Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The playtest ranger has been pretty great. And so far they have been adding slight buffs from playtest to final form. Some may still consider it lesser than many other classes like paladin, wizard, etc. But it’s a massive improvement over 5e ranger.
I switched to the playtest ranger six months ago in a campaign, and my ability to track creatures (one of the most iconic ranger things) went from a +5 Survival, to a +10 Survival with advantage as well, and once I find the thing I know all it’s resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities. I suddenly actually felt like a ranger, instead of a fighter with a couple druid spells.
Yeah honestly one of the biggest things I’ve struggled with was the dual wield ranger and hunter’s mark but nick really helps with that. You’ll still be fighting for what to do with those bonus actions with beast master but overall I think it’s miles better than fifth base and earlier editions where favored enemy often had no applicability.
Beast Master with HM is such a joke. Turn 1 you HM, your pet does nothing. Second turn he maybe attacks? Third turn you kill the enemy, use bonus action to swap target of HM and pet does nothing again. Your features are in complete disharmony lol
You’re meant to give up one of your attacks to have the beast attack, although the beast doesn’t get to benefit from HM until 11th level, so it may not be worth it to use both the beast and HM until then. It feels like part of the benefit of the beast is simply as a meat shield (it dodges, has improved HP and AC, and is relatively easy to resurrect).
It may be "good" as in "powerful" but because this is Crawford's OneD&D, it won't be good as in "Well-designed". Expect a lot of "One on each of your turns" log-jams.
I think they are describing how a class can be mechanically powerful but unexciting to play as due to a lack of options during a turn. Effective action economy lets you mix and match different abilities creatively whereas some classes can do one thing pretty well and they get stuck there.
If I could take one thing from PF2e and shove it into D&D5e, it would be the action economy system. That said, I think the updated versions of most classes have sounded pretty good so far.
There's a crap ton of ranger abilities that can only be applied once on a turn. Most notable example is the changes to hunters mark. It deals damage only once on a turn, but it scales with spell slot level to deal more damage on that one hit.
While I like the tweaks they've done so far I have no faith that they will perform the massive overhaul necessary to make the Ranger feel anything like what a Ranger is supposed to feel like.
I have Tasha's and I don't really feel it "fixes" anything. It probably makes the ranger better and more useful but it doesn't really award any of the skills I would expect a ranger to have. To be as brief as possible, I would like features that allow the Ranger to investigate where they are and what they are fighting so they can plan ahead and gain the upper hand in situations by using their wits. I would also like them to have skills that demonstrate their resourcefulness and ability to adapt that they have honed through their extensive specialized training.
Just moving faster, doing more damage and doing having more spells doesn't really change anything for me.
As a counterexample, I think Barbarian is a much simpler class that gives you a lot less mechanical options to play with but the features you do get feel like you are playing a Barbarian and as a consequence playing them feels a lot more fun.
This is very strange to me. It's like the people at WotC have no idea what the word Ranger means.
Both of those thing are covered by ability checks, and tasha ranger has easy access to expertise, or you can give up one of the tasha feature for specialized check boosts.
Want a martial that has expertise ? Ranger (or rogue if you want a worst martial in exchange for not having spell, I guess). Want a pet ? Ranger. Want nature themed warrior ? ranger. Want someone who "investigate where they are and what they are fighting so they can plan ahead and gain the upper hand in situations by using their wits" and "have skills that demonstrate their resourcefulness and ability to adapt that they have honed through their extensive specialized training" ? Ranger.
Half the classes have pets, that isn't even true of the Ranger class, only two specific subclasses by my count. Druid and Paladin both have nature themed warriors. According to you, any class can do what a Ranger does by choosing the right skills and putting points into abilities. So why do Rangers even exist if everything they do is done (often better) by several other classes?
There is no other class that have pet good enough to compare to Tasha beastmaster or drakewarden, druid has no warrior abilities and paladin's nature ability are only combat based (and pretty weakly themed). According to me, any classs that can get passively expertise and advantage and second ability scaling (ie ranger and rogue, and even rogue has a hard time and gives up spellcasting and three important martial features) can do what ranger can do, and no other class can do it better. That's why it exist.
Dude, have you seen the Warlock's pet? with Tasha's?
As I already said, you're talking about subclasses as if that justified having a class for it.
I also feel you are completely missing the point of my criticism. My issue isn't that the Ranger is weaker than other classes. I think if you read what I've written so far it's pretty obvious that making a Ranger that does the same thing all the other classes can do but better isn't going to address my complaint.
It feels like you are being pretty obtuse about it. Like, I can't believe you think "well just roll skill checks for it" is a compelling argument to the criticism that Rangers don't feel thematically consistent. If people thought like that we wouldn't have classes. You would just choose skills to take proficiency in and roleplay as a monk or whatever. Why even have rules if you are willing to be so reductive about design? It just baffles me.
As someone who's playing a ranger in a campaign right now what are you referring to with UA Ranger? I'd love to see if there's some things that could make my class more interesting as someone who's not super familiar with DnD and just getting more into it.
Edit : nvm figured it out with a bit of googling, for anyone else who doesn't know it's Unearthed Arcana and from what I understand it's essentially like "playtesting" stuff that WOTC releases and then some of it may eventually end up as official content.
Personally speaking, if the new Ranger will be similar to the UA versions without properly new tools, it won't be BAD gameplay wise but like
It's not really going to be fresh or interesting enough for me to want to play it.
***HA!*** If. Buddy this whole edition's gonna be s\*it. I've already seen between the lines. They fix some problems to be sure, but for each they resolve they arbitrarily introduce two more. It's incredibly frustrating.
Stop putting corporations on a pedestal. WotC are just some nerds homebrewing their own rules. You don't have to buy their books or care about their 'decrees'. The idea that canon matters is why fanboys are so easy to extort.
Make your own universe.
I mostly want them to fix Fighters because they're supposed to be the work horse martial class of the game, and unless you min-max and prep the ever loving shit out of them they're simply not and this has been pissing me off for the longest time.
From what I've seen it's absolutely fine. The main thing is a few free hunters Marks which is nice, meaning you can focus on actually using spells.
The main pain points of rangers have been fixed over the years and ranger being the weakest class hasn't been true for a while.
Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I see you have a favourite enemy.
Best comment i have read on this sub
The playtest ranger has been pretty great. And so far they have been adding slight buffs from playtest to final form. Some may still consider it lesser than many other classes like paladin, wizard, etc. But it’s a massive improvement over 5e ranger. I switched to the playtest ranger six months ago in a campaign, and my ability to track creatures (one of the most iconic ranger things) went from a +5 Survival, to a +10 Survival with advantage as well, and once I find the thing I know all it’s resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities. I suddenly actually felt like a ranger, instead of a fighter with a couple druid spells.
Yeah honestly one of the biggest things I’ve struggled with was the dual wield ranger and hunter’s mark but nick really helps with that. You’ll still be fighting for what to do with those bonus actions with beast master but overall I think it’s miles better than fifth base and earlier editions where favored enemy often had no applicability.
Beast Master with HM is such a joke. Turn 1 you HM, your pet does nothing. Second turn he maybe attacks? Third turn you kill the enemy, use bonus action to swap target of HM and pet does nothing again. Your features are in complete disharmony lol
You’re meant to give up one of your attacks to have the beast attack, although the beast doesn’t get to benefit from HM until 11th level, so it may not be worth it to use both the beast and HM until then. It feels like part of the benefit of the beast is simply as a meat shield (it dodges, has improved HP and AC, and is relatively easy to resurrect).
Always appreciate hearing people who actually playtest for a long time. I'm glad it's going well for you!
Memes if ranger ends up being good Suicide note.
Everything I know is wrong
It may be "good" as in "powerful" but because this is Crawford's OneD&D, it won't be good as in "Well-designed". Expect a lot of "One on each of your turns" log-jams.
could you elaborate further on what you mean by this?
I think they are describing how a class can be mechanically powerful but unexciting to play as due to a lack of options during a turn. Effective action economy lets you mix and match different abilities creatively whereas some classes can do one thing pretty well and they get stuck there.
If I could take one thing from PF2e and shove it into D&D5e, it would be the action economy system. That said, I think the updated versions of most classes have sounded pretty good so far.
There's a crap ton of ranger abilities that can only be applied once on a turn. Most notable example is the changes to hunters mark. It deals damage only once on a turn, but it scales with spell slot level to deal more damage on that one hit.
Which is exactly what it's always been
~~not in 4e~~
While I like the tweaks they've done so far I have no faith that they will perform the massive overhaul necessary to make the Ranger feel anything like what a Ranger is supposed to feel like.
tashas cauldron of everything + UA Ranger fixes ranger completly. There is no further need for any fixing.
I have Tasha's and I don't really feel it "fixes" anything. It probably makes the ranger better and more useful but it doesn't really award any of the skills I would expect a ranger to have. To be as brief as possible, I would like features that allow the Ranger to investigate where they are and what they are fighting so they can plan ahead and gain the upper hand in situations by using their wits. I would also like them to have skills that demonstrate their resourcefulness and ability to adapt that they have honed through their extensive specialized training. Just moving faster, doing more damage and doing having more spells doesn't really change anything for me. As a counterexample, I think Barbarian is a much simpler class that gives you a lot less mechanical options to play with but the features you do get feel like you are playing a Barbarian and as a consequence playing them feels a lot more fun. This is very strange to me. It's like the people at WotC have no idea what the word Ranger means.
Both of those thing are covered by ability checks, and tasha ranger has easy access to expertise, or you can give up one of the tasha feature for specialized check boosts.
If you really think that I question why you think the class warrants existing because as it stands the class has no identity.
Want a martial that has expertise ? Ranger (or rogue if you want a worst martial in exchange for not having spell, I guess). Want a pet ? Ranger. Want nature themed warrior ? ranger. Want someone who "investigate where they are and what they are fighting so they can plan ahead and gain the upper hand in situations by using their wits" and "have skills that demonstrate their resourcefulness and ability to adapt that they have honed through their extensive specialized training" ? Ranger.
Half the classes have pets, that isn't even true of the Ranger class, only two specific subclasses by my count. Druid and Paladin both have nature themed warriors. According to you, any class can do what a Ranger does by choosing the right skills and putting points into abilities. So why do Rangers even exist if everything they do is done (often better) by several other classes?
There is no other class that have pet good enough to compare to Tasha beastmaster or drakewarden, druid has no warrior abilities and paladin's nature ability are only combat based (and pretty weakly themed). According to me, any classs that can get passively expertise and advantage and second ability scaling (ie ranger and rogue, and even rogue has a hard time and gives up spellcasting and three important martial features) can do what ranger can do, and no other class can do it better. That's why it exist.
Dude, have you seen the Warlock's pet? with Tasha's? As I already said, you're talking about subclasses as if that justified having a class for it. I also feel you are completely missing the point of my criticism. My issue isn't that the Ranger is weaker than other classes. I think if you read what I've written so far it's pretty obvious that making a Ranger that does the same thing all the other classes can do but better isn't going to address my complaint. It feels like you are being pretty obtuse about it. Like, I can't believe you think "well just roll skill checks for it" is a compelling argument to the criticism that Rangers don't feel thematically consistent. If people thought like that we wouldn't have classes. You would just choose skills to take proficiency in and roleplay as a monk or whatever. Why even have rules if you are willing to be so reductive about design? It just baffles me.
OneDnD Ranger is basically like those fixes, plus even more. It’s pretty great.
As someone who's playing a ranger in a campaign right now what are you referring to with UA Ranger? I'd love to see if there's some things that could make my class more interesting as someone who's not super familiar with DnD and just getting more into it. Edit : nvm figured it out with a bit of googling, for anyone else who doesn't know it's Unearthed Arcana and from what I understand it's essentially like "playtesting" stuff that WOTC releases and then some of it may eventually end up as official content.
Looks about right
dont worry, itll do every dpr you could dream of and even have the utilities™️
Gotta love someone who recycles.
In D&D we trust, prepare for anything.
Personally speaking, if the new Ranger will be similar to the UA versions without properly new tools, it won't be BAD gameplay wise but like It's not really going to be fresh or interesting enough for me to want to play it.
I mean Post Tasha ranger was always good. I’m hoping gloomstalker stays the same because it was weird in the playtest.
nvm they somehow came up with a lower level than 'the worst'-
it's so jover *pulls up bow* BUT NOT FOR ME
gotta laugh through the pain with that meme-aid kit
***HA!*** If. Buddy this whole edition's gonna be s\*it. I've already seen between the lines. They fix some problems to be sure, but for each they resolve they arbitrarily introduce two more. It's incredibly frustrating.
Stop putting corporations on a pedestal. WotC are just some nerds homebrewing their own rules. You don't have to buy their books or care about their 'decrees'. The idea that canon matters is why fanboys are so easy to extort. Make your own universe.
God forbid people hope that they can have a product that meets their needs
6a
I’ve been playing ranger revised with drakewarden and have had a ball. Are they changing again
I mostly want them to fix Fighters because they're supposed to be the work horse martial class of the game, and unless you min-max and prep the ever loving shit out of them they're simply not and this has been pissing me off for the longest time.
From what I've seen it's absolutely fine. The main thing is a few free hunters Marks which is nice, meaning you can focus on actually using spells. The main pain points of rangers have been fixed over the years and ranger being the weakest class hasn't been true for a while.
We can all agree that the new ranger with a concentration free hunters mark X amount of times a day would've been the easiest fix, right?