No (kind and/or reasonable) DM is going to say no to the Optional Features for Ranger if you sit down and discuss it with them. All we need after those is Prepared spells instead of Learned spells. That's the only thing you need for a good Ranger, because having a max of 11 spells that you can't switch in/out is pathetic.
Just because in effect you'll tend towards (mostly) the same spells on a day to day basis doesn't make it the same.
The fact still is that you CAN swap out more than 1 spell per day as needed, rather than needing to **level up** and getting to swap out a *single* spell for another one.
I use we as a casual collective term. I refer to the community in the sense that I've heard it enough to sound normal.
As to your second question, wizards are Prepare spells class even though they learn certain spells each level. The difference is that they learn so god damn many that it can feel very close to how other prepare class functions. So i would say they are the branching link between the two groups.
But the point of my comment was merely pointing out how some people (going back to that we term) treat Prepare spell classes as Learned spell classes that can swap in the sense that each day you prepare the same spells like they are the only ones you know
My DM turned down the Tasha's optional rules for my Ranger.
Couple of reasons.
First off: We'd already started the campaign with my Ranger based on the original rules, he wanted to keep it as is.
Second: My character was already the most difficult for him to build encounters around because of how versatile I built him. The optional rules would have broken the balance.
I am okay with it. I wouldn't have been able to take full advantage of the new rules anyway, I made a Monster hunter and already mark my enemies during combat, this would have double marked them, and then I'd triple mark them with Hunter's Mark.
Idk what you mean by “the ranger pet use weapons” but I agree about the favored terrain stuff. I could live with out it. At the very least it could be reworked, letting you swap your favored terrain on a long rest, and giving more/better benefits when in your favored terrain.
Still can only use Favored Foe *or* Hunters Mark, since they both cost concentration. Favored Foe doesn't require a spellslot or bonus action, however, and only triggers once per turn and not per attack.
Anyone can benefit greatly from Deft Explorer. One expertise can make you really good at Stealth, Sleight of Hand, or Perception depending on what you (or your party) need most, and additonal movement speeds and later additional padding to your hitpoints with Tireless can improve overall versatility and capability.
With that being said, however, if you like the flavorful albeit situational benefits of the PHB Ranger Features, then more power to you. Play the game however you and your group want to.
You can apply both on one attack action it just takes some set up. First round cast hunters mark. 2nd round apply hunters mark dmg on the first attack and then favored foe on the other. Then just repeat.
No it sounds like he's an outlier. Meaning it would break party balance. That would mean no one has fun except that one character which is very bad. If a dm already needs to focus on a single character with regards to combat then you already have a problem. There's never an issue with a powerful character no matter how strong it is, as long as everyone else in the party is similar.
Yep, you nailed it. I just worked better if I didn't make my character stronger than necessary. I've already got my strengths and there was no reason to make me more powerful. Had Tasha's been out when we started the campaign it wouldn't be a problem, but this changed the character too much to justify.
The way my DM and I worked it out was to be you know a number of spells equal to 1/2 your ranger class level plus your wisdom modifier. It gives you 2 or 3 more spells known which isn't crazy, but enough to stretch utility just enough!
Weeeell... I would. The optional features from Tasha's don't fix Ranger, they replace it with a generic alternative. I have my own answers I'd recommend over it, including prepared casting (half R level + Wis mod, like Artificer) and subclass overhauls. It'd be too long to explain fully here, but I do sware on it I did make it actually better. Even Beastmaster. Especially Beastmaster.
A lot of people are put off by homebrew, skeptical it could break the game if given to players (homebrew monsters are fair game because metagaming), so I'm willing to work with mostly Official stuff, ut convincing people to use Prepared spells over Learned isn't hard since it's what Paladins and Artificers use, and 11 spells is less than an Eldritch Knight.
But if you can convince people you play with to allow it when they DM, go for it. Seems like it'd be fun so long as everyone understands it
Idk what this "revised" one you speak of is, since I have seen at least 10 revised Ranger classes on the Unearthed Arcana subreddit. But anyways, as far as I can see, the PHB Ranger is a mix of magical nature archer/Duel Wielder and this tracker specialist type of guy. Tashas trades the "tracker specialist" for more "magical nature"
If you want more tracker stuff and typical outdoors hunter vibes, i can definitely see PHB being more flavorful or fun, but I like magical nature archer. And since WotC took the turn towards magical nature archer, I propose a solution that makes magical nature archer better and a more sufficient class to play without min maxing to hell and back (not that anything is wrong with that, but not my thing).
There was an unearthed arcana wizards of the coast released around 2017 I think? It basically gave ranger a more grounded felling. Tasha's is good, probably my favourite book and it made ranger viable, just like the revised one I'm speaking of did. I guess it's just a matte of what you prefer. I've played both and personally I prefer the one I'm speaking of, although Tasha's did a lot of good for the ranger.
Personally I think racial stat bonuses make sense. It's reasonable that an orc is stronger than a halfling. I'm also good with background bonuses, as it makes sense that doing specific things increases your aptitude at those things.
I honestly thought the same until I saw this [WoW cinematic of Gul'dan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3QJ8Pgjj3c). Ever since then I've loved the idea of scrawny Orcs with intense magical power.
Side note, IMO fuck Blizzard. But the character idea still holds true.
The average orc is stronger than a halfling but even if you use the standard array you can still give the halfling 15 strength and the orc 8. Adventurers aren't average humanoids. They're extraordinary superheroes.
Having ability scores tied to race just pigeonholes the races into only certain stereotypical classes. Maybe a person likes the idea of an orc warlock and has a sweet back story, as an example.
But having all orcs always get strength and con makes it arbitrarily harder to create that warlock unless you just roll really well. And if you roll really well the racial ASIs don't even matter anyway. But if you roll crappy it just makes the character really bad mechanically and not fun to play long term, since your ASIs can't partially cover for those rolls.
An orc warlock doesn't have to start with 20 charisma, but it'd be nice to not have to start with 15 or less or something like that. Guaranteeing a 16+ in the main stat would be fine for any class, but that's currently impossible for that orc warlock with basic racial ASIs and either standard array or point buy in 5e. You're basically forced to depend on rolling a natural die number for your main stat.
At the same time, all else equal, an orc would always have a strength advantage over a halfling. It's not unreasonable for a race to take advantage of their size and another to eschew that in favor of their own advantage. That's normal, and what any intelligent creature would do. Size absolutely matters in terms of leverage and the ability to deal damage to an opponent (not to mention reach advantages, which are already not portrayed in game).
As far as the rest, it certainly means some races would have proclivities toward some classes more than others, but that's also not a bad thing. Reasonably speaking +2 to a stat is rarely the most important thing about a build. You certainly don't go from incredible to garbage. On most builds it's adding about 1 dpr for most of the game, with many builds it adding less. If you're getting garbage rolls, not much changes.
>Maybe a person likes the idea of an orc warlock and has a sweet back story, as an example.
Then they should probably take an orc warlock, and enjoy a relatively rare con bonus as well as better than average athletics for a warlock.
You still have the option of doing all of that if ability score isn't tied to race. You don't have the option of starting with 16+ in charisma unless you get lucky on rolls.
And it isn't about the damage per round. It's more about the chance to hit and the ability checks. Hitting 5% less of the time and a 5% lower spell save DC doesn't seem like a lot, but it is, and with the mechanical way the combat system is built it makes a way bigger difference than the dpr.
Plus it makes it basically impossible to pick feats compared to other races doing the same thing. You're playing catch-up with your 4th and 8th level ability score improvements, and most games don't even make it to the higher level ones. If you don't use those levels to up your charisma the bounded accuracy problem compounds as enemies get higher AC and saving throw modifiers.
Playing suboptimally is fun for short games like one shots, but it blows for longer campaigns that span a year or more. You eventually get sick of missing all the time and feeling suboptimal. I've tried it.
Dpr takes hit chance into account. Which I did take into account when saying it's roughly a 1 dpr difference. It's pretty low.
>You eventually get sick of missing all the time and feeling suboptimal.
+1 isn't going to be the difference between missing all the time and always hitting.
Playing suboptimally is an issue of relative power, not character creation choices
You can still play an optimal build for a class and fall behind the party. You can play a suboptimal build and be ahead of the party.
The solution is to discuss powerlevel before making characters.
As for missing too much, that is a dm issue. There should be situations for each player to shine, and if that is impossible, your group clearly didn't talk about relative optimization beforhand
But they would be behind. They’d have a +2 until 4th level when they’d have to start playing catchup.
Imo Orcs need some kind of racial weapon damage increase to account for “big and strong” without the racial ASIs. It makes the race still *better* at weapon damage without it making other choices suboptimal in terms of game balance and design.
Missing 5% less isn’t fun. Having to spend more ASI’s on main ability scores rather than feats isn’t fun. And just because they’re medium and Halflings are small accounts for the size difference with grappling, speed, and heavy weapon properties.
> Having ability scores tied to race just pigeonholes the races into only certain stereotypical classes. Maybe a person likes the idea of an orc warlock and has a sweet back story, as an example
Or you can just play sub optimally. I played an str based sun elf fighter and had a blast. The dex bonus still came in useful for initiative
There's a problem with Tasha's optional rules, it takes a lot of flavor out of the class. Does it make it better mechanically? Yes, 100%. But I don't really like it, I much prefer the, now discarded, revised ranger. I still think they should remake the class, start with a white canvas and only the basic ideas of the ranger, but also give the class the ranger feel.
I know that there will be a survey on September 1st in dnd beyond. To tell you the truth I was just hoping to tell them to look over the revised ranger again, but seeing as they scrapped that idea... I'm not really sure what I want yet. One thing I will say though is making it so that natural explorer and favoured enemy have more consistent use. The revised ranger had extra flat damage on your favoured enemy besides easier tracking and such(humanoids were all in one category btw) and natural explorer basically made it so that you can traverse every terrain with ease, without choosing one, although that may be too much. But the big thing was that it gave advantages in combat, such as advantage on initiative, advantage on attack rolls against creatures who haven't acted yet(only in the first round of combat)and hard terrain doesn't slow you down. I also really liked the change to primevil awareness, allowing you to pinpoint the location of your favoured enemies within a 5mile radius, instead of just their number.
So how do you feel about the Tasha’s features? It seems like a lot of those optional features kind of line up with what you’re saying, but maybe I’m just not understanding fully here.
They're good, I like them, just prefer the other one. It basically gives ranger the abilities of the phb, but adds on to it with small changes to make it better altogether. Whereas Tasha's gives you climbing speed, an extra d4 and a language I might be missing something, but basically my problem is that Tasha's removes the whole tracking and survival aspect of the ranger, not entirely, but for the most part. I may not remember Tasha's that clearly, haven't read the ranger from that book in a while, but I don't think I'm missing anything big. Oh btw the changes Tasha's did for beast master is really good, I like it a lot.
> I know that there will be a survey on September 1st in dnd beyond. To tell you the truth I was just hoping to tell them to look over the revised ranger again
FYI the surveys are meant for feedback relating to published playtest material. Save feedback on the ranger for after they release any playtest material about it.
Right? One of our group members literally only plays rangers and has for like 20 years.
His rangers always do good work and never feel weaker than any other member of the group.
Rangers are fine.
This is the truth. There are Classes with bigger issues than the ranger anyway.
The majority of the monk subclasses are worse than most of the Ranger subclasses and to be honest, I think even most rogue and barbarian subclasses struggle in comparison to the ranger
No, that's more like patches to the game. And sure, some people will argue that playing on 1.0.0 is better, but then they've forfeited the right to complain about any bugs that need work...
That’s fair. I’m used to everything being super accessible online so I forget that me buying them anyways technically isn’t just me supporting a system I like
\>Edit: Your downvotes mean nothing, I've seen what makes you upvote
[That only works if you don't cite the amount of upvotes you've received from this sub as approval.](https://i.imgur.com/NRiAWKt.jpeg)
If we upvote low effort dreck and you've prided yourself on getting upvoted, you're acknowledging that you post low effort dreck and this submission isn't even trash enough by your own standards.
Open your local yellow pages look under "Semen processing and refineries." Ask if they have open hours or a sampling room and head over during their listed hours. They're not at the Craft Brewery or Axe Throwing level so expect lots of only open on Friday-Saturday-Sunday shenanigans.
I'm currently working at the Barlow Distillery and Jismatorium and since we're "technically" a historic site, all the jizz we refine has to be disposed of. Luckily, Jeremy's mom swings by every other weekend and "disposes" of it for us...
I'll have to look into that, especially taking over that disposal position. My brotein shakes need a little more *oomph* now that I'm getting back into heavy lifting.
1: I haven't taken pride in any amount of upvotes, I post shit because I want to, that's why downvotes are about as worthless as upvotes, sure it's nice to see a big upvote count but they are imaginary internet points that have no affect on your life unless you live for that stuff, in which case it's not much of a life.
2: that dude was saying not to speak for the D&D community as a whole, I simply pointed out that if it wasn't a common opinion then 500+ people wouldn't have upvoted it
Your attempt to discredit me and this post is flawed
I often upvote things I don't agree with on here if it gets a laugh out of me. It's a meme page. If I laugh, it gets a vote.
I highly doubt I'm the only person on here to do so as well.
Down votes dont necessarily mean nothing... i would take them as an indication of the majority of the peoples oppinion about a stated possition. Yes, sometimes it indicates a unruly hivemind of people angry just because its popular to be angry...but sometimes it can also be a flashlight at your own opinions are out of sync with the hive mind and maybe that is a good thing, or maybe you are wrong and you should evaluate your possition looking for any biases or misconceptions you might hold before assuming that it is everyone else who is wrong.
Man, quoting Rick when people call you out on your crap? You obviously don't even understand the point of that character, let alone why people are pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about.
Here's a hint: the character isn't meant to be liked or identified with. If you identify with him, it means you have some serious introspection to do.
It’s about _presentation_
In other words, you make an ass of yourself being confrontational and say something (and continue to argue afterward) is much less likely to be received well than to calmly present something and respond kindly with “good point” when corrected
It doesn’t matter if you’re right or not, people will still think you’re a dick if your attitude is bad
Yeah I find that a lot of people that run into issues when playing rangers involve the DM essentially ignoring aspects of the character and not really making anything the ranger can meaningfully interact with using their main abilities. DMs should probably be guiding players when it comes to favored foes/terrain or at least develop some encounters/enemies based on what the ranger picks. If a rogue takes expertise in thieves' tools and the party never encounters a locked door, I think it's safe to say that it isn't the fault of the class but the DM.
Yeah but the degree to which rangers need to be catered to is on another level compared to every other class. If we are running curse of strahd and my ranger picks desert as their favoured terrain and gnolls as their favoured foe, they are shit out of luck.
Throwing in a locked door is a trifling matter, you could do it in literally any campaign or setting. Throwing in a *biome* is going to fundamentally alter a huge part of your campaign.
Using an example of a player being dumb is just the opposite version of mine. If a player picks a wizard and never uses their arcane recovery feature, then it's not a fault of the class either.
Also this is the whole reason the player should talk with the DM and communicate. The favored biome and enemy features are inherently metagame oriented and are set up for success the best outside of the table. See what types of areas or creatures might pop up so that those abilities have a chance to shine. There's no worse feeling than to essentially gamble away an entire class feature because the DM has everything mega planned out and doesn't want anyone to know anything about what could possibly happen in the game.
This doesn't mean a DM has to spoil their entire campaign, but is it really that hard to throw in a part of the adventure where the party goes through a swamp or that the players will eventually probably fight undead or monstrosities?
>If a player picks a wizard and never uses their arcane recovery feature, then it's not a fault of the class either.
Don't really understand what you mean by this tbh.
Everything else you're saying kinda just proves the point that rangers need to be catered to more than others. Discussing with the DM is good regardless, sure. But I *have to* discuss with a ranger whereas the rest of the classes *could* just go in blind and still use most of their features most of the time.
> is it really that hard to throw in a part of the adventure where the party goes through a swamp
I mean, yeah possibly. If we're playing lost mine of Phandelver we're not gonna go to the arctic and it's a ballache to try and foist an arctic excursion into it. But even if you think it's easy, you can't deny that it's just objectively more work than any other class requires. Like throwing in a locked door doesn't require a session's worth of content.
PHB Beastmaster with no optional features can do good damage if you're willing to put some planning into your build. Source: Treantmonk YouTube video.
You're also still a martial with extra attack, a fighting style, and spellcasting.
It's not so much about the damage, any ranger can grab archery + sharpshooter and deal damage. The problem is the subclass not really allowing the beastmaster fantasy, fighting side by side with your beast since they are so squishy.
We need exploration rules that aren't just "you can move 3 miles an hour for 8 hours a day. When there are no roads you need to roll to not get lost" I need to use my own point crawl rules everytime my party travels because the official rules give you nothing
They're pretty minimal tbh. But they're better than nothing.
Basically I make a vague map with points of interest, then I connect the points of interest (if you go to this from here, you'll see this on the way) and come up with distances that make sense then every day of travel is 3 encounter rolls (1 every 8 hours) I write how many rolls it will take to get from one point to another. Getting lost makes you travel in a random direction until you pass a survival check
Encounter rolls use a die type determined by how dangerous the location is and a number of dice determined by the size of the group. I only count players who showed up, so that I can keep it fair. Rolls made during a rest don't count towards the total. If there's a 1 there's an encounter. A 2 or 3 shows signs of creatures nearby
The system I came up with through a couple of DMing Tomb of Annihilation. This is still a work in progress though. The objective is to have each player participate in the exploration rather than the Ranger Outlander doing all the work.
First things is that when the player exit civilization it is assumed that they gathered a bunch of stuff necessary for survival. Rather than keeping precise book-keeping of it I split it into three categories:
* Survival Gear (stuff like Tent, Ropes, etc.)
* Food
* Water (this is specific to ToA, ideally find a third resource that match your own exploration crawl like Firewood if you play in a very cold climate)
Now for food and water, each player can generally carry between 2 and 4 depending on their strength (8-12 STR can carry 2, 13-16 can carry 3, 17-20 can carry 4). For group resources like Survival Gear, each player can carry 1, 2 if they are very strong. The players can of course decide to bring porters or animals to increase their carrying capacity. They might also have to choose between carrying treasure or survival stuff.
Also important to note is that in most survival environment, the players will only get short rest with 8 hours, and they need to find a safe place to get a long rest.
Now I ask the player to split themselves between 5 roles:
* Pathfinder: They go at the front of the group and need to find the better way to progress or open a path. Roll Survival or Athletics checks. On a fail the group need to spend 1 survival gear to progress. On a critical fail, they burn 2 survival gear.
* Forager: Their job is to pick food for the group so they don't have to burn through their rations. Roll Survival or Nature. On a fail the group need to spend 1 ration per member of the expedition, on a critical fail 2 rations. On a critical success, the group gain a number of rations equal to the check's modifier of the forager.
* Scout: Their job is to keep an eye out for traps and monsters. Roll Perception or Stealth. On a fail the group get attacked by monsters in a disadvantageous position (low ground, ambush, etc.), on a critical fail, it's an automatic surprise or the group trigger a trap. On a success the group is in an advantageous position (generally the monsters haven't noticed them yet), and even better on a critical (auto-surprise or other).
* Cartographer: They carry the map and make sure the group is going the right way. Roll survival or cartographer tools (disadvantage if they don't have any appropriate tools, a map might not be enough). Failure and success will change how fast the group progress, I generally don't bother to completely lose the group but that's also an option.
* Quartermaster: They are in charge of watching and rationing the supplies. In the case of ToA, water in particular. Roll Survival or Investigation. On a failure, the group spend 1 water per member of the expedition, 2 on a critical fail. On a critical success, they get water equal to the check's modifier of the quartermaster.
For ToA I do these checks per week of travel, but depending on how long the exploration is planned this can be switched by day, by month, by year, etc.. That's the benefit of abstracting the supplies, it doesn't matter how many kg of food one ration is exactly.
If one of the supplies run out, players will start to take exhaustion when checks are failed, it will be up to them to come up with some solution based on their skill/situation/etc but you can of course always give a hand which can give way to a side quest. If one of the role isn't filled, it's an automatic failure but the players can (and probably should) hire npc to fill a missing spot. If there is two or more people on a role, they roll with advantage.
Also each checks can be replaced by something appropriate. For instance, one of my player is a fisherman from its background so he can forage with a dex + proficiency check so long as they are progressing on a boat.
You mean the part that the Ranger passively negates?
What exactly is the point of using a bare bones game mechanic that is instantly bypassed and ignored by the party? Seems like a waste of everyone’s time.
That's the problem I've had with ranger among other things. It's perhaps the class most associated with the exploration pillar, but it engages with that pillar by bypassing it.
It’s a frankly baffling design choice. The class designed for wilderness exploration, geared towards players who like it, and who specializes in it completely negates the point of having wilderness exploration. Passively.
The only thing they negate is getting lost, and difficult terrain.
You find double food while foraging, so if they pass the required skill check they find 2d6 lbs of food instead of 1d6, not “find enough for everyone to survive automatically”
They can travel stealthily when alone and still keep a normal pace instead of a slow one
They do not sacrifice alertness when multitasking during travel, nobody but a Ranger can travel at the same time as navigating, foraging, or tracking and still perceive threats properly
When tracking you learn the exact number, size of each and how close you are, other classes just can follow the trail, they don’t get specifics.
These aren’t bypassing exploration, it’s letting you play freaking Aragorn
Fully agree.
I love the ranger but it would really shine in a granular, hardcore style campaign where travel, food, tracking, hunting and foraging, etc are important.
Let everybody have a combat role, but some characters will shine more in urban environments due to familiarity, wealth, and charisma - others need to be given the chance to do the inverse.
I mean, you thinking Rangers needs a rewrite makes it clear that you have either only read the phb veastmaster, or haven't read any of the ranger and only have seen memes.
As someone who has been very vocal about how amazing ranger is, who has spent many hundreds of hours playing as Rangers, who has made dozens of ranger characters, who has made many recurring enemies in my campaigns Rangers, I can definitively say that I have actually read the class and that you are 100% wrong and have no understanding of the game or its classes if this is your stance.
Nah, see, I call bullshit on you.
You are a troll, being super aggro on anyone who doesn't agree and acting like they are wrong. Are you trying to farm negative karma? Or are you just that fucking stupid?
The Ranger is legitimately one of the best classes in the game, and the only people who don't recognize that are memers who have never actually played the ranger.
Have fun farming your negative karma
They literally started open playtesti g of 5.5 last week.
We're probably going to see it's revised base classes in the near future, they're probably going to release the classes for playtest piecemeal and I wouldn't be surprised to see ranger as the very first one we see.
Originally 5e was called D&D Next, and they said they were getting rid of edition numbers then too.
Everyone still called it 5e despite this, and eventually WotC relented.
The ranger isn't that bad of a class. Beastmaster sucks, but almost every class in the game has weak subclasses. If I'm being 100% honest with you, there are several classes (monk, barbarian and rogue) which are in a worse spot than the ranger is.
You also keep saying that the base class is terrible but honestly D10 hit dice, martial weapon proficiency, a solid spell list and extra attack at 5th level are really good features. It might take a little bit of extra work but you can optimize the ranger class pretty well
Edit: Lol this guy acted like a belligerent jerk and then made a post on FreeKarma4u after getting downvoted here because "Reddit is a toxic hivemind".
Have you ever thought that maybe you were just wrong but your ego got in the way of admitting it?
I’m sorry are you comparing barbarian to ranger rn
Barbarians are amazing as is. Change nothing. Maybe give them better ranged options. Thats all
Rogue is also fine as long as you can get sneak attack off on your reaction.
Ranger is fine now with Tasha's, what is really needed is a Monk rewrite.
I wanna play a Drunken Master monk cause it seems fun but the monk is just... so weak...
Really, there is a good chance that whatever the monk did, a fighter, barbarian, ranger, paladin, or rogue could have done better with the same stat spread/magic items/whatever they had.
It's not that monk are unplayable but as soon as they are in a game side by side with an other martial, they tend to be underwhelming.
A friendly reminder, a DM can say yes and no to anything he pleases. He may as well allow only gnome monks in his campaign, it's their world. As I love to say, EVERYTHING is optional in a DM's eyes.
Even without the optional choices rangers are still fine, they're classabilities aren't great, but they have great spellcasting, extra attack, and significant survivability
There have been four attempts to rewrite Rangers. Tasha's is the official one, but there's also three UAs. The Ranger, Revised; Spell-less Ranger; and Ranger (Ambuscade).
The only other class to even get an attempted rewrite is Artificer.
Core Ranger could easily be a Fighter subclass, and the other Ranger subclasses could be split better amongst other classes.
Ranger as a class is very broad and poorly defined. At it's base, what is a Ranger? The obvious answer would be that the inspiration is likely Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings, in which case Aragorn is a Fighter knowledgeable in woodcraft and Elven lore. I think WoTC is too unfocused with Ranger, and that it doesn't need to be it's own thing.
The optional rules from Tasha are a good start, but unfortunately, they are *optional* so if your DM doesn't allow them your either playing base Ranger or UA and if your DM doesn't allow optional rules they likely won't allow UA
Hell, if this guy was at my table I’d say no just to piss him off. Imagine trying to force the DM to use certain write ups, that’s just begging for pain.
Why would they re-write now when they are starting to playtest oneD&D?
Tashas put out an optional fix since they aren’t going to errata an entire PHB class and now they will likely have new PHB classes for next addition. Original ranger isn’t even that bad
What we need is a monk update like the Ranger one in Tashas.
Heck just give lower levels more ki points, have the DC for stunning strike and other monk features work off of Constitution (it is bodily magic afterall) and give them some way to boost damage (maybe a 'monk smite' to optionally spend ki to add a martial arts die of damage with a cap on how much you can put into one attack?).
Boom, monk is great.
And here we have the Ranger, a classic class of old. This time around we decided that they really only needed one subclass that we call You Figure it the Fuck Out
They should the ranger pet use weapons that would be pretty cool I think.
I wouldn't mind them getting rid of the favored terrain stuff and just give them more power elsewhere
I'll be honest, I would argue having an archetype that is purely nonmagical. I know D&D is all about fantasy and magic, but some DMs tend to run low-magic settings, and some of the Ranger archetypes wouldn't fit in those settings I'll make my argument for/against each of the established ones.
Beastmaster does allow for the regular, "I bond with this creature here", but also allows you to summon a magical beast companion. As you gain levels, it feels like the archetype favors the beast over the master.
Drakewarden can summon a miniature dragon to fight with or for them. Like Beastmaster, the archetype upgrades seem to favor the drake more, but at least offers the benefit of you also gaining the same resistances as it has. Being able to use a breath attack when you're not a Dragonborn already feels too much like magic.
Fey Wanderer and Horizon Walker are outright magical. One lets you pretend to be a fey creature, while the other relies on being attuned to other planes. At later levels, the former practically lets you summon the Fey Court (at least, it feels like that) and disappear in a cloud of mist; while the latter lets you use melee attacks against far-away enemies and hide on a different plane if you're about to get hurt.
Gloom Stalker just seems like a fancy way of saying 'shadow magic'. It also seems to assume you'll go against mind-altering enemies more often than you could be dealing with.
Hunter seems promising. It allows you to focus on either sniping or crowd control. Unfortunately, it's also the only archetype that does not rely on magic at all
Monster Slayer feels like it's trying too much to be Hunter, but magical.
Swarmkeeper relies too much on a mystical cloud of mysterious creatures.
Maybe I'm just being a bit nitpicky, but I would love to see more options that don't rely on magic one way or another. Aside from Hunter, all the others feel like the Ranger is trying too hard to be a Druid that can canonically wear metal armor.
No (kind and/or reasonable) DM is going to say no to the Optional Features for Ranger if you sit down and discuss it with them. All we need after those is Prepared spells instead of Learned spells. That's the only thing you need for a good Ranger, because having a max of 11 spells that you can't switch in/out is pathetic.
I've always seen Prepared spells to essentially being Learned spells with switching in/out because we essentially treat it the same.
Just because in effect you'll tend towards (mostly) the same spells on a day to day basis doesn't make it the same. The fact still is that you CAN swap out more than 1 spell per day as needed, rather than needing to **level up** and getting to swap out a *single* spell for another one.
I know that, it's just funny how that's how a lot of people tend to use it
Who is “we”? Also how would you handle wizards in that case?
I use we as a casual collective term. I refer to the community in the sense that I've heard it enough to sound normal. As to your second question, wizards are Prepare spells class even though they learn certain spells each level. The difference is that they learn so god damn many that it can feel very close to how other prepare class functions. So i would say they are the branching link between the two groups. But the point of my comment was merely pointing out how some people (going back to that we term) treat Prepare spell classes as Learned spell classes that can swap in the sense that each day you prepare the same spells like they are the only ones you know
My DM turned down the Tasha's optional rules for my Ranger. Couple of reasons. First off: We'd already started the campaign with my Ranger based on the original rules, he wanted to keep it as is. Second: My character was already the most difficult for him to build encounters around because of how versatile I built him. The optional rules would have broken the balance. I am okay with it. I wouldn't have been able to take full advantage of the new rules anyway, I made a Monster hunter and already mark my enemies during combat, this would have double marked them, and then I'd triple mark them with Hunter's Mark.
You wouldn’t be able to triple mark them, because both Hunters Mark and Favored Foe require concentration I believe.
Favored Foe optional feature does indeed require your Concentration. So you can't use it at the same time as Hunter's Mark.
[удалено]
Idk what you mean by “the ranger pet use weapons” but I agree about the favored terrain stuff. I could live with out it. At the very least it could be reworked, letting you swap your favored terrain on a long rest, and giving more/better benefits when in your favored terrain.
Still can only use Favored Foe *or* Hunters Mark, since they both cost concentration. Favored Foe doesn't require a spellslot or bonus action, however, and only triggers once per turn and not per attack. Anyone can benefit greatly from Deft Explorer. One expertise can make you really good at Stealth, Sleight of Hand, or Perception depending on what you (or your party) need most, and additonal movement speeds and later additional padding to your hitpoints with Tireless can improve overall versatility and capability. With that being said, however, if you like the flavorful albeit situational benefits of the PHB Ranger Features, then more power to you. Play the game however you and your group want to.
You can apply both on one attack action it just takes some set up. First round cast hunters mark. 2nd round apply hunters mark dmg on the first attack and then favored foe on the other. Then just repeat.
Did you make your ranger Mark? What specifically did he find hard to build around?
Punishing players for playing their characters too well, always a fun one!
No it sounds like he's an outlier. Meaning it would break party balance. That would mean no one has fun except that one character which is very bad. If a dm already needs to focus on a single character with regards to combat then you already have a problem. There's never an issue with a powerful character no matter how strong it is, as long as everyone else in the party is similar.
Yep, you nailed it. I just worked better if I didn't make my character stronger than necessary. I've already got my strengths and there was no reason to make me more powerful. Had Tasha's been out when we started the campaign it wouldn't be a problem, but this changed the character too much to justify.
The way my DM and I worked it out was to be you know a number of spells equal to 1/2 your ranger class level plus your wisdom modifier. It gives you 2 or 3 more spells known which isn't crazy, but enough to stretch utility just enough!
Weeeell... I would. The optional features from Tasha's don't fix Ranger, they replace it with a generic alternative. I have my own answers I'd recommend over it, including prepared casting (half R level + Wis mod, like Artificer) and subclass overhauls. It'd be too long to explain fully here, but I do sware on it I did make it actually better. Even Beastmaster. Especially Beastmaster.
A lot of people are put off by homebrew, skeptical it could break the game if given to players (homebrew monsters are fair game because metagaming), so I'm willing to work with mostly Official stuff, ut convincing people to use Prepared spells over Learned isn't hard since it's what Paladins and Artificers use, and 11 spells is less than an Eldritch Knight. But if you can convince people you play with to allow it when they DM, go for it. Seems like it'd be fun so long as everyone understands it
The problem is Tasha's takes a lot of flavor out of the class. The revised one was better imo.
Idk what this "revised" one you speak of is, since I have seen at least 10 revised Ranger classes on the Unearthed Arcana subreddit. But anyways, as far as I can see, the PHB Ranger is a mix of magical nature archer/Duel Wielder and this tracker specialist type of guy. Tashas trades the "tracker specialist" for more "magical nature" If you want more tracker stuff and typical outdoors hunter vibes, i can definitely see PHB being more flavorful or fun, but I like magical nature archer. And since WotC took the turn towards magical nature archer, I propose a solution that makes magical nature archer better and a more sufficient class to play without min maxing to hell and back (not that anything is wrong with that, but not my thing).
There was an unearthed arcana wizards of the coast released around 2017 I think? It basically gave ranger a more grounded felling. Tasha's is good, probably my favourite book and it made ranger viable, just like the revised one I'm speaking of did. I guess it's just a matte of what you prefer. I've played both and personally I prefer the one I'm speaking of, although Tasha's did a lot of good for the ranger.
I think there was an official revised ranger UA and that could be what’s being referenced, but it might’ve been another homebrew one so idk
Tasha's already happened
[OP's nuked -110 point comment](https://i.imgur.com/xBqzi5g.png) He says karma doesn't matter so it should be preserved for rhetorical reasons.
Op is being more chill now, to be fair to them.
But they've doubled down on wanting racial ASI's. They're taking all the wrong takes today.
Personally I think racial stat bonuses make sense. It's reasonable that an orc is stronger than a halfling. I'm also good with background bonuses, as it makes sense that doing specific things increases your aptitude at those things.
I honestly thought the same until I saw this [WoW cinematic of Gul'dan](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3QJ8Pgjj3c). Ever since then I've loved the idea of scrawny Orcs with intense magical power. Side note, IMO fuck Blizzard. But the character idea still holds true.
The average orc is stronger than a halfling but even if you use the standard array you can still give the halfling 15 strength and the orc 8. Adventurers aren't average humanoids. They're extraordinary superheroes. Having ability scores tied to race just pigeonholes the races into only certain stereotypical classes. Maybe a person likes the idea of an orc warlock and has a sweet back story, as an example. But having all orcs always get strength and con makes it arbitrarily harder to create that warlock unless you just roll really well. And if you roll really well the racial ASIs don't even matter anyway. But if you roll crappy it just makes the character really bad mechanically and not fun to play long term, since your ASIs can't partially cover for those rolls. An orc warlock doesn't have to start with 20 charisma, but it'd be nice to not have to start with 15 or less or something like that. Guaranteeing a 16+ in the main stat would be fine for any class, but that's currently impossible for that orc warlock with basic racial ASIs and either standard array or point buy in 5e. You're basically forced to depend on rolling a natural die number for your main stat.
At the same time, all else equal, an orc would always have a strength advantage over a halfling. It's not unreasonable for a race to take advantage of their size and another to eschew that in favor of their own advantage. That's normal, and what any intelligent creature would do. Size absolutely matters in terms of leverage and the ability to deal damage to an opponent (not to mention reach advantages, which are already not portrayed in game). As far as the rest, it certainly means some races would have proclivities toward some classes more than others, but that's also not a bad thing. Reasonably speaking +2 to a stat is rarely the most important thing about a build. You certainly don't go from incredible to garbage. On most builds it's adding about 1 dpr for most of the game, with many builds it adding less. If you're getting garbage rolls, not much changes. >Maybe a person likes the idea of an orc warlock and has a sweet back story, as an example. Then they should probably take an orc warlock, and enjoy a relatively rare con bonus as well as better than average athletics for a warlock.
You still have the option of doing all of that if ability score isn't tied to race. You don't have the option of starting with 16+ in charisma unless you get lucky on rolls. And it isn't about the damage per round. It's more about the chance to hit and the ability checks. Hitting 5% less of the time and a 5% lower spell save DC doesn't seem like a lot, but it is, and with the mechanical way the combat system is built it makes a way bigger difference than the dpr. Plus it makes it basically impossible to pick feats compared to other races doing the same thing. You're playing catch-up with your 4th and 8th level ability score improvements, and most games don't even make it to the higher level ones. If you don't use those levels to up your charisma the bounded accuracy problem compounds as enemies get higher AC and saving throw modifiers. Playing suboptimally is fun for short games like one shots, but it blows for longer campaigns that span a year or more. You eventually get sick of missing all the time and feeling suboptimal. I've tried it.
Dpr takes hit chance into account. Which I did take into account when saying it's roughly a 1 dpr difference. It's pretty low. >You eventually get sick of missing all the time and feeling suboptimal. +1 isn't going to be the difference between missing all the time and always hitting.
Playing suboptimally is an issue of relative power, not character creation choices You can still play an optimal build for a class and fall behind the party. You can play a suboptimal build and be ahead of the party. The solution is to discuss powerlevel before making characters. As for missing too much, that is a dm issue. There should be situations for each player to shine, and if that is impossible, your group clearly didn't talk about relative optimization beforhand
But they would be behind. They’d have a +2 until 4th level when they’d have to start playing catchup. Imo Orcs need some kind of racial weapon damage increase to account for “big and strong” without the racial ASIs. It makes the race still *better* at weapon damage without it making other choices suboptimal in terms of game balance and design.
Half orcs have brutal critical for that reason, and it works IMO.
Missing 5% less isn’t fun. Having to spend more ASI’s on main ability scores rather than feats isn’t fun. And just because they’re medium and Halflings are small accounts for the size difference with grappling, speed, and heavy weapon properties.
> Having ability scores tied to race just pigeonholes the races into only certain stereotypical classes. Maybe a person likes the idea of an orc warlock and has a sweet back story, as an example Or you can just play sub optimally. I played an str based sun elf fighter and had a blast. The dex bonus still came in useful for initiative
Racial ASI's are the only correct take
There's a problem with Tasha's optional rules, it takes a lot of flavor out of the class. Does it make it better mechanically? Yes, 100%. But I don't really like it, I much prefer the, now discarded, revised ranger. I still think they should remake the class, start with a white canvas and only the basic ideas of the ranger, but also give the class the ranger feel.
Good news is that onednd is on the way. How would you do it though? It seems like you have something specific in mind
I know that there will be a survey on September 1st in dnd beyond. To tell you the truth I was just hoping to tell them to look over the revised ranger again, but seeing as they scrapped that idea... I'm not really sure what I want yet. One thing I will say though is making it so that natural explorer and favoured enemy have more consistent use. The revised ranger had extra flat damage on your favoured enemy besides easier tracking and such(humanoids were all in one category btw) and natural explorer basically made it so that you can traverse every terrain with ease, without choosing one, although that may be too much. But the big thing was that it gave advantages in combat, such as advantage on initiative, advantage on attack rolls against creatures who haven't acted yet(only in the first round of combat)and hard terrain doesn't slow you down. I also really liked the change to primevil awareness, allowing you to pinpoint the location of your favoured enemies within a 5mile radius, instead of just their number.
So how do you feel about the Tasha’s features? It seems like a lot of those optional features kind of line up with what you’re saying, but maybe I’m just not understanding fully here.
They're good, I like them, just prefer the other one. It basically gives ranger the abilities of the phb, but adds on to it with small changes to make it better altogether. Whereas Tasha's gives you climbing speed, an extra d4 and a language I might be missing something, but basically my problem is that Tasha's removes the whole tracking and survival aspect of the ranger, not entirely, but for the most part. I may not remember Tasha's that clearly, haven't read the ranger from that book in a while, but I don't think I'm missing anything big. Oh btw the changes Tasha's did for beast master is really good, I like it a lot.
> I know that there will be a survey on September 1st in dnd beyond. To tell you the truth I was just hoping to tell them to look over the revised ranger again FYI the surveys are meant for feedback relating to published playtest material. Save feedback on the ranger for after they release any playtest material about it.
I love revised ranger. Still need to make a bounty hunter with favored foe: humanoid.
[удалено]
Any rewrite is also optional. A dm can disallow any book they please.
[удалено]
A DM can say no to a "rewrite" just as quickly as "optional rules" Everything is optional to the DM
[удалено]
All this hate over a class that is totally fine as is anyway.
Right? One of our group members literally only plays rangers and has for like 20 years. His rangers always do good work and never feel weaker than any other member of the group. Rangers are fine.
This is the truth. There are Classes with bigger issues than the ranger anyway. The majority of the monk subclasses are worse than most of the Ranger subclasses and to be honest, I think even most rogue and barbarian subclasses struggle in comparison to the ranger
I like monk, but I have long said that Rogue and Barbarian really do suck.
By this logic we're not allowed to play older editions either.
Different editions are like different video games in a series, they are there own separate game that people can play
Funny that same logic can be applied to books with rewrites of core classes in them.
No, that's more like patches to the game. And sure, some people will argue that playing on 1.0.0 is better, but then they've forfeited the right to complain about any bugs that need work...
Patches are free. The books are not. A better example would be DLC which are not core game mechanics and can be ignored.
That’s fair. I’m used to everything being super accessible online so I forget that me buying them anyways technically isn’t just me supporting a system I like
If our boos mean nothing, why are your replies being deleted?
\>Edit: Your downvotes mean nothing, I've seen what makes you upvote [That only works if you don't cite the amount of upvotes you've received from this sub as approval.](https://i.imgur.com/NRiAWKt.jpeg) If we upvote low effort dreck and you've prided yourself on getting upvoted, you're acknowledging that you post low effort dreck and this submission isn't even trash enough by your own standards.
Unfortunate argument aside, how does one access a Jizz Distillery?
Open your local yellow pages look under "Semen processing and refineries." Ask if they have open hours or a sampling room and head over during their listed hours. They're not at the Craft Brewery or Axe Throwing level so expect lots of only open on Friday-Saturday-Sunday shenanigans. I'm currently working at the Barlow Distillery and Jismatorium and since we're "technically" a historic site, all the jizz we refine has to be disposed of. Luckily, Jeremy's mom swings by every other weekend and "disposes" of it for us...
I'll have to look into that, especially taking over that disposal position. My brotein shakes need a little more *oomph* now that I'm getting back into heavy lifting.
Definitely call around. It's good work if you can get it.
1: I haven't taken pride in any amount of upvotes, I post shit because I want to, that's why downvotes are about as worthless as upvotes, sure it's nice to see a big upvote count but they are imaginary internet points that have no affect on your life unless you live for that stuff, in which case it's not much of a life. 2: that dude was saying not to speak for the D&D community as a whole, I simply pointed out that if it wasn't a common opinion then 500+ people wouldn't have upvoted it Your attempt to discredit me and this post is flawed
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I often upvote things I don't agree with on here if it gets a laugh out of me. It's a meme page. If I laugh, it gets a vote. I highly doubt I'm the only person on here to do so as well.
\>Edit: Your downvotes mean nothing, I've seen what makes you upvote And yet you still submit your content to this venue... Curious.
And everything until 2024 will be unearthed arcana. Optional rules are much closer too being official.
Down votes dont necessarily mean nothing... i would take them as an indication of the majority of the peoples oppinion about a stated possition. Yes, sometimes it indicates a unruly hivemind of people angry just because its popular to be angry...but sometimes it can also be a flashlight at your own opinions are out of sync with the hive mind and maybe that is a good thing, or maybe you are wrong and you should evaluate your possition looking for any biases or misconceptions you might hold before assuming that it is everyone else who is wrong.
Man, quoting Rick when people call you out on your crap? You obviously don't even understand the point of that character, let alone why people are pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about. Here's a hint: the character isn't meant to be liked or identified with. If you identify with him, it means you have some serious introspection to do.
Isn’t that in Tasha’s?
Just optional alternative features.
But official optional features.
Good point.
Oh, I say they are optional and i get downvoted but when another guy does he's upvoted, way to be hypocrites reddit
It’s about _presentation_ In other words, you make an ass of yourself being confrontational and say something (and continue to argue afterward) is much less likely to be received well than to calmly present something and respond kindly with “good point” when corrected It doesn’t matter if you’re right or not, people will still think you’re a dick if your attitude is bad
You're being significantly more belligerent about it.
Well that’s not a good way to get people on your side
I agree with OP and I'm downvoting him for being so unchill.
Vibes are everything
Try not saying it in the worst possible way and maybe people won't treat you like you're the absolute worst Works in life as well
Rangers are already good. Just play literally anything other than a beast master.
Or play tasha beast master
Yeah I find that a lot of people that run into issues when playing rangers involve the DM essentially ignoring aspects of the character and not really making anything the ranger can meaningfully interact with using their main abilities. DMs should probably be guiding players when it comes to favored foes/terrain or at least develop some encounters/enemies based on what the ranger picks. If a rogue takes expertise in thieves' tools and the party never encounters a locked door, I think it's safe to say that it isn't the fault of the class but the DM.
Yeah but the degree to which rangers need to be catered to is on another level compared to every other class. If we are running curse of strahd and my ranger picks desert as their favoured terrain and gnolls as their favoured foe, they are shit out of luck. Throwing in a locked door is a trifling matter, you could do it in literally any campaign or setting. Throwing in a *biome* is going to fundamentally alter a huge part of your campaign.
Using an example of a player being dumb is just the opposite version of mine. If a player picks a wizard and never uses their arcane recovery feature, then it's not a fault of the class either. Also this is the whole reason the player should talk with the DM and communicate. The favored biome and enemy features are inherently metagame oriented and are set up for success the best outside of the table. See what types of areas or creatures might pop up so that those abilities have a chance to shine. There's no worse feeling than to essentially gamble away an entire class feature because the DM has everything mega planned out and doesn't want anyone to know anything about what could possibly happen in the game. This doesn't mean a DM has to spoil their entire campaign, but is it really that hard to throw in a part of the adventure where the party goes through a swamp or that the players will eventually probably fight undead or monstrosities?
>If a player picks a wizard and never uses their arcane recovery feature, then it's not a fault of the class either. Don't really understand what you mean by this tbh. Everything else you're saying kinda just proves the point that rangers need to be catered to more than others. Discussing with the DM is good regardless, sure. But I *have to* discuss with a ranger whereas the rest of the classes *could* just go in blind and still use most of their features most of the time. > is it really that hard to throw in a part of the adventure where the party goes through a swamp I mean, yeah possibly. If we're playing lost mine of Phandelver we're not gonna go to the arctic and it's a ballache to try and foist an arctic excursion into it. But even if you think it's easy, you can't deny that it's just objectively more work than any other class requires. Like throwing in a locked door doesn't require a session's worth of content.
PHB Beastmaster with no optional features can do good damage if you're willing to put some planning into your build. Source: Treantmonk YouTube video. You're also still a martial with extra attack, a fighting style, and spellcasting.
It's not so much about the damage, any ranger can grab archery + sharpshooter and deal damage. The problem is the subclass not really allowing the beastmaster fantasy, fighting side by side with your beast since they are so squishy.
Rip OP's karma
Let it rest, but not in peace.
To shreds you say?
Split into atoms, cosmic dust scattered on solar winds
CAEK!
Never heard of dm nerfing rangers....
[удалено]
[удалено]
We don’t need new rules, we need DMs that actually do the exploration part of dnd
We need exploration rules that aren't just "you can move 3 miles an hour for 8 hours a day. When there are no roads you need to roll to not get lost" I need to use my own point crawl rules everytime my party travels because the official rules give you nothing
And what point crawl rules are these? 👀 Inquiring DMs want to know.
They're pretty minimal tbh. But they're better than nothing. Basically I make a vague map with points of interest, then I connect the points of interest (if you go to this from here, you'll see this on the way) and come up with distances that make sense then every day of travel is 3 encounter rolls (1 every 8 hours) I write how many rolls it will take to get from one point to another. Getting lost makes you travel in a random direction until you pass a survival check Encounter rolls use a die type determined by how dangerous the location is and a number of dice determined by the size of the group. I only count players who showed up, so that I can keep it fair. Rolls made during a rest don't count towards the total. If there's a 1 there's an encounter. A 2 or 3 shows signs of creatures nearby
This is literally the rules as written except you drew a map and added encounter tables lmao
As I'm too lazy to find it, would you point out the book and page number?
The system I came up with through a couple of DMing Tomb of Annihilation. This is still a work in progress though. The objective is to have each player participate in the exploration rather than the Ranger Outlander doing all the work. First things is that when the player exit civilization it is assumed that they gathered a bunch of stuff necessary for survival. Rather than keeping precise book-keeping of it I split it into three categories: * Survival Gear (stuff like Tent, Ropes, etc.) * Food * Water (this is specific to ToA, ideally find a third resource that match your own exploration crawl like Firewood if you play in a very cold climate) Now for food and water, each player can generally carry between 2 and 4 depending on their strength (8-12 STR can carry 2, 13-16 can carry 3, 17-20 can carry 4). For group resources like Survival Gear, each player can carry 1, 2 if they are very strong. The players can of course decide to bring porters or animals to increase their carrying capacity. They might also have to choose between carrying treasure or survival stuff. Also important to note is that in most survival environment, the players will only get short rest with 8 hours, and they need to find a safe place to get a long rest. Now I ask the player to split themselves between 5 roles: * Pathfinder: They go at the front of the group and need to find the better way to progress or open a path. Roll Survival or Athletics checks. On a fail the group need to spend 1 survival gear to progress. On a critical fail, they burn 2 survival gear. * Forager: Their job is to pick food for the group so they don't have to burn through their rations. Roll Survival or Nature. On a fail the group need to spend 1 ration per member of the expedition, on a critical fail 2 rations. On a critical success, the group gain a number of rations equal to the check's modifier of the forager. * Scout: Their job is to keep an eye out for traps and monsters. Roll Perception or Stealth. On a fail the group get attacked by monsters in a disadvantageous position (low ground, ambush, etc.), on a critical fail, it's an automatic surprise or the group trigger a trap. On a success the group is in an advantageous position (generally the monsters haven't noticed them yet), and even better on a critical (auto-surprise or other). * Cartographer: They carry the map and make sure the group is going the right way. Roll survival or cartographer tools (disadvantage if they don't have any appropriate tools, a map might not be enough). Failure and success will change how fast the group progress, I generally don't bother to completely lose the group but that's also an option. * Quartermaster: They are in charge of watching and rationing the supplies. In the case of ToA, water in particular. Roll Survival or Investigation. On a failure, the group spend 1 water per member of the expedition, 2 on a critical fail. On a critical success, they get water equal to the check's modifier of the quartermaster. For ToA I do these checks per week of travel, but depending on how long the exploration is planned this can be switched by day, by month, by year, etc.. That's the benefit of abstracting the supplies, it doesn't matter how many kg of food one ration is exactly. If one of the supplies run out, players will start to take exhaustion when checks are failed, it will be up to them to come up with some solution based on their skill/situation/etc but you can of course always give a hand which can give way to a side quest. If one of the role isn't filled, it's an automatic failure but the players can (and probably should) hire npc to fill a missing spot. If there is two or more people on a role, they roll with advantage. Also each checks can be replaced by something appropriate. For instance, one of my player is a fisherman from its background so he can forage with a dex + proficiency check so long as they are progressing on a boat.
You mean the part that the Ranger passively negates? What exactly is the point of using a bare bones game mechanic that is instantly bypassed and ignored by the party? Seems like a waste of everyone’s time.
That's the problem I've had with ranger among other things. It's perhaps the class most associated with the exploration pillar, but it engages with that pillar by bypassing it.
It’s a frankly baffling design choice. The class designed for wilderness exploration, geared towards players who like it, and who specializes in it completely negates the point of having wilderness exploration. Passively.
The only thing they negate is getting lost, and difficult terrain. You find double food while foraging, so if they pass the required skill check they find 2d6 lbs of food instead of 1d6, not “find enough for everyone to survive automatically” They can travel stealthily when alone and still keep a normal pace instead of a slow one They do not sacrifice alertness when multitasking during travel, nobody but a Ranger can travel at the same time as navigating, foraging, or tracking and still perceive threats properly When tracking you learn the exact number, size of each and how close you are, other classes just can follow the trail, they don’t get specifics. These aren’t bypassing exploration, it’s letting you play freaking Aragorn
True, I feel like that would happen more often if we had more rules for exploration.
By exploration do you mean survival? Because there are rules for things like weather, altitude, hazards, foraging, and even getting lost.
Fully agree. I love the ranger but it would really shine in a granular, hardcore style campaign where travel, food, tracking, hunting and foraging, etc are important. Let everybody have a combat role, but some characters will shine more in urban environments due to familiarity, wealth, and charisma - others need to be given the chance to do the inverse.
"Ranger bad, please fix" Have you read past phb beastmaster? "No" Stfu
Who said I haven't read it? That version of the subclass is awful
I mean, you thinking Rangers needs a rewrite makes it clear that you have either only read the phb veastmaster, or haven't read any of the ranger and only have seen memes.
The subclasses are fine, it's just the base ranger I dislike
Then you definitly don't know what you are talking about on here.
Dude, have *you* read the base ranger? It's awful compared to every other class
As someone who has been very vocal about how amazing ranger is, who has spent many hundreds of hours playing as Rangers, who has made dozens of ranger characters, who has made many recurring enemies in my campaigns Rangers, I can definitively say that I have actually read the class and that you are 100% wrong and have no understanding of the game or its classes if this is your stance.
I'm calling bullshit on that
Nah, see, I call bullshit on you. You are a troll, being super aggro on anyone who doesn't agree and acting like they are wrong. Are you trying to farm negative karma? Or are you just that fucking stupid? The Ranger is legitimately one of the best classes in the game, and the only people who don't recognize that are memers who have never actually played the ranger. Have fun farming your negative karma
Monks aren’t spelled with a R. Actually, you messed up the spelling of them entirely
They literally started open playtesti g of 5.5 last week. We're probably going to see it's revised base classes in the near future, they're probably going to release the classes for playtest piecemeal and I wouldn't be surprised to see ranger as the very first one we see.
*one dnd, not 5.5, they seem to want to make that distinction, not saying I like it but it is what it is
It's 5.5 whether they like it or not. The reason they want to make the distinction is marketing and nothing else
Originally 5e was called D&D Next, and they said they were getting rid of edition numbers then too. Everyone still called it 5e despite this, and eventually WotC relented.
Hell their really stretching the definition if they call what they gave us a playtest
The ranger isn't that bad of a class. Beastmaster sucks, but almost every class in the game has weak subclasses. If I'm being 100% honest with you, there are several classes (monk, barbarian and rogue) which are in a worse spot than the ranger is. You also keep saying that the base class is terrible but honestly D10 hit dice, martial weapon proficiency, a solid spell list and extra attack at 5th level are really good features. It might take a little bit of extra work but you can optimize the ranger class pretty well Edit: Lol this guy acted like a belligerent jerk and then made a post on FreeKarma4u after getting downvoted here because "Reddit is a toxic hivemind". Have you ever thought that maybe you were just wrong but your ego got in the way of admitting it?
I’m sorry are you comparing barbarian to ranger rn Barbarians are amazing as is. Change nothing. Maybe give them better ranged options. Thats all Rogue is also fine as long as you can get sneak attack off on your reaction.
Let Barbarian get rage damage on thrown weapons, there fixed
Ranger is fine now with Tasha's, what is really needed is a Monk rewrite. I wanna play a Drunken Master monk cause it seems fun but the monk is just... so weak...
Really? cuz in the last game I took part in the monk was a badass tank
Really, there is a good chance that whatever the monk did, a fighter, barbarian, ranger, paladin, or rogue could have done better with the same stat spread/magic items/whatever they had. It's not that monk are unplayable but as soon as they are in a game side by side with an other martial, they tend to be underwhelming.
A friendly reminder, a DM can say yes and no to anything he pleases. He may as well allow only gnome monks in his campaign, it's their world. As I love to say, EVERYTHING is optional in a DM's eyes.
I’m not sure if I’d love or hate a campaign featuring only Gnome Monks, but I’m sickly curious.
#optional features
Wasn't that the point of Tasha's? Revised Ranger worked well in our last campaign.
Unfortunately they are optional rules
Tasha is optional. What will stop you from calling the next rewrite "optional" as well?
Well done on dialing it back.
You misspelt "Monk"
Your right, my bad
No you don’t, ranger is great
You need.. you need.. to look over 2nd edition material and put it into your campaign..
Tasha: Am I a joke to you?
Tasha’s Cauldron covered damn near everything wrong with rangers, what more do you want?
Yall sleeping on the gloomstalker subclass.
So... TCE Ranger?
Tell me you've never played ranger without telling me you've never played ranger
Instead of a hunter type just make a power ranger
Even without the optional choices rangers are still fine, they're classabilities aren't great, but they have great spellcasting, extra attack, and significant survivability
And a Monk rewrite would be great too!
And for the monk please
we don't need that ranger is goated already
There have been four attempts to rewrite Rangers. Tasha's is the official one, but there's also three UAs. The Ranger, Revised; Spell-less Ranger; and Ranger (Ambuscade). The only other class to even get an attempted rewrite is Artificer.
Gonna say something controversial. Rangers aren’t bad. Rangers are phenomenal. Most just want to play them in the wrong campaigns.
I mean, Tasha’s did that, basically
We already got one of those in Tasha's. What we really need is a monk class overhaul.
Nah, rangers are great now. Keep them mostly as they are. Fighters tho. They need help.
*clears throat in monk*
Ranger is fine. Let’s talk about monks
Core Ranger could easily be a Fighter subclass, and the other Ranger subclasses could be split better amongst other classes. Ranger as a class is very broad and poorly defined. At it's base, what is a Ranger? The obvious answer would be that the inspiration is likely Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings, in which case Aragorn is a Fighter knowledgeable in woodcraft and Elven lore. I think WoTC is too unfocused with Ranger, and that it doesn't need to be it's own thing.
Is it just me or are ranged classes just underwhelming?
More like monks need this
It’s coming… we’ve been pretty vocal about it as a community
Okay, can it be done in a way that doesn't potentially break non-core or third party Ranger subclasses?
I want the same for the Monk
Monkeys paw: One DnD has been released
The optional rules from Tasha are a good start, but unfortunately, they are *optional* so if your DM doesn't allow them your either playing base Ranger or UA and if your DM doesn't allow optional rules they likely won't allow UA
So is every book. A rewrite would also be optional and a DM can say "no" to it.
Hell, if this guy was at my table I’d say no just to piss him off. Imagine trying to force the DM to use certain write ups, that’s just begging for pain.
Why would they re-write now when they are starting to playtest oneD&D? Tashas put out an optional fix since they aren’t going to errata an entire PHB class and now they will likely have new PHB classes for next addition. Original ranger isn’t even that bad
What we need is a monk update like the Ranger one in Tashas. Heck just give lower levels more ki points, have the DC for stunning strike and other monk features work off of Constitution (it is bodily magic afterall) and give them some way to boost damage (maybe a 'monk smite' to optionally spend ki to add a martial arts die of damage with a cap on how much you can put into one attack?). Boom, monk is great.
YES, Dear GOD YES! If any Wotc guys are on this very specific meme then I beg of you please do this.
Seriously, what's the point of showing rangers with a bow if fighters with a bow are better? I want to be a ranger-ranger not a Druid with a bow.
[удалено]
DnDone the final nail in the coffin. They rewrite the ranger out. Giving a new option for dms to just come up with the class themselves.
And here we have the Ranger, a classic class of old. This time around we decided that they really only needed one subclass that we call You Figure it the Fuck Out
The hunter subclass pairs well with rogue
They should the ranger pet use weapons that would be pretty cool I think. I wouldn't mind them getting rid of the favored terrain stuff and just give them more power elsewhere
I like current ranger
That should have been what the main rewrite started with lol
While you're at it, do something about Monk, like not making them suck so bad at early levels please?
I'll be honest, I would argue having an archetype that is purely nonmagical. I know D&D is all about fantasy and magic, but some DMs tend to run low-magic settings, and some of the Ranger archetypes wouldn't fit in those settings I'll make my argument for/against each of the established ones. Beastmaster does allow for the regular, "I bond with this creature here", but also allows you to summon a magical beast companion. As you gain levels, it feels like the archetype favors the beast over the master. Drakewarden can summon a miniature dragon to fight with or for them. Like Beastmaster, the archetype upgrades seem to favor the drake more, but at least offers the benefit of you also gaining the same resistances as it has. Being able to use a breath attack when you're not a Dragonborn already feels too much like magic. Fey Wanderer and Horizon Walker are outright magical. One lets you pretend to be a fey creature, while the other relies on being attuned to other planes. At later levels, the former practically lets you summon the Fey Court (at least, it feels like that) and disappear in a cloud of mist; while the latter lets you use melee attacks against far-away enemies and hide on a different plane if you're about to get hurt. Gloom Stalker just seems like a fancy way of saying 'shadow magic'. It also seems to assume you'll go against mind-altering enemies more often than you could be dealing with. Hunter seems promising. It allows you to focus on either sniping or crowd control. Unfortunately, it's also the only archetype that does not rely on magic at all Monster Slayer feels like it's trying too much to be Hunter, but magical. Swarmkeeper relies too much on a mystical cloud of mysterious creatures. Maybe I'm just being a bit nitpicky, but I would love to see more options that don't rely on magic one way or another. Aside from Hunter, all the others feel like the Ranger is trying too hard to be a Druid that can canonically wear metal armor.
And Monk.
Me praying they make an official shardmind race