Explorer said:


> Good god, this is some truly profound internet point-missing during attempted point-scoring.
> 
> I've explained this a lot of time now, so nothing is to be gained explaining it again, but "WHOOSH" right over your head.



The only thing you explained, ad nauseam, is you're point of view, not the-hidden-but-complete-truth-about-rangers.

You use katniss as the iconic ranger : fine by me. 
In 5e, Katniss can be described, close to the source material, as a Human Folk Hero Dex Fighter (Battlemaster) with the Archery fighting style.

Also for the record, i will add that a very good movie depiction of a ranger can be found in the 2003 movie The Hunted with Tommy Lee Jones, i suggest you take look.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Minigiant said:


> That's the issue of the ranger. The ranger is supposed to be good Tier 3 and Tier 4 exploration challenges. but the only ways that have an over 50% community satisfaction rate to beat those in D&D are magical.



Absolutely not. This whole issue exists in your head. No-one objects to Rangers having strong non-magical exploration abilities.


Islayre d'Argolh said:


> Also for the record, i will add that a very good movie depiction of a ranger can be found in the 2003 movie The Hunted with Tommy Lee Jones, i suggest you take look.



Who could equally depicted as a Fighter by your own logic. Why accept him and not Katniss?


----------



## Micah Sweet

ersatzphil said:


> It's also insane to me how little-known the Earthsea novels seem to be among the current D&D community, particularly as the Moonshae Isles were more or less explicitly "let's put an Earthsea region into the Forgotten Realms". Though at the same time, I remember Sparrowhawk's best friend (who's name escapes me) singing a song to heal his wounds - very bard-y.



They don't have that D&D brand, and no one's made a movie.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Islayre d'Argolh said:


> The only thing you explained, ad nauseam, is you're point of view, not the-hidden-but-complete-truth-about-rangers.
> 
> You use katniss as the iconic ranger : fine by me.
> In 5e, Katniss can be described, close to the source material, as a Human Folk Hero Dex Fighter (Battlemaster) with the Archery fighting style.
> 
> Also for the record, i will add that a very good movie depiction of a ranger can be found in the 2003 movie The Hunted with Tommy Lee Jones, i suggest you take look.



The big question is _who is the example of a fictional non-D&D ranger that requires the 5e D&D ranger rules and can't be basically a fighter._

As it stands I've seen no counterexamples to my claim that the D&Done ranger would be better called the Hedge Wizard and is basically your jack of all trades class from the school of hard knocks. One part caster, one part expert, one part fighter. It's an adequate class but has almost nothing to do with either pre-2014 D&D rangers or non-D&D rangers.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

ersatzphil said:


> I've actually had a @Snarf Zagyg style post brewing in my head for some time now about "D&D as oral tradition" vs. the Exploration pillar of play - most new players haven't read (in my experience) much in the way of older fantasy novels. I love Tolkien as much as anyone, but LotR definitely sucks all of the air out of the room for whatever reason. For Sparrowhawk / Fafhrd and the Grey Mauser / the Fellowship, getting to a new place is a big deal and a significant element of the story, while Tony Stark / Homelander / whoever can pop off to the Middle East for a big fight for the afternoon and be home in NYC for dinner.* I really think that the received ideas / tropes of fantasy have shifted for the current generation.*



I actually disagree and it's not random, I have a significant piece of evidence that runs directly against what you're saying:

The popularity of Game of Thrones, and the specific criticisms made of Game of Thrones - particularly by young people - about Season 6/7/8.

So, we can all hopefully agree Game of Thrones was a hugely popular fantasy TV series (however mad people were about the end, which is still only about 50% as mad as people were about the Sopranos ending, but w/e), particularly with people in their twenties and thirties (so the same people who play D&D, for the most part).

And what was one of the major criticisms people had of season 6/7/8? That suddenly the characters started "teleporting around".

Previously on GoT, journeys and getting places were indeed a huge deal. Young people understood that and internalized that. When the show started acting more like a superhero show where travel is meaningless and people just pop up everywhere, that's when they started getting annoyed with it. When travel that previously took two-three episodes and weeks or months of in-show time suddenly took what appeared to be at most a few days, they really didn't like it.

So whilst I agree young people today have read less "older fantasy" (even the '90s being older) than any previous generation, I don't agree that they don't think travel is important/difficult.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> They don't have that D&D brand, and no one's made a movie.



There is actually a movie - by Studio Ghibli no less - but it doesn't have much to do with Earthsea, and presents it more as generic fantasy than what Earthsea was. Also the TV series was similarly a disaster and as a bonus made one of the few early non-white fantasy characters into a generic white guy (and played by, I'm sorry, but it's a true, a terrible actor so merit isn't even an excuse).


----------



## Islayre d'Argolh

Ruin Explorer said:


> Who could equally depicted as a Fighter by your own logic. Why accept him and not Katniss?



Put me in charge of 5.5 and Rangers & Paladins will be Fighter Archetypes in the minute. 

My point about Katniss is : by using the Fighter or the Rogue classes the right way, we can now build very good non-magical "rangers". 
That's why the official Ranger class have to be this difficult-to-balance Fighter/Rogue/Druid multiclass (magical ranger) : because the game already allow us to build Aragorn/Katniss with two of the non-magical classes.


----------



## Haplo781

Ruin Explorer said:


> I actually disagree and it's not random, I have a significant piece of evidence that runs directly against what you're saying:
> 
> The popularity of Game of Thrones, and the specific criticisms made of Game of Thrones - particularly by young people - about Season 6/7/8.
> 
> So, we can all hopefully agree Game of Thrones was a hugely popular fantasy TV series (however mad people were about the end, which is still only about 50% as mad as people were about the Sopranos ending, but w/e), particularly with people in their twenties and thirties (so the same people who play D&D, for the most part).
> 
> And what was one of the major criticisms people had of season 6/7/8? That suddenly the characters started "teleporting around".
> 
> Previously on GoT, journeys and getting places were indeed a huge deal. Young people understood that and internalized that. When the show started acting more like a superhero show where travel is meaningless and people just pop up everywhere, that's when they started getting annoyed with it. When travel that previously took two-three episodes and weeks or months of in-show time suddenly took what appeared to be at most a few days, they really didn't like it.
> 
> So whilst I agree young people today have read less "older fantasy" (even the '90s being older) than any previous generation, I don't agree that they don't think travel is important/difficult.



They were teleporting after 5 seasons of travel taking significant time, in a low-magic setting.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Islayre d'Argolh said:


> That's why the official Ranger class have to be this difficult-to-balance Fighter/Rogue/Druid multiclass (magical ranger) : because the game already allow us to build Aragorn/Katniss with two of the non-magical classes.



Hard disagree.

You can't reach the same levels of competence as an Expert by burning all your Feats to get small amounts of Expertise.

There's no "has to be". What they're doing here is bizarre and doesn't match their own polling. If this Ranger had a pet, then maybe you could argue the "has to be", but because it does not, you cannot.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ruin Explorer said:


> Previously on GoT, journeys and getting places were indeed a huge deal. Young people understood that and internalized that. When the show started acting more like a superhero show where travel is meaningless and people just pop up everywhere, that's when they started getting annoyed with it. When travel that previously took two-three episodes and weeks or months of in-show time suddenly took what appeared to be at most a few days, they really didn't like it.
> 
> So whilst I agree young people today have read less "older fantasy" (even the '90s being older) than any previous generation, I don't agree that they don't think travel is important/difficult.



I just want to put a little context on this. In 2022 if I'm willing to spend the money then other than border crossings I can get to almost anywhere in the world inside a day - and if Tony Stark can move slightly faster it's only slightly. If we go back to say 1950 that might also be _technically_ true but it's a whole lot harder and more expensive (all those articles on "when flying was fun" boil down to "when flying was only for rich people"). The travel times in GoT were a big part of showing how it was a fantasy land and not like the real world and breaking it was the obvious place that the specific fantasy world broke.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Haplo781 said:


> They were teleporting after 5 seasons of travel taking significant time, in a low-magic setting.



Sure. But the point is audiences, younger audiences, understood. There has been no fundamental change in how people think about travel in fantasy.

You can see this in a lot of recent fantasy stuff. Travel is a big deal. People get that. Even in higher-magic settings.

The claim was that AUDIENCES have fundamentally shifted their view of fantasy. I've presented a major piece of evidence against that, and there's more out there.

With superheroes, not caring about travel has been a constant since at least the 1970s.


Neonchameleon said:


> The travel times in GoT were a big part of showing how it was a fantasy land and not like the real world and breaking it was the obvious place that the specific fantasy world broke.



Definitely. My point is just that audience understood and appreciated that. The claim was they've fundamentally changed their thinking.


----------



## Charlaquin

Branduil said:


> The non-spellcasting 4e Ranger was the only time the Ranger truly felt fun to me. You can make valid arguments it lacked the exploration features a Ranger needs, but it was at the very least very good at its role, and it successfully recreated the feeling of being Legolas, so it recreated one archetypal Ranger, which is more than you can say for most of the D&D iterations.



The Essentials ranger was my favorite. It had a few primal powers (which were _basically_ spells) that you could take if you wanted that, but you could also just always take the martial powers. Dip you could choose exactly how magical you wanted your ranger to be.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ruin Explorer said:


> With superheroes, not caring about travel has been a constant since at least the 1970s.
> 
> Definitely. My point is just that audience understood and appreciated that. The claim was they've fundamentally changed their thinking.



I think what might be happening is that audiences have changed their expectation. Being able to turn up almost anywhere after a few hours is considered unexceptional because real people can do that if they want. So if nothing is set up then they'll accept that even in fantasy worlds. Meanwhile audiences haven't changed in considering consistent worldbuilding a positive.


----------



## Islayre d'Argolh

Ruin Explorer said:


> Hard disagree.
> 
> You can't reach the same levels of competence as an Expert by burning all your Feats to get small amounts of Expertise.




You can, since Tasha's and the 3 skills maneuvers : battlemasters can be skill gods.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Maybe my claim of "majority" is a bit of an exaggeration, but clearly, to a huge chunk of the player base, the only version of the Ranger they have experienced is the Half-Casting Ranger in 5e.



That doesn't mean they think it's right.

That's a key thing. You've played RPGs. Did you immediately think "THAT'S CORRECT!" about every class you read in every RPG? I never did. Jeez it took me YEARS to come to terms with how Clerics worked in D&D, and I'd never played an RPG before that, and only been playing videogames for two years (mostly pretty simple ones).

And I've introduced people to RPGs with 5E (not as many as 4E but w/e), and they are often mildly vexed by the fact that Rangers use spells, because they don't expect it, and it doesn't make sense to them. They have a pre-existing, pre-D&D notion of what a Ranger is. D&D "getting wrong" doesn't change that.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I agree that the ranger is a poorly defined mess. However, I don't think that spellcasting is the reason for that.



It demonstrably is the reason for that. It's the reason Rangers don't really have abilities or any kind of consistent identity, and it doesn't even match their own lore, which barely mentions magic.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I don't think that the majority of players would want a non-Half-Casting Ranger.



Uh-huh, and your reasoning for this is deeply flawed as I've illustrated.

I think the issue is that some players do like Rangers with magic - but even of them, the 5E Ranger is sometimes seen as excessively magical/magic-heavy. And a lot of what the Ranger can/can't do is because it has magic.

I think if we had a Ranger that only had fairly subtle magic, and wasn't doing stuff like being utterly reliant on magic for combat prowess (as the 1D&D Ranger 100% is), then there'd be less of an issue.

Also, according to all surveys WotC's done, the Ranger needs a pet. It's a huge part of what people expect from a Ranger. And yet it doesn't have one.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Neonchameleon said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I also grew up on Arthurian myth. Galahad's strength was as the strength of ten because his heart was pure. Not because he woke up every day. looked in his spellbook, and cast Giant's Strength. When The Green Knight let his head be cut off and put it back it wasn't because he was using an anti-decapitation spell or a death ward. It was because he was who he was.
> 
> I also grew up on Greek myth. When Hercules tagged out Atlas and literally held up the world on his shoulders it wasn't because he cast either a super-strength spell or cast Telekinesis on the World. When he cleaned the Augean Stables by rerouting two rivers he didn't reroute them by casting Control Water. And yes he was a demigod - but _so was Circe_. If demigods aren't allowed for inspiration we should cut the wizards back to realistic inspirations as well.
> 
> I just don't get the desire to turn the back on D&D's inspirations and declare that anything going above and beyond the norm must be a spell.




Heracles also had a full on king of the gods for a dad. Might not be the best example.


----------



## ersatzphil

Ruin Explorer said:


> Previously on GoT, journeys and getting places were indeed a huge deal. Young people understood that and internalized that. When the show started acting more like a superhero show where travel is meaningless and people just pop up everywhere, that's when they started getting annoyed with it. When travel that previously took two-three episodes and weeks or months of in-show time suddenly took what appeared to be at most a few days, they really didn't like it.



That's a very fair point - I admittedly stopped watching GoT before season 6 for non-show-related reasons. I do still suspect that specifically the massive success of the MCU has changed what the average audience member expects from a player character.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Islayre d'Argolh said:


> You can, since Tasha's and the 3 skills maneuvers : battlemasters can be skill gods.



Nope. You can't just make stuff up dude. Battlemasters are one specific subclass of Fighter, and the Tasha skill manuevers only apply to 7 specific uses of skills, only 1 of which is relevant to this discussion - Stealth. The idea that this is a "fix" or "solution" is laughable.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Islayre d'Argolh said:


> You can, since Tasha's and the 3 skills maneuvers : battlemasters can be skill gods.



Skills should be (and in the hands of experts normally are) more than raw numbers. The ranger, for example, gets Rovin' for movement speed and climb and swim speeds while the thief's Fast Hands means they can use the brush pass pickpocketing in a way other classes can't, no matter how high their modifier. You need more than numbers to make a skill god.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

ersatzphil said:


> That's a very fair point - I admittedly stopped watching GoT before season 6 for non-show-related reasons. I do still suspect that specifically the massive success of the MCU has changed what the average audience member expects from a player character.



I just don't really believe it.

If anything, MCU characters act like RPG characters in terms of their behaviour, banter, sarcasm, jokes in the face of world-ending danger and so on.

I will say, modern action movies (which includes the MCU), and really every action movie since like, the late '90s, means people are much less accepting of "incompetent at action" PCs than they were. But that's not a recent change.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ruin Explorer said:


> That's a key thing. You've played RPGs. Did you immediately think "THAT'S CORRECT!" about every class you read in every RPG? I never did. Jeez it took me YEARS to come to terms with how Clerics worked in D&D, and I'd never played an RPG before that, and only been playing videogames for two years (mostly pretty simple ones).



Just as a datapoint, literally today I was DMing for a new player, and when they ended up playing a ranger they specifically wanted to play the Tasha's ranger not the D&Done one because it was too magical. I didn't prompt them here.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Neonchameleon said:


> Just as a datapoint, literally today I was DMing for a new player, and when they ended up playing a ranger they specifically wanted to play the Tasha's ranger not the D&Done one because it was too magical. I didn't prompt them here.



Yeah that's the sort of thing I've seen. Ranger is literally the only class I've ever seen people be annoyed by it also having magic. That's across a whole bunch of games and 30+ years. I've see stuff like people disliking how magic is implemented plenty, but just "that the class has it"? That's new. Well, not new, in that I've seen it with Rangers on and off for 30+ years. But it's the only class. Because it's the only one where them having magic runs counter to expectations and desires.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Bill Zebub said:


> Heracles also had a full on king of the gods for a dad. Might not be the best example.



Circe and Medea (you know, the classic Enchantresses) were the grandchildren of Helios, the Sun Titan. Merlin's father was an Incubus. Middle Earth's Wizards are basically demigods/angels. The classic illusionist, Útgarða-Loki, is a giant as powerful as a god in Norse Mythology. 

Spellcasters in mythology were demigod-like figures, too. It wasn't just the classic "martial" characters (Herakles, Cú Chulainn, etc).


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ruin Explorer said:


> I will say, modern action movies (which includes the MCU), and really every action movie since like, the late '90s, means people are much less accepting of "incompetent at action" PCs than they were. But that's not a recent change.



Part of this is that I don't think that anyone today is doing _good_ "incompetent at action" PCs. No one's doing the 'Jackie Chan Underdog' nearly that well and people have got fed up with women being typecast as the Damsel In Distress.

The closest I can think of is Ryan Reynolds?


----------



## Islayre d'Argolh

Ruin Explorer said:


> Nope. You can't just make stuff up dude. Battlemasters are one specific subclass of Fighter, and the Tasha skill manuevers only apply to 7 specific uses of skills, only 1 of which is relevant to this discussion - Stealth. The idea that this is a "fix" or "solution" is laughable.



From your own statement Katniss is a great ranger because she's very good on survival and stealth (and deadly with a bow, i assume).

A Variant Human /Custom Lineage Dex Battlemaster can be expert in Survival and add a d8 to her (already good) Stealth checks.
And be deadly with a bow.

So a very good non-magical ranger.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Islayre d'Argolh said:


> From your own statement Katniss is a great ranger because she's very good on survival and stealth (and deadly with a bow, i assume).
> 
> A Variant Human /Custom Lineage Dex Battlemaster can be expert in Survival and add a d8 to her (already good) Stealth checks.
> And be deadly with a bow.
> 
> So a very good non-magical ranger.



No lol, you just tied yourself up in your own logic. You're so stressed about trying to emulate Katniss that you're totally failing to see that, in fact, what you've done doesn't make her a good Ranger in D&D terms.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Islayre d'Argolh said:


> From your own statement Katniss is a great ranger because she's very good on survival and stealth (and deadly with a bow, i assume).
> 
> A Variant Human /Custom Lineage Dex Battlemaster can be expert in Survival and add a d8 to her (already good) Stealth checks.
> And be deadly with a bow.
> 
> So a very good non-magical ranger.



Once more I repeat "What do you think the ranger class is _for_ if it's not covering Katniss, Aragorn, or Drizzt - or even any pre-5e rangers"?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Ruin Explorer said:


> That doesn't mean they think it's right.
> 
> That's a key thing. You've played RPGs. Did you immediately think "THAT'S CORRECT!" about every class you read in every RPG? I never did. Jeez it took me YEARS to come to terms with how Clerics worked in D&D, and I'd never played an RPG before that, and only been playing videogames for two years (mostly pretty simple ones).
> 
> And I've introduced people to RPGs with 5E (not as many as 4E but w/e), and they are often mildly vexed by the fact that Rangers use spells, because they don't expect it, and it doesn't make sense to them. They have a pre-existing, pre-D&D notion of what a Ranger is. D&D "getting wrong" doesn't change that.



In my experience, the vast majority of players don't know enough about game design to have an opinion on this. They also tend to dislike having to relearn the things they are familiar with already. I don't know if most of them like how the Ranger is currently designed, but I also don't think you know how many of them would prefer for Rangers to ditch spellcasting. I think the people with the best knowledge on this subject are Wizards of the Coast, given their recent PHB class survey. They would know better than anyone else if the majority of players don't want Rangers to have spellcasting. And they've moved in the opposite direction of removing Spellcasting from the ranger. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> It demonstrably is the reason for that. It's the reason Rangers don't really have abilities or any kind of consistent identity, and it doesn't even match their own lore, which barely mentions magic.



I think that the reason Rangers don't have good built-in Exploration abilities is that the Exploration pillar of 5e is lacking. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> Uh-huh, *and your reasoning for this is deeply flawed as I've illustrated*.
> 
> I think the issue is that some players do like Rangers with magic - but even of them, the 5E Ranger is sometimes seen as excessively magical/magic-heavy. And a lot of what the Ranger can/can't do is because it has magic.
> 
> I think if we had a Ranger that only had fairly subtle magic, and wasn't doing stuff like being utterly reliant on magic for combat prowess (as the 1D&D Ranger 100% is), then there'd be less of an issue.
> 
> Also, according to all surveys WotC's done, the Ranger needs a pet. It's a huge part of what people expect from a Ranger. And yet it doesn't have one.



And your reasoning is just as flawed as mine is. You don't know what the majority of players want the Ranger to be. You have no evidence that your view is in the majority. Wizards of the Coast has tested out non-spellcasting rangers in 5e before, but for some reason, they have never been official. Wizards of the Coast has survey results to help them design the game.


----------



## James Gasik

Ruin Explorer said:


> Isn't Belgarath more of a mega-Cleric than a Wizard, even though he looks and acts like a Wizard?
> 
> Every full caster in 5E is strong in combat and exploration.



Belgarath is a little fuzzy- magic in the Belgariad seems a bit more like psionics, but at least in theory, anyone can use The Will and the Word, it doesn't take any special knack, it's just that the original Wizards were trained by a God personally.  That having been said, some people are stronger with magic than others.

By contrast, in The Mallorean, magic is strictly divine in origin.

Another example, Zeddicus Z'ul Zorander from _Wizard's First Rule_.  I  was considering the Aes Sedai from the Wheel of Time, but it's another fuzzy example.

Basically, Wizards in other settings are never going to accurately mimic D&D Wizards, since their magic started with Jack Vance and mutated from there.  Even Merlin from the second Amber series, despite using explicit Vancian magic, would seem odd compared to a D&D Wizard.


----------



## Islayre d'Argolh

Neonchameleon said:


> Once more I repeat "What do you think the ranger class is _for_ if it's not covering Katniss, Aragorn, or Drizzt - or even any pre-5e rangers"?



Once more i repeat : in charge of 5.5, i'll immediately change Ranger into a Fighter archetype, i do not see the need for this hero concept to be a full class (i think of it as a "vestigial TSR class").

But if we keep the ranger as a full class, it need to do - from a gameplay POV - something really different than wilderness-trained rogues & fighters. The easiest solution is to give it a little bit of druidic/primal magic.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Neonchameleon said:


> Part of this is that I don't think that anyone today is doing _good_ "incompetent at action" PCs. No one's doing the 'Jackie Chan Underdog' nearly that well and people have got fed up with women being typecast as the Damsel In Distress.
> 
> The closest I can think of is Ryan Reynolds?



Even Jackie Chan played competent characters very often, and a lot of his "incompetent" characters were actually specially trained and were kind of making a mockery of their opponents (thinking back to his HK movie career which thanks to Channel 4 I ended up seeing most of in the '90s).

Ryan Reynolds normally plays highly competent characters in action stuff, just not invulnerable ones. Deadpool is extremely competent, but isn't sweating getting shot too much for obvious reasons.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> In my experience, the vast majority of players don't know enough about game design to have an opinion on this.



ROFL wth?!?

You don't need to be a game designer to know when something is off, or have an opinion about a class. Or even to understand game design. That's laughable. That's like saying "Most audiences don't know enough about film-making to have an opinion on which movies they like!". Come on.

Absolutely players have opinions on this. Whether you think those are informed opinions is a different matter, but they have them. They expectations of a class called "Ranger", and WotC isn't meeting them. Not in any WotC edition of D&D. WotC THEMSELVES have admitted they have problems getting this right, and have basically apologised about it before!


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I think the people with the best knowledge on this subject are Wizards of the Coast, given their recent PHB class survey.



WotC have admitted to repeatedly screwing this up. WotC themselves have also repeatedly said one of the key things audiences expect from a Ranger is a pet. And yet... Where's the bear?

You're making an appeal-to-authority argument when the authority themselves has admitted messing up, and has shown designs of the class that don't match their own surveys lol. That's not a strong or logical argument.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I think that the reason Rangers don't have good built-in Exploration abilities is that the Exploration pillar of 5e is lacking.



That's circular reasoning and not very plausible, frankly. Especially given 5E Rangers had better exploration abilities than 1D&D ones.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And your reasoning is just as flawed as mine is.



I think I've demonstrated that it's not. You appeal-to-authority argument demonstrates more flawed _reasoning _on your part.

That doesn't mean I'm right! I could well be wrong. But my reasoning on this is demonstrably better than what you're arguing.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Wizards of the Coast has survey results to help them design the game.



Yeah! Ones they've completely ignored, repeatedly! Where's the bear?


----------



## Islayre d'Argolh

Ruin Explorer said:


> No lol, you just tied yourself up in your own logic. You're so stressed about trying to emulate Katniss that you're totally failing to see that, in fact, what you've done doesn't make her a good Ranger in D&D terms.



It does make her a very good non-magical ranger. And that's enough.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Islayre d'Argolh said:


> Once more i repeat : in charge of 5.5, i'll immediately change Ranger into a Fighter archetype, i do not see the need for this hero concept to be a full class (i think of it as a "vestigial TSR class").
> 
> But if we keep the ranger as a full class, it need to do - from a gameplay POV - something really different than wilderness-trained rogues & fighters. The easiest solution is to give it a little bit of druidic/primal magic.



Druids have always had "a little bit of druidic/primal magic". The problem the D&Done ranger has is, even more than the classic 5e ranger, that it's drowning in druidic/primal magic and has more magic than a 2e, 3.0, or 3.5 _bard._ And turning to Spells Prepared has made it oh so much worse.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Islayre d'Argolh said:


> Once more i repeat : in charge of 5.5, i'll immediately change Ranger into a Fighter archetype, i do not see the need for this hero concept to be a full class (i think of it as a "vestigial TSR class").



Sure, which shows you don't understand why classes exist.

For you, you think classes are convenient buckets for keeping abilities in. This is not an uncommon idea with people like us on the internet, who like to categorize things and be reductive, but it's a terrible idea and everyone who has ever followed it has made a bad game.

The reality is, classes are for expressing a particular fantasy. A particular way of being. Seeing them as mechanistic buckets to hold abilities is just profoundly not getting it.

And the fantasy of being "A ranger" doesn't including significant or mandatory magic. It does include optional magic, I'd say. The most vital things are being "one with nature", an "animal friend" (whether that means friends with animals generally, or friends with a specific animal), reasonably stealthy in natural environments, and good with a bow. A good "optional extra" would be some Primal or Fey magic. Just like Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster.


----------



## ersatzphil

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I think that the reason Rangers don't have good built-in Exploration abilities is that the Exploration pillar of 5e is lacking.



I really think that's the nail on the head. It's hard to have a class who's main sthick is interaction with the Exploration pillar of the game, when that part of the game has so few rules to it. There are several things from the 2014 PHB that strike me as 'threads started that they didn't go anywhere with' - why is 'song of rest' the only character ability that interacts with hit dice?


----------



## James Gasik

ersatzphil said:


> I've actually had a @Snarf Zagyg style post brewing in my head for some time now about "D&D as oral tradition" vs. the Exploration pillar of play - most new players haven't read (in my experience) much in the way of older fantasy novels. I love Tolkien as much as anyone, but LotR definitely sucks all of the air out of the room for whatever reason. For Sparrowhawk / Fafhrd and the Grey Mauser / the Fellowship, getting to a new place is a big deal and a significant element of the story, while Tony Stark / Homelander / whoever can pop off to the Middle East for a big fight for the afternoon and be home in NYC for dinner. I really think that the received ideas / tropes of fantasy have shifted for the current generation.



Even Tolkien fails to make travel interesting- there's a huge section in the middle of The Two Towers that took me a long time to finally get through without skipping ahead as a youngster.  Sure, when he starts expositing about the history of Middle Earth, that gets a little interesting, but consider how more exciting travel is in a visual medium, when during The Fellowship of the Ring, they sail down river and see the great statues of ancient Kings carved into the sides of mountains.

I can't blame authors (or DM's) with wanting to just skip past that and get to more exciting parts of travel.  A few years back, I was playing in a Pathfinder game, and the GM went on a rant about how he hated teleportation magic and how it would be banned in his game.

We got sent on a long mission to a far off region of the world, and this is how it went:

*We board a ship in the nearest port city.  We travel for weeks.  We have an encounter with a floating island (cool!) and a sunken ship created by the Azer for the Efreeti (who trade with the world, but obviously don't care to get wet- also cool by the way).  We reach a port city adjacent to the desert.

We stock up and my Wizard bought some scrolls for the journey.  We see a gigantic golem in the desert- we avoid it.  A few Survival checks are made.  We get to our destination, then on the return trip, nothing of substance occurs.  When I asked about it, the GM admitted that he basically ran out of interesting things to engage us on the journey.

"So, why is teleportation magic bad again?"

He sighed and conceded the point.  Some times, travel, especially to places you've already been, isn't all that engaging, and random encounters with enemies on the road is just so much padding, between a few interesting sights.


----------



## James Gasik

Micah Sweet said:


> They don't have that D&D brand, and no one's made a movie.



Well there's an anime...that should be good enough for the youngsters, right?


----------



## Islayre d'Argolh

Ruin Explorer said:


> The most vital things are being "one with nature", an "animal friend" (whether that means friends with animals generally, or friends with a specific animal), reasonably stealthy in natural environments, and good with a bow.



All things you can do in 5e with a Rogue. ^^


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Ruin Explorer said:


> ROFL wth?!?
> 
> You don't need to be a game designer to know when something is off, or have an opinion about a class. Or even to understand game design. That's laughable. That's like saying "*Most audiences don't know enough about film-making to have an opinion on which movies they like*!". Come on.
> 
> Absolutely players have opinions on this. Whether you think those are informed opinions is a different matter, but they have them. They expectations of a class called "Ranger", and WotC isn't meeting them. Not in any WotC edition of D&D. WotC THEMSELVES have admitted they have problems getting this right, and have basically apologised about it before!



No, what I'm saying is more akin to "most audiences know when something is wrong [if a movie is good or bad], but a lot of the time they don't have the ability to point out the specific parts that they don't like". The average member of an audience would be absolutely terrible at making a good movie. The average player would be terrible at designing a Ranger that does exactly what they feel it should do while also being balanced.


Ruin Explorer said:


> WotC have admitted to repeatedly screwing this up. WotC themselves have also repeatedly said one of the key things audiences expect from a Ranger is a pet. And yet... Where's the bear?



In the subclasses and spells. The Beast Master gets a pet. As does the Drakewarden. And the Conjure Animals/Woodland Creatures spells. Rangers have had the options of pets since the PHB. They were mostly poorly designed, but they were there. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> You're making an appeal-to-authority argument when the authority themselves has admitted messing up, and has shown designs of the class that don't match their own surveys lol. That's not a strong or logical argument.
> That's circular reasoning and not very plausible, frankly. Especially given 5E Rangers had better exploration abilities than 1D&D ones.
> I think I've demonstrated that it's not. You appeal-to-authority argument demonstrates more flawed _reasoning _on your part.
> 
> That doesn't mean I'm right! I could well be wrong. But my reasoning on this is demonstrably better than what you're arguing.



This isn't an "appeal to authority". This is "Wizards of the Coast are the ones that have data showing what the player base wants". If the player base doesn't like the Ranger being a spellcaster, WotC will change it to fit what the player base wants during this playtest.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

ersatzphil said:


> why is 'song of rest' the only character ability that interacts with hit dice?



I mean, I think the answer is because HD were only "locked in" pretty late in the playtest and WotC were trying to position so they could go back to a more trad way of healing for a long time.


James Gasik said:


> Well there's an anime...that should be good enough for the youngsters, right?



It's not an anime likely to appeal to youngsters, and it doesn't tell Ged/Sparrowhawk's story.

It's basically a random generic fantasy tale that happens to be set in, technically, in Earthsea, but also everyone is white, and all the elements that make Earthsea distinctive are ignored.

Plus worse it's goddamn boring! Not something Ged's story is usually seen as.


----------



## James Gasik

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah that's the sort of thing I've seen. Ranger is literally the only class I've ever seen people be annoyed by it also having magic. That's across a whole bunch of games and 30+ years. I've see stuff like people disliking how magic is implemented plenty, but just "that the class has it"? That's new. Well, not new, in that I've seen it with Rangers on and off for 30+ years. But it's the only class. Because it's the only one where them having magic runs counter to expectations and desires.



Even during the 3e/PF1 days, I've seen this, when "not having magic" was a huge disadvantage (unless you could cheat with Use Magical Device).  I watched players multiclass from Ranger into Rogue quite often, as they seemed to want to create some kind of special forces commando (the worst was a Ranger/Rogue/Barbarian/Fighter lol) and they had no use for "finger wigglin'".

WotC has always had this problem with magic and non-magic, where being non-magical meant you couldn't do anything cool. Of course, TSR wasn't exactly any better at this- thousands of spells and magic items, only two non-magical classes in the PHB, and barely any options for them compared to what magicians could do.

I mean, even in 4e, the Martial Power Source had nothing cool or unique unto itself, and every other Power Source could do amazing things.  Save for the Ranger, because even before Essentials, he had a few moves that were dubious, like the attack power that let him leap into the air, then travel in a line, attacking a few times as he did (some kind of anti-flying move, though as insane as it sounds, it wasn't very effective).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> The average member of an audience would be absolutely terrible at making a good movie. The average player would be terrible at designing a Ranger that does exactly what they feel it should do while also being balanced.



For sure.

On the flipside audiences are extremely good at detecting when a movie sucks, or when it contains stuff that just doesn't work for them.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> In the subclasses and spells. The Beast Master gets a pet. As does the Drakewarden. And the Conjure Animals/Woodland Creatures spells. Rangers have had the options of pets since the PHB. They were mostly poorly designed, but they were there.



None of these match what WotC's own surveying suggested players want, and they were extremely poorly designed, and showed a real lack of effort and care. Something that players regard as a core element of the class should be a badly-designed optional subclass, should it? WotC's surveying indicated people want an animal friend to help them kill stuff. Not a rando summon, and not a pet that just stood around mashing the DODGE button.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If the player base doesn't like the Ranger being a spellcaster, WotC will change it to fit what the player base wants during this playtest.



No.

Absolutely not. We have direct evidence that is not how WotC works. This circular reasoning that whatever we get is what the audience wanted is absolutely false on a truly fundamental level. Not just in D&D, but across the board with media. Companies are extremely bad at understanding and implementing survey results, and as you yourself just pointed out, players are bad at explaining what they want.

Real skill in class design comes in creating fantasies people want to embody. WotC have not been great at that. Many other companies aren't too, but it is why WoD was really freakin' huge. White Wolf didn't "survey people" to see what players wanted from a vampire game. They created a bunch of awesome vampire archetypes with the Clans, and then people wanted to be them.

Part of WotC's problem has been being blinded by their own surveys and the admittedly-confusing-and-contradictory results therein. Audience know what they don't like, but they're much more confused about what they do like.

WotC's focus should be on making a super-sexy super-awesome Ranger than says "PLAY ME!". Not checking a bunch of bloody boxes.

As I've said before - that could even work with a half-caster (or even maybe full caster!) Ranger. But they need to "pick a lane", and surveys aren't really helping them do that, very clearly.

To be clear we have a situation where:

A) WotC are NOT following their own surveys particularly closely.

and

B) WotC are NOT creating a sexy-as-hell Ranger class that people want to play.

They're not sitting in either chair, let alone lounging across both smugly, as we'd hope.


----------



## CreamCloud0

Islayre d'Argolh said:


> My point about Katniss is : by using the Fighter or the Rogue classes the right way, we can now build very good non-magical "rangers".
> That's why the official Ranger class have to be this difficult-to-balance Fighter/Rogue/Druid multiclass (magical ranger) : because the game already allow us to build Aragorn/Katniss with two of the non-magical classes.



I think this indicates on why there’s such dissonance between the DnD class of Ranger and examples of ‘rangers’ in other media, DnD is such a high magic universe but what seems to be the stereotypical pop culture concept of a ranger doesn’t inherently focus on the magic angle, the conceptual focus is more on their archery, stealth and tracking, expertise in nature/their environment or of a specific target, survival and exploration, none of these concepts require magic and so in other media rangers are often primarily martial rather than the half casters of DnD meaning that trying to translate those ranger characters into the ranger class will always cause dissonance as the pure martial classes of fighter and rogue will always fit them better on a 1-to-1 comparison as the ranger class has alot of magic baked into it that is superfluous to the idea of a ranger but essential highly ingrained into DnD.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

James Gasik said:


> some kind of special forces commando



Yeah I think we're kind of getting closer to one of the two major fantasies Ranger tends to embody, and it's got large crossover with the other.

People want to be "badass of the woods". Sneaky nature-living guy who is deadly in ambush and in a fight (and isn't an ambush specialist like a Rogue). That's very common.

They also often want to be "friends with the animals", and often have a loyal animal.

And guess what? In fiction, tons of "special forces commando"-types are ALSO friends with the animals. They calm animals down rather than killing them (unless they're rabid or the like). They often befriend animals. Animals often help them.


----------



## James Gasik

Neonchameleon said:


> Once more I repeat "What do you think the ranger class is _for_ if it's not covering Katniss, Aragorn, or Drizzt - or even any pre-5e rangers"?



What does Drizzt do that's particularly Ranger-y?  He's a warrior with skills in stealth and survival and can track prey.  Once he admitted to having a favored enemy (goblins) and summarily got over his hatred in the same story, lol.

He rarely uses any magic that isn't inborn to him being a Drow.  The guy is basically a Dex Fighter with a few extra skill proficiencies.

I don't mean to rehash the Ranger identity thread from a few months back, but the truth is, characters who "feel" like Rangers aren't actually all that well represented by the class, and could just as easily be Fighters or Rogues.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

CreamCloud0 said:


> as the ranger class has alot of magic baked into it that is superfluous to the idea of a ranger but essential to DnD



This doesn't have to be the case, though, and prior to WotC, it wasn't. It's not genuinely "essential to D&D".

AD&D Rangers didn't have any magic until the rather-high level of 8.

There's no reason Rangers in D&D couldn't do all the "Ranger stuff" without magic, apart from WotC's weird fixation. The best illustration of this is 4E, where literally you didn't need magic, because of AEDU-style design, yet WotC still designed a magic-heavy Ranger (but also a non-magic-y one).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

James Gasik said:


> I don't mean to rehash the Ranger identity thread from a few months back, but the truth is, characters who "feel" like Rangers aren't actually all that well represented by the class, and could just as easily be Fighters or Rogues.



They couldn't, though, because Fighters in D&D are absolutely goddamn terrible at skills and have basically zero non-combat skills, and clearly Rogue is the wrong class for all the examples we've discussed. Literally all of them. Certainly Drizzt, Aragorn and Katniss are not Rogues. Even the core/baseline abilities of Rogues are wrong for them.

What people want is a class which is:

A) Highly skilled.

B) Has actual ABILITIES which relate to nature.

C) Is good at fighting.

That's not actually asking very much. If Fighter were DRASTICALLY more competent, in skills/exploration, and didn't have heavy armour and martial weapons built into the chassis, then we could be talking about that, but they do, and changing that is probably unreasonable.

Barbarian is a lot closer than Fighter, note. The problem is Rage. And the fact that Barbarians are traditionally barbarians.


----------



## James Gasik

Ruin Explorer said:


> They couldn't, though, because Fighters in D&D are absolutely goddamn terrible at skills and have basically zero non-combat skills, and clearly Rogue is the wrong class for all the examples we've discussed. Literally all of them. Certainly Drizzt, Aragorn and Katniss are not Rogues. Even the core/baseline abilities of Rogues are wrong for them.
> 
> What people want is a class which is:
> 
> A) Highly skilled.
> 
> B) Has actual ABILITIES which relate to nature.
> 
> C) Is good at fighting.
> 
> That's not actually asking very much. If Fighter were DRASTICALLY more competent, in skills/exploration, and didn't have heavy armour and martial weapons built into the chassis, then we could be talking about that, but they do, and changing that is probably unreasonable.
> 
> Barbarian is a lot closer than Fighter, note. The problem is Rage. And the fact that Barbarians are traditionally barbarians.



At which point, you take away the heavy armor, give out more skill proficiencies and maybe Expertise.

Which sounds a lot like the playtest Ranger sans magic, actually.

Actually thinking about it, I now have a serious complaint about the playtest Ranger.  Why on Greyhawk would you play a Fighter instead of a Ranger?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

James Gasik said:


> At which point, you take away the heavy armor, give out more skill proficiencies and maybe Expertise.
> 
> Which sounds a lot like the playtest Ranger sans magic, actually.
> 
> Actually thinking about it, I now have a serious complaint about the playtest Ranger.  Why on Greyhawk would you play a Fighter instead of a Ranger?



To answer that we will have to see what they do to the fighter.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

James Gasik said:


> Actually thinking about it, I now have a serious complaint about the playtest Ranger.  Why on Greyhawk would you play a Fighter instead of a Ranger?



To start with TWO fighting styles at lv1!

For the Ranger, getting a fighting style besides their original 3 would take the place of a real lv4+ feat (and stat gain), which is... uh... no.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Ruin Explorer said:


> For sure.
> 
> On the flipside audiences are extremely good at detecting when a movie sucks, or when it contains stuff that just doesn't work for them.



Yes, exactly! People know when they dislike a movie/how a class is designed, but largely don't have the experience to actually fix it or fully explain how they think they could improve it. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> None of these match what WotC's own surveying suggested players want, and they were extremely poorly designed, and showed a real lack of effort and care. Something that players regard as a core element of the class should be a badly-designed optional subclass, should it? WotC's surveying indicated people want an animal friend to help them kill stuff. Not a rando summon, and not a pet that just stood around mashing the DODGE button.



The class has options for having pets. The fact that those mechanics are poorly designed doesn't mean that it isn't an important part of the class. WotC knew that people wanted Rangers to have pets. They just did a bad job at representing that mechanically. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> A) WotC are NOT following their own surveys particularly closely.



How do you know that? Give evidence. "Rangers have bad options for pets" isn't evidence of that. WotC misinterpreted what people wanted for the Ranger's pet options. That doesn't support your view of "WotC are bad at following their survey results". 


Ruin Explorer said:


> B) WotC are NOT creating a sexy-as-hell Ranger class that people want to play.



*How do you know that?* They are the ones with the survey results. If we had them, then we'd know what people want. But we don't. Neither you nor I know what the player base considers a "sexy-as-hell Ranger class that people want to play". As far as we know, WotC implemented the feedback from the recent Class Surveys into this OneD&D playtest version of the class and is what they interpret to be the "sexy-as-hell Ranger class that people want to play". 

We don't know what players want the Ranger to be. We don't know what the survey results are. We don't know if the majority of people that responded to the Class Survey said that they were "strongly satisfied" or "strongly dissatisfied" with the Spellcasting feature in the Ranger class. If anyone knows what the majority of players want the ranger to be, it's Wizards of the Coast. Not you. Not me. Not anyone else in the community. 

What we know is:

A) The community considers the Ranger Class fundamentally flawed in its design (more than the other classes, all of which are flawed to a lesser degree) and that it has been since the 2014 Player's Handbook. This is proven through the multiple tested revisions to the class throughout the past 8 years in 5e and the substantial changes to the class in the OneD&D Playtest. 

B) Wizards of the Coast has tested out a non-spellcasting variant of the Ranger and multiple variants that have spellcasting. The Ranger has maintained its half-casting nature, expanded to give them prepared spells and cantrips.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Haplo781 said:


> Hey remember how people complained (and still do) that 4e classes are lIteRallY aLl thE SamE because they had a unified progression?
> 
> Well now every ability that isn't swinging a pointy stick is "a wizard did it."



Some of us want the 4e system (fixed and updated) back


----------



## UngainlyTitan

James Gasik said:


> Even Tolkien fails to make travel interesting- there's a huge section in the middle of The Two Towers that took me a long time to finally get through without skipping ahead as a youngster.  Sure, when he starts expositing about the history of Middle Earth, that gets a little interesting, but consider how more exciting travel is in a visual medium, when during The Fellowship of the Ring, they sail down river and see the great statues of ancient Kings carved into the sides of mountains.



Funny I never had an issue with the Two Towers but the first third of the Fellowship was a struggle. I was older when introduced to Tolkien though. 


James Gasik said:


> I can't blame authors (or DM's) with wanting to just skip past that and get to more exciting parts of travel.  A few years back, I was playing in a Pathfinder game, and the GM went on a rant about how he hated teleportation magic and how it would be banned in his game.
> 
> We got sent on a long mission to a far off region of the world, and this is how it went:
> 
> *We board a ship in the nearest port city.  We travel for weeks.  We have an encounter with a floating island (cool!) and a sunken ship created by the Azer for the Efreeti (who trade with the world, but obviously don't care to get wet- also cool by the way).  We reach a port city adjacent to the desert.
> 
> We stock up and my Wizard bought some scrolls for the journey.  We see a gigantic golem in the desert- we avoid it.  A few Survival checks are made.  We get to our destination, then on the return trip, nothing of substance occurs.  When I asked about it, the GM admitted that he basically ran out of interesting things to engage us on the journey.
> 
> "So, why is teleportation magic bad again?"
> 
> He sighed and conceded the point.  Some times, travel, especially to places you've already been, isn't all that engaging, and random encounters with enemies on the road is just so much padding, between a few interesting sights.



This is the central issue with exploration. If you have a game focused on exploration and resource management D&D manages fine, arguably the original game was built for it. No good abstract system that does not trivialise the matter. And @Micah Sweet I have read the Level Up rules and am not happy with them. I am looking forward to Cubicle 7's latest attempt.


----------



## ersatzphil

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> We don't know what players want the Ranger to be. We don't know what the survey results are. We don't know if the majority of people that responded to the Class Survey said that they were "strongly satisfied" or "strongly dissatisfied" with the Spellcasting feature in the Ranger class. If anyone knows what the majority of players want the ranger to be, it's Wizards of the Coast. Not you. Not me. Not anyone else in the community.



I mean - knowing how to craft a survey and 'correctly' interpret the results is a very specific (and genuinely difficult!) skill. I have an old friend who wrote a freaking Masters thesis on the topic. It's incredibly easy to craft a survey that produces incorrect data, and incredibly easy to take accurate data and draw the wrong conclusions from it. The very fact that they've iterated over the Ranger and Psionics so many times does seem to indicate that they're struggling with it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Remathilis said:


> I think there are a lot of people forgetting what the classes looked like in 2008 vs what they looked like after 3 years of expansion, including monthly Dragon options.



this is why I think they missed the boat with 5e... years of updates expansions and more options (like skill powers) could be used to make a 6e that is based on 4e but much better


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Remathilis said:


> I get it. I too would like all the benefits of spellcasting without having to worry about verbal and somatic components, costly material components, anti-magic, magic resistance, dispel magic, counterspell, spell slots, loss of concentration, etc.



or we could have non spell abilities that scale and AREN'T magic...


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngainlyTitan said:


> Funny I never had an issue with the Two Towers but the first third of the Fellowship was a struggle. I was older when introduced to Tolkien though.
> 
> This is the central issue with exploration. If you have a game focused on exploration and resource management D&D manages fine, arguably the original game was built for it. No good abstract system that does not trivialise the matter. And @Micah Sweet I have read the Level Up rules and am not happy with them. I am looking forward to Cubicle 7's latest attempt.



What's your issue with them, if I may ask?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Haplo781 said:


> It's the height of irony when people dismiss Heracles and Cu Chulainn because demigod when the main inspiration for wizards are Merlin and Gandalf...



every hero has an origin... most don't matter once the story is going, it is just an excuse.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

James Gasik said:


> Even Tolkien fails to make travel interesting- there's a huge section in the middle of The Two Towers that took me a long time to finally get through without skipping ahead as a youngster.  Sure, when he starts expositing about the history of Middle Earth, that gets a little interesting, but consider how more exciting travel is in a visual medium, when during The Fellowship of the Ring, they sail down river and see the great statues of ancient Kings carved into the sides of mountains.
> 
> I can't blame authors (or DM's) with wanting to just skip past that and get to more exciting parts of travel.  A few years back, I was playing in a Pathfinder game, and the GM went on a rant about how he hated teleportation magic and how it would be banned in his game.
> 
> We got sent on a long mission to a far off region of the world, and this is how it went:
> 
> *We board a ship in the nearest port city.  We travel for weeks.  We have an encounter with a floating island (cool!) and a sunken ship created by the Azer for the Efreeti (who trade with the world, but obviously don't care to get wet- also cool by the way).  We reach a port city adjacent to the desert.
> 
> We stock up and my Wizard bought some scrolls for the journey.  We see a gigantic golem in the desert- we avoid it.  A few Survival checks are made.  We get to our destination, then on the return trip, nothing of substance occurs.  When I asked about it, the GM admitted that he basically ran out of interesting things to engage us on the journey.
> 
> "So, why is teleportation magic bad again?"
> 
> He sighed and conceded the point.  Some times, travel, especially to places you've already been, isn't all that engaging, and random encounters with enemies on the road is just so much padding, between a few interesting sights.



one of the 3.5 DMs we lost going to 4e went to PF, and for years those playing with him would joke (as we did in 3.5) don't travel in his games...

I know 3 times the lightning rail derailed in his ebberon games (twice in 1 campagain) I know that every boat he has ever had players on has been hit by at least 3 encounters... and at least 1 pirate attack.  

He ran a 5e game before his passing and in it we spent 4 real life months of weekly games to play out a 2 1/2 week trip in game.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> one of the 3.5 DMs we lost going to 4e went to PF, and for years those playing with him would joke (as we did in 3.5) don't travel in his games...
> 
> I know 3 times the lightning rail derailed in his ebberon games (twice in 1 campagain) I know that every boat he has ever had players on has been hit by at least 3 encounters... and at least 1 pirate attack.
> 
> He ran a 5e game before his passing and in it we spent 4 real life months of weekly games to play out a 2 1/2 week trip in game.



In the old days, we used to always say, "half of all boats sink".  It was more or less true in our 1e games.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> In the old days, we used to always say, "half of all boats sink".  It was more or less true in our 1e games.



yup. in star wars we once through an out of game "lets go to the IRL bar to celebrate" when we went from 1 planet to another without incident.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Micah Sweet said:


> What's your issue with them, if I may ask?



Well, it starts with being too much an expansion to the existing D&D exploration rules, it just expands the terrain types and adds in pages of stuff to lookup. It works best is a more traditional hex crawl type use. It looks to me like an abstracted hex crawl.
It is very prescriptive and would be pretty good for someone designing a sandbox as they could consult the rules in constructing the terrain and keying the map by the terrain types and tier levels. If that was already in place you could put stuff together on the fly. 

I do like the supply idea though. 

I looked at the AiME journey rules and I really like the idea of terrain knowledge, and the underlying hostility of the terrain as being the major influences on the encounters and success of a journey.
I was toying with the idea of modding that for D&D but then Cublicle 7 announced their kickstarter to do exactly that. So, I backed that. 

I want something that I can put together on the fly.


----------



## The Glen

My issue with the ranger as an expert is it doesn't seem to be an expert at anything.  The biggest problem with exploration in 5e is the rules kinda blow chunks.  Either the party is going to starve to death or there's no threat at all.  I learned this the hard way trying to run Master of the Desert Nomads with the cleric spamming goodberry.  Hard to do a survival adventure when one of the core elements of survival is completely removed by a 1st level spell.  If they don't rewrite the survival rules and get rid of the get out of starvation free cards all the arguing over how to build a ranger to be an outdoorsman is moot.  The big problem was the favored terrain meaning automatic successes for keeping the party alive, which was a common complaint for modules like Into the Abyss.  If the party ranger had Underdark as a favored terrain then the whole survival aspect was neutered.  

But rather than just complain about what the ranger lacks, here's some ideas of how to make it better without just resorted to 'more spells'.
Favored Terrain: You get one terrain choice equal to your PB.  So starting with 2.  The ability gives you a static and a triggered ability.  Static ability is good no matter where you go.  Triggered abilities are the standard ignore difficult terrain, find more food, etc.  So static examples:

Swamp: Immunity to non-magical diseases
Mountain: Resistant to cold
Aquatic: Swim Speed
Desert: Ignore fatigue from heat
Forest: Climb Speed
Fort Worth: Speak with cows

Alter Hunter's Mark so it's not just an automatic ability every single combat.  Go favored enemy, at the end of a long rest choice a creature type and subrace (orc, bear, dinosaur, thoul).  Then the hunter's mark applies to all those creatures until the next long rest.  This represents you studying up on the anatomy, applying certain toxins to weapons, or just adapting to your prey.

Make the ranger self-sufficient on his own, and a bonus to the party by keeping them alive.  One good way to represent this is giving them tool proficiencies, but in their terrain they don't actually need the tools.  They can create items that they could with the tool kits, but it's more of a then and there.  The ranger uses his herbalism tool training to just gather the right plants to make the antidote kit.  The items created have to be used immediately, you can't stock up on healing potions this way.


----------



## Neonchameleon

James Gasik said:


> Actually thinking about it, I now have a serious complaint about the playtest Ranger.  Why on Greyhawk would you play a Fighter instead of a Ranger?



We haven't seen the fighter yet. But off the top of my head they start with:

The ranger's fighting styles are defensive, archer, and TWF. 
I don't know why you'd play an archer fighter or a two weapon fighter yet
Sword & board fighters get the duelist fighting style, which gives them a higher baseline
Great weapon and polearm fighters need to use strength not dex so like heavy armour (which the ranger doesn't get)

The fighter's extra feat at level 6 is worth more with the better feats; you can using the standard array e.g. now reach Str (or Dex) 20 at level 8 and still have Sentinel, Shield Master, and Charger for an absolute bully of a build or if you want something more vanilla it's likely to be (greatweapon/polearm/shield master, and two from charger, grappler, heavy armour master, mage slayer, and sentinel). Until L12 the ranger will, under the Standard Array, either only have at most one 4th level feat plus the full ASI or they will have a Dex modifier of +4.
They don't want to play a caster - and this ranger casts too much for a ranger never mind a fighter
But we need to wait and see the playtest fighter; they've talked about extra effects for the weapon types for martial characters.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Ruin Explorer said:


> Even Jackie Chan played competent characters very often, and a lot of his "incompetent" characters were actually specially trained and were kind of making a mockery of their opponents (thinking back to his HK movie career which thanks to Channel 4 I ended up seeing most of in the '90s).



I'm not saying he didn't. I'm saying that he managed to make looking incompetent at combat look really good. No one's doing that at all today that I can think of and if you've got no one at the top you'll not have the actors or the writers at lower tiers.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Ryan Reynolds normally plays highly competent characters in action stuff, just not invulnerable ones. Deadpool is extremely competent, but isn't sweating getting shot too much for obvious reasons



That's not Ryan Reynolds' only film. I'm thinking more of Free Guy and Red Notice.


Ruin Explorer said:


> WotC have admitted to repeatedly screwing this up. WotC themselves have also repeatedly said one of the key things audiences expect from a Ranger is a pet. And yet... Where's the bear?



Agreed that the Beastmaster should _absolutely_ have been the subclass in the packet. The hunter's easy and bland (and they still managed to mess it up in a whole lot of ways by picking "you know an awful spell that you could otherwise learn but is so bad no ranger bothers" as the level ten feature)


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

I am kind of dreading seeing what we'll get for the pet feature this time. You'd think it'd be the primal companion, but...


----------



## Neonchameleon

The Glen said:


> My issue with the ranger as an expert is it doesn't seem to be an expert at anything.



Agreed. This is why I call it the Hedge Wizard from the School of Hard Knocks. It's kinda good at a lot of things - but doesn't really go above and beyond.


The Glen said:


> But rather than just complain about what the ranger lacks, here's some ideas of how to make it better without just resorted to 'more spells'.
> Favored Terrain: You get one terrain choice equal to your PB.  So starting with 2.  The ability gives you a static and a triggered ability.  Static ability is good no matter where you go.  Triggered abilities are the standard ignore difficult terrain, find more food, etc.  So static examples:
> 
> Swamp: Immunity to non-magical diseases
> Mountain: Resistant to cold
> Aquatic: Swim Speed
> Desert: Ignore fatigue from heat
> Forest: Climb Speed
> Fort Worth: Speak with cows



I've been thinking along similar lines - but what I found key was that the ranger shouldn't just get a personal ability but a party buff. So in my version Mountain gave Climb Speed - and advantage on athletics checks to allies either following a trail marked by the ranger or being guided by the ranger. Because you have a ranger helping you everyone has an easier time - and that to me makes the ranger.


----------



## Remathilis

The Glen said:


> Fort Worth: Speak with cows.








The Glen said:


> Alter Hunter's Mark so it's not just an automatic ability every single combat. Go favored enemy, at the end of a long rest choice a creature type and subrace (orc, bear, dinosaur, thoul). Then the hunter's mark applies to all those creatures until the next long rest. This represents you studying up on the anatomy, applying certain toxins to weapons, or just adapting to your prey.




I think they are trying to get away from "favored enemy" for two reasons. 

1. It requires foreknowledge of what you are fighting. If you know you're fighting giants (because you either gathered rumors, scouted, or saw the cover of the module the DM is running) you will pick that foe. If you don't know, you're picking wildly and hoping you're correct. If you guess wrong, the DM fakes you out, or you are facing other monsters allied with your FE, your FE is useless and you've lost a significant class feature. 

2. There is a long-standing meme that Favored Enemy = racist. It's mostly been run as a joke (Bob irrationally hates goblins and finds any excuse to kill them) but it does paint the ranger as a little icky if taken in a serious light. You might be able to justify certain creatures (dragons, undead, fiends, fey, aberrations) but it kinda seems really unsettling when you think of your ranger studying elf anatomy or brewing orc-killing poison. 

I personally don't mind the change to hunter's mark as the new "hunter/prey" since it's divorced from the weird "I kill orcs real good" fluff and it's useful regardless of if you are fighting orcs, giants, dragons or cows.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Neonchameleon said:


> Because you have a ranger helping you everyone has an easier time - and that to me makes the ranger.




This is why I like the “magical monster hunter” (aka Witcher) take on the Ranger. Sure, competent on their own, but their real value is in making everybody else more effective,  because Rangers know how to fight monsters.


----------



## SkidAce

James Gasik said:


> And yet, he's held up as an archetypical Wizard, along with that *Tiefling*, Merlin...



...Cambion, Merlin...


----------



## Minigiant

Remathilis said:


> 1. It requires foreknowledge of what you are fighting. If you know you're fighting giants (because you either gathered rumors, scouted, or saw the cover of the module the DM is running) you will pick that foe. If you don't know, you're picking wildly and hoping you're correct. If you guess wrong, the DM fakes you out, or you are facing other monsters allied with your FE, your FE is useless and you've lost a significant class feature.



That's why I and many others have suggested shifting Favored Enemy to Colossus Slayer, Hordebreaker, and Giant Killer as the replacement for +4 damage to orc for years.

Shifting Ranger to spamming Hunter's Mark works but is a lot less flavorful.


----------



## James Gasik

GMforPowergamers said:


> one of the 3.5 DMs we lost going to 4e went to PF, and for years those playing with him would joke (as we did in 3.5) don't travel in his games...
> 
> I know 3 times the lightning rail derailed in his ebberon games (twice in 1 campagain) I know that every boat he has ever had players on has been hit by at least 3 encounters... and at least 1 pirate attack.
> 
> He ran a 5e game before his passing and in it we spent 4 real life months of weekly games to play out a 2 1/2 week trip in game.



It's like some unwritten rule of D&D- if the PC's get on a boat, pirates, a shipwreck, or a rampaging sea monster is almost assuredly in your future- once, I even had the trifecta, all three at once!


----------



## James Gasik

SkidAce said:


> ...Cambion, Merlin...



I mean if you want to be technical, yes.  But at least Tieflings are playable characters!


----------



## The Glen

Remathilis said:


> I think they are trying to get away from "favored enemy" for two reasons.
> 
> 1. It requires foreknowledge of what you are fighting. If you know you're fighting giants (because you either gathered rumors, scouted, or saw the cover of the module the DM is running) you will pick that foe. If you don't know, you're picking wildly and hoping you're correct. If you guess wrong, the DM fakes you out, or you are facing other monsters allied with your FE, your FE is useless and you've lost a significant class feature.
> 
> 2. There is a long-standing meme that Favored Enemy = racist. It's mostly been run as a joke (Bob irrationally hates goblins and finds any excuse to kill them) but it does paint the ranger as a little icky if taken in a serious light. You might be able to justify certain creatures (dragons, undead, fiends, fey, aberrations) but it kinda seems really unsettling when you think of your ranger studying elf anatomy or brewing orc-killing poison.
> 
> I personally don't mind the change to hunter's mark as the new "hunter/prey" since it's divorced from the weird "I kill orcs real good" fluff and it's useful regardless of if you are fighting orcs, giants, dragons or cows.



You could make the favored enemy selection change on a short rest then the penalty for guessing wrong is minimized.  I prefer the favored enemy because I picture your standard ranger having an uncomfortably large knowledge of how to kill EVERYTHING.  It gives the impression this guy has seen it all, and has a contingency plan to put down the entire party if necessary.  If done right they can make any preparation scary.

"Okay, here's the plan.  Bake a dozen cookies, mix in hazelnuts in three of them.  Most common food allergy for halflings.  Gives us a 35% chance of dropping him right there.  If not, mix in these three plants into three different cookies, by themselves, they're harmless taken together and it's light out.  Little trick I learned when I interned over on Athas."


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> I am kind of dreading seeing what we'll get for the pet feature this time. You'd think it'd be the primal companion, but...



I'm fairly certain that it will be more or less identical to how they work post-Eberron: Rising from the Last War. Commanding your pet as a bonus action works pretty well and works even better now that you can actually kind of play Drizzt (because Dual Wielding doesn't take a bonus action anymore).


----------



## SkidAce

I always looked at Favored Enemy as what you are experienced in fighting as a ranger.

So changing at will (short rest/ long rest/ whatever) seems a bit off to me.

Yes, if you choose giants  (or deserts) and the DM never brings them into the campaign, then you are hosed.

But wasn't choosing giant an implicit deal with the DM to include them into adventure/campaign building?

That would be like taking Oath of the Watcher Paladin and never encountering extraplanar creatures...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

SkidAce said:


> Yes, if you choose giants  (or deserts) and the DM never brings them into the campaign, then you are hosed.
> 
> But wasn't choosing giant an implicit deal with the DM to include them into adventure/campaign building?
> 
> That would be like taking Oath of the Watcher Paladin and never encountering extraplanar creatures...



I don't know that oath, but that is part of the problem.  I put 40+ hours a week for several weeks to make my world, and were I allow, and actually encourage, player input during it. HOWEVER I have found not all players take advantage of that. 

During play I spend a bunch of time/energy making sure to pick up on what the players are looking for.  

THAT WAS NOT ALWAYS TRUE OF ME, and it for sure is not true of every DM. I have played under and seen plenty of DMs that made a world (and even I when I was younger) and then when the ranger shows up with XXX as a favored enemy and the DM just answers "Sorry no XXX in here" over and over again.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I think favored enemy/terrain are great, flavorful concepts that just don't work in an RPG.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bill Zebub said:


> I think favored enemy/terrain are great, flavorful concepts that just don't work in an RPG.



they CAN work but they require a different set up.


----------



## Bill Zebub

GMforPowergamers said:


> they CAN work but they require a different set up.




But is it really worth it?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

James Gasik said:


> At which point, you take away the heavy armor, give out more skill proficiencies and maybe Expertise.
> 
> Which sounds a lot like the playtest Ranger sans magic, actually.
> 
> Actually thinking about it, I now have a serious complaint about the playtest Ranger.  Why on Greyhawk would you play a Fighter instead of a Ranger?




Because all of them get maneuvers by default as of the playtest rules of November 2022..


----------



## UngeheuerLich

SkidAce said:


> But wasn't choosing giant an implicit deal with the DM to include them into adventure/campaign building?




No. It was not. Though chances are you at least encounter a Troll.


----------



## Minigiant

GMforPowergamers said:


> they CAN work but they require a different set up.



Exactly

Favored Enemy​
Beginning at 1st level, you have significant experience studying, tracking, hunting, and even talking to a certain type of enemy.
You gain one of the following features of your choice.                      
*Banisher*
You are a bane to those not of this world. When you score a critical it against an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead, you deal an additional 1d12 damage.
*Colossus Slayer*
Your tenacity can wear down the most potent foes. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, the creature takes an extra 1d8 damage if it’s below its hit point maximum. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn.
*Giant Killer*
When a Large or larger creature within 5 feet of you hits or misses you with an attack, you can use your reaction to attack that creature immediately after its attack, provided that you can see the creature.
*Horde Breaker*
Once on each of your turns when you make a weapon attack, you can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and within range of your weapon.
*Lone Stalker*
Seclusion sharpens you ire. When you hit a creature with a weapon or Unarmed strike, you deal an additional 1d10 damage if there are no allied or hostile creatures within 20 feet of you. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn.
*Man Catcher*
Your weapon attacks and unarmed strikes against giants and humaniods score critical hits on a roll of 18, 19, or 20.

When you gain this feature, you also learn one language of your choice.

You choose one additional favored enemy feature and an associated language, at 6th and 14th level. As you gain levels, your choices should reflect the types of monsters you have encountered on your adventures.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

OB1 said:


> Hunters mark not costing concentration for the Ranger is also huge.  Not only do you not have to worry about it getting lost because you are damaged, you can also have another concentration spell up at the same time.




 This actually combines in interesting ways with Fey Wanderer from Tasha's, which allows the Ranger to cast Summon Fey without concentration as well.


----------



## Gammadoodler

SkidAce said:


> I always looked at Favored Enemy as what you are experienced in fighting as a ranger.
> 
> So changing at will (short rest/ long rest/ whatever) seems a bit off to me.
> 
> Yes, if you choose giants  (or deserts) and the DM never brings them into the campaign, then you are hosed.
> 
> But wasn't choosing giant an implicit deal with the DM to include them into adventure/campaign building?
> 
> That would be like taking Oath of the Watcher Paladin and never encountering extraplanar creatures...



Mechanically, it's (at least) a bonus to find and kill a kind of creature. How that happens can fit a wide variety of time scales. 

Maybe it's that long experience has resulted in muscle memory for how to strike a particular type of foe's weak points..

Or..

Maybe knowledge of the nearby environments prompts differing weapon preparations when the Ranger starts packing their gear for the day..

The question is, would making such a feature more flexible spoil the ranger's flavor as "peerless hunter"? Or rather..what does the ranger lose thematically, by making the ability switchable via some amount of downtime? (..beyond some of the latent racism associated with requiring the choice to be so singular)

 If not, would such flexibility cause a noticeable mechanical imbalance?


----------



## Branduil

There's a reason they dropped the Favored Enemy mechanic, and it's the same reason they dropped the "Rogue can't Sneak Attack the Undead or Constructs" mechanic from previous editions: it's not fun for players to say "well, maybe I'll get to do the cool defining feature of my class tomorrow." It feels especially unfair when spellcasters get to do cool stuff pretty much no matter what.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

SkidAce said:


> But wasn't choosing giant an implicit deal with the DM to include them into adventure/campaign building?



A mechanic that rests entirely on DM goodwill, is not a good mechanic. Nor is it fair to put that pressure on the DM, who has a lot of other stuff to worry about already, let alone giants-to-other-critters ratio.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Commanding your pet as a bonus action works pretty well and works even better now that you can actually kind of play Drizzt (because Dual Wielding doesn't take a bonus action anymore).



It's the TWF and Hunter's Mark changes that make it a bit hard to imagine they would add a bonus action beast attack to it... Which would not be a problem if they weren't building the whole class around Hunter's Mark, yet here we are.


----------



## Minigiant

Branduil said:


> There's a reason they dropped the Favored Enemy mechanic, and it's the same reason they dropped the "Rogue can't Sneak Attack the Undead or Constructs" mechanic from previous editions: it's not fun for players to say "well, maybe I'll get to do the cool defining feature of my class tomorrow." It feels especially unfair when spellcasters get to do cool stuff pretty much no matter what.



They could have changed Favored Enemy to work all the time and slightly better vs enemies.
They could have changed Favored Enemy to Hunter's Prey features.
They could have made Favored Enemy automatic spells known appropriate to each enemy and terrain like Primal Awareness.

Nope. Boring concentration-less Hunter's Mark that still costs spell slots.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> Nope. Boring concentration-less Hunter's Mark that still costs spell slots.




When they tested concetration free hunter's mark for Tasha, and they backpaddeled, a lot of people were very angry with wotc...

Seems thay can't please everyone. Suprise.


----------



## Yaarel

I am happy to see the Ranger spellcast at level 1. Cantrips too!

I hope the Paladin will do so also, using the same spell table.


----------



## Yaarel

This is the first version of "Favored Enemy" that feels ethically ok.


----------



## James Gasik

UngeheuerLich said:


> Because all of them get maneuvers by default as of the playtest rules of November 2022..



Well that's something then.  But it still feels like the Ranger chassis is better overall.  No heavy armor, but oh no, I have to have Dex 14 to have one less AC than full plate.  I get better skills and magic?  And a fighting style and real weapons?  Where's the down side?


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk

I have not read the whole thread but when it comes to the rangers Foe Slayer ability I am convinced 2d6 is preferable over the current 1d10.

2d6 is psychologically more satisfying then 1d10. 
If you roll up to 5 on the d10 you might think you could have done better with my d6. 
But if you roll 2d6 you know that the damage of the 2nd d6  is damage you would not have done if you rolled just 1 dice.


----------



## Mephista

My circle's reaction:
"I like the rogue.
I love the ranger."


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> Exactly
> 
> Favored Enemy​
> Beginning at 1st level, you have significant experience studying, tracking, hunting, and even talking to a certain type of enemy.
> You gain one of the following features of your choice.
> *Banisher*
> You are a bane to those not of this world. When you score a critical it against an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead, you deal an additional 1d12 damage.
> *Colossus Slayer*
> Your tenacity can wear down the most potent foes. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, the creature takes an extra 1d8 damage if it’s below its hit point maximum. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn.
> *Giant Killer*
> When a Large or larger creature within 5 feet of you hits or misses you with an attack, you can use your reaction to attack that creature immediately after its attack, provided that you can see the creature.
> *Horde Breaker*
> Once on each of your turns when you make a weapon attack, you can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and within range of your weapon.
> *Lone Stalker*
> Seclusion sharpens you ire. When you hit a creature with a weapon or Unarmed strike, you deal an additional 1d10 damage if there are no allied or hostile creatures within 20 feet of you. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn.
> *Man Catcher*
> Your weapon attacks and unarmed strikes against giants and humaniods score critical hits on a roll of 18, 19, or 20.
> 
> When you gain this feature, you also learn one language of your choice.
> 
> You choose one additional favored enemy feature and an associated language, at 6th and 14th level. As you gain levels, your choices should reflect the types of monsters you have encountered on your adventures.




So...without going into whether or not those abilities are well-designed mechanically, in my opinion they demonstrate the problem with the "favored enemy" concept.  While each (or most) of them carry some flavor suggesting "favored enemy" none of them really implement it.  And I don't mean this as a criticism against your ideas, just of the futility of trying to force fit broadly applicable mechanics into the "favored enemy" concept.

Banisher: _six_ different categories of opponent?  So, brownies, liches, devas, beholders, and gelatinous cubes are all favored enemies?
Colossus Slayer: sure, colossi tend to have more HP, and thus are more likely to be below max HP during a fight, but this ability also affects tiny creatures missing one HP.  So favored enemy is "injured creatures"?
Giant Killer: if "Giant" refers to size, and not creature type, this one somewhat narrows down the field, but is still quite broad.
Horde Breaker: so, "favored enemy" is any enemy that isn't completely by itself?  A drow riding a giant spider, for example, would still qualify.
Lone Stalker: this says nothing about the enemy, just the Ranger's modus operandi
Man Stalker: this is probably the optimal pick, in the absence of other information about the campaign, just because it covers so many creatures you are likely to fight: bandits, evil wizards, orcs, goblins, drow, other PCs (!?!?!), and of course every type of giant.

I have no problem with giving players a choice of fun abilities (although in general my preference is for abilities that result in different decision-making, not just ones that make you better at what you were going to do anyway.  For example, I like...and have thought of the idea myself...of getting an opportunity attack against Large+ creatures when they miss you, because it encourages archers to move in close).  Again, my issue is just with continuing to try to force fit abilities under the name Favored Enemy.  We (and WotC) should just give up on that.

Unless, that is, the favored enemy of all Rangers is simply "monsters" and is implicit in the class design.  And then I would design the abilities so that they help the entire party, not just increase the damage of the Ranger him/herself.


----------



## Minigiant

Bill Zebub said:


> So...without going into whether or not those abilities are well-designed mechanically, in my opinion they demonstrate the problem with the "favored enemy" concept. While each (or most) of them carry some flavor suggesting "favored enemy" none of them really implement it. And I don't mean this as a criticism against your ideas, just of the futility of trying to force fit broadly applicable mechanics into the "favored enemy" concept.
> 
> Banisher: _six_ different categories of opponent? So, brownies, liches, devas, beholders, and gelatinous cubes are all favored enemies?
> Colossus Slayer: sure, colossi tend to have more HP, and thus are more likely to be below max HP during a fight, but this ability also affects tiny creatures missing one HP. So favored enemy is "injured creatures"?
> Giant Killer: if "Giant" refers to size, and not creature type, this one somewhat narrows down the field, but is still quite broad.
> Horde Breaker: so, "favored enemy" is any enemy that isn't completely by itself? A drow riding a giant spider, for example, would still qualify.
> Lone Stalker: this says nothing about the enemy, just the Ranger's modus operandi
> Man Stalker: this is probably the optimal pick, in the absence of other information about the campaign, just because it covers so many creatures you are likely to fight: bandits, evil wizards, orcs, goblins, drow, other PCs (!?!?!), and of course every type of giant.




How different physically and magically is a human and an orc. If you stab them,do they not both bleed. An orc hater can use anti-orc tactics on an elf or human, no? Don't giants and dragons both have weak ankles? Being surrounded by tieflings is not much different that being surrounded by gnolls.

There is a middle between "flavorful but weak" and "Bland and strong."
The Fighter is supposed to be the specialized generalist not the Ranger.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> How different physically and magically is a human and an orc. If you stab them,do they not both bleed. An orc hater can use anti-orc tactics on an elf or human, no? Don't giants and dragons both have weak ankles? Being surrounded by tieflings is not much different that being surrounded by gnolls.
> 
> There is a middle between "flavorful but weak" and "Bland and strong."
> The Fighter is supposed to be the specialized generalist not the Ranger.




Don't all legged creatures have weak ankles?
Do two tieflings (or stirges, or purple worms) really count as a "horde"?  (And is "more than one opponent" really a favored enemy or more of a tactical situation?)
Don't nearly all of them bleed?

Again, I'm not taking issue with the mechanics themselves, just with the assertion that the concept is fine but WotC implemented in badly.  I think the concept is an awkward fit for the needs of an RPG.

I'd rather just see the best-designed mechanics possible, without constraining them by trying to fit them to the label of "favored enemy".

EDIT: Also, I have no need to "win" this point and persuade others.  Just stating how I feel about it as I contemplate what I think a Ranger should be.  Not that I have any hope/expectation WotC will agree with me.


----------



## Gammadoodler

UngeheuerLich said:


> When they tested concetration free hunter's mark for Tasha, and they backpaddeled, a lot of people were very angry with wotc...
> 
> Seems thay can't please everyone. Suprise.



Are you referring to something in UA or the 'Favored Foe' feature in Tasha's? I ask because Favored Foe in Tashas required concentration and was, in most ways, worse than Hunters Mark from 1-20. 

Sure, you can't please everyone, but trying to help a class by giving it a worse version of something they can already do is a particularly bad way to try and please the people who think the class needs help.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Gammadoodler said:


> Are you referring to something in UA or the 'Favored Foe' feature in Tasha's? I ask because Favored Foe in Tashas required concentration and was, in most ways, worse than Hunters Mark from 1-20.
> 
> Sure, you can't please everyone, but trying to help a class by giving it a worse version of something they can already do is a particularly bad way to try and please the people who think the class needs help.




But sometimes a "worse" version of something comes with other benefits (e.g. maybe it's free, or maybe the class gets other goodies on top of it, etc.) or maybe it could come with other benefits.  Reactions on the internet are often more emotional than rational.

Instead of "this is terrible wotc sucks the sky is falling" I'd love to see more rational, constructive input.  "Here's why this new version is worse.  But I see what the advantage of the new version is. Here are some creative solutions..."

Or am I just being delusional that this will ever happen?


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Gammadoodler said:


> Favored Foe in Tashas required concentration and was, in most ways, worse than Hunters Mark from 1-20.



But most notably, it did free up Ranger slots for something other than spamming Hunter's Mark.

I cannot really put into words how MEH it feels to see them go back to the HM that acts like a class feature, but is not actually a class feature because that'd be too close to what 4e Strikers did, and also scales based on how many attacks you get off which just pushes certain fighting styles only.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Gammadoodler said:


> Are you referring to something in UA or the 'Favored Foe' feature in Tasha's? I ask because Favored Foe in Tashas required concentration and was, in most ways, worse than Hunters Mark from 1-20.
> 
> Sure, you can't please everyone, but trying to help a class by giving it a worse version of something they can already do is a particularly bad way to try and please the people who think the class needs help.




Yes. I refer to an unearthed arcana, that allowed concentration free hunter's mark. And this turned out to become favoured foe of tasha's.


----------



## Remathilis

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes. I refer to an unearthed arcana, that allowed concentration free hunter's mark. And this turned out to become favoured foe of tasha's.



The hunters mark issue has been a Goldilocks scenario. The UA version people thought was too powerful. The Tasha's version is too weak. The newest one is probably fine, but it has people wanting the original UA version again which the community dubbed too strong before and probably will do so again.

This is why it's good to get feedback, but crowdsourcing design is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Bill Zebub said:


> But sometimes a "worse" version of something comes with other benefits (e.g. maybe it's free, or maybe the class gets other goodies on top of it, etc.) or maybe it could come with other benefits.  Reactions on the internet are often more emotional than rational.
> 
> Instead of "this is terrible wotc sucks the sky is falling" I'd love to see more rational, constructive input.  "Here's why this new version is worse.  But I see what the advantage of the new version is. Here are some creative solutions..."
> 
> Or am I just being delusional that this will ever happen?



Apologies. Wasn't looking to fully relitigate the issue with Tasha's Favored Foe.

The pros: no bonus action tax, a new and separate resource pool, some amount of scaling

The cons: Concentration so incompatible with hunters mark (a level 1 spell) but only applies to a single attack and uses a worse or equivalalent damage die as hunters mark for most of the level range..and cannot be switched between targets, so has a hard cap of 6 targets per day at max level. Offers zero exploration benefits.

So, it replaces an exploration feature with a pure damage feature that competes(poorly) with another damage feature, but with an extra resource pool. Maybe the extra resource is worth the sacrificed exploration benefits? And you at least always know you can use it if you have it..  but compared to most of what you do as a ranger it's a third-string kind of feature; you use it when you don't have or don't need your better options.

I doubt that these points have gone undiscussed since Tasha's was released? Or did all that somehow completely fly under the radar amid a wailing and gnashing of teeth?

I also think that, generally speaking, the strengths and criticisms of the oneD&D ranger within this thread have been articulated fairly reasonably thus far. (Basically its stonger but blander).There have been some more impassioned expressions of it than others but not a ton of.."this is terrible wotc sucks the sky is falling".

On the other hand..in addition to..
_you all just want power creep.._
we can now add..
_you all are unappreciative and refuse to participate in rational discussion_

..to the "_constructive"_ discourse. Cool.


----------



## gorice

The thing about having a character created to deal with particular types of foes and terrain is that it's a signal to the DM to make those things important in the campaign. Unfortunately, similar abilities are pretty rare in 5e, and the DMG is far more interested in telling people how to invent a cosmology from scratch, rather than sitting them down and saying 'look at your player's character sheets and work from there.' Published adventures are of course not much help, either.

So, while I think abilities like Favoured Foe are cool and flavourful, I don't think they fit the game as it exists, or at least, as many people play it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

gorice said:


> The thing about having a character created to deal with particular types of foes and terrain is that it's a signal to the DM to make those things important in the campaign. Unfortunately, similar abilities are pretty rare in 5e, and the DMG is far more interested in telling people how to invent a cosmology from scratch, rather than sitting them down and saying 'look at your player's character sheets and work from there.' Published adventures are of course not much help, either.
> 
> So, while I think abilities like Favoured Foe are cool and flavourful, I don't think they fit the game as it exists, or at least, as many people play it.



The DMG does not encourage the DM to sculpt the adventure, the setting and the campaign to the specific PCs presented, and IMO that's a good thing.  Why would the world care about who decides they want to try to save it?


----------



## Neonchameleon

gorice said:


> The thing about having a character created to deal with particular types of foes and terrain is that it's a signal to the DM to make those things important in the campaign. Unfortunately, similar abilities are pretty rare in 5e, and the DMG is far more interested in telling people how to invent a cosmology from scratch, rather than sitting them down and saying 'look at your player's character sheets and work from there.' Published adventures are of course not much help, either.
> 
> So, while I think abilities like Favoured Foe are cool and flavourful, I don't think they fit the game as it exists, or at least, as many people play it.



This is why several of us have said that Favoured Terrain shouldn't give you a bonus _in_ that terrain but a bonus you can apply anywhere based on what you do in that terrain. So my example would be Favoured Terrain (Mountains) should give you a climb speed as you spend so much time scrambling and climbing. (And then it should give a party buff such as advantage on athletics checks to follow a path you've marked or are guiding for them).

Favoured Foe if it stays should likewise be a bonus you've learned from that foe rather than a bonus against that foe in specific.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Neonchameleon said:


> Favoured Foe if it stays should likewise be a bonus you've learned from that foe rather than a bonus against that foe in specific.




In theory I agree with this, but in practice it tends to become “which one is best?”


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> In theory I agree with this, but in practice it tends to become “which one is best?”



Every class feature choice boils down to "which one is best?"  It's when nearly everyone has the same answer to that question that we start to have a problem.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Bill Zebub said:


> In theory I agree with this, but in practice it tends to become “which one is best?”



Just like any player choice. Which is why you try to make them as non-comparable as possible. Is climbing more useful than swimming? And is that more useful than herblore?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Neonchameleon said:


> Just like any player choice. Which is why you try to make them as non-comparable as possible. Is climbing more useful than swimming? And is that more useful than herblore?




Yes, I think those sorts of features are better for this sort of thing than straight up combat bonuses.  Or...combat bonuses with a value that is hard to calculate.  The goal should be that players can justify, or at least convince themselves, that their favorite as "best".

Kind of like how I believe that interesting racial abilities, with hard-to-compare value, are better than racial ASIs.


----------



## Staffan

Neonchameleon said:


> _Some people_ hate Known Spells - and others hate _too few_ known spells but are more than fine if there are _enough_ known spells. The Sorcerer was literally invented to be a Known Spells class because some people really wanted it to exist.



I object to that. The sorcerer was primarily created to be a *spontaneous* spellcaster class. Limiting them to a smallish number of known spells was one of the methods for balancing them against Vancian prepared casting.

But in 5e, *all* casters are spontaneous casters. So spells known is a straight downgrade from spells prepared. You can do things to balance that out (like having a higher number of spells known than an equal-level prepared caster could prepare, or giving the spells known caster some method of casting more spells), but in itself spells known is strictly worse than spells prepared.


----------



## Staffan

Lojaan said:


> Considering the expert classes can put their expertise in any skill, I guess the 'no magic' ranger is... a rogue?



This actually made me think a little.

I think there should be a place for the non-magical outdoorsman. I also think there's room for the magical one.

I also don't think there's all that much room for *variation* (in the sub-class sense) in the non-magical version. So perhaps that's better left to a fighter subclass, a rogue sub-class, or either. Which would then leave the ranger as the magical version, with subclasses leaning in different magical directions. What I would like to see, to perhaps prevent this kind of argument from being a constant nuisance over the next decade, is that they put the non-magical Scout (or whatever they decide to call it) in the PHB, so there's something to point to when people want to play a non-magical outdoorsperson.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Staffan said:


> I object to that. The sorcerer was primarily created to be a *spontaneous* spellcaster class. Limiting them to a smallish number of known spells was one of the methods for balancing them against Vancian prepared casting.



Tomato tomato. There were only spontaneous spells known and non-spontaneous spells prepared.


Staffan said:


> But in 5e, *all* casters are spontaneous casters. So spells known is a straight downgrade from spells prepared.



This happens if and only if you restrict the number of spells known so that a spells prepared caster can prepare as many spells as a spells known caster can know. If you do that then yes it's worse because spells prepared can do literally everything spells known can and more.

The 5e PHB went a step further. On average the Spells Known casters knew approximately two spells per spell level they had of levels 1-5 while the spells prepared casters could prepare three spells per spell level. This made Spells Prepared casters awful. And lead to people hating Spells Prepared because WotC hamstrung almost all the Spells Prepared classes.

If you don't sabotage spells prepared and guide people through traps it is IMO a superior system leading to characters that are better characterised, easier to play, and with a whole lot less faffing. But WotC chose to sabotage the sorcerer and ranger in particular.


Staffan said:


> You can do things to balance that out (like having a higher number of spells known than an equal-level prepared caster could prepare, or giving the spells known caster some method of casting more spells), but in itself spells known is strictly worse than spells prepared.



There is nothing in the concept of Spells Known that says that you should know fewer spells than a spells caster can prepare.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Staffan said:


> The sorcerer was primarily created to be a *spontaneous* spellcaster class.




Is it really possible to say that any one feature was the primary driver? Isn’t it more likely that there were a number of desired characteristics, and the designers saw an opportunity to meet several of them at once?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Neonchameleon said:


> There is nothing in the concept of Spells Known that says that you should know fewer spells than a spells caster can prepare.




I suspect it’s the same number as the amount of wood a woodchuck can chuck.


----------



## SkidAce

Bill Zebub said:


> Is it really possible to say that any one feature was the primary driver? Isn’t it more likely that there were a number of desired characteristics, and the designers saw an opportunity to meet several of them at once?



From what I remember, spontaneous casting WAS the main driver, many people in the day were complaining that the bookish vancian studying caster didn't fit their vision of their "sorcerer".

So they made one.


----------



## Bill Zebub

SkidAce said:


> From what I remember, spontaneous casting WAS the main driver, many people in the day were complaining that the bookish vancian studying caster didn't fit their vision of their "sorcerer".
> 
> So they made one.




Ok.  I don't assume much of a cause-effect relationship between what people are saying in my chosen Internet communities and what WotC designers decide to do, but I don't have proof one way or another.


----------



## Staffan

Neonchameleon said:


> Tomato tomato. There were only spontaneous spells known and non-spontaneous spells prepared.



Sure, but the important part was spontaneous magic. Vancian magic is a frikkin' pain to deal with, and the sorcerer offered an alternative (albeit underpowered because they were conservative in balancing it). Also, almost no fictional portrayals of spellcasters that aren't based on D&D or a derivative, or the actual Dying Earth books by Jack Vance, have Vancian casting.

I'd guess it's actually more common to have entirely spell-less magic in fiction, and instead have some kind of freeform system based on various aspects.


Neonchameleon said:


> This happens if and only if you restrict the number of spells known so that a spells prepared caster can prepare as many spells as a spells known caster can know. If you do that then yes it's worse because spells prepared can do literally everything spells known can and more.



The full casters in 5e are bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer and wizard (and sort of warlock, but they're weird so we're ignoring them). 5e wizard and druid gets level + stat bonus spells prepared. So does the cleric, but they also get two fixed additional spells at each spell level up to 5 from their domain (so basically level*2 + stat bonus until level 10).

The bard for the most part has level+3 or level+4 spells known (level+2 at level 20, but we can ignore that). That's pretty close to where a wizard or druid is, but with the disadvantage of not being able to swap them out. But the poor sorcerer starts out at level+1 up until 11th level, at which point they only add 1 spell every other level. That is *really* bad.

And looking at the half-casters, paladins have level/2 + stat bonus, *and* get 2 more per spell level for their Oath. Rangers have level/2+1 spells known, and don't inherently get more from their sub-class. Many of the later sub-classes do give one spell known per spell level (but not the ones in the PHB), and the alternate version of Primal Awareness gives an additional one per spell level, which still puts them below a paladin's spells prepared (unless the paladin only has a +1 or lower Charisma bonus).

So, I guess in practice you could balance spells known against spells prepared by juggling the numbers. In practice, that's not what happens, and instead prepared casters have as many or more spells available as known casters.



Neonchameleon said:


> The 5e PHB went a step further. On average the Spells Known casters knew approximately two spells per spell level they had of levels 1-5 while the spells prepared casters could prepare three spells per spell level. This made Spells Prepared casters awful. And lead to people hating Spells Prepared because WotC hamstrung almost all the Spells Prepared classes.



I think your last two sentences are supposed to refer to Spells Known casters, because otherwise they make no sense.


Neonchameleon said:


> There is nothing in the concept of Spells Known that says that you should know fewer spells than a spells caster can prepare.



Right. But given equal numbers, spells known is inferior to spells prepared, because a prepared caster can prepare for different circumstances while a known caster has a fixed number of spells available, so they have to pick the most generically useful ones. And the numbers *aren't* equal in practice – they're skewed in favor of prepared casters.


----------



## gorice

Micah Sweet said:


> The DMG does not encourage the DM to sculpt the adventure, the setting and the campaign to the specific PCs presented, and IMO that's a good thing.  Why would the world care about who decides they want to try to save it?



It's a matter of preference. Not every game is 'heroes save the world in a prepared adventure'. Some players are interested in exploring certain themes or challenges, and character choice is often an indication of that. For groups that want to play that way.


----------



## Lojaan

Staffan said:


> This actually made me think a little.
> 
> I think there should be a place for the non-magical outdoorsman. I also think there's room for the magical one.
> 
> I also don't think there's all that much room for *variation* (in the sub-class sense) in the non-magical version. So perhaps that's better left to a fighter subclass, a rogue sub-class, or either. Which would then leave the ranger as the magical version, with subclasses leaning in different magical directions. What I would like to see, to perhaps prevent this kind of argument from being a constant nuisance over the next decade, is that they put the non-magical Scout (or whatever they decide to call it) in the PHB, so there's something to point to when people want to play a non-magical outdoorsperson.



I think this is a very good idea. Give them bonus longbow & heavy crossbow proficiency at level 3, tweak the features a bit (they probably dont need more expertise from the subclass) and let this be the non-magical ranger. This could even end up being the default "archer" archtype.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> Is it really possible to say that any one feature was the primary driver? Isn’t it more likely that there were a number of desired characteristics, and the designers saw an opportunity to meet several of them at once?



Not in 3e where the sorcerer originated, IMO.  It really did just look like a wizard with a different way to learn and cast spells.  They even shared a spell list!  The differences were entirely mechanical.


----------



## Micah Sweet

gorice said:


> It's a matter of preference. Not every game is 'heroes save the world in a prepared adventure'. Some players are interested in exploring certain themes or challenges, and character choice is often an indication of that. For groups that want to play that way.



That's great!  I'm still happy it's not the default.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Staffan said:


> Right. But given equal numbers, spells known is inferior to spells prepared, because a prepared caster can prepare for different circumstances while a known caster has a fixed number of spells available, so they have to pick the most generically useful ones. And the numbers *aren't* equal in practice – they're skewed in favor of prepared casters.



Here we agree and it was a very poor choice.

It was, however, one Tasha's reversed. Both the two Tasha's sorcerer subclasses and the Tasha's ranger with a Xanathar's or Tasha's subclass know more spells than an equivalent spells prepared caster can prepare.

The bard by contrast was always about the level of the spells prepared casters and we didn't hear remotely as many complaints about them. Especially because (unlike the sorcerer) they had a lot going on other than casting.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Yaarel said:


> I am happy to see the Ranger spellcast at level 1. Cantrips too!
> 
> I hope the Paladin will do so also, using the same spell table.




I didn't like it at first, being someone who doesn't particularly like spellcasters at the best of times (and I particularly prefer rangers without spells).

But even with all that said... it's growing on me.

(And I totally agree that Paladins should use that table).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> *The DMG does not encourage the DM to sculpt the adventure, the setting and the campaign to the specific PCs presented*, and IMO that's a good thing.  Why would the world care about who decides they want to try to save it?



*But it should.* It absolutely, 100% should. Why should a player make a Ranger but never be allowed to use their core features (if their favored terrain is Arctic and favored enemies are beasts but neither of which appear in the campaign, for example)? Why should a player that made a Locathah lose their character in the first session because the DM didn't tell them that the game would take place in a desert? If the DM wants the campaign to take place in the Elemental Plane of Water at level 1, they'd better tell their characters that in Session 0 (or shape the campaign to accommodate their characters), or they'll end up with a TPK by mass drowning early in the campaign.

You're not playing "a world". You're playing *a game*. With friends (presumably). That you want to have fun (again, presumably). The players being screwed over by the DM because they didn't bother to tell them anything about the campaign isn't fun.

Tons of DMs shape the game to the players' characters. It makes for a better story. If the PC's background says that they killed their sibling, who turned into a Revanant that is now hunting them down, the DM shaping the campaign to involve that part of their backstory makes the campaign more interesting and encourages the player to be more engaged with the game and roleplay their character better/more. That's cool and fun. It introduces a challenge that engages the players. This "screw the players, the world doesn't care about them" mentality is hostile DMing.

I do this, and it's more compelling and interesting for the players. Matt Mercer does it, and it makes for a more interesting story. Most D&D Youtubers make this suggestion. Even Wizards of the Coast disagrees with you, too. The most recent full adventure books that they wrote (Icewind Dale: Rime of the Frostmaiden and The Wild Beyond the Witchlight) directly encourage the DM to shape the campaign to the PCs (Icewind Dale through the Character Secrets system and Witchlight through the Lost Things adventure hook).

Shaping a campaign to the Players and their PCs is just good DMing.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> *But it should.* It absolutely, 100% should. Why should characters make a Ranger but never be allowed to use their core features (if their favored terrain is Arctic and favored enemies are beasts but neither of which appear in the campaign, for example)? Why should a player that made a Locathah lose their character in the first session because the DM didn't tell them that the game would take place in a desert? If the DM wants the campaign to take place in the Elemental Plane of Water at level 1, they'd better tell their characters that in Session 0 (or shape the campaign to accommodate their characters), or they'll end up with a TPK by mass drowning early in the campaign.
> 
> You're not playing "a world". You're playing *a game*. With friends (presumably). That you want to have fun (again, presumably). The players being screwed over by the DM because they didn't bother to tell them anything about the campaign isn't fun.
> 
> Tons of DMs shape the game to the players' characters. It makes for a better story. If the PC's background says that they killed their sibling, who turned into a Revanant that is now hunting them down, the DM shaping the campaign to involve that part of their backstory makes the campaign more interesting and encourages the player to be more engaged with the game and roleplay their character better/more. That's cool and fun. It introduces a challenge that engages the players. This "screw the players, the world doesn't care about them" mentality is hostile DMing.
> 
> I do this, and it's more compelling and interesting for the players. Matt Mercer does it, and it makes for a more interesting story. Most D&D Youtubers make this suggestion. Even Wizards of the Coast disagrees with you, too. The most recent full adventure books that they wrote (Icewind Dale: Rime of the Frostmaiden and The Wild Beyond the Witchlight) directly encourage the DM to shape the campaign to the PCs (Icewind Dale through the Character Secrets system and Witchlight through the Lost Things adventure hook).
> 
> Shaping a campaign to the Players and their PCs is just good DMing.



That is one legitimate way to DM, yes.  I'm not saying screw the players.  By all means, go over the campaign parameters in session 0 and listen to the players, so no one makes a PC that won't work with the setting.  But it not the DM's job to roll over and fit the world to their desires.  The challenges will mean more to overcome when they're not custom designed to the PCs superpowers.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> The challenges will mean more to overcome when they're not custom designed to the PCs *superpowers*.




Favored Terrain? Superpower? 

Is that a LevelUp thing?


----------



## Horwath

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> *But it should.* It absolutely, 100% should. Why should characters make a Ranger but never be allowed to use their core features (if their favored terrain is Arctic and favored enemies are beasts but neither of which appear in the campaign, for example)? Why should a player that made a Locathah lose their character in the first session because the DM didn't tell them that the game would take place in a desert? If the DM wants the campaign to take place in the Elemental Plane of Water at level 1, they'd better tell their characters that in Session 0 (or shape the campaign to accommodate their characters), or they'll end up with a TPK by mass drowning early in the campaign.
> 
> You're not playing "a world". You're playing *a game*. With friends (presumably). That you want to have fun (again, presumably). The players being screwed over by the DM because they didn't bother to tell them anything about the campaign isn't fun.
> 
> Tons of DMs shape the game to the players' characters. It makes for a better story. If the PC's background says that they killed their sibling, who turned into a Revanant that is now hunting them down, the DM shaping the campaign to involve that part of their backstory makes the campaign more interesting and encourages the player to be more engaged with the game and roleplay their character better/more. That's cool and fun. It introduces a challenge that engages the players. This "screw the players, the world doesn't care about them" mentality is hostile DMing.
> 
> I do this, and it's more compelling and interesting for the players. Matt Mercer does it, and it makes for a more interesting story. Most D&D Youtubers make this suggestion. Even Wizards of the Coast disagrees with you, too. The most recent full adventure books that they wrote (Icewind Dale: Rime of the Frostmaiden and The Wild Beyond the Witchlight) directly encourage the DM to shape the campaign to the PCs (Icewind Dale through the Character Secrets system and Witchlight through the Lost Things adventure hook).
> 
> Shaping a campaign to the Players and their PCs is just good DMing.



Mostly this.

On a side note, the same is with items.

If you have party of rogues and 2handed GWM barbarians, I'm sure not going to give out magic longswords, even if printed campaigns said that it is that loot.
For what?
So the players can have "epic adventure" of selling a sword?
Such quality time...

nothing is more disappointing for both PCs and DMs as when you get magic items and whole party decides that you are going to sell the lot of them.


DM, should look at PC abilities and add encounters that play to their strengths, and sometimes sprinkle in characters with little resistance/immunities to those abilities just to give PCs a wake up call that they are not omnipotent.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> Favored Terrain? Superpower?
> 
> Is that a LevelUp thing?



I didn't say anything about favored terrain.  By superpowers I was referring to the laundry list of class features and spells all PCs get.  It was more of a general point.


----------



## Staffan

Neonchameleon said:


> Here we agree and it was a very poor choice.
> 
> It was, however, one Tasha's reversed. Both the two Tasha's sorcerer subclasses and the Tasha's ranger with a Xanathar's or Tasha's subclass know more spells than an equivalent spells prepared caster can prepare.



The sorcerers yes, but with two spells per spell level fixed. That's a situation similar to the cleric, who still has more spells prepared than the sorcerer has known.

The ranger no, at least when compared to the paladin. The Primal Awareness spells and the subclass spells only make up for the paladin's Oath spells.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Horwath said:


> Mostly this.
> 
> On a side note, the same is with items.
> 
> If you have party of rogues and 2handed GWM barbarians, I'm sure not going to give out magic longswords, even if printed campaigns said that it is that loot.
> For what?
> So the players can have "epic adventure" of selling a sword?
> Such quality time...




If the enemy knight uses longsword and shield, why should he have a magical greatsword in his backpack?

I think it is a mix of custom items and items that make sense for the story.

Also, a barbarian can use a longsword just fine. Can use it in two hand, can use it with a shield.
Does not make him worse if they are not hyper specialized with polearm mastery and GWM.
Actually the more specialized your character is, the more you risk not getting your magic item first.

I have had an adventure where a hyperfocussed optimized ranged ranger in 3.0/3.x started to become dual wielder because an intelligent longsword chose him (and a hook horror broke his magical bow).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> That is one legitimate way to DM, yes.



It is the considerate way to DM. Not doing this is being anti-player.


Micah Sweet said:


> I'm not saying screw the players.



Yes, you are. "The world doesn't care about the people who decide to save it. That player that made a Ranger whose favored terrain is Tundra needs to suck it up! We're playing an Underdark campaign!" That is 100% a "screw the players" mentality. And that's bad. 


Micah Sweet said:


> By all means, go over the campaign parameters in session 0 and listen to the players, so no one makes a PC that won't work with the setting.  *But it not the DM's job to roll over and fit the world to their desires.*  The challenges will mean more to overcome when they're not custom designed to the PCs superpowers.



It's the DMs job to engage the players. And the players won't be engaged if they feel like the DM is against them. And saying "screw them, they world doesn't care about them" is the absolute worst way to make the players feel like you're with them. I'm not saying that the DM can't challenge their players or that every situation in the campaign has to be designed to support their choices, but I'm saying that parts of the campaign should be designed with the players' character choices in mind. If the Ranger chooses Undead as their Favored Enemies, it would be really awesome of the DM to include undead fairly frequently in the campaign. If the campaign takes place underwater, it would be really great for the DM to let all of the members of the party participate in the adventure. 

The DMs job is to make the game possible, and the purpose of the game is to have fun. And it's really hard for the players to have fun if they feel like you don't care about the things they put into their characters.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Horwath said:


> Mostly this.
> 
> On a side note, the same is with items.
> 
> If you have party of rogues and 2handed GWM barbarians, I'm sure not going to give out magic longswords, even if printed campaigns said that it is that loot.
> For what?
> So the players can have "epic adventure" of selling a sword?
> Such quality time...
> 
> nothing is more disappointing for both PCs and DMs as when you get magic items and whole party decides that you are going to sell the lot of them.
> 
> 
> DM, should look at PC abilities and add encounters that play to their strengths, and sometimes sprinkle in characters with little resistance/immunities to those abilities just to give PCs a wake up call that they are not omnipotent.



Yeah, this too! I had one campaign where I just rolled for random loot whenever the party got magic items and it was really unfair to certain members of the party. There's basically nothing that you can roll that a Monk can use. You definitely should take into consideration the characters' classes before dishing out magic items. You don't always have to, but every once in a while it would be nice the monk got an Eldritch Claw Tattoo instead of another magical greatsword or set of chainmail that they can't use.


----------



## Islayre d'Argolh

Staffan said:


> This actually made me think a little.
> 
> I think there should be a place for the non-magical outdoorsman. I also think there's room for the magical one.
> 
> I also don't think there's all that much room for *variation* (in the sub-class sense) in the non-magical version. So perhaps that's better left to a fighter subclass, a rogue sub-class, or either. Which would then leave the ranger as the magical version, with subclasses leaning in different magical directions. What I would like to see, to perhaps prevent this kind of argument from being a constant nuisance over the next decade, is that they put the non-magical Scout (or whatever they decide to call it) in the PHB, so there's something to point to when people want to play a non-magical outdoorsperson.




The way i see it the Rogue (Scout) in Xanatar's is the official non-magical Ranger (and i agree it should have been in the PHB).

But, let's face it, we have now a lot of ways to build a "non-magical ranger" in 5e :

PHB only, i think a Rogue (Thief) with the proper Background (Folk Hero or Outlander) can do the job* : after all Second-story work is a very ranger-y feature and the Fast hands/Healer feat combo gives very good results.

And as i said before, with the Tasha's and the Ambush maneuver you can now build a really stealthy Battlemaster. Add the Archery fighting style and expertise in Survival with one feat or another (Prodigy or Skill expert) and you're good to go.

Finally, from my point of view, a Wood Elf Monk (Kensei) with a longbow could be an awsome non-magical ranger, especially since Tasha's and the Ki-fueled attack/Focused aim combo (deadly with a bow indeed).

*And one can argue about an Arcane Trickster for something close to the "fey ranger".


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It is the considerate way to DM. Not doing this is being anti-player.
> 
> Yes, you are. "The world doesn't care about the people who decide to save it. That player that made a Ranger whose favored terrain is Tundra needs to suck it up! We're playing an Underdark campaign!" That is 100% a "screw the players" mentality. And that's bad.




Many people use premade adventures. Many adventures start in one terrain and go through others.

An underdark campaign can easily start in the forest. Luckily, at level 6 the ranger could adapt to such a campaign and chose underdark then. 

The 1st level abilities however felt more like background features than a real ability, and left the ranger in a poor state at level 1 and often became useless very soon.
I mean: DM starts adventure in the tundra, because ranger chose tundra. Do you have to play im tundra until level 6?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

UngeheuerLich said:


> Many people use premade adventures. Many adventures start in one terrain and go through others.



And you can tell the Ranger what the adventure is like beforehand. If the adventure is Icewind Dale, a good DM would tell them that the adventure takes place in the Arctic, with some Mountains and Forests around it. If the adventure is Tomb of Annilation, the DM should tell them that it's a Rain Forest full of undead and beasts. A bad DM would let them choose Desert and have them suffer the whole campaign because they chose to be a jerk and not communicate that with them.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And you can tell the Ranger what the adventure is like beforehand. If the adventure is Icewind Dale, a good DM would tell them that the adventure takes place in the Arctic, with some Mountains and Forests around it. If the adventure is Tomb of Annilation, the DM should tell them that it's a Rain Forest full of undead and beasts. A bad DM would let them choose Desert and have them suffer the whole campaign because they chose to be a jerk and not communicate that with them.




Of course you should inform the characters of the nature of the adventure.

But that was not the topic. Someone said, that the DM should adjust the adventure to the choice of the player. This is a different situation.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

UngeheuerLich said:


> Of course you should inform the characters of the nature of the adventure.
> 
> But that was not the topic. Someone said, that the DM should adjust the adventure to the choice of the player. This is a different situation.



That's the same thing. If you let the players know the adventure you're running and then the players make their characters based on that, that's effectively the same thing as having the players make their characters and then you building a campaign around that.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It is the considerate way to DM. Not doing this is being anti-player.
> 
> Yes, you are. "The world doesn't care about the people who decide to save it. That player that made a Ranger whose favored terrain is Tundra needs to suck it up! We're playing an Underdark campaign!" That is 100% a "screw the players" mentality. And that's bad.



What I'm seeing is (assuming a half decent Session 0) a selfish player and a matter of bad design. "The DM made an underdark campaign but I chose Tundra and the DM won't move the campaign hundreds of miles. Waaaahhhh! Why doesn't the entire campaign revolve around MEEEEEEE!!!" And yes that is bad. 

What's particularly bad is that this is the fault of the _designers._ What _should_ happen is that favoured terrain should give you bonuses anywhere certain situations arise that are most common in those terrains rather than being as useful as a chocolate teapot outside specific terrains. For example if Tundra gave you Cold Resistance anywhere (because Tundras are cold) it would be comparatively easy to work _that_ in and is likely to come up naturally. So there would have been no problem.

This isn't about being "anti-player". You aren't specifically targeting anything the players are doing. This is about being anti-DM and giving the DM extra things that they have to do that there's no benefit for them for doing and that doesn't make the adventure any more inherently interesting.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It's the DMs job to engage the players. And the players won't be engaged if they feel like the DM is against them.



This is complete nonsense. There is an entire effective school of DMing where the DM is _intended_ to be neutral because the fundamental fantasy is overcoming the world and the challenges it throws at you, not having the world tailor made to your whims. Calling basically the entire OSR badwrongfun is a problem.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And saying "screw them, they world doesn't care about them" is the absolute worst way to make the players feel like you're with them. I'm not saying that the DM can't challenge their players or that every situation in the campaign has to be designed to support their choices, but I'm saying that parts of the campaign should be designed with the players' character choices in mind.



And the players' character choices should be designed with the campaign in mind. And the designers should make sure that additional makework isn't loaded onto the DM just because they thought some half-assed idea was cool. This is a matter of loading something onto the DM that isn't necessary.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If the Ranger chooses Undead as their Favored Enemies, it would be really awesome of the DM to include undead fairly frequently in the campaign. If the campaign takes place underwater, it would be really great for the DM to let all of the members of the party participate in the adventure.



And if the ranger chooses Undead knowing it's a pre-written adventure that's on them. As for letting people participate underwater that's a default thing and any DM who creates an adventure not expecting that the players will need help with that are fools.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> The DMs job is to make the game possible, and the purpose of the game is to have fun. And it's really hard for the players to have fun if they feel like you don't care about the things they put into their characters.



Meanwhile the player's job is _also_ to make the game fun for everyone. And they know the DM already puts in three times as much work as they do at the bare minimum. If players are making choices that _can only_ come up if the DM decides to rewrite significant parts of the adventure to cater to them (something that will make the DM's job harder and less fun) they are making things less fun. And that's on them.

The designer's job is to create a system that engages everyone for minimum effort - and they failed badly here by putting in choices that will make things either less fun for the player who takes them or harder and less fun for the DM.


----------



## Staffan

Islayre d'Argolh said:


> The way i see it the Rogue (Scout) in Xanatar's is the official non-magical Ranger (and i agree it should have been in the PHB).
> 
> But, let's face it, we have now a lot of ways to build a "non-magical ranger" in 5e :
> 
> PHB only, i think a Rogue (Thief) with the proper Background (Folk Hero or Outlander) can do the job* : after all Second-story work is a very ranger-y feature and the Fast hands/Healer feat combo gives very good results.



Personally, I think "non-magical outdoors sneak and/or warrior" is an important enough concept that being able to build something that "does the job" isn't enough. It should be a specific Thing you can point to and say "You want to play Robin Hood? That's the one you want." That would also allow you to have some leeway in how you build your not-Ranger, instead of having to use the flexibility of some other concept to get to where you want. That would let you have both the Noble not-Ranger (Robin Hood) and the Peasant not-Ranger (Zeb Macahan).


----------



## Neonchameleon

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's the same thing. If you let the players know the adventure you're running and then the players make their characters based on that, that's effectively the same thing as having the players make their characters and then you building a campaign around that.



No it's not - unless you think that the amount of work put into a campaign by the DM and by the players is the same. And unless you think the amount of work to tweak a single character is as much as that to change an entire setting that character is supposed to be from.

Do you genuinely think that the amount of work put in by the DM and the individual players is the same?  And happens at the same time?

And if one person is putting in e.g. three times the work as the rest are why do you think giving them the extra work is the same thing?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Neonchameleon said:


> What I'm seeing is (assuming a half decent Session 0) a selfish player and a matter of bad design. "The DM made an underdark campaign but I chose Tundra and the DM won't move the campaign hundreds of miles. Waaaahhhh! Why doesn't the entire campaign revolve around MEEEEEEE!!!" And yes that is bad.



Why are you assuming any of that? The DM at the session 0 should decide with the players what their adventure will be. If it's a prewritten adventure, the players should make their characters based on that. If it's a homebrew adventure, the players should make their characters first and then the DM should design the adventure around that. If a player's backstory says that they're the secret child of a monarch, the DM should keep that in mind when coming up with an adventure for the party to do. 

If a player chooses to make an Aarakocra in this scenario, in order to properly challenge that player, the DM is going to have to alter the adventure to add more ranged/flying enemies. That's not a "Waaaah, why doesn't the campaign revolve around me", that's a "hey, can you keep in mind that this is what my character is like when making the adventure/encounters?"


Neonchameleon said:


> What's particularly bad is that this is the fault of the _designers._ What _should_ happen is that favoured terrain should give you bonuses anywhere certain situations arise that are most common in those terrains rather than being as useful as a chocolate teapot outside specific terrains. For example if Tundra gave you Cold Resistance anywhere (because Tundras are cold) it would be comparatively easy to work _that_ in and is likely to come up naturally. So there would have been no problem.



I actually agree with you that WotC should have designed Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer like that. But they didn't. So the issue about how to be a good DM in this scenario comes up. 


Neonchameleon said:


> This isn't about being "anti-player". You aren't specifically targeting anything the players are doing. This is about being anti-DM and giving the DM extra things that they have to do that there's no benefit for them for doing and that doesn't make the adventure any more inherently interesting.



A failure to communicate when it could significantly affect the effectiveness of a character is being anti-player. 


Neonchameleon said:


> This is complete nonsense. There is an entire effective school of DMing where the DM is _intended_ to be neutral because the fundamental fantasy is overcoming the world and the challenges it throws at you, not having the world tailor made to your whims. Calling basically the entire OSR badwrongfun is a problem.



You can challenge the players without ignoring their character decisions. And you somehow took my "don't be actively hostile with the players" as an attack on neutral DMs and the OSR.


Neonchameleon said:


> And the players' character choices should be designed with the campaign in mind. And the designers should make sure that additional makework isn't loaded onto the DM just because they thought some half-assed idea was cool. This is a matter of loading something onto the DM that isn't necessary.



That entirely depends on if the adventure is pre-written or if the DM is making the adventure. If the adventure is pre-written, then the players should design characters around that. If the DM is making the adventure after the PCs are made, the adventure should be designed around that. And if the DM is involved in the creation of the characters, then the adventure is easier to design and the DM is able to squash any parts of the character that they feel might be unacceptable for the campaign. 


Neonchameleon said:


> And if the ranger chooses Undead knowing it's a pre-written adventure that's on them. As for letting people participate underwater that's a default thing and any DM who creates an adventure not expecting that the players will need help with that are fools.



Again, why are you assuming a pre-written adventure? And the underwater adventure thing was exactly my point. Saying "player choices be damned, this adventure takes place in the Elemental Plane of Water" without making sure all of the PCs can breathe underwater or giving them a magic item/spell that lets them do that is bad DMing. I was using a reductio ad absurdum argument on the "the world/adventure shouldn't change based on the characters" argument that @Micah Sweet was making. 


Neonchameleon said:


> Meanwhile the player's job is _also_ to make the game fun for everyone. And they know the DM already puts in three times as much work as they do at the bare minimum. If players are making choices that _can only_ come up if the DM decides to rewrite significant parts of the adventure to cater to them (something that will make the DM's job harder and less fun) they are making things less fun. And that's on them.



So, you're agreeing that both DMs and players should do at least the bare minimum amount of communication required to make sure things go smoothly at the table. "Screw the DM, I'm playing Ultron in Dark Sun" and "Screw the Locathah PC, this adventure will immediately send them to a desert" are both toxic and bad ways to play. 


Neonchameleon said:


> The designer's job is to create a system that engages everyone for minimum effort - and they failed badly here by putting in choices that will make things either less fun for the player who takes them or harder and less fun for the DM.



I agree that the game designers failed when designing Natural Explorer/Favored Enemy. 


Neonchameleon said:


> No it's not - unless you think that the amount of work put into a campaign by the DM and by the players is the same. And unless you think the amount of work to tweak a single character is as much as that to change an entire setting that character is supposed to be from.
> 
> Do you genuinely think that the amount of work put in by the DM and the individual players is the same?  And happens at the same time?
> 
> And if one person is putting in e.g. three times the work as the rest are why do you think giving them the extra work is the same thing?



Where did I ever say that this was all on the DM? I never suggested that the DM had to be the slaves of the players. Just that they should be considerate of the player choices and design the game to be more fun for them.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Why are you assuming any of that? The DM at the session 0 should decide with the players what their adventure will be. If it's a prewritten adventure, the players should make their characters based on that. If it's a homebrew adventure, the players should make their characters first and then the DM should design the adventure around that. If a player's backstory says that they're the secret child of a monarch, the DM should keep that in mind when coming up with an adventure for the party to do.



_Since when?_ The DM _can_ design the adventure round _parts_ of the players' backstory. But I've literally never seen a D&D campaign where the DM turned up to the table and said "well, um, I want to see your characters complete with two pages of backstory before I do a single thing to start on the adventure." 

Normally it's more like "I've the outlines of an adventure including a starting location that should give you inspiration for the characters because I've already got the adventure at least half written". 

(Note: there are other systems than D&D - Apocalypse World for example literally tells the DM to come with nothing).


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If a player chooses to make an Aarakocra in this scenario, in order to properly challenge that player, the DM is going to have to alter the adventure to add more ranged/flying enemies. That's not a "Waaaah, why doesn't the campaign revolve around me", that's a "hey, can you keep in mind that this is what my character is like when making the adventure/encounters?"



Your example wasn't an aarakocra. It was specifically Tundra in an Underdark campaign. PC capabilities should either be adapted to or the wins should be given.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> You can challenge the players without ignoring their character decisions. And you somehow took my "don't be actively hostile with the players" as an attack on neutral DMs and the OSR.



On the contrary. You were explicitly opposing _neutrality_. You were saying that the player choices should be catered to and the world should be rebuilt round the PCs (remember your example was _tundra_ in an _underdark campaign._ I didn't pick that).


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Again, why are you assuming a pre-written adventure?



I'm not assuming it. I'm saying it's a legitimate choice. And one that doesn't indicate what you want.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And the underwater adventure thing was exactly my point. Saying "player choices be damned, this adventure takes place in the Elemental Plane of Water" without making sure all of the PCs can breathe underwater or giving them a magic item/spell that lets them do that is bad DMing. I was using a reductio ad absurdum argument on the "the world/adventure shouldn't change based on the characters" argument that @Micah Sweet was making.



And ended up making your position look like an absurd strawman.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Where did I ever say that this was all on the DM? I never suggested that the DM had to be the slaves of the players. Just that they should be considerate of the player choices and design the game to be more fun for them.



You were explicitly saying here that the DM should "sculpt the adventure, the setting and the campaign to the specific PCs presented" and here that a player who picked Tundra in an Underdark campaign should be catered to.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's the same thing. If you let the players know the adventure you're running and then the players make their characters based on that, that's effectively the same thing as having the players make their characters and then you building a campaign around that.




No. It is not. One is putting the horse before the carriage and one is putting the carriage before the horse.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Neonchameleon said:


> _Since when?_ The DM _can_ design the adventure round _parts_ of the players' backstory. But I've literally never seen a D&D campaign where the DM turned up to the table and said "well, um, I want to see your characters complete with two pages of backstory before I do a single thing to start on the adventure."
> 
> Normally it's more like "I've the outlines of an adventure including a starting location that should give you inspiration for the characters because I've already got the adventure at least half written".
> 
> (Note: there are other systems than D&D - Apocalypse World for example literally tells the DM to come with nothing).



"Normally"? Maybe normally for you, but unless I'm playing a pre-written adventure, I literally always wait for the PCs to be made until I make the adventure. Because I want to involve the players in what the campaign will be. I know some DMs that even make entire new homebrew worlds based around which races/classes the players choose. 


Neonchameleon said:


> Your example wasn't an aarakocra. It was specifically Tundra in an Underdark campaign. PC capabilities should either be adapted to or the wins should be given.



I gave multiple examples (Locathah in Desert Campaigns, non-aquatic races in an Elemental Plane of Water adventure). Can I not give more? A DM has to adjust encounters and campaign based on the mechanical capabilities of the party members. 


Neonchameleon said:


> On the contrary. You were explicitly opposing _neutrality_. You were saying that the player choices should be catered to and the world should be rebuilt round the PCs (remember your example was _tundra_ in an _underdark campaign._ I didn't pick that).



I opposed a hostile view towards players. @Micah Sweet was saying that rangers should suffer if the DM didn't tell them what terrains the campaign would take place in. That's not neutrality. And if it is, then I do think that type of "neutrality" is bad DMing. 


Neonchameleon said:


> I'm not assuming it. I'm saying it's a legitimate choice. And one that doesn't indicate what you want.



I think it's a valid choice that the players should also be involved in. 


Neonchameleon said:


> And ended up making your position look like an absurd strawman.



An absurd strawman of what? What exactly do you think I was saying? 


Neonchameleon said:


> You were explicitly saying here that the DM should "sculpt the adventure, the setting and the campaign to the specific PCs presented" and here that a player who picked Tundra in an Underdark campaign should be catered to.



A) I was talking about that the DM should consider their choices and meet them halfway. 
B) I was listing that as an example of failed communication and cooperation between the DM and player. It's bad if the DM plans on the campaign going to the Underdark early on but doesn't tell that to the Ranger that chose the Tundra as their favored terrain. That is bad DMing.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. It is not. One is putting the horse before the carriage and one is putting the carriage before the horse.



Are you saying that one of them is a wrong way to play? Because that's what "putting the carriage before the horse" means. If you don't intend that meaning, you're using a bad metaphor.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Are you saying that one of them is a wrong way to play? Because that's what "putting the carriage before the horse" means. If you don't intend that meaning, you're using a bad metaphor.




No. I just wanted to make sure that you understand that if you swap positions, you have things work differently, as you just told me, that two different things are the same.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. I just wanted to make sure that you understand that if you swap positions, you have things work differently, as you told me, that 2 different things are the same.



Putting a cart before a horse makes the system not work anymore. Having players design characters around a specific adventure and having a DM design an adventure around specific characters are equally valid ways to play. They have basically the same effect (the DM and players communicating in order to have a fun/satisfying play experience).


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Putting a cart before a horse makes the system not work anymore. Having players design characters around a specific adventure and having a DM design an adventure around specific characters are equally valid ways to play. They have basically the same effect (the DM and players communicating in order to have a fun/satisfying play experience).




I never disagreed to that.

Only thing I said: not every DM is designing their adventures around the player's abilities, some DM's use premade adventures. So having abilities that are only useful in very narrow enviroments can be problematic for them.

Everything else was your own imagination.

Then you told me, both styles are the same. I quoted it.
So I am realy not sure what we are arguing about.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

UngeheuerLich said:


> I never disagreed to that.
> 
> Only thing I said: not every DM is designing their adventures around the player's abilities, some DM's use premade adventures. So having abilities that are only useful in very narrow enviroments can be problematic for them.
> 
> Everything else was your own imagination.
> 
> Then you told me, both styles are the same. I quoted it.
> So I am realy not sure what we are arguing about.



Me neither. This is probably a misunderstanding.


----------



## Olrox17

Remathilis said:


> I get it. I too would like all the benefits of spellcasting without having to worry about verbal and somatic components, costly material components, anti-magic, magic resistance, dispel magic, counterspell, spell slots, loss of concentration, etc.



I get it that you're being sarcastic here, but I agree, unironically. Yes, people would like their characters to be able to accomplish _some_ of the things that are currently spell-locked, without all the thematic and mechanical baggage that comes with spellcasting. Especially things that competent people can do without magic IRL.


----------



## Remathilis

Olrox17 said:


> I get it that you're being sarcastic here, but I agree, unironically. Yes, people would like their characters to be able to accomplish _some_ of the things that are currently spell-locked, without all the thematic and mechanical baggage that comes with spellcasting. Especially things that competent people can do without magic IRL.



My problem is that there are so few checks on spellcasting as is (slots per day, components, antimagic, counter/dispel and concentration) that removing the few left feels like an attempt to circumvent any check on PC power. I agree martials need a power boost, and if the height of it was giving them some low level spells to replicate, that might be fine. But the talk usually drifts to martials having demigod-like powers to split mountains or win fights before initiative is rolled, and I wonder how they plan on curtailing such power from being abused. Even discussions on non-spell psionics end up bogged down with "I want magical effects, but I don't want them checked by antimagic or VSM components."

I guess if you want martials (or psionics) having all the power of magic without the drawbacks, let's unshackle spellcasting from components, antimagic, and the other hard counters as well. It will move the game closer to the 4e "magic and martial are opposite sides of the same coin" design, but if that's where it's going, let's make it fair.


----------



## Olrox17

Remathilis said:


> My problem is that there are so few checks on spellcasting as is (slots per day, components, antimagic, counter/dispel and concentration) that removing the few left feels like an attempt to circumvent any check on PC power. I agree martials need a power boost, and if the height of it was giving them some low level spells to replicate, that might be fine. But the talk usually drifts to martials having demigod-like powers to split mountains or win fights before initiative is rolled, and I wonder how they plan on curtailing such power from being abused. Even discussions on non-spell psionics end up bogged down with "I want magical effects, but I don't want them checked by antimagic or VSM components."
> 
> I guess if you want martials (or psionics) having all the power of magic without the drawbacks, let's unshackle spellcasting from components, antimagic, and the other hard counters as well. It will move the game closer to the 4e "magic and martial are opposite sides of the same coin" design, but if that's where it's going, let's make it fair.



D&D is a complex game with many moving parts. Balance is hard to find in such a game. The closest we ever got to a balanced D&D game was 4e, and that was because every class worked in the same mechanical framework: powers and (to a lesser degree) feats.

I see your point. The extreme scenario of a purely martial "caster", with "exploits" capable of mimicking spellcasting up to ninth level with none of the drawbacks your regular wizard get (antimagic, concentration, limited spell slots) would be overpowered. And how do you even represent a martial Meteor Swarm, short of giving the character an F-35 aircraft?

This is, however, an extreme example. Surely, a middle ground can be found somewhere. I don't think anyone's asking for martial fireballs and martial teleports.
My first thought is that, perhaps, the ol' 3e distinction between spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities could come in handy.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Remathilis said:


> My problem is that there are so few checks on spellcasting as is (slots per day, components, antimagic, counter/dispel and concentration) that removing the few left feels like an attempt to circumvent any check on PC power. I agree martials need a power boost, and if the height of it was giving them some low level spells to replicate, that might be fine. But the talk usually drifts to martials having demigod-like powers to split mountains or win fights before initiative is rolled, and I wonder how they plan on curtailing such power from being abused. Even discussions on non-spell psionics end up bogged down with "I want magical effects, but I don't want them checked by antimagic or VSM components."
> 
> I guess if you want martials (or psionics) having all the power of magic without the drawbacks, let's unshackle spellcasting from components, antimagic, and the other hard counters as well. It will move the game closer to the 4e "magic and martial are opposite sides of the same coin" design, but if that's where it's going, let's make it fair.



First spellcasters are expected to keep versatility as a major advantage. Also the same people asking for fighters to be able to do more are precisely the same people who want fighters to have to pace themselves like athletes rather than be these untiring robots that always spam their best attacks that the ridiculous 3.x feat system landed us with.

Second, as you note, spellcasters have been largely unshackled and non-casters haven't. Meanwhile we're left with a magic user/muggle divide. Yet you somehow think that keeping the muggles as muggles is a good thing.

Third VSM components are a trivial drawback for all other than a very few spells (and Resurrection and others should stay special). What they are is obnoxious worldbuilding unless you are a caster. Imagine if each time you swung a sword in character you had to say "izzy wizzy let's get busy" or turn yound three times and touch your nose. Would that break your sense of immersion as a fighter? You're talking about an RP issue as a balance thing.

And I can't remember the last time I saw an anti magic field in game. It's not a serious balance issue but it is again a worldbuilding one. Not all abilities are spells or even magic.

Your notions that (a) every spell with no limits is what's being insisted on if we let fighters be more than muggles-with-hp and (b) vsm and antimagic are what balances spellcasting are both so wide of the mark I find it difficult to take them as good faith.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Martial fireball is cutting through 10 people with one swing (or, more Ranger-ishly, shooting some arrows _really fast_). That shouldn't be hard to imagine, in a game where the martial equivalent to Feather Fall already is just landing on your face and walking it off.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Well this thread went sideways.


----------



## Mephista

Olrox17 said:


> I see your point. The extreme scenario of a purely martial "caster", with "exploits" capable of mimicking spellcasting up to ninth level with none of the drawbacks your regular wizard get (antimagic, concentration, limited spell slots) would be overpowered. And how do you even represent a martial Meteor Swarm, short of giving the character an F-35 aircraft?



Turn the rogue into the F-35 aircraft.  Not a joke. Maybe a bit exaggerated, but...

I've been toying with ways of making caltrops, ball bearings, alchemist fire, vials of acid, poisons, all the different rogue toys all relevant at increasing levels.  If it works out, then just give the rogue some flying shoes or a magic carpet, send them over with a bag of holding carrying all the alchemist fires, and dump them over an army could be a very good equivalent?  

The subclass is still in the works, but is it really that different from the Thief getting a scroll with the Meteor Swarm spell and casting it with UMD?


----------



## Olrox17

Mephista said:


> Turn the rogue into the F-35 aircraft.  Not a joke. Maybe a bit exaggerated, but...
> 
> I've been toying with ways of making caltrops, ball bearings, alchemist fire, vials of acid, poisons, all the different rogue toys all relevant at increasing levels.  If it works out, then just give the rogue some flying shoes or a magic carpet, send them over with a bag of holding carrying all the alchemist fires, and dump them over an army could be a very good equivalent?
> 
> The subclass is still in the works, but is it really that different from the Thief getting a scroll with the Meteor Swarm spell and casting it with UMD?



The main difference between this tactic and a genuine meteor swarm would probably be the 1 mile range and the pretty dang huge AoE. Still, pretty interesting. Literal carpet bombing.


----------



## Moorcrys

Bill Zebub said:


> Well this thread went sideways.




As usual. 

I like this iteration of the ranger. I would like to see the Hunter have some more interesting abilities, and I would also love it if Hunter's Mark had more free castings (if it's going to be the foundation of a number of Ranger abilities).

I don't know how things like Conjure Barrage or Hunter's Mark may or may not change which makes it difficult to speculate on whether the whole package works, but overall it feels to me like a fun class to play. Certainly an improvement over the 2014 version.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Olrox17 said:


> Surely, a middle ground can be found somewhere.



The key issue is abilities which require checks and tend to have very limited impacts, vs. spells which don't require checks, and tend to have extremely broad impacts.

This is a peculiarity of D&D's early design and Vancian heritage (if Vance hadn't been such an influence, D&D would likely have a much smaller difference between spellcasters and non-spellcasters, and a much better magic system). In Vance, you have these bizarre mental construct spells which you sort of hold and then nearly-instantly unleash. It's almost more sci-fi than magical, like it feels more Star Trek than Lord of the Rings.

Unfortunately D&D inherited that. In virtually all other fantasy fiction involving spells, two things are true:

1) Spells can fail and you can mess them up. This is sorta-true in actual Vancian magic but D&D didn't incorporate that.

2) Spells that do a lot take a very long time to cast and often require ritual magic with multiple casters.

D&D did introduce saving throws, which don't seem to mean the caster messed up, just that the target somehow resisted or dodged them (which happens a bit in Vance's work).

So the core thing that's messed-up here is that *casters can't fail outside of combat*, essentially.

That combines with *spells having very major effects and being near-instant*, to create a situation where, outside of combat, spells are needlessly more effective than non-spell-based abilities. It doesn't really make sense, fictionally. It should absolutely be possible to mess up casting or setting up a spell. In virtually all fantasy fiction involving spells (again, including Vance), that is a thing. But in D&D it's excluded as a possibility. Unless the target has a saving throw, your spell will never fail, never go wrong.

One way to balance things would be to give non-casting PCs more stuff that didn't fail, that didn't require a roll, that just required time/effort. 3E kind of did this a bit thanks to take 10 and take 20, but 5E abandoning them means those aren't an option. Tasha's/1D&D sticks a toe in the water by giving stuff like Climb Speeds, which are like, from a realism perspective, utterly wild (really, I can climb a 60ft cliff freehand in 6 seconds? Apparently!), but it's only a toe.



Olrox17 said:


> I don't think anyone's asking for martial fireballs and martial teleports.



I mean, combat isn't the major issue. It is an issue, but it's not the major one. 5E is kind of willing to give martials some fairly wild abilities in combat, and there's not a major balance issue there. It would be nice to see a bit more, but the Ranger problem is weird-ass backsliding. There's no reason Hunter's Mark and Conjure Barrage should be spells, as it were. Those could perfectly well be abilities (indeed, pretty sure the Conjure Barrage-equivalent used to be an ability and Hunter's Mark makes no more/less sense as Martial than literally dozens of Martial bonus-damage abilities), but for whatever bonkers reasons, WotC decided to go the opposite way to for example, giving Rangers a Climb Speed, and made them into actual spells.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It is the considerate way to DM. Not doing this is being anti-player.
> 
> Yes, you are. "The world doesn't care about the people who decide to save it. That player that made a Ranger whose favored terrain is Tundra needs to suck it up! We're playing an Underdark campaign!" That is 100% a "screw the players" mentality. And that's bad.
> 
> It's the DMs job to engage the players. And the players won't be engaged if they feel like the DM is against them. And saying "screw them, they world doesn't care about them" is the absolute worst way to make the players feel like you're with them. I'm not saying that the DM can't challenge their players or that every situation in the campaign has to be designed to support their choices, but I'm saying that parts of the campaign should be designed with the players' character choices in mind. If the Ranger chooses Undead as their Favored Enemies, it would be really awesome of the DM to include undead fairly frequently in the campaign. If the campaign takes place underwater, it would be really great for the DM to let all of the members of the party participate in the adventure.
> 
> The DMs job is to make the game possible, and the purpose of the game is to have fun. And it's really hard for the players to have fun if they feel like you don't care about the things they put into their characters.



If the players make their characters knowing what kinds of things are likely to show up, this problem is avoided.  You're assuming they show up with fully-realized PCs before any discussion of the campaign is had; I mentioned session 0 (the part of my post you didn't address) for a reason.  Maybe don't choose undead as your Favored Enemy if the DM wants to run an adventure in the Feywild?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And you can tell the Ranger what the adventure is like beforehand. If the adventure is Icewind Dale, a good DM would tell them that the adventure takes place in the Arctic, with some Mountains and Forests around it. If the adventure is Tomb of Annilation, the DM should tell them that it's a Rain Forest full of undead and beasts. A bad DM would let them choose Desert and have them suffer the whole campaign because they chose to be a jerk and not communicate that with them.



Who's doing that?  Session 0!


----------



## Zubatcarteira

I like the Favored Terrain giving bonuses idea. You could have a Ranger that gets Expertise in Survival by default, then each terrain gives one more, along with a bonus to the Ranger themselves, and something else to help lead the party, maybe it can give more things at higher levels as well. 

Like, Mountain, expertise in Athletics, you get a climb speed and advantage on checks to climb, and your allies that follow you have the same benefit. It could give things like acclimating you to high altitudes like the Goliaths, or reducing fall damage at higher levels. 

Or Underdark, expertise in Stealth, you get darkvision and can share it with allies like a Twilight Cleric, etc.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ruin Explorer said:


> In Vance, you have these bizarre mental construct spells which you sort of hold and then nearly-instantly unleash.




I think it would be super-fun if high level spells took multiple/many rounds to cast, and the martials had to protect them until complete.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Bill Zebub said:


> I think it would be super-fun if high level spells took multiple/many rounds to cast, and the martials had to protect them until complete.




It is not fun for the spellcaster if it is all they could do.

I think banishment has it right. Minor effect for 1 minute, concentration.
If you can concentrate until the end, boom.

Does not have to be 1 minute. 3 or 5 rounds as a doom clock would suffice.

Not having a different concentration spell up would probably enough of a cost.
If it is not, you could reduce the caster's movement speed to 0 too. Maybe limit them to only cast cantrips while they concentrate.


----------



## Bill Zebub

UngeheuerLich said:


> It is not fun for the spellcaster if it is all they could do.




It wouldn't be "all" they could do.  Just for the highest-level, most powerful spells.

And I agree about Banishment.  I like that one.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I opposed a hostile view towards players. @Micah Sweet was saying that rangers should suffer if the DM didn't tell them what terrains the campaign would take place in. That's not neutrality. And if it is, then I do think that type of "neutrality" is bad DMing.



That is not what I said, and if it came off that way I'm sorry (though your response still felt pretty hostile).  I said the world doesn't have to reflect the PC choices.  I explicitly mentioned having a session 0 so a gross mismatch is avoided.

Just because _you personally_ always design your campaigns around your players doesn't mean that any other style is bad DMing.  That an extraordinarily insulting view.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Bill Zebub said:


> It wouldn't be "all" they could do.  Just for the highest-level, most powerful spells.
> 
> And I agree about Banishment.  I like that one.




No. I meant all they could do while casting the spell. Would be unfun for the player to just wait till combat is over.


----------



## Arilyn

Rangers could also get an ability that a good survival roll practically let's them see into the past while examing tracks. 

In their favoured terrain, they'd get bonuses that make them really scary predators. 

They should have an intuitive sense of their natural surroundings, making them alert to traps and hard to fool with illusions. 

A ranger can hide the groups' camp, making it more likely that they get an undisturbed rest. 

With time a ranger could collect healing herbs. They have to be fresh to maintain benefits, so no hoarding them. 

One problem, I see with Ranger design is that their basic abilities are forced into being realistic. This leads to comments that a fighter with survival skills is a ranger. But since other non spellcasting classes have over the top abilities, surely our ranger can too without needing spells.


----------



## Bill Zebub

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. I meant all they could do while casting the spell. Would be unfun for the player to just wait till combat is over.




Oh, sure.  But I think some mechanics could be created to make such spells some kind of sustained test with decision-making along the way.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Bill Zebub said:


> Oh, sure.  But I think some mechanics could be created to make such spells some kind of sustained test with decision-making along the way.




Of course. Or you use existing mechanics like concentration (which you had to use anyway simce you are casting a multiround spell, when doing it as you suggest), and then allow for something extra.

I am also totally in support of those mechanics. This is why I suggested, that every spell can be cast as ritual. Fireball cast by a circle of 3 level 3 casters as ritual. Now go out and stop them.


----------



## Bill Zebub

UngeheuerLich said:


> Of course. Or you use existing mechanics like concentration (which you had to use anyway simce you are casting a multiround spell, when doing it as you suggest), and then allow for something extra.
> 
> I am also totally in support of those mechanics. This is why I suggested, that every spell can be cast as ritual. Fireball cast by a circle of 3 level 3 casters as ritual. Now go out and stop them.




Sure. 

AND I personally wouldn’t mind occasionally skipping 5 turns, knowing enemies will have advantage on attacks against me, while my teammates protect me, to get off spectacular spells.  I think that would be fun. Fun to play, fun to imagine. (Same thing?)

YMMV. 

(Maybe the spell builds each round, so the decision to make is whether to keep going or to let go with a partial effect.)


----------



## Gammadoodler

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. I meant all they could do while casting the spell. Would be unfun for the player to just wait till combat is over.



Seems like it'd be pretty implementation-dependent. The player has to select their spells in the first place, so presumably they'd be opting in to the multi-turn experience (whatever that looks like). As long as there are enough casting time options and the balance of cast time vs spell effect is in a good place, people would find ways to have their fun.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Bill Zebub said:


> Sure.
> 
> AND I personally wouldn’t mind occasionally skipping 5 turns, knowing enemies will have advantage on attacks against me, while my teammates protect me, to get off spectacular spells.  I think that would be fun. Fun to play, fun to imagine. (Same thing?)
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> (Maybe the spell builds each round, so the decision to make is whether to keep going or to let go with a partial effect.)



Incidentally pf2e has some spells like this. I think they all max out at 2 rounds, but there might be some decent existing templates to borrow.


----------



## niklinna

Gammadoodler said:


> Incidentally pf2e has some spells like this. I think they all max out at 2 rounds, but there might be some decent existing templates to borrow.



I tried Pathfinder 2 as a caster. Nearly every spell took 2 actions to cast, and just that was a drag. It needed more variety there. I did like the spells that did more based on how many actions you spent casting them, it was a fun tradeoff to make. But there weren't very many of those.

Total aside, but Castle Falkenstein handled something like this in an engaging way. You had to play cards into a pool each turn to build up your spell power, either to a certain threshold or just for more effect, maybe both, I don't remember exactly. But you still felt like you were doing something on your turn even if your spell wasn't actually going off yet.


----------



## Minigiant

Ruin Explorer said:


> Hunter's Mark makes no more/less sense as Martial than literally dozens of Martial bonus-damage abilities)



The Perception and Survival bonuses are a bit too mystical unless you say Hunters Mark .


Ruin Explorer said:


> WotC decided to go the opposite way to for example, giving Rangers a Climb Speed, and made them into actual spells.



Because giving a swim speed requires a creating a new spell.


----------



## Gammadoodler

niklinna said:


> I tried Pathfinder 2 as a caster. Nearly every spell took 2 actions to cast, and just that was a drag. It needed more variety there. I did like the spells that did more based on how many actions you spent casting them, it was a fun tradeoff to make. But there weren't very many of those.
> 
> Total aside, but Castle Falkenstein handled something like this in an engaging way. You had to play cards into a pool each turn to build up your spell power, either to a certain threshold or just for more effect, maybe both, I don't remember exactly. But you still felt like you were doing something on your turn even if your spell wasn't actually going off yet.



Oh yeah, not advocating wholesale adoption Of pf2e spellcasting, just that there are a few spells that will let you spend multiple turns' worth of actions to power them up (e.g horison thunder sphere). No real idea if they are any good, so much as that there is a template for slower chunkier spellcasting. 

I wonder if something like spending some hp could work as an equivalent power-up resource to the power cards you mention..


----------



## Gammadoodler

Minigiant said:


> The Perception and Survival bonuses are a bit too mystical unless you say Hunters Mark .



Are they?


> You choose a creature you can see within range and mystically mark it as your quarry. Until the spell effect ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack, and you have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) check you make to find it. If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to mark a new creature.



Like, if we take out the word "mystically" from the effect description, does it sound like something a Ranger should be incapable of without magic?


----------



## Olrox17

Arilyn said:


> Rangers could also get an ability that a good survival roll practically let's them see into the past while examing tracks.
> 
> In their favoured terrain, they'd get bonuses that make them really scary predators.
> 
> They should have an intuitive sense of their natural surroundings, making them alert to traps and hard to fool with illusions.
> 
> A ranger can hide the groups' camp, making it more likely that they get an undisturbed rest.
> 
> With time a ranger could collect healing herbs. They have to be fresh to maintain benefits, so no hoarding them.
> 
> One problem, I see with Ranger design is that their basic abilities are forced into being realistic. This leads to comments that a fighter with survival skills is a ranger. But since other non spellcasting classes have over the top abilities, surely our ranger can too without needing spells.



I'm intrigued by the concept of the razor-sharp senses Ranger. A passable warrior, good at skills (expertise), but the main class features all focus on an almost supernatural ability to listen, smell and watch their surroundings. Then you can give them limited spell casting on a subclass basis, like eldritch knights and arcane tricksters.


----------



## niklinna

Gammadoodler said:


> Oh yeah, not advocating wholesale adoption Of pf2e spellcasting, just that there are a few spells that will let you spend multiple turns' worth of actions to power them up (e.g horison thunder sphere). No real idea if they are any good, so much as that there is a template for slower chunkier spellcasting.
> 
> I wonder if something like spending some hp could work as an equivalent power-up resource to the power cards you mention..



I think that would be pretty awesome. I find risk/reward tradeoffs like that to be a lot of fun.


----------



## Minigiant

Gammadoodler said:


> Are they?
> 
> Like, if we take out the word "mystically" from the effect description, does it sound like something a Ranger should be incapable of without magic?



No.

How does a ranger gain better tracking sense against a single target on a duration outside of magic?

Now if you said the ranger had enhanced senses then it could be martial but like a canine or avian it would be always on.

Now I'm not against giving Rangers dog smell, eagle eyes, and rabbit ears. But that's not Hunters Mark.


----------



## Haplo781

Minigiant said:


> No.
> 
> How does a ranger gain better tracking sense against a single target on a duration outside of magic?



By focusing your undivided attention on it?


----------



## Gammadoodler

Minigiant said:


> No.
> 
> How does a ranger gain better tracking sense against a single target on a duration outside of magic?
> 
> Now if you said the ranger had enhanced senses then it could be martial but like a canine or avian it would be always on.
> 
> Now I'm not against giving Rangers dog smell, eagle eyes, and rabbit ears. But that's not Hunters Mark.



You really think there are zero nonmagical ways to obtained an advantaged game state on a skill check?

You don't think just being better at focussing would be adequate?

It's not that different from fighting spirit on the samurai or rage on a barbarian, neither of which needs spellcasting.


----------



## Minigiant

Haplo781 said:


> By focusing your undivided attention on it?





Gammadoodler said:


> You really think there are zero nonmagical ways to obtained an advantaged game state on a skill check?
> 
> You don't think just being better at focussing would be adequate?
> 
> It's not that different from fighting spirit on the samurai or rage on a barbarian, neither of which needs spellcasting.



Sure. But Hunters Mark isn't heightened senses. It's a Mark you can sense out of the range of your normal senses.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Minigiant said:


> Sure. But Hunters Mark isn't heightened senses. It's a Mark you can sense out of the range of your normal senses.



What do you base this on?

If you exclude the word "mystically" from the spell description, there is zero hint of this. The effect is,

".._you have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) check you make to find it (the creature you have marked)_"

..which is exactly the kind of effect one might expect from being focused on the target..

It makes no reference to any kind of magical mark that you can detect... It's fine if that's how you like to think of it.. But there's nothing inherently magical in limited-use advantaged perception/survival checks. 

Edit: Also, advantage to perception/survival checks _*is*_ like the textbook definition of "heightened senses" within the context of D&D 5e.


----------



## Staffan

UngeheuerLich said:


> Only thing I said: not every DM is designing their adventures around the player's abilities, some DM's use premade adventures. So having abilities that are only useful in very narrow enviroments can be problematic for them.



If you're doing a pre-made adventure/campaign, you should probably discuss things with your players before/while making PCs.

The Pathfinder adventure paths traditionally come with an online Player's Guide. Lately, they've been fairly bland, but the early ones usually had good advice for making PCs work within the AP. For example, the Serpent's Skull player's guide had these recommendations for rangers:




Or for bards:




So, not giving away the whole plot or anything, but "These are options that will be useful."



Bill Zebub said:


> I think it would be super-fun if high level spells took multiple/many rounds to cast, and the martials had to protect them until complete.




That sounds like a fun tactical exercise, but I can imagine how fun it would not be to have the other players take 1-5 minutes each per turn, plus the DM having like ten monsters of three different kinds all taking their turns, and then when my initiative comes up I say "I keep casting Meteor Swarm, round 2 of 5."


----------



## Minigiant

Gammadoodler said:


> What do you base this on?
> 
> If you exclude the word "mystically" from the spell description, there is zero hint of this. The effect is,
> 
> ".._you have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) check you make to find it (the creature you have marked)_"
> 
> ..which is exactly the kind of effect one might expect from being focused on the target..
> 
> It makes no reference to any kind of magical mark that you can detect... It's fine if that's how you like to think of it.. But there's nothing inherently magical in limited-use advantaged perception/survival checks.
> 
> Edit: Also, advantage to perception/survival checks _*is*_ like the textbook definition of "heightened senses" within the context of D&D 5e.



The part where the mark works when the target is out of your sight and hearing range on a duration.

It's one thing to say your ranger has heightened senses. It's another to say your quarry is 5 miles away but you still sense them. That's blatantly supernatural.

If Hunters Mark was just damage then fine. You can only damage stuff in your sight or hearing range

I have no problem with a ranger sensing a foe miles away or gaining the nose of a wolf and tracking them by scent. But if it's on an arbitrary duration, it's magical. At least supernatural. Make it always on and it becomes a trained martial ability.

As currently written Hunter's Mark is a magical mark.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Staffan said:


> If you're doing a pre-made adventure/campaign, you should probably discuss things with your players before/while making PCs.




Never spoke against that and this is good advice. However, adventures happen to take you from one enviroment to the other. So you have to hope it is exactly at the point where you get your next favoured terrain as 2014 ranger.

My response as DM would be: after some downtime, you get accustomed to the land and just swap it out or add one extra favoured terrain... I mean, it is a ribbon feature. Why not just allow the ranger to learn more of them...


----------



## Bill Zebub

Also, isn't "Favored Enemy" sort of oxymoronic?  Shouldn't it be "_Un_favored Enemy"?  "Arch-Enemy"?


----------



## Minigiant

Bill Zebub said:


> Also, isn't "Favored Enemy" sort of oxymoronic?  Shouldn't it be "_Un_favored Enemy"?  "Arch-Enemy"?



No,it's your favored enemy to kill.

Bard are horny. Barbarians are stupid. Wizards are wimps. Rogues are edgy. Rangers are racist.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> No,it's your favored enemy to kill.
> 
> Brd are horny. Barbarians are stupid. Wizards are wimps. Rogues are edgy. Rangers are racist.




"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals.  I just hate plants."


----------



## Gammadoodler

Minigiant said:


> The part where the mark works when the target is out of your sight and hearing range on a duration.
> 
> It's one thing to say your ranger has heightened senses. It's another to say your quarry is 5 miles away but you still sense them. That's blatantly supernatural.
> 
> If Hunters Mark was just damage then fine. You can only damage stuff in your sight or hearing range
> 
> I have no problem with a ranger sensing a foe miles away or gaining the nose of a wolf and tracking them by scent. But if it's on an arbitrary duration, it's magical. At least supernatural. Make it always on and it becomes a trained martial ability.
> 
> As currently written Hunter's Mark is a magical mark.



You think you need magic to be good at following the tracks of and finding a creature you've focused your attention on?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Gammadoodler said:


> You think you need magic to be good at following the tracks of and finding a creature you've focused your attention on?




I think consciousness is magic.  So....yes?


----------



## Gammadoodler

Bill Zebub said:


> I think consciousness is magic.  So....yes?



Would make anti-magic fields a looooot more threatening.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Gammadoodler said:


> Would make anti-magic fields a looooot more threatening.




"Mmmm....I suddenly got a craving for pineapple pizza..."
"You must be in an anti-magic field! Move!"


----------



## Micah Sweet

niklinna said:


> I think that would be pretty awesome. I find risk/reward tradeoffs like that to be a lot of fun.



Me too.  I wish we were more representative of WotC's fans.


----------



## Minigiant

Gammadoodler said:


> You think you need magic to be good at following the tracks of and finding a creature you've focused your attention on?



if its on a changeable duration, yes.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Minigiant said:


> if its on a changeable duration, yes.



Like it's impossible to just... focus longer?

Clearly we disagree here. 

To me Hunters Mark is "because I said so" magic rather than anything obviously supernatural. It's targeted barbarian rage without the damage resistance. 

The amount of work to convert it from spell to mundane class feature would be astonishingly small.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I was thinking of a Hunters Mark that’s mechanically sort of like Reckless Attacks: you go into a kind of focused state, focus intently on one enemy, giving bonuses (whatever they might be), but at the cost of not paying attention to other enemies, who perhaps have advantage on attacks against you. Awesome against a single enemy, very dangerous against groups.

Either that or a giant, red magical arrow bobbing over the target’s head, showing everybody where he is, even from the other side of Warsong Gulch. ($&#% Hunters, ok?)


----------



## Gammadoodler

Bill Zebub said:


> I was thinking of a Hunters Mark that’s mechanically sort of like Reckless Attacks: you go into a kind of focused state, focus intently on one enemy, giving bonuses (whatever they might be), but at the cost of not paying attention to other enemies, who perhaps have advantage on attacks against you. Awesome against a single enemy, very dangerous against groups.
> 
> Either that or a giant, red magical arrow bobbing over the target’s head, showing everybody where he is, even from the other side of Warsong Gulch. ($&#% Hunters, ok?)



I think the tradeoff makes sense thematically, but the bonus would need to be huge for that big of a penalty or the Ranger would need significantly more robust defensive options.

Barbarians get rage damage resistance and bonus damage with an _option_ to reckless attack. Always on Reckless Attack without damage resistance would be suicidal (less so if monsters can't crit). Maybe add an easier ability to hide way earlier?

Maybe it could be slightly less hyper-focused and more just alert, keep exploration bonuses, reduce or eliminate damage bonus to attacks but offer some expanded reaction options (e.g ranged opportunity attack, reaction seek action, etc.) ?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Gammadoodler said:


> I think the tradeoff makes sense thematically, but the bonus would need to be huge for that big of a penalty or the Ranger would need significantly more robust defensive options.
> 
> Barbarians get rage damage resistance and bonus damage with an _option_ to reckless attack. Always on Reckless Attack without damage resistance would be suicidal (less so if monsters can't crit). Maybe add an easier ability to hide way earlier?
> 
> Maybe it could be slightly less hyper-focused and more just alert, keep exploration bonuses, reduce or eliminate damage bonus to attacks but offer some expanded reaction options (e.g ranged opportunity attack, reaction seek action, etc.) ?




Well, you wouldn't have to always use it.  Like I said, against a single boss there's no downside.  But even against a group, if you're shooting from range maybe there's still no downside.  (It partially depends on whether the DM plays the monsters so that they _know_ they'll have advantage against you.). Or maybe you pop it after the minions are dead.  Against two enemies, maybe an ally has one of them preoccupied, so you focus on the other one.  There's a whole range of possibilities, and I think part of the fun is figuring out when and how to use it.

What I like about designs like this is that it's not a no-brainer (does the double negative make it a "brainer"?).

But really I popped into the thread to say that I wish I, in real life, could cast _speak with animals._ Just once. I would really love to have a 10 minute conversation with my 6 month old pup, to explain some ground rules.


----------



## Horwath

here is my take on the Ranger:









						Ranger a la carte; be the Ranger that you want to be...
					

Right now people want for Ranger to be everything and anything: A woodsman, a marksman, a tracker, a beastman, a dualwielding storm of swords, an expert, some kind of wilderness rogue, a naturalist healer, some level of druid-like spellcaster.  Ranger can be all of those, but maybe not the same...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Olrox17

Horwath said:


> here is my take on the Ranger:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ranger a la carte; be the Ranger that you want to be...
> 
> 
> Right now people want for Ranger to be everything and anything: A woodsman, a marksman, a tracker, a beastman, a dualwielding storm of swords, an expert, some kind of wilderness rogue, a naturalist healer, some level of druid-like spellcaster.  Ranger can be all of those, but maybe not the same...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.enworld.org



That’s an interesting thought experiment, almost a “build your own class”. Makes me think even more that giving something similar to warlock invocations to the ranger would works well. Instead of spellcasting, of course, which could be reserved to subclasses.


----------



## Horwath

Olrox17 said:


> That’s an interesting thought experiment, almost a “build your own class”. Makes me think even more that giving something similar to warlock invocations to the ranger would works well. Instead of spellcasting, of course, which could be reserved to subclasses.



It is build your own class, but choice of abilities are mostly "rangery" in theme.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Gammadoodler said:


> The amount of work to convert it from spell to mundane class feature would be astonishingly small.



I agree. So the question is, why didn't they do that? Loads of other Martials and even loads of Ranger subclasses have abilities to do a small amount of extra damage like that without it being a spell. If anything, it's the norm.

So why did they make Rangers have to spam a weird concentration-free, always-known (but not always active!) version of a spell? It doesn't fit the theme. It's not tradition. It's just weird. 

My feeling is it's essentially "trolling" from WotC to see how people react. If there's no pushback they're likely to keep going with this sort of "let's make non-magical stuff into spells".


----------



## Branduil

The more I think about it, the more I think that 50% of the problems people have with a spellcasting Ranger could be solved if they just put in a ribbon explaining how Ranger spellcasting is different and making it more in line with both people's mental image and the lore.

The other 50% could be solved by taking out the weird damage-dealing spells like Hunter's Mark and Conjure Volley and just making them Ranger features, like they really should be in the first place. This will also make it easier for the features to not just suck horribly like Conjure Volley since they don't have to balance half-caster spells with full casters.


----------



## Olrox17

Ruin Explorer said:


> I agree. So the question is, why didn't they do that? Loads of other Martials and even loads of Ranger subclasses have abilities to do a small amount of extra damage like that without it being a spell. If anything, it's the norm.
> 
> So why did they make Rangers have to spam a weird concentration-free, always-known (but not always active!) version of a spell? It doesn't fit the theme. It's not tradition. It's just weird.
> 
> My feeling is it's essentially "trolling" from WotC to see how people react. If there's no pushback they're likely to keep going with this sort of "let's make non-magical stuff into spells".



I wouldn't call it trolling, because of the negative connotations of using that word, but yeah, they are testing if they can get away with turning every feature that is even slightly complex into an existing spell. The Hunter's Conjure Barrage = Multiattack is an obvious example.



Branduil said:


> The more I think about it, the more I think that 50% of the problems people have with a spellcasting Ranger could be solved if they just put in a ribbon explaining how Ranger spellcasting is different and making it more in line with both people's mental image and the lore.
> 
> The other 50% could be solved by taking out the weird damage-dealing spells like Hunter's Mark and Conjure Volley and just making them Ranger features, like they really should be in the first place. This will also make it easier for the features to not just suck horribly like Conjure Volley since they don't have to balance half-caster spells with full casters.



I think that would be an acceptable compromise.


----------



## Minigiant

Ruin Explorer said:


> I agree. So the question is, why didn't they do that? Loads of other Martials and even loads of Ranger subclasses have abilities to do a small amount of extra damage like that without it being a spell. If anything, it's the norm.
> 
> So why did they make Rangers have to spam a weird concentration-free, always-known (but not always active!) version of a spell? It doesn't fit the theme. It's not tradition. It's just weird.
> 
> My feeling is it's essentially "trolling" from WotC to see how people react. If there's no pushback they're likely to keep going with this sort of "let's make non-magical stuff into spells".



It feels like a combination of trolling and fear.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Minigiant said:


> It feels like a combination of trolling and fear.



Fear of what though?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> It feels like a combination of trolling and fear.




Feels like market testing and optimism to me.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> Fear of what though?



Fear of affecting their bottom line.


----------



## Minigiant

Ruin Explorer said:


> Fear of what though?



The post publication discussion of rangers was a mess. I don't think they are not scarred from it.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> The post publication discussion of rangers was a mess. I don't think they are not scarred from it.



I’m not sure “scarred” is the right term for a division that is smashing records, crushing Amazon rankings, and single-handedly driving the profits of a large corporation.


----------



## Minigiant

Bill Zebub said:


> I’m not sure “scarred” is the right term for a division that is smashing records, crushing Amazon rankings, and single-handedly driving the profits of a large corporation.



One doesn't exclude the other. 

After the mystic, ranger, and monk, WOTC went through hell in subsystem design.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> One doesn't exclude the other.
> 
> After the mystic, ranger, and monk, WOTC went through hell in subsystem design.




Either that or they love game design and their jobs and had a blast trying to solve the challenges. 

It seems to me you assume they are far more emotionally fragile than is necessarily the case.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Ruin Explorer said:


> I agree. So the question is, why didn't they do that? Loads of other Martials and even loads of Ranger subclasses have abilities to do a small amount of extra damage like that without it being a spell. If anything, it's the norm.
> 
> So why did they make Rangers have to spam a weird concentration-free, always-known (but not always active!) version of a spell? It doesn't fit the theme. It's not tradition. It's just weird.
> 
> My feeling is it's essentially "trolling" from WotC to see how people react. If there's no pushback they're likely to keep going with this sort of "let's make non-magical stuff into spells".



In OneD&D? I assume it's design inertia/economy(depending on your perspective). As easy as it would be to make Hunter's Mark a standalone class feature, it's even easier not to.

The spell already exists and is on the list for a few classes/subclasses (even if Hex is a near 1 for 1 substitute). Taking away a single characteristic and providing bonus usage/functionality to the ranger for that spell is a really streamlined way to affect the ranger without making waves elsewhere.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Gammadoodler said:


> In OneD&D? I assume it's design inertia/economy(depending on your perspective). As easy as it would be to make Hunter's Mark a standalone class feature, it's even easier not to.
> 
> The spell already exists and is on the list for a few classes/subclasses (even if Hex is a near 1 for 1 substitute). Taking away a single characteristic and providing bonus usage/functionality to the ranger for that spell is a really streamlined way to affect the ranger without making waves elsewhere.




Since hex is gone as a spell, it only makes sense to remove hunter's mark as a spell.

As much as I think conjure volley (buffed to sensible and 3rd level standard) is a good feature (including downcasting), I think hunter's mark should be ranger exclusive.


----------



## Gammadoodler

UngeheuerLich said:


> Since hex is gone as a spell, it only makes sense to remove hunter's mark as a spell.
> 
> As much as I think conjure volley (buffed to sensible and 3rd level standard) is a good feature (including downcasting), I think hunter's mark should be ranger exclusive.



Maybe I'm misreading something.. it looks, to me, like Hex is on the Arcane spell list?

That said, I'd be fine with Hunter's Mark as a ranger exclusive spell (and even more fine with it being a class ability instead of a spell).


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Gammadoodler said:


> Maybe I'm misreading something.. it looks, to me, like Hex is on the Arcane spell list?
> 
> That said, I'd be fine with Hunter's Mark as a ranger exclusive spell (and even more fine with it being a class ability instead of a spell).




You are correct.
I think I mixed it up with eldritch blast...


----------



## Pedantic

Branduil said:


> The more I think about it, the more I think that 50% of the problems people have with a spellcasting Ranger could be solved if they just put in a ribbon explaining how Ranger spellcasting is different and making it more in line with both people's mental image and the lore.
> 
> The other 50% could be solved by taking out the weird damage-dealing spells like Hunter's Mark and Conjure Volley and just making them Ranger features, like they really should be in the first place. This will also make it easier for the features to not just suck horribly like Conjure Volley since they don't have to balance half-caster spells with full casters.




I'm coming around to this as a sensible solution as well. There's not really a huge problem with giving rangers silent/still spell outright, or replacing them with extra material components you must either scavenge from a natural environment or spend X time after a long rest piecing together. 

Honestly, if each spellcasting class had a brief description of how V/S components manifested for their spellcasting that would already do some work. Even more so if that has some mechanical impact that varied across different casting traditions.


----------



## Willie the Duck

Ruin Explorer said:


> I agree. So the question is, why didn't they do that? Loads of other Martials and even loads of Ranger subclasses have abilities to do a small amount of extra damage like that without it being a spell. If anything, it's the norm.
> 
> So why did they make Rangers have to spam a weird concentration-free, always-known (but not always active!) version of a spell? It doesn't fit the theme. It's not tradition. It's just weird.
> 
> My feeling is it's essentially "trolling" from WotC to see how people react. If there's no pushback they're likely to keep going with this sort of "let's make non-magical stuff into spells".



I suspect it is just something that has become a thing onto itself. When they started work on 5e, they could have made hunter's mark and hail of thorns and conjure volley and zephyr strike into individual class features or invocations-with-another-name or in some cases just bonuses (like expertise or most fighting styles). They didn't and made them into spells. Now they are in a position where they can keep adding qualifiers to the spells, or they could go back and reinvent the wheel. Given how much they seem not to want to rock the boat (so much as polish the oar handles and trim a few heavy bits high up on the water line), I don't think they really want to risk a complete rebuild.

It's kind of like Sneak Attack -- when they were making 3e and all the classes were (in theory) supposed to be balanced at a given level instead of the thief being weak but levelling quicker, it made as much sense as anything else to take the cool-but-rarely-used backstab and turn it into something you tried to do as much as possible. But there were all sorts of consequences (rogues focusing on getting as many attacks per turn as possible and running from undead and constructs) and it might have made sense to ditch it for something else, but by then it was a thing onto itself and instead the design goal for the next version was to make a better version of Sneak Attack. Same with Rangers and spells in general (their spells could have become non-spells the instant AD&D got a skill system), and these 5e-specific 'spells for no particular reason' today. 



Branduil said:


> The more I think about it, the more I think that 50% of the problems people have with a spellcasting Ranger could be solved if they just put in a ribbon explaining how Ranger spellcasting is different and making it more in line with both people's mental image and the lore.



I think if that had happened earlier, it might have worked. Say in an oD&D expansion or AD&D there had been an aside next to rangers or clerics saying 'these abilities are presented as spells to standardize structure and minimize rules conflicts. Many of them can be reinvisioned as acts of extraordinary skill or capability. If you and your group do not like the concept of a godly-infused priest being the primary healer type in your campaign, they can instead be highly trained medics and the spells as a limited resource as a limited amount of chances to defeat death before their skills are spent [weeble wobble, hand-wavium on the rest of the cleric spells, I guess undead have bad memories of doctors]' I think people would be okay with it and the game would have progressed with a level of spell/non-spell transparency.  At this point? I don't know. They tried to do that with spells and psionics in early 3e (and spells and bo9S maneuvers in late 3e) and it was a bridge too far for some (unclear if that was many or a vocal minority). 



Branduil said:


> The other 50% could be solved by taking out the weird damage-dealing spells like Hunter's Mark and Conjure Volley and just making them Ranger features, like they really should be in the first place. This will also make it easier for the features to not just suck horribly like Conjure Volley since they don't have to balance half-caster spells with full casters.



Ranger features or ranger-only spells (for this purpose, I don't think the difference is large). The decision to have universal spells and inter-class sharing is a huge part of all this. If a ranger is okay casting it at L9, the cleric or wizard has to at L5 (unless it's on an unshared list, and then what even is the point of bards and all these feats to borrow from each other?). Even beyond that, you have to balance between someone who is giving up a single mace swing/cantrip to cast the spell compared to the person giving up a multiple-attack attack action (perhaps boosted by feats which sit idle whenever you don't attack). It's a non-trivial lift, so I'm not surprised it doesn't always work, but I am still a little intrigued that that's what they went with for the edition


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Gammadoodler said:


> In OneD&D? I assume it's design inertia/economy(depending on your perspective). As easy as it would be to make Hunter's Mark a standalone class feature, it's even easier not to.
> 
> The spell already exists and is on the list for a few classes/subclasses (even if Hex is a near 1 for 1 substitute). Taking away a single characteristic and providing bonus usage/functionality to the ranger for that spell is a really streamlined way to affect the ranger without making waves elsewhere.



One thing that's become very obvious over watching decades of game design is that the most "streamlined" or "elegant" way to do things is absolutely no a 1:1 match with the best way to do things in the longer term, or even the smart thing for a particular edition. I've see so much "streamlined" design streamline itself right into a wall lol.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bill Zebub said:


> Either that or they love game design and their jobs and had a blast trying to solve the challenges.
> 
> It seems to me you assume they are far more emotionally fragile than is necessarily the case.



Honestly, from some of the thing's they've said, and the way Crawford particularly has reacted to some criticism (and I'm not talking loony stuff), I'm not seeing the design team as particularly emotionally hardy. I don't think they're scared little deers, but I do think that it's not unreasonable to think there might be some things they're afraid to address.


----------



## Minigiant

Bill Zebub said:


> Either that or they love game design and their jobs and had a blast trying to solve the challenges.
> 
> It seems to me you assume they are far more emotionally fragile than is necessarily the case.



I'm not saying they are fragile. I'm saying they had horrible experinces attempting to design some aspects of D&D and they like most non-masochists will avoid dwelling in those areas as long as they can.

The 5e mystic/psionics situation was a disaster. The ranger redesign was a complete mess. And they straight up avoided other classes.

50 bucks the UA of the monk will be buffed to the gills to avoid criticism of it.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Ruin Explorer said:


> One thing that's become very obvious over watching decades of game design is that the most "streamlined" or "elegant" way to do things is absolutely no a 1:1 match with the best way to do things in the longer term, or even the smart thing for a particular edition. I've see so much "streamlined" design streamline itself right into a wall lol.



Sure. I've already expressed my reservations on the results of their efforts. But to their credit, this version does file down a lot of the rough edges on the class. They just also filed down a number of the parts of the class that made it interesting.

I might have been more ok with it if this had been the original 5e version of the ranger rather than the 3rd.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Minigiant said:


> 50 bucks the UA of the monk will be buffed to the gills to avoid criticism of it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Gammadoodler said:


> Sure. I've already expressed my reservations on the results of their efforts. But to their credit, this version does file down a lot of the rough edges on the class. They just also filed down a number of the parts of the class that made it interesting.
> 
> I might have been more ok with it if this had been the original 5e version of the ranger rather than the 3rd.



A round die can only roll one number, and even the DM isn't likely to fall for that one too often.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> 50 bucks the UA of the monk will be buffed to the gills to avoid criticism of it.




50 bucks the UA of the Wizard increases versatility in order to please their* Russian mistresses.

(Does that mean if the Wizard gets increased versatility, I'm correct about the Russian mistresses?)

*The antecedent of 'their' is 'WotC devs', not Wizards.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bill Zebub said:


> 50 bucks the UA of the Wizard increases versatility in order to please their* Russian mistresses.
> 
> (Does that mean if the Wizard gets increased versatility, I'm correct about the Russian mistresses?)
> 
> *The antecedent of 'their' is 'WotC devs', not Wizards.



I wonder... could the wizard get access to all spells on the arcane list instead of a spell book... or like warlock tome pact could the spellbook hold NON arcane spells.


----------



## Mephista

I don't think Putin cares enough about D&D to have the devs seduced.  You never know, but...


----------



## Horwath

Minigiant said:


> 50 bucks the UA of the monk will be buffed to the gills to avoid criticism of it.



HD d10 or d12 even.

light armor proficiency;
For AC pick two of STR, DEX, WIS or armor bonus

+1 skill proficiency

martial arts die progress from d4->d10 to d6->d12

all weapons are monk weapons.

regain one Ki point when you crit with attack or get critted.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

GMforPowergamers said:


> I wonder... could the wizard get access to all spells on the arcane list instead of a spell book... or like warlock tome pact could the spellbook hold NON arcane spells.



That's my take:

Access to all arcane spells, plus
Tomes/Staves/Wands/Orbs are a spellcasting focus (maybe with a small bonus ala 4e), plus
Access to most spells from a given school, no matter the spell list (so now Divination specialist can cast...Divination!), plus
Lose access to a single school in exchange of a buffed up spell DC on the chosen school, plus
Can add their Int mod to prepared spells if they have the Ritual tag, plus
Can add their Int mod to their Insight, Deception, Medicine checks

I thin that would be a less bland spellcaster without stepping too much on the toes of other casters.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Tomes/Staves/Wands/Orbs are a spellcasting focus (maybe with a small bonus ala 4e)



the orb giving disadvantage prof times per day and the wand giving dex mod to hit prof times per day and the staff adding wis to AC prof times per day would make me jump up and down for joy


----------



## Mephista

GMforPowergamers said:


> the orb giving disadvantage prof times per day and the wand giving dex mod to hit prof times per day and the staff adding wis to AC prof times per day would make me jump up and down for joy



Hot take.  I feel that the only really successful wizard subclass after the 8 schools in the PHB have been the Bladesinger and Scribe. Blade and book using specialist. 

Wizard should make subclasses based on tool use.  Staff and orb and wand, oh my


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Mephista said:


> Hot take.  I feel that the only really successful wizard subclass after the 8 schools in the PHB have been the Bladesinger and Scribe. Blade and book using specialist.
> 
> Wizard should make subclasses based on tool use.  Staff and orb and wand, oh my



I am sure there is a legacy "need" to make the specialists something, but I can't really imagine why we really need them.


----------



## Bill Zebub

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am sure there is a legacy "need" to make the specialists something, but I can't really imagine why we really need them.



Because so many people complain that with a long rest the Wizard can reconfigure himself to be any specialist. School restrictions would/could dampen that. 

Not saying that’s what I want; just giving a reason why.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am sure there is a legacy "need" to make the specialists something, but I can't really imagine why we really need them.



At least they could have been made as a single subclass called Specialist or whatevs; the features those subclasses gains are so minor that just having generic boost to spells of particular schools would be probably as desirable.

*2*: Pick a school: 50% less time/cash to copy spells AND craft scrolls or magic items replicating spells from that schools.
Pick to spells from your school for each level, they are always prepared and dont count against your max prepared spells.

*6: *+1 Spell DC/ Spell attack with your chosen school's spells. +1 again at lvl 14. Your allies have advantage on saves against your spells from your school.

*10*: Advantage on saves & skill checks against your school. Resistance to the damage dealt by spells of your school.

*14*: Concentration on spells from you school cant be broken. When you cast a spell from your school of 2nd level or higher using a spell slot, you regain one expended spell slot. The slot you regain must be of a level lower than the spell you cast and can't be higher than 3rd level.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Tales and Chronicles said:


> At least they could have been made as a single subclass called Specialist or whatevs; the features those subclasses gains are so minor that just having generic boost to spells of particular schools would be probably as desirable.



Eww... Yes, that list of gains _is_ incredibly boring. But e.g. the Evoker's ability to protect people, the Diviner's dice manipulation, and the Illusionist's ability to manipulate illusions and to make their illusions real aren't.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Neonchameleon said:


> Eww... Yes, that list of gains _is_ incredibly boring. But e.g. the Evoker's ability to protect people, the Diviner's dice manipulation, and the Illusionist's ability to manipulate illusions and to make their illusions real aren't.



Agreed, much like the Champion for Wizards, but they require 8 archetypes for minimal gains. Maybe if their features were like the sub-choices of the Hunter or Totemist? But the page count would be a little much for a single subclass.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Tales and Chronicles said:


> At least they could have been made as a single subclass called Specialist or whatevs; the features those subclasses gains are so minor that just having generic boost to spells of particular schools would be probably as desirable.
> 
> *2*: Pick a school: 50% less time/cash to copy spells AND craft scrolls or magic items replicating spells from that schools.
> Pick to spells from your school for each level, they are always prepared and dont count against your max prepared spells.
> 
> *6: *+1 Spell DC/ Spell attack with your chosen school's spells. +1 again at lvl 14. Your allies have advantage on saves against your spells from your school.
> 
> *10*: Advantage on saves & skill checks against your school. Resistance to the damage dealt by spells of your school.
> 
> *14*: Concentration on spells from you school cant be broken. When you cast a spell from your school of 2nd level or higher using a spell slot, you regain one expended spell slot. The slot you regain must be of a level lower than the spell you cast and can't be higher than 3rd level.




I proposed something similar: your chosen school(s) works normally, but you have penalties in other schools. At higher levels you can add new schools _or_ improve one of your existing schools.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Agreed, much like the Champion for Wizards, but they require 8 archetypes for minimal gains. Maybe if their features were like the sub-choices of the Hunter or Totemist? But the page count would be a little much for a single subclass.



I think that my issue with the schools is that they _should be_ evocative - but historical versions have been boring. And some (not all but some) of the 5e schools were clearly slapped together. I mean I think the game would be actively slightly improved if they dropped the Transmuter from the game.

As it is I'd cut about half the school specialisms from the PHB

Necromancy is built round a single spell. Any such one trick ponies should be donated to the more focused and less flexible Sorcerers.
Enchanters are in a similar position; they are _weird_ when the bard exists.
Transmuters could be done well but weren't


----------



## gorice

The thing that made the spell schools interesting in AD&D was that you had to make hard choices about which schools you wanted to take and leave. I don't think that really matches the current WotC ethos of giving spellcasters options on top of options.


----------



## Bill Zebub

gorice said:


> The thing that made the spell schools interesting in AD&D was that you had to make hard choices about which schools you wanted to take and leave. I don't think that really matches the current WotC ethos of giving spellcasters options on top of options.




Agree. While I’m not in the camp that has an inferiority complex about my martials, Wizards in particular feel bland to me. Like the time I thought I would make the world’s greatest smoothie by putting every kind of fruit in it, and it ended up tasting like nothing at all. And it was brown.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Bill Zebub said:


> And it was brown



Wizard: the brown smoothie class.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Neonchameleon said:


> Necromancy is built round a single spell. Any such one trick ponies should be donated to the more focused and less flexible Sorcerers.
> Enchanters are in a similar position; they are _weird_ when the bard exists.
> Transmuters could be done well but weren't



Indeed. And what's worse is that there clearly modern archetypes to take inspiration from in different medias. I mean, Diablo had bad-ass necromancers for like 25 years, transmuters being able to shape mater into cool items (the real artificers, IMHO) or golems have been a thing since BG, or enchanter/illusionist/Mesmer/Cypher from Guild War or Pillars being the real masters of mind magic without the ''need'' of a psionic class arent all that new either.


----------



## Yaarel

Neonchameleon said:


> Enchanters are in a similar position; they are _weird_ when the bard exists.



You just convinced me. The Wizard should lose access to the Enchantment school. In 1e, the Wizard was the everything magic class. But in 5e, we have other kinds of mages. The 5e Wizard needs more focus.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Yaarel said:


> You just convinced me. The Wizard should lose access to the Enchantment school. In 1e, the Wizard was the everything magic class. But in 5e, we have other kinds of mages. The 5e Wizard needs more focus.



Give them ''magic as science'' with the magic of matter (Conjuration, Evocation, Transmutation) and leave the more ''spiritual magic'' to clerics, ''words of magic'' ''magic of emotions'' to bards.

All in all, I'd say that the Artificer is such a weak class that it could be use as the basic for Wizard with fullcasting. Enchanting items with power, flash of genius etc fit well with the bookish class that is the Wizard.


----------



## Yaarel

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Give them ''magic as science'' with the magic of matter (Conjuration, Evocation, Transmutation) and leave the more ''spiritual magic'' to clerics, ''words of magic'' ''magic of emotions'' to bards.
> 
> All in all, I'd say that the Artificer is such a weak class that it could be use as the basic for Wizard with fullcasting. Enchanting items with power, flash of genius etc fit well with the bookish class that is the Wizard.



In an other thread, I tweak the school lists. So "Evocation" includes all elemental spells, and Transmutation is only primal spells, comprising Animal, Plant, and Healing spells. Conjuration is various applications of force and magical energy.

In this context, the Wizard is: Conjuration, Evocation, and Illusion.



I feel the Cleric and Warlock are a better go-to for Necromancy (including Undead, Fiend, and Aberration).


----------



## Gammadoodler

Bill Zebub said:


> I proposed something similar: your chosen school(s) works normally, but you have penalties in other schools. At higher levels you can add new schools _or_ improve one of your existing schools.



I'd be for this just to see how WoTC tries to balance the schools.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Gammadoodler said:


> I'd be for this just to see how WoTC tries to balance the schools.



Although it would be good to try, it’s not necessary to succeed. If, say, divination is so weak that few people choose it, and even then only at a higher level, so what?  Plus it means that other classes with access to divination will get more out of it.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Bill Zebub said:


> Although it would be good to try, it’s not necessary to succeed. If, say, divination is so weak that few people choose it, and even then only at a higher level, so what?  Plus it means that other classes with access to divination will get more out of it.



Sure I wouldn't need perfection. It's just currently a waaay bigger job than it looks like they'd have the appetite for, based on the kinds of changes they're looking at so far.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bill Zebub said:


> Don't all legged creatures have weak ankles?
> Do two tieflings (or stirges, or purple worms) really count as a "horde"?  (And is "more than one opponent" really a favored enemy or more of a tactical situation?)
> Don't nearly all of them bleed?
> 
> Again, I'm not taking issue with the mechanics themselves, just with the assertion that the concept is fine but WotC implemented in badly.  I think the concept is an awkward fit for the needs of an RPG.
> 
> I'd rather just see the best-designed mechanics possible, without constraining them by trying to fit them to the label of "favored enemy".
> 
> EDIT: Also, I have no need to "win" this point and persuade others.  Just stating how I feel about it as I contemplate what I think a Ranger should be.  Not that I have any hope/expectation WotC will agree with me.



I know this was a few pages back, but I believe the idea is supposed to be that the ranger is adaptable enough to apply the techniques they honed in fighting their favored enemy to novel situations. So, with hoardbreaker for example, it’s not that their favored enemy is “any two creatures standing next to each other,” it’s that through fighting a favored enemy that usually fights in large groups (let’s say it’s kobolds, for example), they got really good at fighting enemies that stand in close formation, which turns out to be useful not just against kobolds, but against any two creatures standing next to each other. The colossus slayer’s favored enemy may have been giants, but in their experience fighting giants, they learned to more effectively harry already wounded enemies. The Banisher’s favored enemy may have been demons, but it turns out that the techniques used for sending demons back to the abyss are also useful in sending all sorts of other extraplanar creatures back to their home planes. Etc.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> I know this was a few pages back, but I believe the idea is supposed to be that the ranger is adaptable enough to apply the techniques they honed in fighting their favored enemy to novel situations. So, with hoardbreaker for example, it’s not that their favored enemy is “any two creatures standing next to each other,” it’s that through fighting a favored enemy that usually fights in large groups (let’s say it’s kobolds, for example), they got really good at fighting enemies that stand in close formation, which turns out to be useful not just against kobolds, but against any two creatures standing next to each other. The colossus slayer’s favored enemy may have been giants, but in their experience fighting giants, they learned to more effectively harry already wounded enemies.




Oh, yeah, I get the idea behind it.  I've just always...or, at least, in most cases...found the link between the naming and the actual mechanics to be so tenuous that I wonder why its worth trying to keep up the facade. 

But maybe I'm being overly picky/critical.

Maybe what would work is to make these features more flavorful/specific, but less generally useful, and then buff the class in other, more reliable ways.  For example...



Charlaquin said:


> The Banisher’s favored enemy may have been demons, but it turns out that the techniques used for sending demons back to the abyss are also useful in sending all sorts of other extraplanar creatures back to their home planes. Etc.




I like the flavor of this, but how about making it actually about banishing?  "When you make a weapon attack against a creature that is not on its home plane and score a critical hit, until your next turn that creature suffers disadvantage on saving throws against magic that would return it to its plane."

Super, super, flavorful (in my opinion) but will only rarely actually come into play, which means its practically a ribbon (and the class can have other features to compensate).  But when it does get used it will feel awesome.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bill Zebub said:


> Oh, yeah, I get the idea behind it.  I've just always...or, at least, in most cases...found the link between the naming and the actual mechanics to be so tenuous that I wonder why its worth trying to keep up the facade.
> 
> But maybe I'm being overly picky/critical.



Well, because we want the flavor of the ranger, and we also want its class features to be good, and not to be DM/campaign dependent.


Bill Zebub said:


> Maybe what would work is to make these features more flavorful/specific, but less generally useful, and then buff the class in other, more reliable ways.  For example...
> I like the flavor of this, but how about making it actually about banishing?  "When you make a weapon attack against a creature that is not on its home plane and score a critical hit, until your next turn that creature suffers disadvantage on saving throws against magic that would return it to its plane."
> 
> Super, super, flavorful (in my opinion) but will only rarely actually come into play, which means it’s practically a ribbon (and the class can have other features to compensate).  But when it does get used it will feel awesome.



I like that it’s actually about banishing, but I hate that it’s so weak, and that it’s reliant on magic. Why would we want one of the ranger’s few unique defining features to just be a ribbon? What else would you give them to make them actually capable? More spells? No, thanks.


----------



## Neonchameleon

gorice said:


> The thing that made the spell schools interesting in AD&D was that you had to make hard choices about which schools you wanted to take and leave. I don't think that really matches the current WotC ethos of giving spellcasters options on top of options.



The thing is that that type of "interesting" is interesting _at character creation_. During play however 100% of the interesting part of this is over and it's barely even thematic.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is that that type of "interesting" is interesting _at character creation_. During play however 100% of the interesting part of this is over and it's barely even thematic.



Oh I don’t know. I think solving problems with a more constrained toolbox is interesting. Maybe we are talking about different things.


----------



## niklinna

There's a difference between the distinction being immediately relevant to a decision, and the consequences of that decision being relevant. Now I'm wondering how an encounter would go where the foes can only be affected by spells of a particular school, and that was an immediate factor in the moment.....


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is that that type of "interesting" is interesting _at character creation_. During play however 100% of the interesting part of this is over and it's barely even thematic.



I don't really agree, based on 2E Specialist Wizards, of which I saw quite a few.

They definitely more interesting to watch be played than generalist Wizards. Transmuters and Illusionists particularly.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Bill Zebub said:


> Oh I don’t know. I think solving problems with a more constrained toolbox is interesting. Maybe we are talking about different things.



But in AD&D your toolbox _wasn't_ significantly more constrained by specialising. You only knew a handful of spells by default anyway - you just had a slightly more focused toolbox and far more spells you could cast.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Neonchameleon said:


> But in AD&D your toolbox _wasn't_ significantly more constrained by specialising. You only knew a handful of spells by default anyway - you just had a slightly more focused toolbox and far more spells you could cast.



Ah. I wasn’t specifically defending AD&D’s implementation. Just saying that I can imagine it working well.


----------



## shadowoflameth

My thoughts on the Playtest Ranger:
Expertise. I think this is fine both thematically and in power level. And it does not hurt backward compatibility.
Favored Enemy. Give the Ranger his choice of actual Favored Enemy. Instead of altering a spell, (Hunter's Mark) make this a non-magical ability that the Ranger has. Then it can't be dispelled or counter spelled and doesn't require casting. If you say that actual favored enemy is always considered affected by it, then the choice of enemy has value and the Ranger can still put it on someone else, and simplify. Just say add one damage die to the attack. i.e. Longbow does 2d10 instead of one vs. the target.
Spell Casting. I think this is fine. Adding Cantrips and making the ranger a prepared caster works, but give classes an actual spell list both for ease of use and to avoid missing spells that the Ranger should thematically have. You could leave out spells that they shouldn't have and to preserve backward compatibility. Give Rangers a spell focus.
Fighting Style. I think this is fine both thematically and in power level. And it does not hurt backward compatibility.
Sub-classes, deserve to be addressed individually. The ones presented are not great, and not terrible generally.
Feats, and Extra Attack work like they do for other classes and they are fine. 
Roving. This is a strong (though situational ability). Much more useful than the 5e counterpart but I think it's fine for a 7th level ability.
Tireless. The THP are unneeded to me. Just make ordinary exertion from travel, labor etc. not cause exhaustion to the Ranger. As a side note, I think we can stick to 5 levels of exhaustion. I like that the playtest version is streamlined but 6 levels is plenty to cause death.
Nature's Veil. Instead of altering a spell, (Invisibility) make this a non-magical ability that the Ranger has. Then it can't be dispelled or counter spelled and doesn't require casting. Just say, when the Ranger hides in a natural setting, he becomes invisible until revealed.
Foe slayer. This is good, and it should be for an 18th level ability, but simplify. Just say add one damage die to the attack. i.e. Favored enemy now makes a Longbow 3d10 instead of 2d10.
Epic Destiny. I like this idea a lot but make the choices truly Epic. It's 20th level.

My 2 cents only IMHO. I know some just don't like the Favored Enemy at all because it's so situational, but it's easily fixed by an ability that can be targeted if your actual favored enemy isn't present in the fight.


----------

