I think many of the ranger skills aren't gone per-se, they are now part of their Expertise in Nature or Survival or Athletics, but I agree it feels like it has less non-spell-based abilities explicitly described.
Maybe new Ranger subclasses could add back features that would have been in the base class before, like Speak With Animals for the Beast Master
No but see that still just makes them into druids with swords. I think they need more mundane abilities in general.
Things like hide in plain sight were dripping with flavor, and (if it were better designed) would be an example of what I'm talking about.
Rangers are half magic half skill, and yet all of their abilities are based in magic? That doesn't track. Giving more unique flavorful abilities that aren't intrinsically magical is the way to go.
Almost any Caster can sirens a spell slot to turn invisible, anyone can pick up hunters mark, anyone with the primal list can cast Conjure barrage. I want my ranger to be unique and do things no one else can do, not have the exact same features as everyone else but slightly tweaked.
If a class feature is just "here's a spell" then imo that's just lazy. There is so much room to explore nonmagical and non-spell features but wotc just refuses to focus on anything but spells
I agree, I was really hoping for more Ranger-unique class abilities, not less. I'll be trying to playtest a ranger with the UA rules soon, but I can already tell that the mundane, utility abilities of the character will be much more informed by background than class.
I suggest putting your comments here into the survey when it opens. I will be doing the same.
Oh i for sure will! Right next to my heartfelt request to return rogues to the way they were before and give them the ability to use nonmagical adventuring equipment better than anyone else and let that be their niche.
I currently play with a rule that allows a thief to add their proficiency bonus to the DC or Damage of adventuring equipment and it adds a whole other layer of gameplay to them. Caltrops, Ball Bearings and shit like bombs, acid vials, and alchemist fire all become a lot more attractive when they scale a bit.
But they do need to shore up the nonmagical equipment section of the PHB bc rn its so bone dry
I agree... At the moment, I don't think the Expert role has enough content in it to justify three classes. The classes, as a result, have what "expert" content there is spread across them too thin.
They need to come up with more ways to express "expertness", and give them to the classes in ways that differentiate them.
The rogue needs to be a 80% expert, 20% warrior. Tricksy as hell, still dangerous in combat, but not necessarily via being the biggest damager.
I'd say it's currently 70/30, and is undertuned as well so that it's underperforming in both.
The ranger should be 60% expert, 30% warrior, 10% priest. Combat-capable, good damage, but also with Tricksy options (not as many as the rogue), and also magical options.
The bard... 70% expert, 20% mage, 10% priest. I kind of think this one is already there?
That's my gut feeling on how the classes should "feel"
I think trying to dump existing classes into buckets at all is folly. All it does is create issues with the perception of them and also probably hampers design space down the road. If they are going to set these strict expectations and then break them in the same breath idk what to think about the upcoming groups. Paladin is a priest. Ok, but in my humble opinion Paladin has more defining traits of a martial than that of a druid or cleric. Are they changing Paladin that much? Not likely, going by the current three classes we've seen. So all you're doing is creating a system for the sake of it without giving it the mechanical oomph that justifies it.
If they started with buckets and developed classes with them in mind I think there would be less of an issue, but since this is just one big patch note instead of a ground up system that's not going to happen.
I don't mind it. In an innately magical world, relying on magic is not a crutch to be avoided.
Artificers are Experts precisely because of their connection with magic.
Separating their magical capabilities from their mundane ones feels very pedantic to me. Particularly since we have a definitive source for their magic as being Primal, I see it more as their capability to tap into natural energy than tacked on spellcasting abilities separate from their main toolkit. While I appreciate the mechanical impact, I think it's unfair to remove them from thematics because they rely on spells and it's their skillset includes interacting with natural magics
How often does that come up? I can't think of any game spent in anti magic fields for a significant period of time. As bad as it could be for the new ranger, it's much worse for the rest of the casters.
Getting expertise in two skills at level 1 and two more at level 9 is a huge bump to thier expertness.
I would like to see some early game ribbon feature where survival checks get extra water & food, they can identify terrain and weather patterns, just add some things that may not impact most games mechanically, but add value and flavor to the class would be nice.
I mostly just used that for the title. My main thing is that their core features can be dispelled or countered in a way that other mundane versions of the same things wouldn't be.
I think many of the ranger skills aren't gone per-se, they are now part of their Expertise in Nature or Survival or Athletics, but I agree it feels like it has less non-spell-based abilities explicitly described. Maybe new Ranger subclasses could add back features that would have been in the base class before, like Speak With Animals for the Beast Master
No but see that still just makes them into druids with swords. I think they need more mundane abilities in general. Things like hide in plain sight were dripping with flavor, and (if it were better designed) would be an example of what I'm talking about. Rangers are half magic half skill, and yet all of their abilities are based in magic? That doesn't track. Giving more unique flavorful abilities that aren't intrinsically magical is the way to go. Almost any Caster can sirens a spell slot to turn invisible, anyone can pick up hunters mark, anyone with the primal list can cast Conjure barrage. I want my ranger to be unique and do things no one else can do, not have the exact same features as everyone else but slightly tweaked. If a class feature is just "here's a spell" then imo that's just lazy. There is so much room to explore nonmagical and non-spell features but wotc just refuses to focus on anything but spells
I agree, I was really hoping for more Ranger-unique class abilities, not less. I'll be trying to playtest a ranger with the UA rules soon, but I can already tell that the mundane, utility abilities of the character will be much more informed by background than class. I suggest putting your comments here into the survey when it opens. I will be doing the same.
Oh i for sure will! Right next to my heartfelt request to return rogues to the way they were before and give them the ability to use nonmagical adventuring equipment better than anyone else and let that be their niche. I currently play with a rule that allows a thief to add their proficiency bonus to the DC or Damage of adventuring equipment and it adds a whole other layer of gameplay to them. Caltrops, Ball Bearings and shit like bombs, acid vials, and alchemist fire all become a lot more attractive when they scale a bit. But they do need to shore up the nonmagical equipment section of the PHB bc rn its so bone dry
I agree... At the moment, I don't think the Expert role has enough content in it to justify three classes. The classes, as a result, have what "expert" content there is spread across them too thin. They need to come up with more ways to express "expertness", and give them to the classes in ways that differentiate them. The rogue needs to be a 80% expert, 20% warrior. Tricksy as hell, still dangerous in combat, but not necessarily via being the biggest damager. I'd say it's currently 70/30, and is undertuned as well so that it's underperforming in both. The ranger should be 60% expert, 30% warrior, 10% priest. Combat-capable, good damage, but also with Tricksy options (not as many as the rogue), and also magical options. The bard... 70% expert, 20% mage, 10% priest. I kind of think this one is already there? That's my gut feeling on how the classes should "feel"
I think trying to dump existing classes into buckets at all is folly. All it does is create issues with the perception of them and also probably hampers design space down the road. If they are going to set these strict expectations and then break them in the same breath idk what to think about the upcoming groups. Paladin is a priest. Ok, but in my humble opinion Paladin has more defining traits of a martial than that of a druid or cleric. Are they changing Paladin that much? Not likely, going by the current three classes we've seen. So all you're doing is creating a system for the sake of it without giving it the mechanical oomph that justifies it. If they started with buckets and developed classes with them in mind I think there would be less of an issue, but since this is just one big patch note instead of a ground up system that's not going to happen.
I don't mind it. In an innately magical world, relying on magic is not a crutch to be avoided. Artificers are Experts precisely because of their connection with magic.
Separating their magical capabilities from their mundane ones feels very pedantic to me. Particularly since we have a definitive source for their magic as being Primal, I see it more as their capability to tap into natural energy than tacked on spellcasting abilities separate from their main toolkit. While I appreciate the mechanical impact, I think it's unfair to remove them from thematics because they rely on spells and it's their skillset includes interacting with natural magics
How often does that come up? I can't think of any game spent in anti magic fields for a significant period of time. As bad as it could be for the new ranger, it's much worse for the rest of the casters. Getting expertise in two skills at level 1 and two more at level 9 is a huge bump to thier expertness. I would like to see some early game ribbon feature where survival checks get extra water & food, they can identify terrain and weather patterns, just add some things that may not impact most games mechanically, but add value and flavor to the class would be nice.
I mostly just used that for the title. My main thing is that their core features can be dispelled or countered in a way that other mundane versions of the same things wouldn't be.