All I can imagine is that there was some internal playtest at WOTC where they gave the Ranger a class-feature, no concentration Hunter's Mark, and the DM immediately had a heart attack and half of the players crumbled to dust. Because they are unreasonably terrified of the Ranger being able to actually do something.
@@jacobtrost5048 The fact that monk was really not great probably makes the changes seem a lot better than they really is. But yeah, monk has it good 2024
There needs to be something a Ranger can do by level 3 that no other class can do, and it needs to be their most powerful ability that works great with the rest of their kit. This new version of the Ranger doesn’t have anything other classes can’t do until level 18 basically. Hunter’s Mark is a spell other classes could have access to, but the thing is… most classes wouldn’t even use it if they did have it!
I would say it's even worse, because Hunter's Mark is effectively a worse version of Hex. I have never met a ranger or warlock who didn't use Hunter's Mark or Hex. The Ranger really does need something though.
True, so I give my rangers primal awareness at level 3 + an animal handling ability from ua, so they can use a bonus action to command any friendly and willing animal. (It doesnt take the place of beastmaster, instead it functions more similar to a how a mount is commanded, the dm decides when and for how long the animal is friendly and willing. Its not a solution, but my rangers collect so many animal friends that they really get to live their character)
If you want a core identity for ranger, they should make ranger into being the martial version of a bard, with the concept being (always be prepared/boy scout vibes) allowing them to take a sprinkling of other classes features, because that is what the the situations they find themselves in, so that's the feature they need at that time.
I can tell you how I would redesign the ranger. Seperate them from the idea of being slightly magical, make magic use a subclass like the trickster rogue. Model the core class on the idea that they are a military special forces unit. Give them skills modelled on S.E.R.E. Survive, evade, resist, escape. Less effective in one on one combat than a fighter but better at engaging large groups of enemies and then dissapearing without a trace. Great example is Rambo in First Blood. You can be outnumbered and outgunned, but in the woods your the hunter. Everyone has a different idea of what a Ranger is & this wont be for everyone, but thats what subclasses should be for. Adding the "your flavor" to the class.
@@bradleyhurley6755 Considering I didn't specify any class abilities, I would say that's a bit presumptive. But for the sake of debate let's say I concede you this point. Why shouldn't the ranger fill the niche between these two classes & why doesn't this make it an independent class? Fighters skills are almost exclusively combat based & so are the rogues for the most part (not factoring subclasses). Does giving rangers larger number of utility skills that are helpful in and out of combat diminish the other classes? Does giving the ranger a damage boost suddenly infringe on the rogues territory? Does giving the ranger an extra attack infringe on the fighters? A better "ranger" can be made by multiclassing fighter/rogue than whats currently presented to us by WOTC, but that doesn't mean that it can't work.
@@maverick210189 You said "Survive, evade, resist, escape" is basically the Rogue's class features. Uncanny Dodge, Cunning action, Evasion, Expertise, Blindsense. And Ranger without Magic is effectively a fighter. Ranger's really need their own thing. Which is why I think they should have magic because it gives them a good way to be different than a fighter. Personally I think WotC should eliminate expertise, because now they have basically given it to half of the classes which really means, it probably shouldn't exist. Currently Rangers get a single extra attack at 5th level, which isn't helpful Compared to the fighters eventual 4 attacks. If you are the point you need to give the ranger 4 attacks also, you are still at why isn't the ranger just a subclass. You can make the Ranger concept just using a fighter. Fighter Arcane Archer is really a better ranger than a ranger.
@@bradleyhurley6755 I would like to prefix this by saying I don't intend for this to be an attack on you. "You said "Survive, evade, resist, escape" is basically the Rogue's class features. Uncanny Dodge, Cunning action, Evasion, Expertise, Blindsense". The same argument can be made for the monk's abilities, or the paladins, or the barbarians. I think what you're getting hung up on is the idea that this would just be an import of other classes abilities. I do agree that rangers need their own identification as a class, but simply saying magic is the solution is a bit limited. Yeah, it differentiates them from a fighter, but not a paladin. And what if I want to play a ranger who doesn't have magic to rely on but I don't want to resort to a fighter who's skills are only useful in combat or a rogue that spends their turn focusing on a single target because they are only getting a damage buff against a single target. I also never said give the ranger 4 attacks I just said an extra attack. Why can't a ranger have a third attack as a bonus action, without having to rely on dual wielding? Especially if it doesn't come online till, say 11th level. Your argument is just make a rogue or fighter they are better. YES, they are better in its current form. Thats why it needs to change.
@@maverick210189 Every class has an attack as a bonus action. If your rogue isn't using their bonus action to make a second attack they really should be. Also in terms of game mechanics every character should be focusing on the same opponent. You shouldn't ever focus on multiple targets unless you can get a good majority of the combatants, but even then that is only helpful if your attack can kill some of them. Any features outside of social and combat are always going to end up DM/Campaign specific. And a rogue with expertise in survival is going to be better than a ranger without or on par with a ranger who does. You really need to change a lot of other classes to get to a point with the ranger being able to not have magic and feel unique enough to justify. The paladin and ranger differ based on the type of spells they have. In a lot of ways both probably work better or just as well as a subclass for the fighter.
One of the hallmarks of the Ranger archetype, arguably, is awareness of their surroundings and an understanding of the creatures & plants that live in those many environments- a general sense of how everything coalesces into any given biome. And the design team pared that down into 3 Expertises. Which I don't think is enough to get players excited about anything. I had hoped they'd develop and expand upon the Primeval Awareness feature. Give the Ranger a "radar ping" they could use several times a day. This would be a thematic and eminently useful (as well as mostly class-unique) feature. This could be further developed with things like permanent Advantage on Perception, Nature, & Survival checks. Perhaps some bonuses for certain Tool sets (which they've touted ad having more and more specific rules applications.) This could fulfill the fantasy of the Ranger as the self-sufficient wilderness survivor- who makes their own Arrows, bows, swords, shoes, leather, etc. Still another aspect of Primeval Awareness could be prowess in navigating Difficult Terrain. The movement speed is a bit of a sticky wicket. They proclaim it as a hallmark of the class, but both Monks & Barbarians (& Rogues, situationally) have better movement. The climb & swim speeds are good. I think Proficiency in Constitution saves would help round out the "hardy" aspect of the fantasy. The Tireless feature is OK- except Temporary Hit Points are everywhere in 2014, so their value has become diluted. And the Exhaustion mechanic WOULD be fantastic... but we don't know what- if anything- causes Exhaustion. I fear this will be an empty feature that is SO situational, that it will be essentially worthless. As for Hunter's Mark. I wished they'd have just taken away the damage aspect of it. Make it a class feature (with no concentration) that increases the Ranger's ability to hit (and Critically hit) their Prey. Only the Champion Fighter has an increased Crit Range. That used to be a mechanic that changed from weapon to weapon, in earlier editions. But, I don't think a high level feature that Expands crit range for Rangers would step too much on the toes of the Champion, who can do that at Lvl 3. The Ranger's Hunter's Mark should increase their accuracy, their to-hit chance. Start it off as a +1, make it a +2 at level 10 or so. And then a +3 at level 17 or thereabouts. Make the increased crit range part of the capstone, perhaps with another increase to hit (+4?). This would be a UNIQUE TO THE CLASS mechanic that would highlight the fantasy of a Ranger's prowess at hunting- and hitting- their mark. Their... Hunter's Mark. Then, for increased damage, the designers could have given us the Ranger's concentration spells. Or subclass features. Etc. These are just some untested, unorganized, and unbalanced ideas that occurred to me while watching thus podcast. HOW, after 10 years of playing & feedback, could the design team not come up with anything better than what they've presented? It's a horrible disappointment. I think that, after the Monk and maybe the Barbarian, the Ranger needed the most attention and changes from its 2014 (as well as its Tasha's) incarnation. Sad....
I've thought for a long time that the Ranger's Favoured Terrain gets a lot of flack, but could have been turned into its greatest strength. Bring in the concepts from Final Fantasy's Geomancer class. Give the Ranger abilities based upon the terrain they're in and attuned to, and have those abilities scale as they level. For instance, you spend a day in Mountain terrain to attune to it. At level 1, you gain a climb speed, at level 6 you gain resistance to cold or bludgeoning, at level 10 you can cast Erupting Earth once per day without a slot. You could have other enhancements as you level, like attuning quicker or maybe using an attunement slot to attune to a terrain you're not in. Just something that plays into the fantasy of the Ranger using the environment itself to give themselves an edge that other classes may not have.
"It was about the fact that 5e has no exploration pillar." Nailed it. The primary thing that enables rangers to be dope is so underserved in 5e that it hobbles the class into nearly pointless-ness.
and here is the real kicker: I think current DnD has just the right amount of exploration. If anything, I'd cut even more of it out of the game. It's just not very exciting or interesting most of the time. And even if you somehow manage to make exploration more interesting you'd still need to find a way for the Ranger to contribute without 1) trivializing it entitely, thus making it pointless to play it out again and 2) making it mandatory for the group to have a Ranger, because what if nobody wants to play one. I don't know what to do with the ranger. If it were up to me, I'd probably demote it to a couple of Fighter subclasses and be done with it.
They were way too simplistic about this. Most of them were just denigrating the WotC designers rather than talking about this meta-problem, or giving constructive ways to use the Ranger.
My biggest frustration with the Ranger is that they absolutely *nailed* the concepts like 8 years ago with the “Revised Ranger” UA. But that was way too early in the lifecycle of the game to be talking about changes that big. Tasha’s was their big opportunity to bring in those concepts, but for whatever reason they had completely forgotten by then. I also can’t help but notice that Ranger was the only class who had exclusively *replacement* optional features, as opposed to *extra* replacement features. Despite “Favored Enemy” and “Favored Foe”, as well as “Natural Explorer” and “Deft Explorer” having so little overlap in terms of both theme and mechanics that there’s no real reason for Rangers to have not gotten all 4.
I just read the revised ranger, and it's so much better. It's way more usable, would have been a way better option than this new HM ranger. Just tweak it in a few places and it would have been great.
The four central fantasies of Ranger are, imo, pet owner, forensic detective / bounty hunter, big game (ie, monster) hunter, and military special forces. There's a little crossover with Fighter, a little with Rogue, and a little with Druid. Your archetypes are Drizzt, Aragorn, Bard the Hunter, Geralt of Rivia, and Sam Fisher. I've never understood why magic is treated as integral to the class. Sure, magic makes sense for some subclasses, just like Rogues get Arcane Trickster. But the core identity is a knowledge specialist trained to identify clues others might miss, track down elusive or challenging prey, and trap or critically hit them. Those are all precision skills, not necessarily magic. Hunter's mark as a spell is just silly.
Yeah, I hate having magic as central to the ranger. Basically no fantasy rangers use spells. The fantasy is the skilled woodsman. Hunter's Mark is the absolute worst design. Zero classes should have one spell as their core ability. It's boring for players and is just lazy game design.
Interesting mix of Ranger roles - tbh if you want a skill based class then there’s nothing to stop you going with a DEX fighter or a rogue. Pick sharpshooter as your feat and Outlander as your background and you’re pretty much there. For the Witcher Eldritch Knight works pretty well. DnD Ranger leans more into the elven woodland warrior ideal of being a guardian of nature and drawing power from that connection. That’s why 2014 PHB had BM and Hunter. If your fantasy is weapons and skill based then play a fighter.
@@psteer2002 fighters aren't skill based at all. That's the problem. They're the anti-skill character. I'd love a woodsman subclass for fighter and should probably design one.
@@NateFinch if you want skills go Rogue - with Cunning Action, Expertise etc. Or take Skilled as an origin feat, Skill Expert as a feat with fighter. There are so many options.
@@NateFinch I'd say like some rangers use spells, but theyre supposed to be so seamless you barely notice the spells. The youtuber Enter the Dungeon does a great video on it (Ranger Guide, around 16:30). Aragon keeping up with an elf while sprinting? longstrider. Calming down a horse? animal friendship. Mentions he can disappear if he wants to? Pass without trace. like they're more utility based, not combat based. Small buffs here and there to make the class more potent
My D&D Mount Rushmore would be Gygax, Arneson, Ed Greenwood (totally agree with Sean on that one) and probably Janelle Jaquays as the fourth, for her incredible contributions to dungeon design principles.
Mine would be the opposite of James'. They put 5e and 1e luminaries together; I don't think 1e is relevant to modern high-fantasy gaming (it's very relevant if you're in the OSR scene, but it and mainstream gaming are like foreign countries on all accounts - procedures, traditions, priorities, etc.), and I don't think 5e did anything revolutionary, aside from exploding the audience - it's more of a greatest hits album. So my Mount Rushmore would be Skip Williams, Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook and Bill Slaviczek, i.e. the people who defined what D&D and its clones will look like and play like for decades to come when they came together to design 3rd edition. I haven't played 3e in like 15 years, but in a way, I never stopped playing it, since you can find its legacy everywhere - 4e, 5e, Pathfinder, 13th Age, Shadow of the Demon Lord, etc.
The changes to Ranger immediately made me think that this all made it easier to program to use in the next VTT or video game after BG3. Given Jeremy Crawford referenced how Produce Flames worked in BG3 being frustrating, it just solidified that feeling. This does not capture the Ranger as would want to play them. It moves them further away from that.
@@hawkname1234 The video talks about the desire many have expressed for the ranger and that this version falls short of providing that. I happen to agree with that. Nowhere did I say it had to be my way nor did I say that was the only way. And yes I did say for me which does infer it is my opinion.
If you don't know anything about VTTs or programming everything is "easier to program for VTT". 5e is implemented on Foundry for years now - nothing stoped them before.
@@notsochosenone5669 I do actually and I know they have but the term I used was easier and also from a Game Design Theory standpoint for video games, it places Rangers closer on par to the other classes.
The Ranger is probably evolved from Aragorn, who was literally called exactly that. However, in combat, he was effectively a Fighter. Outside of combat, he was a essentially a survivalist/tracker (and royal superhuman hero of prophecy) which explained the Ranger's focus in that direction. The unique factor that I see for them was the Beastmaster (and eventually the Drakewarden and to a lesser extent the Swarmkeeper) expanding on the pet angle. Perhaps that could be their new angle?
This might be a controversial opinion. But the ranger should lose the beastmaster subclass & the concept of a combat pet should be opened up to all characters as a game mechanic rather than a class one.
@@maverick210189 I disagree. Mostly because at that point you just end up with a group of PCs and all their pets, and the last thing I want in 5e is power creep and more attacks.
@@bradleyhurley6755 The DM has the control on the parties' access to this resource. If they let everyone in the party get a pet and then complains about the "power creep", deal with it. Nothing wrong with a DM suffering the consequences of their own actions & they'll be better aware for the next time.
@@maverick210189 How do you let one PC have a pet and not the other PCs unless it is part of a specific class and the class is balanced around having that pet?
@@bradleyhurley6755 How do you let one PC have a magic item and not the other PC's unless it is part of a specific class and the class is balanced around having that magic item? (Same argument)
Can y’all comment on Mike Shae’s (sp) opinion that the WoTC team needed a DM advocate in the room when making these changes because it’s seems it’s great for players but no one is thinking about how game play is managed.
5e is generally terrible at explaining how to run it. DMG is full of cool things (that most people never actually read), but they made zero effort to make all this advice, information and tools actually ACTIONABLE and connected. They absolutely need a DM advocate.
I listened to that content and I honestly disagreed a lot with what they had to say. But I think theirs a fundamental thing we disagree on. To me, D&D is a combat game. If 50% of your game, on average, is not combat, then it feels like you're ignoring the biggest part of the game. I think, of anything, the changes will make combat faster because your players will kill everything faster. Saying combat is gonna take too long is true, but also where the game spends most of the time.
@@cbeaird52 No evidence was given that combat is going to take longer. The only reason to believe that is saves on every Fighter attack. So maybe yes, maybe no, but Shaun Merwin asserting that seemed dishonest. But also - it's really bad to ASSERT that "D&D is a combat game." You are allowed to play however you want, but it's obnoxious to assert that there is one right way to play.
@@hawkname1234 I'm not stopping you from playing it however you want. But 50+ % of the rules are around combat. If it's gonna spend that much time focused on that subject, it does imply that's what they want you to do while playing it, doesn't it? You can ignore it, sure, but at what point have you gone from playing D&D to playing a new game built using D&D.
@@hawkname1234 it's not about a right way to play. Anyone can play as they want but 5e is 100% a combat oriented game. It has no exploration pillar despite what they say, barely any social and about 70-80 percent at least focused on combat including most spells and class features. It's made for lots of combat. Even short and long rests reinforce this. It makes no sense to get all your health back by sleeping but they want you to consistently get into fights day after day so it's necessary. Everything in the game is built on combat.
Thank you James!!! I have been pitching calling this next edition 50th Anniversary Edition for weeks now. Usually the conversation goes something like this: "5.5 and 5e2024 arent very good names. Which one are you gonna call it?" "Ive been calling it DnD50th or Anniversary Edition." "That wasn't the question. It has to be one of those two."
In my opinion the root of the D&D ranger is Drzzt. Even in his storyline he was a Fighter/Druid. Trained in his Homeland as a fighter then later by his mentor Montolio
I was playing my Nature Cleric last night and really enjoying using my 6th level ability Dampen Elements from the 2014 PH. Just using my reaction any time to take half damage from any elemental source is just an amazing feature that's really thematic for someone that can withstand the harsher elements of nature. I wonder why I'm playing this instead of a Ranger? The truth is there are dozens of abilities that can be given to the Ranger class that can be both flavorful and effective. I still don't think we have gotten many effective abilities, just flavorful ones. It doesn't take an optimizer to notice when features are both effective and flavorful. I play with relatively new players at a store, but they certainly notice when I take 20-30 points less damage and then even help save damage on their characters later. Then they ask how many times a day I can use Dampen Elements and I tell them there's no limit. That really makes an impression.
When i personally think of ranger, i think of a trapper. Things like hidden traps, snares and the like are very under-utilized in D&D. And I'd like to explore the idea of a character being able to draw enemies in, getting stuck in a trap and then the ranger getting massive bonuses to then taking them out
All rangers should have the skill called "scout" For scout roll a stealth check and there is no failure. The better the roll the more the more information the ranger gathers. This skill nevers alters other forces to the range. In dungeons the ranger can scout into the next room and in open area it see possible dangers and they can guide others away from. What about monster insight rolls.
I would recommend to any new player to go to other editions and at the least read them to see how they compare with the current fifth edition. You might find some game mechanics that you enjoy but that are not included or featured in 5e like character customization options, class skills and features that you've never heard of before, feat customization and a layer to combat you didn't know you needed.
I DM a group of 8 players and we have already established a house rule that both Hunters Mark and Hex will be cantrips with no concentration that can be cast as a bonus action. Super Easy fix and its my job as the DM to ensure that I bring challenges to the table that take into account this house rule. Not a big deal at all and in no way breaks the TTRPG. 💪
Wizards realised that Warlocks were designed around Eldritch Blast, and so they changed the focus to Cantrips instead so that design space wasn't as limited. Wizards then decided to make the Ranger souly dependent on a Level 1 spell that requires concentration. Having 4 core class features, 1 of which is the capstone, and some subclass features, tied to a Level 1 spell that isn't even exclusive to the class is just insane to me.
I agree. I think that is terrible design. MAYBE you do that for a single subclass. But the WHOLE CORE Ranger is based on casting this one spell all the time? Really bad design.
Dael touched on the big problem i had with the 2014 ranger and why i liked tashas and the 2024 ranger. the majority of the 2014 ranger's abilities were heavily dependent on the DM, especially favored enemy/terrain. i think both versions fit my fantasy of being explorers/trackers. the current biggest problem with rangers, like you guys have mentioned, is the lack of an exploration pillar. if they dont fix that, it doesnt matter how much freedom the designers had, it would still be un fun if the DM and/or modules dont support the gameplay.
I mean, they fixed it by making the Ranger no longer rely on that pillar. So, solution! Is it the solution you wanted, that's really what the sales will tell us.
@@cbeaird52 how does the ranger not rely on exploration anymore? hunter's mark and deft explorer (note the word explorer) seem designed to go very well with exploring and tracking
@@TonyRobetson so, Hunter's Mark primary benefit of the spell is More Damage The Deft Explorer feature, it's now expertise and proficiency in skills. The Natural Explorer feature is spells you can learn. Spells like good berry, alarm, speak with animals are not entirely hinged in "Exploration". All of these are features that are used in combat, social, and Exploration pillars.
@@cbeaird52 all of those features are incredibly useful for the exploration pillar. how does them being useful in other pillars make the ranger not rely on the exploration pillar?
@@TonyRobetson The answer is in your own question. All of those abilities are just as useful, if not more so, in other pillars. So, Ranger no longer relies on exploration. Which was it's biggest down fall in 2014. Half of the features were for a pillar that doesn't exist. Now, the features provide value for the pillars that do exist: combat, ability checks, and spellcasting.
To me, a lot of the new Ranger class and subclass features DO feel like a Ranger, but they aren't super exciting. I was just disappointed that it wasn't more than the Tasha's version with some extras. I was kind of excited for more than just a port of Tasha's.
@@malgloveIt's not. It's exactly what they said. Treantmonk, among others, has the PHB 2024. The capstone is certifiable trash. I'm really disappointed that they designed the entire class around Hunter's Mark. "We've reworked the Ranger spell list to make it more exciting. We've enhanced your spellcasting mechanics so you can use more spells and enjoy greater versatility. Also, here's this 1st-level that we expect you to Concentrate on through Level 17. 🙄"
I believe there are two main issues with 5E Ranger. First and foremost, there isn't really an exploration pillar in the game, no in built rules about hex crawling or other overland travel, tracking, etc. A person who picks Ranger probably likes that stuff, but there's nothing to DO. Secondly, I don't think we have a culturally relevant example of what a high level ranger looks like. Stalking theough woods and ambushing monsters is very low-level grounded fiction. It sort of loses its shine when the party is challenging demigods and rewriting magical laws. The Planeswalker tried to imagine 'scaling exploration gameplay' but runs into the same problem with the systems.
I said this in my comment as well. Dale said to look at what a ranger is and just put it on paper. But they DID. It was the original Ranger. The community didn't like it. The mechanics captured the concept - but the concept was too niche for a fantasy super hero game. Since the community doesn't actually want complex survival mechanics or designing sessions of just travel (very few RPGs gamify this. Most people recognize that it's boring) then this nature paladin version of ranger is what we get.
The fantasy of the ranger is usually cited as Aragorn, Legolas, and Drizzt. But those characters know the Ranger more as a social thing, lifestyle, or a job, not as a Class. Aragorn if he had to classify his skills would like say he's just like Boromir, and Gimli - he's a warrior. That fantasy is represented in the Fighter class. (which Shaun said as I typed this...) But people like seeing the word "Ranger" in the class line. The designers, in trying to satisfy that desire have to cut the ranger class out of the same game mechanics pie as Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue and Ranger. That's not a lot of pie - even less once you have to slice it even finer into subclasses. What little room it does have for abilities all its own are very DM/campaign dependent, if you don't do exploration & wilds and feature the ranger's favored enemy, it feels extra lackluster.
If you want good fantasy examples for rangers as a combatant you gotta look at extremely specialized hunters, spec op units, and all those characters that people argue "They can win with prep time" and you find the ranger.
Those fantasies could be fulfilled by the warrior or the rogue classes. And they're very solo oriented fantasies, they're interesting but better suited to one-on-one or maybe 2 players and a DM. Making everybody else at the table sit around while you sneak up, gather information, brew the right potions, etc. IMO that'd get pretty boring for everyone else.
@@tthrack1432 You just make it instant for 5e's super hero fantasy. The ranger just always knows these weaknesses, every long rest they sulk off and find ingrediants, they get special weak point attacks, etc etc. Its really easy to put ranger fantasy into a fast game.
To me, the core fantasy of a Ranger is someone who gathers and uses their knowledge about a creature to take it down before a fight can even get started. Someone who can survive in the wilds, use the terrain to their advantage, stalk their prey, and unleash devastating attacks when the time is right. I think of the Witcher, Men-in-Black, Rambo, Predator, and Ronan Dex when picking movie characters that fit that fantasy. I’ve been working on a homebrew for the game I run for a long time now and the core ability I give them is a Monster Grimoire they add to over time with skill checks and actions in game that grant them bonuses against the creature types they have researched. I have given them expertise in Survival and Nature along with some traveling bonuses, but I do really like that idea of them being able to attune to terrain. Overall, I agree with how you guys are feeling, it’s pretty underwhelming, which is a shame.
Adding to Hunter's Mark, I think you should also be able to 'consume'/'end' it on a hit or whatever - for a smite-like burst of damage. A sort of 'marked shot'.
Kind of funny, over 30 years of D&D Ranger has always caught my imagination, then and now. Yet I have not played a ranger since 2ed. What would recapture the essence of ranger mechanically? In my heart a Ranger is a warden found between the civilized and the wilderness. Skills and mobility outside combat with the ability to outfight threats in order tame these boundaries within combat. Yet above all… they need to be able to provide the skills and abilities that their specific environment allows them to thrive. Creating a dabbler by nature. Much akin to earlier rangers with a range of abilities drawn from multiple classes the class could instead have a modular approach were the player determines which aspects the class exceeds at and which aspects are not needed for their “story”. Instead of having one hard archetype that is pulled in multiple ways you can have the only modular class that allows for flexibility needed to excel on the fringes of civilization and excites creative players with a new design space for their characters. Always love and laughter in your lives, and please know you are priceless ❤
I agree with the frustration. It seems that Wizards has some kind of math formula that they use to balance their classes, and it was the reason why Stunning Strike kept the Monk so weak. But they have such a love frenzy for spellcasters that they keep abandoning the martials in favor of giving spellcasters new fun spells. That Tasha's Brew spell that gives you any common potion should have been given to Rangers, but flavored as them foraging for ingredients, and concocting an herbal brew. But no, give it as a spell to the wizard
How would you design your Ranger? My Ranger has - expertise in survival and nature. At level 10 add Wisdom modifier - Favored enemy add accuracy based of Proficiency. - favored terrain add advantage to all skill checks - Hunter and beastmaster should be combined It will have the versatility of the Ranger, exploration improves in multiple ways and have the iconic pet. I play the 2014 core edition over the rest..
The Ranger was improved in OneD&D compared to 5e. That is not much of a measuring stick though, because they weren't that good in 5e. They relied heavily on 1) overpowered spells, and 2) Gloom Stalker to actually be good. One of the problems Rangers suffer from is an unclear character identity, but instead of using that to expand their class, they just kinda leave it as is. From what I can tell, people generally expect 3 things from the Ranger: 1) The dual wielding Warrior - Drizzt is the most iconic Ranger in D&D history, after all. 2) The Archer - Ranged compatants. 3) The Beastmaster / Pet Hunter - Basically WoW Hunter. All of these are possible build options within the class and each of them have roots in older D&D editions and in the lore. But in 5e, only the ranged combatant was anything resembling good. The worst part is that there is another class they made for 5e they could've looked to for inspiration for how to fix this: Warlock. Warlocks also have 3 main things they can do: Blastlock (spell focus), Bladelock (weapon focus) and Chainlock (pet focus). If they just gave Rangers a choice between wanting to be a dual wielding warrior, an archer or a beastmaster as a Ranger equivalent of a "Pact" it would go such a long way to fix things, separate from the subclass. Then just add some higher level features based on your choice.
I have been out of D&D since 2nd Edition, but have been looking to get.back in. The 2nd Edition Ranger had the Favored Foe, Tracking, Survival, Animal Lore, Nature Lore, Magic, and Followers (who could be animals or NPCs). Imagine my disappointment when I found core features I played with relegated to an underwhelming subclass.
If we had to distill all the classes to fit under the fight/rogue/cleric/wizard moulds, I'd have to say: Fighter: Barbarian and Monk Rogue: Bard and Ranger Cleric: Druid and Paladin Wizard: Sorcerer and Warlock I find, at least the way I see the Ranger fantasy, as more of the stealth sniper scout, that I thonk fits the rogue more than the fighter.
How to Hunter's Mark without actually having to "Hunter's Mark:" Ranger’s Quarry Beginning at 1st level, you gain the ability to call upon primal forces to mark an enemy for death. When you hit a creature with an attack roll, you can choose to mark that creature as your Quarry. Alternatively, you can designate quarry by studying the target or its tracks or at least one minute. Your Quarry remains marked for one hour or until you fall unconscious or use this feature again.
For the duration of your mark, you gain the following benefits: - When you hit your Quarry with a weapon attack or a Ranger spell and deal damage to it, including the turn you marked it, you can increase that damage by 1d6. This additional damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Quarry Damage column of the Ranger table. - You have Advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) check you make to track or locate your quarry, as well as on any Intelligence check you make to learn or recall information about it. - Your Quarry has Disadvantage on any Dexterity (Stealth) checks it makes to hide from you. You can only mark one Quarry at a time. If your quarry would fall to 0 hit points before the end of your mark's duration, you can transfer your mark to another creature by hitting it with an attack or using your reaction. You can use this feature twice. You gain additional uses of this feature as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Quarry Uses column of the Ranger table. You regain one expended use of this feature when you finish a Short Rest, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a Long Rest.
Highlights: 1)This is a NON-CONCENTRATION CLASS FEATURE instead of a spell. 2) Mark is now applied by hitting (or Studying) an enemy, instead of a Bonus Action. 3) Specified that the extra damage is applied when you hit your Quarry with a "Weapon attack or Ranger spell" to get rid of the damn Hex + Hunter's Mark interaction that WotC feared so much. 4) Damage also scales like '24 Monk's Martial Arts die. 5) Uses scale off of Ranger level, not PB or WIS modifier (similar to Barbarian Rage), so a multiclass only gets two uses per Long Rest 6) Folds some of the knowledge stuff from '14 Favored Enemy back into the mark
14:49 they kinda did. Early UA was amazingly experimental. People hated it. They added a bunch of stuff to the classes, a lot of it really neat. Just not quite fully baked. And people really, really did not like it.
Despite Ranger HM suggesting single-target DPS focus, the buffs to Barrage and Volley suggest they’re AoE specialists and are the best MARTIAL at this. Having to drop concentration from HM forces the player to make choices, and that’s fine. And lack of an exploration tier is more a GM shortcoming, not necessarily a game design one. There are lots of legacy mechanics from previous editions relating to dungeon crawling that deal with temporality and space, but which receive almost no attention in the DMG (dungeon turns, etc.) but the thought is there when you look at Ranger abilities, spell durations, etc.
13:00 How to make 4 base classes in DnD? Easy! It is already a game called Shadow of the Weird Wizard (Or Shadow of the Demon Lord) by a former WotC Designer who worked on 5e's base design. 😆 Basically, you start with your "Novice Path" which is Warrior, Rogue, Magician, or Priest. However, Shadow systems throw in a twist in that Druid, Cleric, and so on are Expert Paths and you can mix and match any Novice Path with any Expert Path. And once you reach 7th level, you can pick any Master Path.
@40:00 My DM does things like this from time to time. Several of us have written campaigns and built worlds because of it. One I remember was that we had split the party and each group got into combat, so the DM gave monsters to the people whose characters were not in that fight, then at the end of each round switch fights. So you had a turn the whole time, switching between monsters and PCs. We also had a harder fight where we all had NPCs to run which had us playing 2 characters which helped with running stat blocks even more.
The exploration pillar doesnt really exist and even if they add more in the new DMG im sceptical wether it would even be used a lot, because most of 5e is focused on heroic fantasy.
My D&D Mt. Rushmore would be Greenwood, Cook, Dancey and Mercer. Mainly because I started playing in the early 90s when Greenwood’s setting absolutely captured my imagination. Cook streamlined it for a broader audience with 3e and Dancey turned it into the first ‘killer app’ with the d20 OGL. Mercer showed us how to weave a session into a cooperative epic narrative and drew me back in after a 15 year hiatus. Honorable mentions: Rodney Thompson for bounded accuracy, which made my job as a DM much much easier and convinced me to DM again after burning out with 3e stat creep. Matt Colville for Action Oriented Monsters which greatly changed how I built monsters and encounters.
Regarding the ranger, wizards of the coast are in a tough spot. Problem is not that they can't look at what a ranger is and put it on paper, the problem is that no one agrees on what a ranger is. There is a large portion of the community that thinks that a ranger should not have magic at all and instead should be some sort of survivalist character. They want to play out the fantasy of being the character that travels the wilderness and leads the party. However, That is a very specific niche. The original Ranger actually did fill that niche very well, But people found that it was too specific of a niche when the rest of the game is more or less fantasy superheroes. So if a lot of folks want a survivalist, But the vast majority of games are pretty much ignoring survival, What is even the point of the class? Now they have to switch it to basically being a sort of nature Paladin. That's why you get so many subclasses like swarm keeper and gloom stalker and Fey Wanderer. They moved from being the survivalist style characters of the first two subclasses magical defenders of all that is natural. That's a cool flavor! But now you need the mechanics to back it up. And Hunter's Mark is the major mechanic that people associate with the ranger. So if you are wizards of the coast, and you see that people don't actually want a survivalist Ranger, and you are also seeing that people are really caught up with Hunter's Mark as a defining feature of the Ranger, then naturally you start designing the rangers powers and abilities around Hunter's Mark. I'm not saying it's a good decision, I am saying that it feels like a pretty natural decision based on all the data they are getting.
People were caught up with Hunter's Mark because that was the only way to keep up with damage with the hunter. Nobody *likes* Hunter's Mark. Nobody says "you know what I want to do? Cast the same friggin boring spell every combat." But they do, because they have to, in order to stay relevant. And instead of fixing the relevancy issue, WotC takes the wrong message and makes Hunter's Mark very slightly better. So dumb.
But if that's the case, then you make Hunter's Mark a class feature with no concentration, certain number of times per day, and you can use a spell slot to use it again if you have no uses left. The issue with doing this was it created a multiclass problem. You could easily take a dip into Ranger for the HM or a Ranger take a dip into one or more classes to stack damage buffs (divine smite, Hex, etc). WotC needs to reign in multiclassing.
@@Wud-f2r I can understand that. My thought about it being a pet class was regarding some aspect of the class that would make it stand out from the others. It just currently does some things that could be possibly be better served by a multiclass combination. During a character concept build, I have never thought that any of my concepts could be served by the ranger class alone. That statement stands from AD&D 2e and into the present.
I remember a reddit post that said the problem with ranger is it's never allowed to be "the best" at anything, any form of martial combat, from dual swords to archery, if it's better than the fighter, fighter fans complain, it can't be better at being nature-ey than the druid, being trackery with the janky 2014 effects clerly didn't work because the game wasn't suited for it, what niche does ranger have, pets? in 2 subclasses? Other classes get pet subclasses like warlock does, wizard has find familiar which is a more iconic pet that more variations get.
The problem is in the weakness of D&D's exploration pillar. I built a pretty good exploration system for my campaign and my players basically never left the base without a ranger. (But I also used the more powerful spell-less ranger from the first Unearthed Arcana in 2014).
The best base Ranger that WoTC has come out with so far is the original UA Ranger. If they'd gone with a perhaps slightly modified version of that, they'd have a good base class. PS: I like the Hunter. For me, that scratches the Legolas machine gunner itch. Most martials are single enemy focused, so having a AOE non-magical martial would in my view make a great nitch for at least one Ranger subclass.
They should! Considering how well received the Beastheart by MCDM was as a 3rd party class WOTC could take inspiration from and improve upon it for the Ranger
@@Drizztbc um, I started with D&D Basic/Expert boxed sets but I’m talking about TSR’s 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Before WotC existed. But I mean I would never play a Ranger of any edition that requires animal companions.
3.5 / pathfinder 1e versions of the ranger are where the peak of the class was. Ease of progression in your martial choices of dual wielding or going full legolas rain of arrows with a bow. You had your animal companion and you had your small selection of spells.
So i've actually playtested Ranger in the final version, And I think a lot of people are getting confused, Because Looking at the class alone is an unimpressive, Until you take into account the totality of the changes the spell casting and Other rule changes in the 2024 book And I can't speak to all out power because i've only played up to level 11 But this ranger is far Less clunky to play.
Man, imagine if WotC just went full OSR or made an actual 6E… I think they should just drop subclasses, because man if some of these subclasses were JUST CLASSES and you multiclass you would make your most ideal Ranger for your own fantasy. 16:46 It should just be a feature! Just like Eldrich Blast should probably be a feature of the Warlock as no other class can use the cantrip!
So i have this in my notepad to copy and paste into any video i find dealing with the 2024 Ranger and/or hunter’s mark. If you compare the math on a full turn’s damage between a ranger and a fighter, the math comes out as follows: If we assume the ranger uses a greatsword with hunters mark and a fighter uses a greatsword w/o action surge, average damage per turn at lvl 20 is R: 2(2(3.5)+5.5+5)=35 F: 4(2(3.5)+5)=48 If you were to take a beast ranger and a battle master fighter to the equation R: 2(2(3.5)+5.5+5)+2(4.5+5.5+5)=65 F: 4(2(3.5)+6.5+5)=74 If you dont consider that the fighter uses action surge and the ranger gets around +6.5 to hit with ranged attacks vs melee the damage from hunters mark is strong enough not to make the fighter less effective in dealing single target melee damage, as well as trivializing enemies. Factoring in ranged (longbow) and action surge against an opponent with 18 ac the math is as follows: R: 4(4.5+5.5+5)x.8225=49.35 F: 2(4(2(3.5)+6.5+5))x.70=103.6 Keep in mind im not sure if the advantage from the lvl 17 hunters mark is applied to the pet. After 2 turns of surging and maneuvering the damage of the fighter drops to around 33.6 while the ranger is still doing 49.35. Adding subjective variables like range from danger and reach, the rangers damage is still respectable. Addendum: we still don’t know what hunters mark does in 2024 and all math performed here assumes it’s the 2014 version and not the UA6 version or some amalgamation of the two.
The three reasons they can’t get fighters right (outside of them firing designers) are 1)Rangers are leaders that keep the group together, find the enemy and can sus out how to defeat them. (This is an issue because of how groups in D&D operate but it is doable). 2) Rangers have difficult mechanics. Aragorn, Robin Hood and most rangers are skirmishers yes they fight but they are hard to pin down and move around a battlefield almost at will (so you can see how that conflicts with the design I hope what with turn based and opportunity attacks). 3) Rangers are party glue. Most rangers you can tell because they support and accompany others in the party and help them . That means they have to be team B for most situations (And you can see how that makes it hard not to replicate powerful features in other classes without being over shadowed) The exploration thing and tracking is not the point of rangers. And that is why they keep failing. ((I don’t do Mt Rushmore since it was built in people’s sacred lands as a way of showing native people who was in charge (IMHO). So yeah it my thing.))
To be honest it feels like there have been so many versions of rangers in so many things with so many differences I'm not sure there really is a core to what the class really is other than "woodsy person that fights and sometimes with a bow". In many contexts rangers get boiled down to a hybrid between druid and fighter, and in others they take on more of their own identity.
I honestly expected them to go straight to making Ranger the pet class. Not saying they should have but it would have im given it a more firm and unique identity. That said MCDM made their beastheart class so I’m happy with having that in the absence of an evocative ranger
Re:Ranger. If campaigns supported the Ranger in his overland exploration "Expertise", then one might be designed well "in his element". He is designed for dungeons and, therefore, not a Ranger.
My Mt. Rushmore would be: Gary Gygax Dave Arneson Jenelle Jaquays Larry Elmore Honorable mention for Ed Greenwood. You could substitute him for Elmore and you wouldn't get any complaints from me.
@@blackshard641no it is nothing like that at all. If you followed the history of DnD (or any rpg really) the class archetypes are 4: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue.
@@hawkname1234 Yep me too, my main issue is that new players/DMs dont get to house ruling for a while Also, if you have to house rule a mechanic straight after release - it's a bad mechanic
The only cool thing I need a ranger to do is to lead his elf and dwarf buddy on a multiday chase of a huge band of orcs who have kidnapped their friends. ;)
Love Matt from Fistful of Dice! Also one of my first regular d&d youtube follows. Oath of the Frozen King and Driftchapel from Absolute Tabletop are great.
With regards to the ranger... What's a good example of exploration? I say this a someone who has run PF2e, and has struggled to get my players to engage with the mechanics of exploration found there. People kinda don't care about using all their exploration actions. Additionally as a DM, I don't find the fail states for doing exploration poorly terribly compelling out of a very narrow context. There's a race against the clock... and that's about it! Even then, the dramatic part isn't the mechanics, but the player's investment into the clock and the narrative elements. The exploration is a backdrop for that, that isn't needed because my players already have narrative buy-in and trying to mechanically engage them actually lessens their investment. So is there a game that actually makes exploration in of itself compelling? Not just mechanically defined, but actually exciting?
I don’t think any system really makes exploration engaging, because that’s a product of adventure design. For example, I’ve played in a campaign that was an expedition to an uncharted continent, which involved managing an entire company of explorers. Half of that campaign was spent managing the company resources and scouting. It was very fun, but not inherently because of the subsystems that were used.
Exploration is more of a game structure, what you call the "fail states" of exploration are actually the "narrative". You set to explore the woods and you get lost or lose your supplies and have to hunt. If that sounds boring, then make the woods more interesting, a place worth exploring. Exploration has many different faces, it's not just hexcrawling or dungeoncrawling... those are problaly the most well known (even when what people know about them is usually incomplete or wrong). You can focus on "just the good parts" if you don't like the idea of doing too much bookeeping (although, you must do the base book keeping of following how the days pass), that's a pointcrawl. You can do exploration on a city which is mostly going to be fleshed out from dealing with different factions. On why exploration is important, it comes down to the simple idea that character progression should come from it. That is, the way you find new magic items, spells and gain XP to level up (and if you are using the rules, gold to level up too).
I'm not familiar personally but the recommendations I see a lot are Cubicle 7's Uncharted Journeys if you want something 5e compatible and Free League's Forbidden Lands for a non-5e system built around exploration.
@@estebanrodriguez5409 That sounds more ideal for games that don't have a specific driving plot motivating it. I have played games that way, which feel more emergent in their storytelling, and while I've had fun there it isn't my preferred mode of TTRPG story. I prefer a more cohesive narrative. For those stories, it's hard to make the setbacks of exploration interesting outside of the aforementioned race against the clock.
@@KurtDunn267 You can race against the clock outside of exploration. In a heist you are racing against whatever defenses the location you are in. In a mystery you might be racing against the perpetrator to make another crime or escape. Whatever adventure you have, I think you want either way to be time sensitive, because it's what it makes the world feel alive, outside of the players. You have downtime for stuff that isn't time sensitive.
i think the problem with Ranger is much the same as the Druid, too many people seem to want somehting different form the class. I think the Tashas and 2024 version ar emuch improved form the 2014 version. The people not happy traditionally seem to think that the Ranger should have the same copmbat effective as the Figther AND have the utility that comes with it. I do agree with Dael in that the BASE CLASS shouls be NON magical. The spell less ranger is a great optioon that should find its way into the core rules in some way. I also beleive the Ranger pet shold be worked into the core class and given another option for those who dont want the pet, with the Beastmaster Class ENHANCING the pet instea dof it being the only way to get a pet.
Core ranger should have no spells OR pets. They're a bit less fightery than the fighter, but they have some of the stealth and skills of rogues with nature knowledge of druid. You have subclasses of "has pets" one that "has spells".... I don't know what else, maybe an archery subclass...
There's plenty of ways to do rangers, the trick is which themes do you want? 1) Do the DC20 thing and have charisma-based rangers that break up bar fights? 2) Planes-based rangers that specialise in opponents and terrains within a theme (with the rest of their skills / extra damage being hit-or-miss the rest of the time)? 3) Alignment rangers of chaos, neutral and lawful with skills and contacts to match? So many ideas! A.G.
Ranger is my favorite class. You wanted one word to capture its core? For me, that word is: Versatility. The ranger can heal, can fight, can track, can hide, can use magic. I love it so much because it allows me to be everything at once. I won't be the best at anything, but I'm the second best at everything. Their problem with the Ranger design is that everyone has a different idea of what it is.
Which is why WotC’s entire approach to classes is, IMO, WRONG. Set up a base class, and allow skills to be learned and selected in building a character. No subclasses. Make your own. Stop making the game do everything for you on the creative side. Ranger should basically be a Wisdom based fighter with access to tracking and survival skills and the OPTION to have a pet, or learn a few Druid Spells, or be an archery master, or a giant slayer - built up from a menu. No kits. No subclasses. No Hunter’s Mark BS.
The long standing issue with the ranger is due to the changes to the rogue class in 5e. Buffing the combat ability of the rogue, including how easy it is to get sneak attack, meant it completely overtook the ranger's class identity of "lightly armored fighter with some skills". That is why the ranger design is all over the place. It doesn't have a unique class identity. It is either a worse fighter, a worse rogue, or a worse druid. The only way to fix this is to reduce the rogue's combat effectiveness and reinstate that class's identity as a skill monkey (very unlikely to happen), or to come up with a new class identity for the ranger, which WotC is either unwilling to unable to do.
They gunna lose their shit when they see that War Cleric has a feature that allows them not to concentrate on Spiritual Weapon or Shield of Faith Or that Trickster Clerics main shtick no longer requires concentration
RE: Ranger as subclass of Fighter: Personally, I see Rangers and Rogues being cut from the same cloth. At the most fundamental level, they are masters of the terrain they watch over (rangers for forests of wildlife, and rogues (formerly thieves) for forests of civilization) and their skillsets reflect this (rangers get nature magic to survive better in the wild, and rogues get tools and tricks to steal and otherwise disrupt the day-to-day activities of others). Both have also been given emphasis on speed and dexterity, albeit for different reasons. If anything, one of those classes should be folded into the other, if not merged.
I see you, and I hear you, and I mostly agree with you, but it’s probably going to be a Fighter subclass for a long time, because it was back in 1e, and the game is allergic to change in some areas.
Little late to watch this. The problem with the Ranger is the concepts that the class is supposed to embody and make cool have been completely minimized in 5e D&D. The rules have minimalized the travel and exploration pillars of the game. Almost anything that the Ranger can do taken away by some low level spell or just doesn't exist in the rules.
I'm a forever GM, currently running both 5e on roll20 and Mothership ftf. I have on occasion been a non-GM but I'm the first to admit I'm a horrible pain in the ass player. I'm constantly second guessing, and though I try try try to be positive and helpful, I don't often pull it off. People like me as a GM a lot more.
Fully agree with you guys- the Ranger 24 is an epic fail by WotC. I was never happy with 2014 either and Tasha’s did not fix it. I left official 5e a year ago and have not looked back. Playing Old School Essentials / 1e, and a bit of Tales of the Valiant. Official 5e is a waste of time compared to both of these systems. Sorry to say that as I have loved official D&D for many many years.
@@Wud-f2r OSE Advanced is essentially Moldvay B/X with a healthy curation of AD&D added on top. The mechanics are very elegant and speaking as a DM it is soooo much easier to run than 5e. It lends itself to a sandbox / emergent play style instead of the linear story arc style that is so common in 5e (especially the official 5e adventures). The DM and players are building a world together and thus means the poor DM is not saddled with a “producer/director” role so common in 5e (or at least my experience with 5e). Have fun!
13:35 that is right, I think that the explosion of base classes was a mistake. Likely Druid should be a subclass of Cleric, Sorcerer should be a subclass of Wizard, etc. With enough options, redesigning the current subclasses into character options would make sure that all Rangers are different from each other
Let’s not forget that Mt. Rushmore was seized from the Lakota and the Sioux and carved to have white settler grandfathers rather than the grandfathers (or mothers) of native people. 😢
Havent listened yet but my mate and i were chatting the other day, and we both feel like rangers should be based around an animal companion as the base for the class. It would be so good. You good have 3 subclasses, one that has a utility companion, one that focuses on mounted combat and one that fights side by side. I feel like this would make the ranger so much more unique. And thats always been my problem with the ranger.
Disagree completely. Have played Rangers in every single D&D edition including AD&D 1st Ed (and Basic if they’d had the option.) Also played rangers or hunters in over a dozen fantasy PC MMORPGs. The one thing I never liked in WoW and a couple others was being saddled with an animal companion all the time.
All I can imagine is that there was some internal playtest at WOTC where they gave the Ranger a class-feature, no concentration Hunter's Mark, and the DM immediately had a heart attack and half of the players crumbled to dust. Because they are unreasonably terrified of the Ranger being able to actually do something.
I predict everybody will houserule Hunter's Mark is non-concentration and it will all be fine.
Same thing for monks a friend of mine said that monks are now untouchable 😂
@@rafaelpolicarpo5313 I'm not a big monk player but from what I've heard online the monk changes were pretty good
Monk is really good now, if ranger got the same attention itd be great.
@@jacobtrost5048 The fact that monk was really not great probably makes the changes seem a lot better than they really is. But yeah, monk has it good 2024
There needs to be something a Ranger can do by level 3 that no other class can do, and it needs to be their most powerful ability that works great with the rest of their kit. This new version of the Ranger doesn’t have anything other classes can’t do until level 18 basically. Hunter’s Mark is a spell other classes could have access to, but the thing is… most classes wouldn’t even use it if they did have it!
I would say it's even worse, because Hunter's Mark is effectively a worse version of Hex. I have never met a ranger or warlock who didn't use Hunter's Mark or Hex. The Ranger really does need something though.
And Hunters Mark sounds and feels so videogamey. I want to aim and hold an enemy in my sight, not mark it... ugh.
True, so I give my rangers primal awareness at level 3 + an animal handling ability from ua, so they can use a bonus action to command any friendly and willing animal. (It doesnt take the place of beastmaster, instead it functions more similar to a how a mount is commanded, the dm decides when and for how long the animal is friendly and willing. Its not a solution, but my rangers collect so many animal friends that they really get to live their character)
If you want a core identity for ranger, they should make ranger into being the martial version of a bard, with the concept being (always be prepared/boy scout vibes) allowing them to take a sprinkling of other classes features, because that is what the the situations they find themselves in, so that's the feature they need at that time.
I can tell you how I would redesign the ranger. Seperate them from the idea of being slightly magical, make magic use a subclass like the trickster rogue. Model the core class on the idea that they are a military special forces unit. Give them skills modelled on S.E.R.E. Survive, evade, resist, escape. Less effective in one on one combat than a fighter but better at engaging large groups of enemies and then dissapearing without a trace. Great example is Rambo in First Blood. You can be outnumbered and outgunned, but in the woods your the hunter. Everyone has a different idea of what a Ranger is & this wont be for everyone, but thats what subclasses should be for. Adding the "your flavor" to the class.
It seems like what you are really describing is just a fighter/rogue multiclass, not an independant class.
@@bradleyhurley6755 Considering I didn't specify any class abilities, I would say that's a bit presumptive. But for the sake of debate let's say I concede you this point. Why shouldn't the ranger fill the niche between these two classes & why doesn't this make it an independent class? Fighters skills are almost exclusively combat based & so are the rogues for the most part (not factoring subclasses). Does giving rangers larger number of utility skills that are helpful in and out of combat diminish the other classes? Does giving the ranger a damage boost suddenly infringe on the rogues territory? Does giving the ranger an extra attack infringe on the fighters? A better "ranger" can be made by multiclassing fighter/rogue than whats currently presented to us by WOTC, but that doesn't mean that it can't work.
@@maverick210189 You said "Survive, evade, resist, escape" is basically the Rogue's class features. Uncanny Dodge, Cunning action, Evasion, Expertise, Blindsense. And Ranger without Magic is effectively a fighter.
Ranger's really need their own thing. Which is why I think they should have magic because it gives them a good way to be different than a fighter. Personally I think WotC should eliminate expertise, because now they have basically given it to half of the classes which really means, it probably shouldn't exist.
Currently Rangers get a single extra attack at 5th level, which isn't helpful Compared to the fighters eventual 4 attacks. If you are the point you need to give the ranger 4 attacks also, you are still at why isn't the ranger just a subclass. You can make the Ranger concept just using a fighter.
Fighter Arcane Archer is really a better ranger than a ranger.
@@bradleyhurley6755 I would like to prefix this by saying I don't intend for this to be an attack on you. "You said "Survive, evade, resist, escape" is basically the Rogue's class features. Uncanny Dodge, Cunning action, Evasion, Expertise, Blindsense". The same argument can be made for the monk's abilities, or the paladins, or the barbarians. I think what you're getting hung up on is the idea that this would just be an import of other classes abilities. I do agree that rangers need their own identification as a class, but simply saying magic is the solution is a bit limited. Yeah, it differentiates them from a fighter, but not a paladin. And what if I want to play a ranger who doesn't have magic to rely on but I don't want to resort to a fighter who's skills are only useful in combat or a rogue that spends their turn focusing on a single target because they are only getting a damage buff against a single target. I also never said give the ranger 4 attacks I just said an extra attack. Why can't a ranger have a third attack as a bonus action, without having to rely on dual wielding? Especially if it doesn't come online till, say 11th level. Your argument is just make a rogue or fighter they are better. YES, they are better in its current form. Thats why it needs to change.
@@maverick210189 Every class has an attack as a bonus action. If your rogue isn't using their bonus action to make a second attack they really should be.
Also in terms of game mechanics every character should be focusing on the same opponent. You shouldn't ever focus on multiple targets unless you can get a good majority of the combatants, but even then that is only helpful if your attack can kill some of them.
Any features outside of social and combat are always going to end up DM/Campaign specific. And a rogue with expertise in survival is going to be better than a ranger without or on par with a ranger who does. You really need to change a lot of other classes to get to a point with the ranger being able to not have magic and feel unique enough to justify.
The paladin and ranger differ based on the type of spells they have. In a lot of ways both probably work better or just as well as a subclass for the fighter.
One of the hallmarks of the Ranger archetype, arguably, is awareness of their surroundings and an understanding of the creatures & plants that live in those many environments- a general sense of how everything coalesces into any given biome.
And the design team pared that down into 3 Expertises. Which I don't think is enough to get players excited about anything.
I had hoped they'd develop and expand upon the Primeval Awareness feature. Give the Ranger a "radar ping" they could use several times a day. This would be a thematic and eminently useful (as well as mostly class-unique) feature. This could be further developed with things like permanent Advantage on Perception, Nature, & Survival checks. Perhaps some bonuses for certain Tool sets (which they've touted ad having more and more specific rules applications.) This could fulfill the fantasy of the Ranger as the self-sufficient wilderness survivor- who makes their own Arrows, bows, swords, shoes, leather, etc. Still another aspect of Primeval Awareness could be prowess in navigating Difficult Terrain.
The movement speed is a bit of a sticky wicket. They proclaim it as a hallmark of the class, but both Monks & Barbarians (& Rogues, situationally) have better movement. The climb & swim speeds are good. I think Proficiency in Constitution saves would help round out the "hardy" aspect of the fantasy. The Tireless feature is OK- except Temporary Hit Points are everywhere in 2014, so their value has become diluted. And the Exhaustion mechanic WOULD be fantastic... but we don't know what- if anything- causes Exhaustion. I fear this will be an empty feature that is SO situational, that it will be essentially worthless.
As for Hunter's Mark. I wished they'd have just taken away the damage aspect of it. Make it a class feature (with no concentration) that increases the Ranger's ability to hit (and Critically hit) their Prey. Only the Champion Fighter has an increased Crit Range. That used to be a mechanic that changed from weapon to weapon, in earlier editions. But, I don't think a high level feature that Expands crit range for Rangers would step too much on the toes of the Champion, who can do that at Lvl 3. The Ranger's Hunter's Mark should increase their accuracy, their to-hit chance. Start it off as a +1, make it a +2 at level 10 or so. And then a +3 at level 17 or thereabouts. Make the increased crit range part of the capstone, perhaps with another increase to hit (+4?). This would be a UNIQUE TO THE CLASS mechanic that would highlight the fantasy of a Ranger's prowess at hunting- and hitting- their mark. Their... Hunter's Mark.
Then, for increased damage, the designers could have given us the Ranger's concentration spells. Or subclass features. Etc.
These are just some untested, unorganized, and unbalanced ideas that occurred to me while watching thus podcast. HOW, after 10 years of playing & feedback, could the design team not come up with anything better than what they've presented?
It's a horrible disappointment. I think that, after the Monk and maybe the Barbarian, the Ranger needed the most attention and changes from its 2014 (as well as its Tasha's) incarnation. Sad....
I've thought for a long time that the Ranger's Favoured Terrain gets a lot of flack, but could have been turned into its greatest strength. Bring in the concepts from Final Fantasy's Geomancer class. Give the Ranger abilities based upon the terrain they're in and attuned to, and have those abilities scale as they level.
For instance, you spend a day in Mountain terrain to attune to it. At level 1, you gain a climb speed, at level 6 you gain resistance to cold or bludgeoning, at level 10 you can cast Erupting Earth once per day without a slot. You could have other enhancements as you level, like attuning quicker or maybe using an attunement slot to attune to a terrain you're not in. Just something that plays into the fantasy of the Ranger using the environment itself to give themselves an edge that other classes may not have.
As someone who's enjoyed Favored Terrain, I love the idea of attuning to environments. What a missed opportunity.
This…….is an amazing idea
Wow that sounds like a very cool class to play.
"It was about the fact that 5e has no exploration pillar."
Nailed it. The primary thing that enables rangers to be dope is so underserved in 5e that it hobbles the class into nearly pointless-ness.
and here is the real kicker: I think current DnD has just the right amount of exploration. If anything, I'd cut even more of it out of the game. It's just not very exciting or interesting most of the time.
And even if you somehow manage to make exploration more interesting you'd still need to find a way for the Ranger to contribute without 1) trivializing it entitely, thus making it pointless to play it out again and 2) making it mandatory for the group to have a Ranger, because what if nobody wants to play one.
I don't know what to do with the ranger. If it were up to me, I'd probably demote it to a couple of Fighter subclasses and be done with it.
They were way too simplistic about this. Most of them were just denigrating the WotC designers rather than talking about this meta-problem, or giving constructive ways to use the Ranger.
This is about GMs not about who writes the rules.
@@Mike_Hogsheart Sounds like you table is a bit two note.
My biggest frustration with the Ranger is that they absolutely *nailed* the concepts like 8 years ago with the “Revised Ranger” UA. But that was way too early in the lifecycle of the game to be talking about changes that big. Tasha’s was their big opportunity to bring in those concepts, but for whatever reason they had completely forgotten by then. I also can’t help but notice that Ranger was the only class who had exclusively *replacement* optional features, as opposed to *extra* replacement features. Despite “Favored Enemy” and “Favored Foe”, as well as “Natural Explorer” and “Deft Explorer” having so little overlap in terms of both theme and mechanics that there’s no real reason for Rangers to have not gotten all 4.
I've always found the problem with ranger is that it specifically is mostly intended for a different playstyle.
I just read the revised ranger, and it's so much better. It's way more usable, would have been a way better option than this new HM ranger. Just tweak it in a few places and it would have been great.
The four central fantasies of Ranger are, imo, pet owner, forensic detective / bounty hunter, big game (ie, monster) hunter, and military special forces. There's a little crossover with Fighter, a little with Rogue, and a little with Druid. Your archetypes are Drizzt, Aragorn, Bard the Hunter, Geralt of Rivia, and Sam Fisher. I've never understood why magic is treated as integral to the class. Sure, magic makes sense for some subclasses, just like Rogues get Arcane Trickster. But the core identity is a knowledge specialist trained to identify clues others might miss, track down elusive or challenging prey, and trap or critically hit them. Those are all precision skills, not necessarily magic. Hunter's mark as a spell is just silly.
Yeah, I hate having magic as central to the ranger. Basically no fantasy rangers use spells. The fantasy is the skilled woodsman.
Hunter's Mark is the absolute worst design. Zero classes should have one spell as their core ability. It's boring for players and is just lazy game design.
Interesting mix of Ranger roles - tbh if you want a skill based class then there’s nothing to stop you going with a DEX fighter or a rogue. Pick sharpshooter as your feat and Outlander as your background and you’re pretty much there. For the Witcher Eldritch Knight works pretty well.
DnD Ranger leans more into the elven woodland warrior ideal of being a guardian of nature and drawing power from that connection. That’s why 2014 PHB had BM and Hunter. If your fantasy is weapons and skill based then play a fighter.
@@psteer2002 fighters aren't skill based at all. That's the problem. They're the anti-skill character. I'd love a woodsman subclass for fighter and should probably design one.
@@NateFinch if you want skills go Rogue - with Cunning Action, Expertise etc. Or take Skilled as an origin feat, Skill Expert as a feat with fighter. There are so many options.
@@NateFinch I'd say like some rangers use spells, but theyre supposed to be so seamless you barely notice the spells. The youtuber Enter the Dungeon does a great video on it (Ranger Guide, around 16:30). Aragon keeping up with an elf while sprinting? longstrider. Calming down a horse? animal friendship. Mentions he can disappear if he wants to? Pass without trace. like they're more utility based, not combat based. Small buffs here and there to make the class more potent
My D&D Mount Rushmore would be Gygax, Arneson, Ed Greenwood (totally agree with Sean on that one) and probably Janelle Jaquays as the fourth, for her incredible contributions to dungeon design principles.
Hear hear
Great list!
Mine would be the opposite of James'. They put 5e and 1e luminaries together; I don't think 1e is relevant to modern high-fantasy gaming (it's very relevant if you're in the OSR scene, but it and mainstream gaming are like foreign countries on all accounts - procedures, traditions, priorities, etc.), and I don't think 5e did anything revolutionary, aside from exploding the audience - it's more of a greatest hits album. So my Mount Rushmore would be Skip Williams, Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook and Bill Slaviczek, i.e. the people who defined what D&D and its clones will look like and play like for decades to come when they came together to design 3rd edition.
I haven't played 3e in like 15 years, but in a way, I never stopped playing it, since you can find its legacy everywhere - 4e, 5e, Pathfinder, 13th Age, Shadow of the Demon Lord, etc.
I was shouting Janelle Jaquays at my phone during that segment
Gygax was a raging misogynist and a racist genocide-apologist.
The changes to Ranger immediately made me think that this all made it easier to program to use in the next VTT or video game after BG3. Given Jeremy Crawford referenced how Produce Flames worked in BG3 being frustrating, it just solidified that feeling. This does not capture the Ranger as would want to play them. It moves them further away from that.
There is no one right way to play a Ranger. Your opinion is your own.
@@hawkname1234 The video talks about the desire many have expressed for the ranger and that this version falls short of providing that. I happen to agree with that. Nowhere did I say it had to be my way nor did I say that was the only way. And yes I did say for me which does infer it is my opinion.
This is the correct assessment, yes.
If you don't know anything about VTTs or programming everything is "easier to program for VTT". 5e is implemented on Foundry for years now - nothing stoped them before.
@@notsochosenone5669 I do actually and I know they have but the term I used was easier and also from a Game Design Theory standpoint for video games, it places Rangers closer on par to the other classes.
The Ranger is probably evolved from Aragorn, who was literally called exactly that. However, in combat, he was effectively a Fighter. Outside of combat, he was a essentially a survivalist/tracker (and royal superhuman hero of prophecy) which explained the Ranger's focus in that direction.
The unique factor that I see for them was the Beastmaster (and eventually the Drakewarden and to a lesser extent the Swarmkeeper) expanding on the pet angle. Perhaps that could be their new angle?
This might be a controversial opinion. But the ranger should lose the beastmaster subclass & the concept of a combat pet should be opened up to all characters as a game mechanic rather than a class one.
@@maverick210189 I disagree. Mostly because at that point you just end up with a group of PCs and all their pets, and the last thing I want in 5e is power creep and more attacks.
@@bradleyhurley6755 The DM has the control on the parties' access to this resource. If they let everyone in the party get a pet and then complains about the "power creep", deal with it. Nothing wrong with a DM suffering the consequences of their own actions & they'll be better aware for the next time.
@@maverick210189 How do you let one PC have a pet and not the other PCs unless it is part of a specific class and the class is balanced around having that pet?
@@bradleyhurley6755 How do you let one PC have a magic item and not the other PC's unless it is part of a specific class and the class is balanced around having that magic item? (Same argument)
What rock group has four men that don't sing? Mount Rushmore
Can y’all comment on Mike Shae’s (sp) opinion that the WoTC team needed a DM advocate in the room when making these changes because it’s seems it’s great for players but no one is thinking about how game play is managed.
5e is generally terrible at explaining how to run it. DMG is full of cool things (that most people never actually read), but they made zero effort to make all this advice, information and tools actually ACTIONABLE and connected. They absolutely need a DM advocate.
I listened to that content and I honestly disagreed a lot with what they had to say.
But I think theirs a fundamental thing we disagree on.
To me, D&D is a combat game. If 50% of your game, on average, is not combat, then it feels like you're ignoring the biggest part of the game.
I think, of anything, the changes will make combat faster because your players will kill everything faster. Saying combat is gonna take too long is true, but also where the game spends most of the time.
@@cbeaird52 No evidence was given that combat is going to take longer. The only reason to believe that is saves on every Fighter attack. So maybe yes, maybe no, but Shaun Merwin asserting that seemed dishonest.
But also - it's really bad to ASSERT that "D&D is a combat game." You are allowed to play however you want, but it's obnoxious to assert that there is one right way to play.
@@hawkname1234 I'm not stopping you from playing it however you want.
But 50+ % of the rules are around combat. If it's gonna spend that much time focused on that subject, it does imply that's what they want you to do while playing it, doesn't it?
You can ignore it, sure, but at what point have you gone from playing D&D to playing a new game built using D&D.
@@hawkname1234 it's not about a right way to play. Anyone can play as they want but 5e is 100% a combat oriented game. It has no exploration pillar despite what they say, barely any social and about 70-80 percent at least focused on combat including most spells and class features. It's made for lots of combat. Even short and long rests reinforce this. It makes no sense to get all your health back by sleeping but they want you to consistently get into fights day after day so it's necessary. Everything in the game is built on combat.
Thank you James!!!
I have been pitching calling this next edition 50th Anniversary Edition for weeks now. Usually the conversation goes something like this:
"5.5 and 5e2024 arent very good names. Which one are you gonna call it?"
"Ive been calling it DnD50th or Anniversary Edition."
"That wasn't the question. It has to be one of those two."
It could even be abbreviated to 50Ae
I call it 5.5e and I think that's accurate and easy.
In my opinion the root of the D&D ranger is Drzzt. Even in his storyline he was a Fighter/Druid. Trained in his Homeland as a fighter then later by his mentor Montolio
I was playing my Nature Cleric last night and really enjoying using my 6th level ability Dampen Elements from the 2014 PH. Just using my reaction any time to take half damage from any elemental source is just an amazing feature that's really thematic for someone that can withstand the harsher elements of nature. I wonder why I'm playing this instead of a Ranger?
The truth is there are dozens of abilities that can be given to the Ranger class that can be both flavorful and effective. I still don't think we have gotten many effective abilities, just flavorful ones. It doesn't take an optimizer to notice when features are both effective and flavorful. I play with relatively new players at a store, but they certainly notice when I take 20-30 points less damage and then even help save damage on their characters later. Then they ask how many times a day I can use Dampen Elements and I tell them there's no limit. That really makes an impression.
When i personally think of ranger, i think of a trapper. Things like hidden traps, snares and the like are very under-utilized in D&D. And I'd like to explore the idea of a character being able to draw enemies in, getting stuck in a trap and then the ranger getting massive bonuses to then taking them out
Ha! Thank you for answering my Mastering Dungeons question Dael, Shawn, and James!
I really appreciate it!! - Kurt
RE: Mount Rushmore: Jennell Jaquays?
Greenwood is MVP. All legitimate lists - gotta agree with Shaun.
You got to have a guy with a LONG beard
All rangers should have the skill called "scout"
For scout roll a stealth check and there is no failure. The better the roll the more the more information the ranger gathers. This skill nevers alters other forces to the range. In dungeons the ranger can scout into the next room and in open area it see possible dangers and they can guide others away from.
What about monster insight rolls.
13:41 You're literally describing Worlds Without Number
Um actually, it's called worlds BEYOND number.
@@zacharywiesel900 No, WWN(Worlds Without Number is a TTRPG design by Kevin Crawford, not to be mistaken with Jeremy Crawford.
I would recommend to any new player to go to other editions and at the least read them to see how they compare with the current fifth edition. You might find some game mechanics that you enjoy but that are not included or featured in 5e like character customization options, class skills and features that you've never heard of before, feat customization and a layer to combat you didn't know you needed.
Yes, rage rage against the dying of the light!
And by light i mean ranger design.
YES!
I DM a group of 8 players and we have already established a house rule that both Hunters Mark and Hex will be cantrips with no concentration that can be cast as a bonus action. Super Easy fix and its my job as the DM to ensure that I bring challenges to the table that take into account this house rule. Not a big deal at all and in no way breaks the TTRPG. 💪
I just love how the production on these is getting even better each time.
Wizards realised that Warlocks were designed around Eldritch Blast, and so they changed the focus to Cantrips instead so that design space wasn't as limited.
Wizards then decided to make the Ranger souly dependent on a Level 1 spell that requires concentration. Having 4 core class features, 1 of which is the capstone, and some subclass features, tied to a Level 1 spell that isn't even exclusive to the class is just insane to me.
I agree. I think that is terrible design. MAYBE you do that for a single subclass. But the WHOLE CORE Ranger is based on casting this one spell all the time? Really bad design.
The ranger in bg3 is addictive. If they did that but gave expertise?! Gods id be hype!
Dael touched on the big problem i had with the 2014 ranger and why i liked tashas and the 2024 ranger. the majority of the 2014 ranger's abilities were heavily dependent on the DM, especially favored enemy/terrain. i think both versions fit my fantasy of being explorers/trackers. the current biggest problem with rangers, like you guys have mentioned, is the lack of an exploration pillar. if they dont fix that, it doesnt matter how much freedom the designers had, it would still be un fun if the DM and/or modules dont support the gameplay.
I mean, they fixed it by making the Ranger no longer rely on that pillar.
So, solution!
Is it the solution you wanted, that's really what the sales will tell us.
@@cbeaird52 how does the ranger not rely on exploration anymore? hunter's mark and deft explorer (note the word explorer) seem designed to go very well with exploring and tracking
@@TonyRobetson so, Hunter's Mark primary benefit of the spell is More Damage
The Deft Explorer feature, it's now expertise and proficiency in skills.
The Natural Explorer feature is spells you can learn.
Spells like good berry, alarm, speak with animals are not entirely hinged in "Exploration".
All of these are features that are used in combat, social, and Exploration pillars.
@@cbeaird52 all of those features are incredibly useful for the exploration pillar. how does them being useful in other pillars make the ranger not rely on the exploration pillar?
@@TonyRobetson The answer is in your own question.
All of those abilities are just as useful, if not more so, in other pillars.
So, Ranger no longer relies on exploration. Which was it's biggest down fall in 2014. Half of the features were for a pillar that doesn't exist.
Now, the features provide value for the pillars that do exist: combat, ability checks, and spellcasting.
Ghostfire's Primal Barbarian is the best ranger around.
To me, a lot of the new Ranger class and subclass features DO feel like a Ranger, but they aren't super exciting. I was just disappointed that it wasn't more than the Tasha's version with some extras. I was kind of excited for more than just a port of Tasha's.
Id cram most everything shown in base ranger to like their first 5 levels
@@Jasonwolf1495 I am just really hoping the capstone is better than what they said out loud in the video...
@@malgloveIt's not. It's exactly what they said. Treantmonk, among others, has the PHB 2024. The capstone is certifiable trash.
I'm really disappointed that they designed the entire class around Hunter's Mark.
"We've reworked the Ranger spell list to make it more exciting. We've enhanced your spellcasting mechanics so you can use more spells and enjoy greater versatility. Also, here's this 1st-level that we expect you to Concentrate on through Level 17. 🙄"
I believe there are two main issues with 5E Ranger.
First and foremost, there isn't really an exploration pillar in the game, no in built rules about hex crawling or other overland travel, tracking, etc. A person who picks Ranger probably likes that stuff, but there's nothing to DO.
Secondly, I don't think we have a culturally relevant example of what a high level ranger looks like. Stalking theough woods and ambushing monsters is very low-level grounded fiction. It sort of loses its shine when the party is challenging demigods and rewriting magical laws. The Planeswalker tried to imagine 'scaling exploration gameplay' but runs into the same problem with the systems.
I said this in my comment as well. Dale said to look at what a ranger is and just put it on paper. But they DID. It was the original Ranger. The community didn't like it. The mechanics captured the concept - but the concept was too niche for a fantasy super hero game.
Since the community doesn't actually want complex survival mechanics or designing sessions of just travel (very few RPGs gamify this. Most people recognize that it's boring) then this nature paladin version of ranger is what we get.
The fantasy of the ranger is usually cited as Aragorn, Legolas, and Drizzt. But those characters know the Ranger more as a social thing, lifestyle, or a job, not as a Class. Aragorn if he had to classify his skills would like say he's just like Boromir, and Gimli - he's a warrior. That fantasy is represented in the Fighter class. (which Shaun said as I typed this...)
But people like seeing the word "Ranger" in the class line. The designers, in trying to satisfy that desire have to cut the ranger class out of the same game mechanics pie as Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue and Ranger. That's not a lot of pie - even less once you have to slice it even finer into subclasses.
What little room it does have for abilities all its own are very DM/campaign dependent, if you don't do exploration & wilds and feature the ranger's favored enemy, it feels extra lackluster.
If you want good fantasy examples for rangers as a combatant you gotta look at extremely specialized hunters, spec op units, and all those characters that people argue "They can win with prep time" and you find the ranger.
@@Jasonwolf1495 Right. Geralt of Rivia.
Those fantasies could be fulfilled by the warrior or the rogue classes. And they're very solo oriented fantasies, they're interesting but better suited to one-on-one or maybe 2 players and a DM. Making everybody else at the table sit around while you sneak up, gather information, brew the right potions, etc. IMO that'd get pretty boring for everyone else.
@@tthrack1432 You just make it instant for 5e's super hero fantasy. The ranger just always knows these weaknesses, every long rest they sulk off and find ingrediants, they get special weak point attacks, etc etc. Its really easy to put ranger fantasy into a fast game.
Holy shit, Dael. Thank you for the shoutout.
To me, the core fantasy of a Ranger is someone who gathers and uses their knowledge about a creature to take it down before a fight can even get started. Someone who can survive in the wilds, use the terrain to their advantage, stalk their prey, and unleash devastating attacks when the time is right. I think of the Witcher, Men-in-Black, Rambo, Predator, and Ronan Dex when picking movie characters that fit that fantasy. I’ve been working on a homebrew for the game I run for a long time now and the core ability I give them is a Monster Grimoire they add to over time with skill checks and actions in game that grant them bonuses against the creature types they have researched. I have given them expertise in Survival and Nature along with some traveling bonuses, but I do really like that idea of them being able to attune to terrain.
Overall, I agree with how you guys are feeling, it’s pretty underwhelming, which is a shame.
Adding to Hunter's Mark, I think you should also be able to 'consume'/'end' it on a hit or whatever - for a smite-like burst of damage. A sort of 'marked shot'.
Kind of funny, over 30 years of D&D Ranger has always caught my imagination, then and now. Yet I have not played a ranger since 2ed.
What would recapture the essence of ranger mechanically? In my heart a Ranger is a warden found between the civilized and the wilderness. Skills and mobility outside combat with the ability to outfight threats in order tame these boundaries within combat. Yet above all… they need to be able to provide the skills and abilities that their specific environment allows them to thrive. Creating a dabbler by nature. Much akin to earlier rangers with a range of abilities drawn from multiple classes the class could instead have a modular approach were the player determines which aspects the class exceeds at and which aspects are not needed for their “story”.
Instead of having one hard archetype that is pulled in multiple ways you can have the only modular class that allows for flexibility needed to excel on the fringes of civilization and excites creative players with a new design space for their characters.
Always love and laughter in your lives, and please know you are priceless ❤
I agree with the frustration. It seems that Wizards has some kind of math formula that they use to balance their classes, and it was the reason why Stunning Strike kept the Monk so weak. But they have such a love frenzy for spellcasters that they keep abandoning the martials in favor of giving spellcasters new fun spells. That Tasha's Brew spell that gives you any common potion should have been given to Rangers, but flavored as them foraging for ingredients, and concocting an herbal brew. But no, give it as a spell to the wizard
How would you design your Ranger?
My Ranger has
- expertise in survival and nature. At level 10 add Wisdom modifier
- Favored enemy add accuracy based of Proficiency.
- favored terrain add advantage to all skill checks
- Hunter and beastmaster should be combined
It will have the versatility of the Ranger, exploration improves in multiple ways and have the iconic pet.
I play the 2014 core edition over the rest..
The Ranger was improved in OneD&D compared to 5e. That is not much of a measuring stick though, because they weren't that good in 5e. They relied heavily on 1) overpowered spells, and 2) Gloom Stalker to actually be good.
One of the problems Rangers suffer from is an unclear character identity, but instead of using that to expand their class, they just kinda leave it as is. From what I can tell, people generally expect 3 things from the Ranger:
1) The dual wielding Warrior - Drizzt is the most iconic Ranger in D&D history, after all.
2) The Archer - Ranged compatants.
3) The Beastmaster / Pet Hunter - Basically WoW Hunter.
All of these are possible build options within the class and each of them have roots in older D&D editions and in the lore. But in 5e, only the ranged combatant was anything resembling good.
The worst part is that there is another class they made for 5e they could've looked to for inspiration for how to fix this: Warlock. Warlocks also have 3 main things they can do: Blastlock (spell focus), Bladelock (weapon focus) and Chainlock (pet focus). If they just gave Rangers a choice between wanting to be a dual wielding warrior, an archer or a beastmaster as a Ranger equivalent of a "Pact" it would go such a long way to fix things, separate from the subclass. Then just add some higher level features based on your choice.
I have been out of D&D since 2nd Edition, but have been looking to get.back in. The 2nd Edition Ranger had the Favored Foe, Tracking, Survival, Animal Lore, Nature Lore, Magic, and Followers (who could be animals or NPCs). Imagine my disappointment when I found core features I played with relegated to an underwhelming subclass.
If we had to distill all the classes to fit under the fight/rogue/cleric/wizard moulds, I'd have to say:
Fighter: Barbarian and Monk
Rogue: Bard and Ranger
Cleric: Druid and Paladin
Wizard: Sorcerer and Warlock
I find, at least the way I see the Ranger fantasy, as more of the stealth sniper scout, that I thonk fits the rogue more than the fighter.
How to Hunter's Mark without actually having to "Hunter's Mark:"
Ranger’s Quarry
Beginning at 1st level, you gain the ability to call upon primal forces to mark an enemy for death. When you hit a creature with an attack roll, you can choose to mark that creature as your Quarry. Alternatively, you can designate quarry by studying the target or its tracks or at least one minute. Your Quarry remains marked for one hour or until you fall unconscious or use this feature again.
For the duration of your mark, you gain the following benefits:
- When you hit your Quarry with a weapon attack or a Ranger spell and deal damage to it, including the turn you marked it, you can increase that damage by 1d6. This additional damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Quarry Damage column of the Ranger table.
- You have Advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) check you make to track or locate your quarry, as well as on any Intelligence check you make to learn or recall information about it.
- Your Quarry has Disadvantage on any Dexterity (Stealth) checks it makes to hide from you.
You can only mark one Quarry at a time. If your quarry would fall to 0 hit points before the end of your mark's duration, you can transfer your mark to another creature by hitting it with an attack or using your reaction.
You can use this feature twice. You gain additional uses of this feature as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Quarry Uses column of the Ranger table. You regain one expended use of this feature when you finish a Short Rest, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a Long Rest.
Highlights:
1)This is a NON-CONCENTRATION CLASS FEATURE instead of a spell.
2) Mark is now applied by hitting (or Studying) an enemy, instead of a Bonus Action.
3) Specified that the extra damage is applied when you hit your Quarry with a "Weapon attack or Ranger spell" to get rid of the damn Hex + Hunter's Mark interaction that WotC feared so much.
4) Damage also scales like '24 Monk's Martial Arts die.
5) Uses scale off of Ranger level, not PB or WIS modifier (similar to Barbarian Rage), so a multiclass only gets two uses per Long Rest
6) Folds some of the knowledge stuff from '14 Favored Enemy back into the mark
14:49 they kinda did. Early UA was amazingly experimental. People hated it.
They added a bunch of stuff to the classes, a lot of it really neat. Just not quite fully baked. And people really, really did not like it.
Honestly i thought the BG3 changes - with some Damage resistance stacks was a cool addition - why did they not add that.
The Madeline Khan reference, Five Stars.
Since they want 2024 Ranger to revolve around Hunter's Mark then it shouldn't require concentration 🤷
Despite Ranger HM suggesting single-target DPS focus, the buffs to Barrage and Volley suggest they’re AoE specialists and are the best MARTIAL at this. Having to drop concentration from HM forces the player to make choices, and that’s fine. And lack of an exploration tier is more a GM shortcoming, not necessarily a game design one. There are lots of legacy mechanics from previous editions relating to dungeon crawling that deal with temporality and space, but which receive almost no attention in the DMG (dungeon turns, etc.) but the thought is there when you look at Ranger abilities, spell durations, etc.
13:00 How to make 4 base classes in DnD? Easy! It is already a game called Shadow of the Weird Wizard (Or Shadow of the Demon Lord) by a former WotC Designer who worked on 5e's base design. 😆
Basically, you start with your "Novice Path" which is Warrior, Rogue, Magician, or Priest. However, Shadow systems throw in a twist in that Druid, Cleric, and so on are Expert Paths and you can mix and match any Novice Path with any Expert Path. And once you reach 7th level, you can pick any Master Path.
@40:00 My DM does things like this from time to time. Several of us have written campaigns and built worlds because of it. One I remember was that we had split the party and each group got into combat, so the DM gave monsters to the people whose characters were not in that fight, then at the end of each round switch fights. So you had a turn the whole time, switching between monsters and PCs. We also had a harder fight where we all had NPCs to run which had us playing 2 characters which helped with running stat blocks even more.
The exploration pillar doesnt really exist and even if they add more in the new DMG im sceptical wether it would even be used a lot, because most of 5e is focused on heroic fantasy.
My D&D Mt. Rushmore would be Greenwood, Cook, Dancey and Mercer. Mainly because I started playing in the early 90s when Greenwood’s setting absolutely captured my imagination. Cook streamlined it for a broader audience with 3e and Dancey turned it into the first ‘killer app’ with the d20 OGL. Mercer showed us how to weave a session into a cooperative epic narrative and drew me back in after a 15 year hiatus.
Honorable mentions: Rodney Thompson for bounded accuracy, which made my job as a DM much much easier and convinced me to DM again after burning out with 3e stat creep. Matt Colville for Action Oriented Monsters which greatly changed how I built monsters and encounters.
Dnd Mount Rushmore:
Gary Gygax - Washington
Dave Arneson - Jefferson
Chris Perkins - Lincoln
Sam Riegel - Roosevelt
Actually, maybe we replace Sam Riegel with Sven Vinke
Regarding the ranger, wizards of the coast are in a tough spot. Problem is not that they can't look at what a ranger is and put it on paper, the problem is that no one agrees on what a ranger is.
There is a large portion of the community that thinks that a ranger should not have magic at all and instead should be some sort of survivalist character. They want to play out the fantasy of being the character that travels the wilderness and leads the party. However, That is a very specific niche. The original Ranger actually did fill that niche very well, But people found that it was too specific of a niche when the rest of the game is more or less fantasy superheroes.
So if a lot of folks want a survivalist, But the vast majority of games are pretty much ignoring survival, What is even the point of the class?
Now they have to switch it to basically being a sort of nature Paladin. That's why you get so many subclasses like swarm keeper and gloom stalker and Fey Wanderer. They moved from being the survivalist style characters of the first two subclasses magical defenders of all that is natural. That's a cool flavor! But now you need the mechanics to back it up. And Hunter's Mark is the major mechanic that people associate with the ranger.
So if you are wizards of the coast, and you see that people don't actually want a survivalist Ranger, and you are also seeing that people are really caught up with Hunter's Mark as a defining feature of the Ranger, then naturally you start designing the rangers powers and abilities around Hunter's Mark.
I'm not saying it's a good decision, I am saying that it feels like a pretty natural decision based on all the data they are getting.
People were caught up with Hunter's Mark because that was the only way to keep up with damage with the hunter. Nobody *likes* Hunter's Mark. Nobody says "you know what I want to do? Cast the same friggin boring spell every combat." But they do, because they have to, in order to stay relevant. And instead of fixing the relevancy issue, WotC takes the wrong message and makes Hunter's Mark very slightly better. So dumb.
But if that's the case, then you make Hunter's Mark a class feature with no concentration, certain number of times per day, and you can use a spell slot to use it again if you have no uses left. The issue with doing this was it created a multiclass problem. You could easily take a dip into Ranger for the HM or a Ranger take a dip into one or more classes to stack damage buffs (divine smite, Hex, etc). WotC needs to reign in multiclassing.
They should have made the Ranger a pet class as a basis and had the subclasses change how that functions.
The one thing I hated about the World of Warcraft Hunter was the fact that you had to have pets even if archer specced. So no thank you.
@@Wud-f2r I can understand that. My thought about it being a pet class was regarding some aspect of the class that would make it stand out from the others. It just currently does some things that could be possibly be better served by a multiclass combination. During a character concept build, I have never thought that any of my concepts could be served by the ranger class alone. That statement stands from AD&D 2e and into the present.
I remember a reddit post that said the problem with ranger is it's never allowed to be "the best" at anything, any form of martial combat, from dual swords to archery, if it's better than the fighter, fighter fans complain, it can't be better at being nature-ey than the druid, being trackery with the janky 2014 effects clerly didn't work because the game wasn't suited for it, what niche does ranger have, pets? in 2 subclasses? Other classes get pet subclasses like warlock does, wizard has find familiar which is a more iconic pet that more variations get.
The problem is in the weakness of D&D's exploration pillar. I built a pretty good exploration system for my campaign and my players basically never left the base without a ranger. (But I also used the more powerful spell-less ranger from the first Unearthed Arcana in 2014).
The best base Ranger that WoTC has come out with so far is the original UA Ranger. If they'd gone with a perhaps slightly modified version of that, they'd have a good base class.
PS: I like the Hunter. For me, that scratches the Legolas machine gunner itch. Most martials are single enemy focused, so having a AOE non-magical martial would in my view make a great nitch for at least one Ranger subclass.
PPS: I'm 100% on board with Dael's criticism of the new Ranger.
My next character will be James Haek’s hair. My D&D Mt. Rushmore: R.A. Salvatore, D. Arneson, Gygax, L. Elmore
They should just make the beast companion a core feature of the Ranger. Then each subclass could come with a unique companion.
They should! Considering how well received the Beastheart by MCDM was as a 3rd party class WOTC could take inspiration from and improve upon it for the Ranger
I would never play one again and I’ve played Rangers exclusively since 1980.
@@Wud-f2r you mean 5e on up or from a earlier edition?
@@Drizztbc um, I started with D&D Basic/Expert boxed sets but I’m talking about TSR’s 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Before WotC existed. But I mean I would never play a Ranger of any edition that requires animal companions.
I Love ALL Ghostfire Podcasts videos! RPG Mt. Rushmore should be Ben, Dael, James, and Shawn.
I like the new ranger, and i feel it has a good identity. I guess I'll know beer when i see the spells and final class information.
3.5 / pathfinder 1e versions of the ranger are where the peak of the class was. Ease of progression in your martial choices of dual wielding or going full legolas rain of arrows with a bow. You had your animal companion and you had your small selection of spells.
Personally I thought it”peaked” with 2nd Edition.
So i've actually playtested Ranger in the final version, And I think a lot of people are getting confused, Because Looking at the class alone is an unimpressive, Until you take into account the totality of the changes the spell casting and Other rule changes in the 2024 book And I can't speak to all out power because i've only played up to level 11 But this ranger is far Less clunky to play.
Man, imagine if WotC just went full OSR or made an actual 6E… I think they should just drop subclasses, because man if some of these subclasses were JUST CLASSES and you multiclass you would make your most ideal Ranger for your own fantasy.
16:46 It should just be a feature! Just like Eldrich Blast should probably be a feature of the Warlock as no other class can use the cantrip!
Gygax, Arneson, Greenwood, and Cook came to mind for me.
So i have this in my notepad to copy and paste into any video i find dealing with the 2024 Ranger and/or hunter’s mark.
If you compare the math on a full turn’s damage between a ranger and a fighter, the math comes out as follows:
If we assume the ranger uses a greatsword with hunters mark and a fighter uses a greatsword w/o action surge, average damage per turn at lvl 20 is
R: 2(2(3.5)+5.5+5)=35
F: 4(2(3.5)+5)=48
If you were to take a beast ranger and a battle master fighter to the equation
R: 2(2(3.5)+5.5+5)+2(4.5+5.5+5)=65
F: 4(2(3.5)+6.5+5)=74
If you dont consider that the fighter uses action surge and the ranger gets around +6.5 to hit with ranged attacks vs melee the damage from hunters mark is strong enough not to make the fighter less effective in dealing single target melee damage, as well as trivializing enemies.
Factoring in ranged (longbow) and action surge against an opponent with 18 ac the math is as follows:
R: 4(4.5+5.5+5)x.8225=49.35
F: 2(4(2(3.5)+6.5+5))x.70=103.6
Keep in mind im not sure if the advantage from the lvl 17 hunters mark is applied to the pet. After 2 turns of surging and maneuvering the damage of the fighter drops to around 33.6 while the ranger is still doing 49.35. Adding subjective variables like range from danger and reach, the rangers damage is still respectable.
Addendum: we still don’t know what hunters mark does in 2024 and all math performed here assumes it’s the 2014 version and not the UA6 version or some amalgamation of the two.
The three reasons they can’t get fighters right (outside of them firing designers) are
1)Rangers are leaders that keep the group together, find the enemy and can sus out how to defeat them. (This is an issue because of how groups in D&D operate but it is doable).
2) Rangers have difficult mechanics. Aragorn, Robin Hood and most rangers are skirmishers yes they fight but they are hard to pin down and move around a battlefield almost at will (so you can see how that conflicts with the design I hope what with turn based and opportunity attacks).
3) Rangers are party glue. Most rangers you can tell because they support and accompany others in the party and help them . That means they have to be team B for most situations (And you can see how that makes it hard not to replicate powerful features in other classes without being over shadowed)
The exploration thing and tracking is not the point of rangers. And that is why they keep failing.
((I don’t do Mt Rushmore since it was built in people’s sacred lands as a way of showing native people who was in charge (IMHO). So yeah it my thing.))
To be honest it feels like there have been so many versions of rangers in so many things with so many differences I'm not sure there really is a core to what the class really is other than "woodsy person that fights and sometimes with a bow". In many contexts rangers get boiled down to a hybrid between druid and fighter, and in others they take on more of their own identity.
I honestly expected them to go straight to making Ranger the pet class. Not saying they should have but it would have im given it a more firm and unique identity.
That said MCDM made their beastheart class so I’m happy with having that in the absence of an evocative ranger
I hate everything about the new Ranger
Re:Ranger. If campaigns supported the Ranger in his overland exploration "Expertise", then one might be designed well "in his element".
He is designed for dungeons and, therefore, not a Ranger.
My Mt. Rushmore would be:
Gary Gygax
Dave Arneson
Jenelle Jaquays
Larry Elmore
Honorable mention for Ed Greenwood. You could substitute him for Elmore and you wouldn't get any complaints from me.
ranger should be a subclass of fighter, agree
This is as silly as saying Rogue should be a subclass of Fighter, or Bard should be a subclass of Wizard or Sorcerer.
@@blackshard641no it is nothing like that at all. If you followed the history of DnD (or any rpg really) the class archetypes are 4: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue.
But I disagree, and with just as much reasoning and evidence.
@@YellowCableFighter, Magic-User, Cleric, Thief :)
Also, you only get concentration protection for hunters mark at 10th level, at which point you're almost done with most campaigns
Pretty sure it was 13th level, which is after most campaigns. It's a ribbon feature.
I think everyone is going to houserule Hunter's Mark is non-concentration.
@@hawkname1234 Yep me too, my main issue is that new players/DMs dont get to house ruling for a while
Also, if you have to house rule a mechanic straight after release - it's a bad mechanic
I've noticed my group enjoys playing the npcs in combat and giving descriptions of their homeland. Granted my group are my wife and kids.
The only cool thing I need a ranger to do is to lead his elf and dwarf buddy on a multiday chase of a huge band of orcs who have kidnapped their friends. ;)
It is clear from the thumbnail that Dale has not lost her acting chops.
Love Matt from Fistful of Dice! Also one of my first regular d&d youtube follows. Oath of the Frozen King and Driftchapel from Absolute Tabletop are great.
With regards to the ranger... What's a good example of exploration?
I say this a someone who has run PF2e, and has struggled to get my players to engage with the mechanics of exploration found there. People kinda don't care about using all their exploration actions. Additionally as a DM, I don't find the fail states for doing exploration poorly terribly compelling out of a very narrow context. There's a race against the clock... and that's about it!
Even then, the dramatic part isn't the mechanics, but the player's investment into the clock and the narrative elements. The exploration is a backdrop for that, that isn't needed because my players already have narrative buy-in and trying to mechanically engage them actually lessens their investment.
So is there a game that actually makes exploration in of itself compelling? Not just mechanically defined, but actually exciting?
I don’t think any system really makes exploration engaging, because that’s a product of adventure design.
For example, I’ve played in a campaign that was an expedition to an uncharted continent, which involved managing an entire company of explorers.
Half of that campaign was spent managing the company resources and scouting.
It was very fun, but not inherently because of the subsystems that were used.
Exploration is more of a game structure, what you call the "fail states" of exploration are actually the "narrative". You set to explore the woods and you get lost or lose your supplies and have to hunt. If that sounds boring, then make the woods more interesting, a place worth exploring.
Exploration has many different faces, it's not just hexcrawling or dungeoncrawling... those are problaly the most well known (even when what people know about them is usually incomplete or wrong). You can focus on "just the good parts" if you don't like the idea of doing too much bookeeping (although, you must do the base book keeping of following how the days pass), that's a pointcrawl. You can do exploration on a city which is mostly going to be fleshed out from dealing with different factions.
On why exploration is important, it comes down to the simple idea that character progression should come from it. That is, the way you find new magic items, spells and gain XP to level up (and if you are using the rules, gold to level up too).
I'm not familiar personally but the recommendations I see a lot are Cubicle 7's Uncharted Journeys if you want something 5e compatible and Free League's Forbidden Lands for a non-5e system built around exploration.
@@estebanrodriguez5409 That sounds more ideal for games that don't have a specific driving plot motivating it. I have played games that way, which feel more emergent in their storytelling, and while I've had fun there it isn't my preferred mode of TTRPG story. I prefer a more cohesive narrative.
For those stories, it's hard to make the setbacks of exploration interesting outside of the aforementioned race against the clock.
@@KurtDunn267 You can race against the clock outside of exploration. In a heist you are racing against whatever defenses the location you are in. In a mystery you might be racing against the perpetrator to make another crime or escape.
Whatever adventure you have, I think you want either way to be time sensitive, because it's what it makes the world feel alive, outside of the players. You have downtime for stuff that isn't time sensitive.
i think the problem with Ranger is much the same as the Druid, too many people seem to want somehting different form the class. I think the Tashas and 2024 version ar emuch improved form the 2014 version. The people not happy traditionally seem to think that the Ranger should have the same copmbat effective as the Figther AND have the utility that comes with it. I do agree with Dael in that the BASE CLASS shouls be NON magical. The spell less ranger is a great optioon that should find its way into the core rules in some way. I also beleive the Ranger pet shold be worked into the core class and given another option for those who dont want the pet, with the Beastmaster Class ENHANCING the pet instea dof it being the only way to get a pet.
Core ranger should have no spells OR pets. They're a bit less fightery than the fighter, but they have some of the stealth and skills of rogues with nature knowledge of druid.
You have subclasses of "has pets" one that "has spells".... I don't know what else, maybe an archery subclass...
@@NateFinchYES
I will now be referring to this as
* 50th Ed *
from now on. Done. Thank you James Haeck & Eldritch Lorecast!
There's plenty of ways to do rangers, the trick is which themes do you want? 1) Do the DC20 thing and have charisma-based rangers that break up bar fights? 2) Planes-based rangers that specialise in opponents and terrains within a theme (with the rest of their skills / extra damage being hit-or-miss the rest of the time)? 3) Alignment rangers of chaos, neutral and lawful with skills and contacts to match?
So many ideas!
A.G.
Tbh I honestly think all of the buffs are great and I am excited to play a Ranger.
Gygax, Arneson, Greenwood, and...JRR Tolkien, without whom D&D (and fantasy roleplaying in general) would probably not exist.
A try the path of the totem warrior as a new Ranger archetype class and changing the spell known for attunement known and slots. And it work😁👍.
gygax, aenreson and elmore are all great answers, cant argue with Greenwood, but i gotta put in an honorable mention for Christ perkins
Holy crap I haven't heard anyone talk about afistfullofdice I'm sad he stopped uploading
Ranger is my favorite class. You wanted one word to capture its core? For me, that word is: Versatility. The ranger can heal, can fight, can track, can hide, can use magic. I love it so much because it allows me to be everything at once. I won't be the best at anything, but I'm the second best at everything. Their problem with the Ranger design is that everyone has a different idea of what it is.
Which is why WotC’s entire approach to classes is, IMO, WRONG. Set up a base class, and allow skills to be learned and selected in building a character. No subclasses. Make your own. Stop making the game do everything for you on the creative side. Ranger should basically be a Wisdom based fighter with access to tracking and survival skills and the OPTION to have a pet, or learn a few Druid Spells, or be an archery master, or a giant slayer - built up from a menu. No kits. No subclasses. No Hunter’s Mark BS.
The long standing issue with the ranger is due to the changes to the rogue class in 5e. Buffing the combat ability of the rogue, including how easy it is to get sneak attack, meant it completely overtook the ranger's class identity of "lightly armored fighter with some skills". That is why the ranger design is all over the place. It doesn't have a unique class identity. It is either a worse fighter, a worse rogue, or a worse druid. The only way to fix this is to reduce the rogue's combat effectiveness and reinstate that class's identity as a skill monkey (very unlikely to happen), or to come up with a new class identity for the ranger, which WotC is either unwilling to unable to do.
They gunna lose their shit when they see that War Cleric has a feature that allows them not to concentrate on Spiritual Weapon or Shield of Faith
Or that Trickster Clerics main shtick no longer requires concentration
RE: Ranger as subclass of Fighter: Personally, I see Rangers and Rogues being cut from the same cloth. At the most fundamental level, they are masters of the terrain they watch over (rangers for forests of wildlife, and rogues (formerly thieves) for forests of civilization) and their skillsets reflect this (rangers get nature magic to survive better in the wild, and rogues get tools and tricks to steal and otherwise disrupt the day-to-day activities of others). Both have also been given emphasis on speed and dexterity, albeit for different reasons. If anything, one of those classes should be folded into the other, if not merged.
I see you, and I hear you, and I mostly agree with you, but it’s probably going to be a Fighter subclass for a long time, because it was back in 1e, and the game is allergic to change in some areas.
@@DyunduAppropriately. I completely disagree with Rangers being a Rogue subclass. One of the PC MMORPGs did that and it was awful.
Little late to watch this. The problem with the Ranger is the concepts that the class is supposed to embody and make cool have been completely minimized in 5e D&D. The rules have minimalized the travel and exploration pillars of the game. Almost anything that the Ranger can do taken away by some low level spell or just doesn't exist in the rules.
Rangers work well in Pathfinder ;)
I'm glad someone is saying the part we're all thinking out loud (especially about the ranger). 😂
Thanks for the thought provoking conversation y'all.
I'm a forever GM, currently running both 5e on roll20 and Mothership ftf. I have on occasion been a non-GM but I'm the first to admit I'm a horrible pain in the ass player. I'm constantly second guessing, and though I try try try to be positive and helpful, I don't often pull it off. People like me as a GM a lot more.
Fully agree with you guys- the Ranger 24 is an epic fail by WotC. I was never happy with 2014 either and Tasha’s did not fix it. I left official 5e a year ago and have not looked back. Playing Old School Essentials / 1e, and a bit of Tales of the Valiant. Official 5e is a waste of time compared to both of these systems. Sorry to say that as I have loved official D&D for many many years.
I’m going to have to look at that - I still run a blend of AD&D 1st and 2nd ed. (Basically first plus secondary skills)
@@Wud-f2r OSE Advanced is essentially Moldvay B/X with a healthy curation of AD&D added on top. The mechanics are very elegant and speaking as a DM it is soooo much easier to run than 5e. It lends itself to a sandbox / emergent play style instead of the linear story arc style that is so common in 5e (especially the official 5e adventures). The DM and players are building a world together and thus means the poor DM is not saddled with a “producer/director” role so common in 5e (or at least my experience with 5e). Have fun!
@@gcashby1871 sounds interesting!
13:35 that is right, I think that the explosion of base classes was a mistake. Likely Druid should be a subclass of Cleric, Sorcerer should be a subclass of Wizard, etc. With enough options, redesigning the current subclasses into character options would make sure that all Rangers are different from each other
Exactly
FistfulOfDice mentioned! They were the online campaign I ever watched before I looked into CritRole lol
Let’s not forget that Mt. Rushmore was seized from the Lakota and the Sioux and carved to have white settler grandfathers rather than the grandfathers (or mothers) of native people. 😢
Havent listened yet but my mate and i were chatting the other day, and we both feel like rangers should be based around an animal companion as the base for the class. It would be so good. You good have 3 subclasses, one that has a utility companion, one that focuses on mounted combat and one that fights side by side.
I feel like this would make the ranger so much more unique. And thats always been my problem with the ranger.
Disagree completely. Have played Rangers in every single D&D edition including AD&D 1st Ed (and Basic if they’d had the option.) Also played rangers or hunters in over a dozen fantasy PC MMORPGs. The one thing I never liked in WoW and a couple others was being saddled with an animal companion all the time.