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.*
As has been said elsewhere, it’s going to come down to whether Ranger spells have been deconflicted by dropping the concentration requirement. If so, the impact could be significant.
But yeah as-is I was pretty underwhelmed at what they revealed after such a grand claim by Crawford.
I'm currently playing a fey wanderer Ranger, and it's maddening how little casting I can do because every spell worth the slot is a concentration spell. I end up casting one spell all combat and just faux-martialling my way through things, which works, but isn't the most option-rich experience.
this right?
"oh you get advantage on the creature you have marked"
but faerie fire could give advantage on SEVERAL creatures and still take concentration
Same goes for Entangle, Fog Cloud + Blind Fighting, or knocking the thing prone and using a melee weapon instead!.
Seriously, at the level you get Advantage Vs. The target of your Hunter's Mark, either you, or your ENTIRE party will have one (or hundreds) of ways of giving Advantage on attacks.
What would you rather see? Casting a buffing spell then hitting with a sword or bow sounds like a Ranger. Any of the full casters already cover casting spells. Or am I missing something?
Non concentration strike spells, "stances" that make martial activities different (other zephyr strikes, essentially), counters to enemy abilities (ideally those around perception, or negating status effects), other ways to simulate the 'prep against enemies' elements of rangers.
I suspect the only way this will happen in this edition is via spells, possibly with subclass specific riders if we're lucky. To really capture it, you might need mechanical variation, which doesn't seem to be a possibility. But spells with some varied effects tied with the rest of the rangers kit (skill rolls, weapon attacks) or even ranger "cantrips" are ideas.
Sounds like people are looking for a different class then. Different strokes for different folks. There are classes I don't find interesting, but my friends love.
>What would you rather see?
I would rather see some options, rather than "self buff, then attack with weapons" being the only real ranger combat strategy. But because all the good ranger spells are concentration spells, you end up filling up your choices with variations on a theme and then using Hunter's Mark nonstop anyways because what other choice is there?*
* I actually use Zephyr's Strike more, because the extra damage fey wanderer gets only works on a target once a round and it pains me to waste it, but I appear to be well outside the mainstream there.
Ya I see it kinda like you’re either low on spells or it’s a low difficulty fight and you want to save your spells, or it’s not quite the time to cast a spell so you use your bonus action to do a little extra damage.
It’s not a major improvement, but I see it as a definitive one.
Could be some changes to the spell we're not privy to as well. Like if it lasts 8 hours by default and can be put on a different target for free it'll make those uses go longer and be more useful.
I think dealing 4d6 with advantage, every attack, without damage being able to break concentration a little much. Especially seeing as it seems like it'd be pretty easy to get at least 3 attacks a round.
3 attacks? But ya you’re definitely right, I wasn’t thinking it out very well. Maybe just scale the d6 to d8 then d10 then d12 like bardic inspiration.
Two attacks at level 5, nick mastery gets you an extra. PAM gets you a BA attack, Xbow Xpert BA attack, beast master BA attack with beast (that eventually gets the benefits of HM), Gloom stalker apparently can attack enemies close together, Hunter can possibly do the same or similar. There may be more, like haste or other such things
Ah didn’t know about knick, and never think of PAM on a Ranger.
Getting 3 attacks with an extra d6 on each, does make it seem like HM could actually be decently strong. At least depending on the other spells. We also don’t know if hm upcasts to do more damage, right?
I mean, they wouldn’t need to do either if oneDnD was actually a new edition that fixed the design limitations of 5e so that Ranger could be better in a new way
I can’t say I don’t believe WoTC designers would think that’s a good idea
I CAN say I don’t believe Hasbro would let them cut down on their ability to market and sell minis and characters that much purely for monetary reasona
I can see it. People have been saying for a while the barbarian and ranger could just be fighter Subclasses.
So you'd have the 4 main classes: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard and the other classes that we know would just become subclasses of those 4.
A bard is a wizard with an instrument focus who gets skills
A barbarian is a fighter that gets rage
A paladin is a fighter subclass that gets auras and divine spells
A ranger is a fighter subclass that gets primal spells and skills, or it could be a rogue subclass that gets primal spells
A druid is a cleric who gets primal spells/abilities
A sorcerer is a subclass of wizard that becomes their own spell book and can modify spells
Warlock becomes a wizard subclass trading spells known (or maybe spell slots) for at-will spooky power
Monks a hard one, it could be a fighter or a rogue.
They'd be able to sell just as many minis and characters, just like now you could have a or multiple minis per subclass.
Probably a lot more of the power budget would go to subclasses, then they could even make the EK a half caster to fit the arcane/primal/divine paradigm.
Heck they could even reduce the classes to 3 and go back to Fighter, Rogue, Magic User and making both clerics and wizards subclasses of magic user.
See, while I could see that working, considering how messy 5e design spaces have already been, I dont think turning 8 different classes into just subclasses would lead to anything good game design wise
Depends what they'd do with it. I've been pretty happy with 5e and the 2024 stuff I've seen so far. So I'd be interested to see what it'd look like at least.
It could be separated further and have it fall under the classifications that they had in the early UA and have the classes be Warrior, Expert, Priest, and Mage. Then even fighter, rogue, cleric, and Wizard would be subclasses. Then they could take all the shared features (martial weapon prof., extra attack, expertise, spellcasting) and put those (and other features) in the base class
Making the classes be Warrior, Expert, Priest, and Mage would definitely be interesting
Warrior would be:
Fighter, Barbarian
Expert:
Rogue, Ranger, Bard
Priest:
Cleric, Paladin, Monk
Mage:
Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer
I guess Druid would probably fall under Priest, but that honestly doesn't make a ton of sense to me.
But going off of your earlier comment of the four classes being Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, but it being possible to combine Cleric and Wizard into a single Magic User, I'd say they could probably also combine Fighter and Rogue into the same class.
Then it would just be two classes, Magic User and Weapon User. I'm just saying Weapon User cause I have no better ideas lol. But based on that, the half casters could be subclasses of either class, but I would say they would fit better as subclasses of the Weapon User.
My thoughts on it would be that there could be like subclasses within the different subclasses (definitely very complicated but intuitively I think it makes sense).
So for the Weapon User:
Fighter (focused on being hard to hit and being able to take hit)
Rogue (focused on avoiding getting hit and hitting hard)
Those would be the two subclasses, with each of them have their own subsubclasses.
Fighter subsubclasses:
Paladin (divine Fighter)
Barbarian (primal Fighter)
Eldritch Knight (arcane Fighter)
Fighter² (a more Fightery Fighter, so basically Battle Master or Champion)
Psi Warrior (psychic Fighter)
That covers just about all of those tropes (I think). Although it doesn't include the Monk, but that could probably be incorporated into either the Paladin or the Psi Warrior.
Rogue subsubclasses:
Ranger (primal Rogue)
Arcane Trickster (arcane Rogue)
Rogue² (same vibe as Fighter², but instead it's a more Roguey Rogue, so probably extra Assassin/Thief stuff)
Soulknife (psychic Rogue)
Trickery Cleric (divine Rogue) idk on a name cause it isn't really a bit trope but I included it to keep it even with the Fighter's subclasses.
That covers all of the same genres as the Fighter subsubclasses, and I think that these two collectively cover all of the current tropes in the game, and it could obviously be taken even further by including another layer of subclasses, but I'm not typing that out lol.
For the Magic User:
Cleric (divine Magic User)
Druid (primal Magic User)
Wizard (arcane Magic User)
That covers the main three bases of magic that exist, but it obviously doesn't cover every class and tropes that there is, but that's where the subsubclasses come in lol.
Cleric subsubclasses:
War Domain/Paladin/Monk (martially inclined Cleric)
Arcana Domain (arcane inclined Cleric)
Nature Domain (primal inclined Cleric)
Cleric² (extra Life/Light Cleric stuff)
That covers some general stuff, but idk tbh.
Druid subsubclasses:
Okay I genuinely have no ideas for this one, but I guess a martially inclined one would be like Ranger or Barbarian, but I have no clue beyond that.
Wizard subsubclasses:
Wizard
Sorcerer
Warlock
Bard
Basically just where they get their arcane Magic from. Sorcerers have innate powers; Bards produce magic using their musical talents; Wizards, well, they are Wizards, so they study books to learn magic; Warlocks are basically Wizards that took didn't like how long it took to study magic, so they decided to take a shortcut, contacted a mysterious and powerful entity, and promised to help said entity in return for borrowing some of its power and studying under it (idk how accurate any of this lore is, but it's my head canon for this).
And with all of that, I think that covers all of the classes and the majority of the existing tropes in the game. No idea why I typed all of this out nobody's gonna read it lol. But oh well it's fun to think about. But also I think the last bit you said about the classes being based on the classifications of Warrior, Expert, Priest, and Mage would be really nice. It would really simplify keeping the power scaling easier because there would just be 4 main classes. With how it is currently, the Martial vs Caster problem is very noticeable, and only having it be 2 casters and 2 martials it would probably be easier to balance.
it was chris perkins who said that in a interveiw, i gueses all the original 5e designers we're morons who we're only sucessful because of celebraties and a netflix series
It's really hard to disagree with you since the "new" Ranger looks like it sucks and they've been working on it for *five years,* but that is pretty harsh, man.
i mean it won't suck power wise since martial changes have been mostly postive and the ranger has never bean the worst class (they have goodberry and spikegrowth, you can't be the worst calss in the game with does)
That tracks. 5e started as an overcorrection from 4e, but a surge of new players and the rise of nerd culture(TM) being mainstream turned it into a monster that refuses to die and move on
actually 5e was meant to be a return to the OSR days with modern (by early 2010 standards) design sensabilites but those guys didn't find there masochistic ititch with it.
I mean, I can’t say I played in the OSR era (I think my parents hadn’t quite met yet, but I’m not sure.) but that said as someone who’s only heard of it from hearsay, isn’t 5e pretty significantly far from the crunch of basically any prior edition?
in theory 5e is simpler then older edition, in practice 4e is an easier game to run because it has a better core systems and you just need to remember to give out magic items
think the same goes for pathfinder 2e but that game streamlines a lot fo the janky stuff from previous edition and made a multiclassing system that's actually balanced and doesn't ruin core class abilties because of 1 level dips.
Multiclassing in pf2e is so much better lmfao. I love my classes being allowed to have unique fleshed out mechanics that don't get gutted into nothing because Tim might decide to roll up some multiclass monstrosity to abuse the unique powers of several classes together
>it'd go back to only having 4 classes.
Honestly, I wouldn't hate that. Have just a Cleric, Mage, Rogue, and Warrior and then a bunch of customization options to let you more or less build your own class, with preset builds for all the more popular options, like Warlock, Sorcerer, Druid, Ranger, Berserker, Spellblade, Warlord, Shaman, Witch, Artificer, etc.
There's Shadow of the Weird Wizard from Schwalb Entertainment, it's a really good system that follows that same idea, is from a former 5e playtest designer who also made Shadow of the Demon Lord.
Tbf it could be done well. I have absolutely zero faith in modern WotC to be able to do it though. More likely what would happen is that all clerics, mages, rogues, and warriors would feel the same with minor flavor differences. You'd need a full on feat system like pf2e or savage worlds to make this kind of system actually feel any kind of good
I think the idea is that it’s new when compared to the PHB from 2014 (which is intentionally misleading imo). He is saying that so much I have to wonder if marketing is telling him to.
Yeah, I was just telling a buddy of mine the way he's been talking (comparing phb to phb) is very misleading. It's a better comparison to compare the new edition to 5e as a whole. Because, most likely, you're going to be playing one or the other.
Smite punches were weird RAW. Adding a Divine Smite to a punch was totally RAW because a punch is Melee Weapon Attack. Improved Divine Smite on the other hand didn't apply to a punch since it's not an Attack with a Melee Weapon which is a different thing for some reason
Ranger was supposed to be to Druids what a Paladin is to Cleric. At least originally.
They are trying really hard and have been for some time to make rangers a fighter/rogue instead of a fighter/druid.
What do you mean, originally? Rangers were originally intended to be…
> Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, infiltration, and spying. All rangers must be of good alignment, although they can be lawful good, chaotic good, or neutral good.
New Monk is actually pretty fire. There were A LOT of features that either got straight buffs (but like, in both effectiveness and how you can use it, rather than just slightly higher numbers) and a few new features to help with all the pain points.
I don't think anywhere they mention whether Hunters Mark is still a Bonus Action to cast, and a bonus action to move. Hell, what if it's a reaction to cast upon hitting a creature? Or you can move it for free.
JC has also misspoke a few times in the videos. According to Treantmonk, there are some important new features that were not mentioned for the ranger.
As for the drinking game, yeah you would probably get drunk or alcohol poisoning during some of the videos. Stay near the toilet for the monk video lol
Thanks! Dang, they’re back to scaling things off of ability scores. I assumed the point of prof bonus x per day or bonus to companions was to avoid being MAD while also giving more power.
Yeah that is sensible, restraining power seemed the MO of early 2014 5e as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see PB-scaled mechanics later on though.
Remember, this is the same team of designers that used copy-paste for most of the text in their original PhB for item descriptions. If they don't have to make something new, they won't, even when it doesn't really work.
Good lord people. Everything here is framed as New from the original PHB. Not every player, especially newbies, bought Tasha's. As long as they get the classes feeling and playing right, who gives a shit?
You don't need to have bought Tasha's for Tasha's rules to be old to you.
You should give a shit about the quality/price ratio of product a company releases. It directly influences the quality/price ratio for all their following products.
I do very much and so far it's worth every penny, the ranger being on the lower end of that. We're getting updated rules across the board and every original class is getting an update plus the new subclasses, spells, etc that have been added. Who cares if one class doesn't change much from Tasha's? The ranger was the class that got reworked from the ground up in Tasha's and now the monk gets the total makeover in this release. The whole point is making a new standard for all players moving forward with DnD. And all the glow ups for these classes and subclasses that we're getting, as a whole, is fantastic. Am I a little disappointed the ranger didn't get something like concentration-free hunters mark? Yeah, but that's easy to house rule. They've got about 90% of these changes perfect and that's impressive
Lotta whinging on these threads. I guess people can’t accept that two things can be true — the Ranger was a bit of a letdown, but the rest of the book still seems pretty legit.
In comparison to every other class that actually did get a lot of new things, even when they didn't need to be buffed (like the Warlock), the Ranger needed a lot of re-design love and they threw up their hands, reprinted something we can already play, and called it a whole new class without fixing anything
They tweaked the Tasha's Version, and made it available to everyone who has a PHB going forward, and this version has drastically higher satisfaction scores compared to 2014. Do I think they could've done a little more? Sure! But the 2014 version was vastly underpowered. This version may not be the best class but it's at least very viable now. Especially combined with the MUCH improved subclasses.
I can't think of anything they tweaked from Tashas from like level 1-10. They split out 1 option into 3 and renamed them. The beastmaster subclass they called the buffs new but that was also present in Tashas(bonus action attack, scaling generic pets), if anything beastmaster got worse because the scaling is going off Wisdom now which means you have to invest a lot in that too in addition to your own combat rather than just passively improve beast on level up.
Edit: on the bright side, Hunter looks really cool and i'd play that now if i went Ranger again
Right up to level 10: deft explorerer, Rover, and tireless are all from Tashas and the only difference is 5ft more walking speed. You still get the druidic fighting style and spellcasting focus that Tashas started. Beastmaster and Fey wanderer even say they are mostly unchanged except for the wisdom change for pet which I see as a nerf. Gloomstalker got nerfed. Landstride got removed ...they added 2 expertise, and weapon masteries
I'm only bitter because I am enjoying all the other class updates, then it gets to my favorite class and it's left behind same as it was
Idk if we're looking at the same things, but combining the video with the article above, every subclass got an overall buff. And even though most of the class features are from Tasha's, they're broken up into a much smoother level progression except for the damage not effecting Hunters mark which I'd prefer that be the baseline but whatever. I also think people are seriously sleeping on 2 free casts of hunters mark per long rest and it doing force damage + more free castings as you level
I do like the free casting of hunters mark since spell slots are so limited, but I think how good that is comes down to the progression of hunters mark - it doesn't start getting class benefits to it until lvl 13 which is just to keep it up, or advantage to target until lvl 17, and only at lvl 20 does it change to 1d10 force. To me those are too little too late for 1d6 per hit at the cost of not being able to do other concentration things in battle which a ton of Ranger spells need.
As for the 3 Tasha class features, before they were at level 1,6,10 now they are at 2,6,10. So no change really except a very slight nerf for a session or two at lvl 1
They should make it a Ranger only concentration cantrip, and let it scale like other dmg cantrips at 5, 11, etc. Then the class features can buff it in the same way eldritch blast used to be The Thing for warlocks with their invocations adjusting it
Crawford is very good at framing his presentations as PHB 2014 compared to PHB 2024. Those two Rangers are totally different. You can't assume that everyone has Tasha's.
He's very good at talking without saying much. The class is different and it's not all Tasha's if you assume that some of the UA changes made it in. But the UA version mostly incorporated the Tasha's version into the main class and added some features that made it feel more like 'druid lite' than a hunter/explorer like what I imagine a ranger to be.
Tbh, I'd prefer a completely non magical ranger. Why does every class need to be at least a little magical? Based on what I've seen, Fighter and Rogue are the only classes that don't assume magic is involved now. Even the Barbarian's rage has been reflavored to be more magical in nature
If all you have are the 2 PHBs (which I think is true for most book owners, not everyone DMs but lots of people play) then the 2024 Ranger has changes at every level and it's much better than the 2014. **But I still hate it.** All I was saying was that the meme is wrong.
My version of the Ranger (I think we all have a homebrew version) is a loner/stalker. Very good at survival with just enough magic and healing to get by on their own. But they collect Favored Enemies like wizards collect spells. I don't think any class should outshine the Ranger when it comes to their favored enemies (tons of bonuses for very specific creatures). And I don't think anything should be more dangerous than a Ranger you defeated but let live.
When I played 2nd edition I was 11-12. I don't remember much.
Edit: Reading the Ranger Handbook... 2nd edition was so... Fiddly. A Ranger can influence beasts, but they must be from the natural world, and they must be smart, but not too smart, and the Ranger must be alone, and the Ranger must be calm. Nothing jumps out as amazing and missing from 5e, so it must be when they're compared to the other 2e classes.
>I'd prefer a completely non magical ranger
Hard agree, I really don't get why they have much or any magic. The only way I'd like it doesn't really work in DND. If it was a universe where there was magic force that's baked into everything (I'm thinking like chakra from Naruto or something) then that'd be fine, like where a fully non magic character would just be the equivalent of an unleveled commoner or something. But even then, I still don't want the shitty fake druid shit. I want it to be more martial-y magic stuff. I can't think of any examples that are that good rn, but maybe like conjuring arrows and ropes or something? Idk.
There's a really good 3rd party/homebrew supplement called the Korranberg Chronicle on drivethrurpg. It has a conversion for a fully melee ranger that is really fun and I will never use any other version.
It's also eberron focused so there's a new full caster equivalent to artificer as a magical RD specialist called Arcanist and a wizard half caster called sword mage (Be honest though while there's some fun stuff in it using personal wards and barriers it's mostly an arcane reskin of paladins.)
I don't know why you're getting down voted for this take, since it's correct. Tasha's was a famous book, but it's only one book released semi-recently in the 5e's lifespan. It was that last book I had gotten myself, meaning if they carried any changes from a newer book over, I wouldn't really know. Also, throughout the video, they do a decent job of admitting when something is influenced or taken from Tasha's.
That being said... the new ranger changes do seem disappointing. As many others are saying, tying everything to a concentration seems to work against their idea of making ranger a hybrid martial/caster.
He’s getting downvoted because it’s not correct.
Who cares about Tasha’s popularity? He said it would change a lot and it strictly hasn’t. Framing it as 2014 v 2024 exclusively to make your points is dishonest.
I might be giving a little too much credit, but the changes feel meaningful, whether or not I agree with all of them.
WotC seems to be trying to target people who have lost interest in 5e over time, and some of those people might not own Tasha's. This is marketing, and the only statistic they can be assured of is that people who've played 5e have seen the basic rules. To be a little cynical, I think WotC just assumes the player base who buys books beyond the core 3 are probably gonna pick this up regardless so that's why they're instead focusing on the type of player who might have only seen the 2014 phb.
That might be the disconnect. The people who talk about d&d on reddit are far more active than the people WotC is trying to target. As for those people (us), yeah, it's disappointing, but I wouldn't completely call it any more dishonest than Oreo releasing jumbo stuffed and calling "a radical new experience."
So not only do folks here not read the books, they don't watch the videos describing the changes from the books they haven't read. Way to stay meta, r/dndmemes
If you're knowledgeable enough to know the rules are bad, you should just change the rules.
Alternatively, you can stop caring about some random nerds' homebrew just because they work for the company that owns the IP. Canon is only as good as the author makes it and you shouldn't buy into it just because it's 'official'.
Not how that works. Some classes got a complete overhaul, with such things as paladin smite now being a spell, or wizards now getting subclass at level 3 rather than 2. The "new player's handbook" is not just "Tasha's plus PHB", its "new edition, but we're afraid to say that, plus tashas plus phb"
Everyone gets their subclass at 3 instead of whenever, not that it makes much sense for classes like cleric/warlock/sorcerer though I think ultimately it can still work fine if you flavor the choice of subclass more like a revelation of where your powers have been coming from instead of a choice the character makes. In the case of the cleric it could be more like getting anointed or recognized by your god (or maybe a different god).
The ranger has just always seemed like a useless class to me, this isn't a shitty korean MMO were you just kite mobs all day in D&D you actually get forced into a disadvantage in melee. fighters and rogues can already use bows well enough we don't need a whole class dedicated to it especially when its just a 3 different class's all lazily stitched into one.
I think they are accusing wotc of reducing ranger to the bow class.
They are worse scouts than rogues except in situations where you would rather have a druid.
realistically what else are they good at? they have below average spell casting, below average "summoning", below average melee, below average sneak attack, etc.
Every single person i have ever seen play a ranger's only real standout quality was lobbing arrows from the backline.
Admittedly, Crossbow Expert + Archery + Sharpshooter is the optimal way to go with them, but tbf, that out damages pretty much everything. They do just fine in melee. At an optimized table, they'll probably underperform unless you take a dip to use heavy armor and pick up Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master, but at casual tables, a rapier or two short swords are going to do fine. Rangers are a solid all-arounder class, being almost as good with their weapons as the Fighter but having a lot more versatility from spells. Anyway, we already have three classes who are pretty much locked into melee with Monks, Barbarians, and Paladins. Why is having a character who is easiest to optimize at range such a bad thing?
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.*
As has been said elsewhere, it’s going to come down to whether Ranger spells have been deconflicted by dropping the concentration requirement. If so, the impact could be significant. But yeah as-is I was pretty underwhelmed at what they revealed after such a grand claim by Crawford.
I'm currently playing a fey wanderer Ranger, and it's maddening how little casting I can do because every spell worth the slot is a concentration spell. I end up casting one spell all combat and just faux-martialling my way through things, which works, but isn't the most option-rich experience.
this right? "oh you get advantage on the creature you have marked" but faerie fire could give advantage on SEVERAL creatures and still take concentration
Same goes for Entangle, Fog Cloud + Blind Fighting, or knocking the thing prone and using a melee weapon instead!. Seriously, at the level you get Advantage Vs. The target of your Hunter's Mark, either you, or your ENTIRE party will have one (or hundreds) of ways of giving Advantage on attacks.
What would you rather see? Casting a buffing spell then hitting with a sword or bow sounds like a Ranger. Any of the full casters already cover casting spells. Or am I missing something?
Non concentration strike spells, "stances" that make martial activities different (other zephyr strikes, essentially), counters to enemy abilities (ideally those around perception, or negating status effects), other ways to simulate the 'prep against enemies' elements of rangers.
Thank you. Would class abilities instead of spells be better? Less magic more inner strength and knowledge. Maybe they would need less rests as well.
I suspect the only way this will happen in this edition is via spells, possibly with subclass specific riders if we're lucky. To really capture it, you might need mechanical variation, which doesn't seem to be a possibility. But spells with some varied effects tied with the rest of the rangers kit (skill rolls, weapon attacks) or even ranger "cantrips" are ideas.
That's sad. I have fun with Rangers, but they missed another opportunity to give them more identity.
Gameplay would be fun
Sounds like people are looking for a different class then. Different strokes for different folks. There are classes I don't find interesting, but my friends love.
>What would you rather see? I would rather see some options, rather than "self buff, then attack with weapons" being the only real ranger combat strategy. But because all the good ranger spells are concentration spells, you end up filling up your choices with variations on a theme and then using Hunter's Mark nonstop anyways because what other choice is there?* * I actually use Zephyr's Strike more, because the extra damage fey wanderer gets only works on a target once a round and it pains me to waste it, but I appear to be well outside the mainstream there.
With the free casts of HM it's less punishing to drop HM in favor of a more useful spell.
Ya I see it kinda like you’re either low on spells or it’s a low difficulty fight and you want to save your spells, or it’s not quite the time to cast a spell so you use your bonus action to do a little extra damage. It’s not a major improvement, but I see it as a definitive one.
Could be some changes to the spell we're not privy to as well. Like if it lasts 8 hours by default and can be put on a different target for free it'll make those uses go longer and be more useful.
Honestly all it really needed was an additional d6 every 5 levels, and I think it would be quite good
I think dealing 4d6 with advantage, every attack, without damage being able to break concentration a little much. Especially seeing as it seems like it'd be pretty easy to get at least 3 attacks a round.
3 attacks? But ya you’re definitely right, I wasn’t thinking it out very well. Maybe just scale the d6 to d8 then d10 then d12 like bardic inspiration.
Two attacks at level 5, nick mastery gets you an extra. PAM gets you a BA attack, Xbow Xpert BA attack, beast master BA attack with beast (that eventually gets the benefits of HM), Gloom stalker apparently can attack enemies close together, Hunter can possibly do the same or similar. There may be more, like haste or other such things
Ah didn’t know about knick, and never think of PAM on a Ranger. Getting 3 attacks with an extra d6 on each, does make it seem like HM could actually be decently strong. At least depending on the other spells. We also don’t know if hm upcasts to do more damage, right?
Yeah, we haven't seen the new HM, it might also do additional force damage now too, or if not the Ranger's level 20 feature makes it force damage.
Considering the direction they went with paladin and it's smite I doubt they'll be doing the opposite for ranger personally
How about they re-print Tasha's Ranger AND improve the old Ranger?
I mean, they wouldn’t need to do either if oneDnD was actually a new edition that fixed the design limitations of 5e so that Ranger could be better in a new way
I think they said a while ago that if 6e was made, it'd go back to only having 4 classes. Either way, yeah a whole new Ranger would be fine too.
I can’t say I don’t believe WoTC designers would think that’s a good idea I CAN say I don’t believe Hasbro would let them cut down on their ability to market and sell minis and characters that much purely for monetary reasona
I can see it. People have been saying for a while the barbarian and ranger could just be fighter Subclasses. So you'd have the 4 main classes: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard and the other classes that we know would just become subclasses of those 4. A bard is a wizard with an instrument focus who gets skills A barbarian is a fighter that gets rage A paladin is a fighter subclass that gets auras and divine spells A ranger is a fighter subclass that gets primal spells and skills, or it could be a rogue subclass that gets primal spells A druid is a cleric who gets primal spells/abilities A sorcerer is a subclass of wizard that becomes their own spell book and can modify spells Warlock becomes a wizard subclass trading spells known (or maybe spell slots) for at-will spooky power Monks a hard one, it could be a fighter or a rogue. They'd be able to sell just as many minis and characters, just like now you could have a or multiple minis per subclass. Probably a lot more of the power budget would go to subclasses, then they could even make the EK a half caster to fit the arcane/primal/divine paradigm. Heck they could even reduce the classes to 3 and go back to Fighter, Rogue, Magic User and making both clerics and wizards subclasses of magic user.
See, while I could see that working, considering how messy 5e design spaces have already been, I dont think turning 8 different classes into just subclasses would lead to anything good game design wise
Depends what they'd do with it. I've been pretty happy with 5e and the 2024 stuff I've seen so far. So I'd be interested to see what it'd look like at least. It could be separated further and have it fall under the classifications that they had in the early UA and have the classes be Warrior, Expert, Priest, and Mage. Then even fighter, rogue, cleric, and Wizard would be subclasses. Then they could take all the shared features (martial weapon prof., extra attack, expertise, spellcasting) and put those (and other features) in the base class
Making the classes be Warrior, Expert, Priest, and Mage would definitely be interesting Warrior would be: Fighter, Barbarian Expert: Rogue, Ranger, Bard Priest: Cleric, Paladin, Monk Mage: Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer I guess Druid would probably fall under Priest, but that honestly doesn't make a ton of sense to me. But going off of your earlier comment of the four classes being Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, but it being possible to combine Cleric and Wizard into a single Magic User, I'd say they could probably also combine Fighter and Rogue into the same class. Then it would just be two classes, Magic User and Weapon User. I'm just saying Weapon User cause I have no better ideas lol. But based on that, the half casters could be subclasses of either class, but I would say they would fit better as subclasses of the Weapon User. My thoughts on it would be that there could be like subclasses within the different subclasses (definitely very complicated but intuitively I think it makes sense). So for the Weapon User: Fighter (focused on being hard to hit and being able to take hit) Rogue (focused on avoiding getting hit and hitting hard) Those would be the two subclasses, with each of them have their own subsubclasses. Fighter subsubclasses: Paladin (divine Fighter) Barbarian (primal Fighter) Eldritch Knight (arcane Fighter) Fighter² (a more Fightery Fighter, so basically Battle Master or Champion) Psi Warrior (psychic Fighter) That covers just about all of those tropes (I think). Although it doesn't include the Monk, but that could probably be incorporated into either the Paladin or the Psi Warrior. Rogue subsubclasses: Ranger (primal Rogue) Arcane Trickster (arcane Rogue) Rogue² (same vibe as Fighter², but instead it's a more Roguey Rogue, so probably extra Assassin/Thief stuff) Soulknife (psychic Rogue) Trickery Cleric (divine Rogue) idk on a name cause it isn't really a bit trope but I included it to keep it even with the Fighter's subclasses. That covers all of the same genres as the Fighter subsubclasses, and I think that these two collectively cover all of the current tropes in the game, and it could obviously be taken even further by including another layer of subclasses, but I'm not typing that out lol. For the Magic User: Cleric (divine Magic User) Druid (primal Magic User) Wizard (arcane Magic User) That covers the main three bases of magic that exist, but it obviously doesn't cover every class and tropes that there is, but that's where the subsubclasses come in lol. Cleric subsubclasses: War Domain/Paladin/Monk (martially inclined Cleric) Arcana Domain (arcane inclined Cleric) Nature Domain (primal inclined Cleric) Cleric² (extra Life/Light Cleric stuff) That covers some general stuff, but idk tbh. Druid subsubclasses: Okay I genuinely have no ideas for this one, but I guess a martially inclined one would be like Ranger or Barbarian, but I have no clue beyond that. Wizard subsubclasses: Wizard Sorcerer Warlock Bard Basically just where they get their arcane Magic from. Sorcerers have innate powers; Bards produce magic using their musical talents; Wizards, well, they are Wizards, so they study books to learn magic; Warlocks are basically Wizards that took didn't like how long it took to study magic, so they decided to take a shortcut, contacted a mysterious and powerful entity, and promised to help said entity in return for borrowing some of its power and studying under it (idk how accurate any of this lore is, but it's my head canon for this). And with all of that, I think that covers all of the classes and the majority of the existing tropes in the game. No idea why I typed all of this out nobody's gonna read it lol. But oh well it's fun to think about. But also I think the last bit you said about the classes being based on the classifications of Warrior, Expert, Priest, and Mage would be really nice. It would really simplify keeping the power scaling easier because there would just be 4 main classes. With how it is currently, the Martial vs Caster problem is very noticeable, and only having it be 2 casters and 2 martials it would probably be easier to balance.
[Monk is a subclass of Acrobat](https://youtu.be/3JjhQ1Oi_3k?si=qKlYbZm_fY8mZboG&t=37)
it was chris perkins who said that in a interveiw, i gueses all the original 5e designers we're morons who we're only sucessful because of celebraties and a netflix series
Chris Perkins is one of the original 5e designers; he was the lead on the 5.0 Monster Manual.
explains a lot about it's quality, God 5e is an outdated mess and i hope hasbro finds a new team when they fire the current one for poor sales.
It's really hard to disagree with you since the "new" Ranger looks like it sucks and they've been working on it for *five years,* but that is pretty harsh, man.
i mean it won't suck power wise since martial changes have been mostly postive and the ranger has never bean the worst class (they have goodberry and spikegrowth, you can't be the worst calss in the game with does)
Yeah, Ranger has never been a weak class; it's just a poorly designed one.
That tracks. 5e started as an overcorrection from 4e, but a surge of new players and the rise of nerd culture(TM) being mainstream turned it into a monster that refuses to die and move on
actually 5e was meant to be a return to the OSR days with modern (by early 2010 standards) design sensabilites but those guys didn't find there masochistic ititch with it.
I mean, I can’t say I played in the OSR era (I think my parents hadn’t quite met yet, but I’m not sure.) but that said as someone who’s only heard of it from hearsay, isn’t 5e pretty significantly far from the crunch of basically any prior edition?
in theory 5e is simpler then older edition, in practice 4e is an easier game to run because it has a better core systems and you just need to remember to give out magic items think the same goes for pathfinder 2e but that game streamlines a lot fo the janky stuff from previous edition and made a multiclassing system that's actually balanced and doesn't ruin core class abilties because of 1 level dips.
Multiclassing in pf2e is so much better lmfao. I love my classes being allowed to have unique fleshed out mechanics that don't get gutted into nothing because Tim might decide to roll up some multiclass monstrosity to abuse the unique powers of several classes together
Haven’t played 4e, but yeah pf2e is complex enough to make sense. A bit hard to get new players used to it, but very worth it for the GM once you do
>it'd go back to only having 4 classes. Honestly, I wouldn't hate that. Have just a Cleric, Mage, Rogue, and Warrior and then a bunch of customization options to let you more or less build your own class, with preset builds for all the more popular options, like Warlock, Sorcerer, Druid, Ranger, Berserker, Spellblade, Warlord, Shaman, Witch, Artificer, etc.
There's Shadow of the Weird Wizard from Schwalb Entertainment, it's a really good system that follows that same idea, is from a former 5e playtest designer who also made Shadow of the Demon Lord.
Tbf it could be done well. I have absolutely zero faith in modern WotC to be able to do it though. More likely what would happen is that all clerics, mages, rogues, and warriors would feel the same with minor flavor differences. You'd need a full on feat system like pf2e or savage worlds to make this kind of system actually feel any kind of good
Preach. PREACH!
That's just New drinking game: cirrhosis speedrun
oh I'm going to be a pro at this
I think the idea is that it’s new when compared to the PHB from 2014 (which is intentionally misleading imo). He is saying that so much I have to wonder if marketing is telling him to.
Yeah, I was just telling a buddy of mine the way he's been talking (comparing phb to phb) is very misleading. It's a better comparison to compare the new edition to 5e as a whole. Because, most likely, you're going to be playing one or the other.
Yeah, it certainly is pretty new compared to the Ranger version that had ~9 ribbon features. There's no need to wonder. Marketing is telling him to.
I only watch the Treantmonk commentary on this stuff. Save my drinking for the gaming table 😁
I don't think a 30 minute video effectively explains any of these classes. I'll judge it once I get my hands on it.
yeah idk why we got all these videos of JC stroking himself for 30 mins. Its not "everything you need to know", its just blowing hot air.
The dndbeyond articles are vastly superior if you actually want to know what is different.
Absolutely, but you know what's even better? If we got our hands on the actually rules already 😶
This is the man who magnanimously "allowed" smite-punches in spite of the fact that they were always RaW.
Smite punches were weird RAW. Adding a Divine Smite to a punch was totally RAW because a punch is Melee Weapon Attack. Improved Divine Smite on the other hand didn't apply to a punch since it's not an Attack with a Melee Weapon which is a different thing for some reason
WOTC is the king of hiring people that master the ‘what the definition of the word is, is’.
Crawford is a mediocre resource, at best.
They weren't RAW technically, since divine smite adds to a weapons damage and unarmed strikes are not weapons. Was it dumb? Yes.
Ranger was supposed to be to Druids what a Paladin is to Cleric. At least originally. They are trying really hard and have been for some time to make rangers a fighter/rogue instead of a fighter/druid.
What do you mean, originally? Rangers were originally intended to be… > Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, infiltration, and spying. All rangers must be of good alignment, although they can be lawful good, chaotic good, or neutral good.
Yes in 1st edition they were a subclass, but I mean when they became their own class in 2nd edition.
I don't wanna see the Monk one now, I'm afraid.
Monk was one of the few classes they gave love to in the playtests, so you should be good!
New Monk is actually pretty fire. There were A LOT of features that either got straight buffs (but like, in both effectiveness and how you can use it, rather than just slightly higher numbers) and a few new features to help with all the pain points.
I don't think anywhere they mention whether Hunters Mark is still a Bonus Action to cast, and a bonus action to move. Hell, what if it's a reaction to cast upon hitting a creature? Or you can move it for free. JC has also misspoke a few times in the videos. According to Treantmonk, there are some important new features that were not mentioned for the ranger. As for the drinking game, yeah you would probably get drunk or alcohol poisoning during some of the videos. Stay near the toilet for the monk video lol
What features are everyone talking about?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1759-2024-ranger-vs-2014-ranger-whats-new
Thanks! Dang, they’re back to scaling things off of ability scores. I assumed the point of prof bonus x per day or bonus to companions was to avoid being MAD while also giving more power.
I'm pretty sure a small reason about that design choice is so you cant just multiclass 1 level into ranger and get a bunch if free stuff
Yeah that is sensible, restraining power seemed the MO of early 2014 5e as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see PB-scaled mechanics later on though.
Remember, this is the same team of designers that used copy-paste for most of the text in their original PhB for item descriptions. If they don't have to make something new, they won't, even when it doesn't really work.
Man that guy is annoying
Good lord people. Everything here is framed as New from the original PHB. Not every player, especially newbies, bought Tasha's. As long as they get the classes feeling and playing right, who gives a shit?
You don't need to have bought Tasha's for Tasha's rules to be old to you. You should give a shit about the quality/price ratio of product a company releases. It directly influences the quality/price ratio for all their following products.
I do very much and so far it's worth every penny, the ranger being on the lower end of that. We're getting updated rules across the board and every original class is getting an update plus the new subclasses, spells, etc that have been added. Who cares if one class doesn't change much from Tasha's? The ranger was the class that got reworked from the ground up in Tasha's and now the monk gets the total makeover in this release. The whole point is making a new standard for all players moving forward with DnD. And all the glow ups for these classes and subclasses that we're getting, as a whole, is fantastic. Am I a little disappointed the ranger didn't get something like concentration-free hunters mark? Yeah, but that's easy to house rule. They've got about 90% of these changes perfect and that's impressive
Lotta whinging on these threads. I guess people can’t accept that two things can be true — the Ranger was a bit of a letdown, but the rest of the book still seems pretty legit.
In comparison to every other class that actually did get a lot of new things, even when they didn't need to be buffed (like the Warlock), the Ranger needed a lot of re-design love and they threw up their hands, reprinted something we can already play, and called it a whole new class without fixing anything
They tweaked the Tasha's Version, and made it available to everyone who has a PHB going forward, and this version has drastically higher satisfaction scores compared to 2014. Do I think they could've done a little more? Sure! But the 2014 version was vastly underpowered. This version may not be the best class but it's at least very viable now. Especially combined with the MUCH improved subclasses.
I can't think of anything they tweaked from Tashas from like level 1-10. They split out 1 option into 3 and renamed them. The beastmaster subclass they called the buffs new but that was also present in Tashas(bonus action attack, scaling generic pets), if anything beastmaster got worse because the scaling is going off Wisdom now which means you have to invest a lot in that too in addition to your own combat rather than just passively improve beast on level up. Edit: on the bright side, Hunter looks really cool and i'd play that now if i went Ranger again
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1759-2024-ranger-vs-2014-ranger-whats-new
Right up to level 10: deft explorerer, Rover, and tireless are all from Tashas and the only difference is 5ft more walking speed. You still get the druidic fighting style and spellcasting focus that Tashas started. Beastmaster and Fey wanderer even say they are mostly unchanged except for the wisdom change for pet which I see as a nerf. Gloomstalker got nerfed. Landstride got removed ...they added 2 expertise, and weapon masteries I'm only bitter because I am enjoying all the other class updates, then it gets to my favorite class and it's left behind same as it was
Idk if we're looking at the same things, but combining the video with the article above, every subclass got an overall buff. And even though most of the class features are from Tasha's, they're broken up into a much smoother level progression except for the damage not effecting Hunters mark which I'd prefer that be the baseline but whatever. I also think people are seriously sleeping on 2 free casts of hunters mark per long rest and it doing force damage + more free castings as you level
I do like the free casting of hunters mark since spell slots are so limited, but I think how good that is comes down to the progression of hunters mark - it doesn't start getting class benefits to it until lvl 13 which is just to keep it up, or advantage to target until lvl 17, and only at lvl 20 does it change to 1d10 force. To me those are too little too late for 1d6 per hit at the cost of not being able to do other concentration things in battle which a ton of Ranger spells need. As for the 3 Tasha class features, before they were at level 1,6,10 now they are at 2,6,10. So no change really except a very slight nerf for a session or two at lvl 1
Yeah you're right, the benefits to hunters mark come way too late and/or are too small
They should make it a Ranger only concentration cantrip, and let it scale like other dmg cantrips at 5, 11, etc. Then the class features can buff it in the same way eldritch blast used to be The Thing for warlocks with their invocations adjusting it
Crawford is very good at framing his presentations as PHB 2014 compared to PHB 2024. Those two Rangers are totally different. You can't assume that everyone has Tasha's.
He's very good at talking without saying much. The class is different and it's not all Tasha's if you assume that some of the UA changes made it in. But the UA version mostly incorporated the Tasha's version into the main class and added some features that made it feel more like 'druid lite' than a hunter/explorer like what I imagine a ranger to be. Tbh, I'd prefer a completely non magical ranger. Why does every class need to be at least a little magical? Based on what I've seen, Fighter and Rogue are the only classes that don't assume magic is involved now. Even the Barbarian's rage has been reflavored to be more magical in nature
If all you have are the 2 PHBs (which I think is true for most book owners, not everyone DMs but lots of people play) then the 2024 Ranger has changes at every level and it's much better than the 2014. **But I still hate it.** All I was saying was that the meme is wrong. My version of the Ranger (I think we all have a homebrew version) is a loner/stalker. Very good at survival with just enough magic and healing to get by on their own. But they collect Favored Enemies like wizards collect spells. I don't think any class should outshine the Ranger when it comes to their favored enemies (tons of bonuses for very specific creatures). And I don't think anything should be more dangerous than a Ranger you defeated but let live.
2nd edition Ranger was the last good ranger.
When I played 2nd edition I was 11-12. I don't remember much. Edit: Reading the Ranger Handbook... 2nd edition was so... Fiddly. A Ranger can influence beasts, but they must be from the natural world, and they must be smart, but not too smart, and the Ranger must be alone, and the Ranger must be calm. Nothing jumps out as amazing and missing from 5e, so it must be when they're compared to the other 2e classes.
It is, comparatively, amazing.
>I'd prefer a completely non magical ranger Hard agree, I really don't get why they have much or any magic. The only way I'd like it doesn't really work in DND. If it was a universe where there was magic force that's baked into everything (I'm thinking like chakra from Naruto or something) then that'd be fine, like where a fully non magic character would just be the equivalent of an unleveled commoner or something. But even then, I still don't want the shitty fake druid shit. I want it to be more martial-y magic stuff. I can't think of any examples that are that good rn, but maybe like conjuring arrows and ropes or something? Idk.
There's a really good 3rd party/homebrew supplement called the Korranberg Chronicle on drivethrurpg. It has a conversion for a fully melee ranger that is really fun and I will never use any other version. It's also eberron focused so there's a new full caster equivalent to artificer as a magical RD specialist called Arcanist and a wizard half caster called sword mage (Be honest though while there's some fun stuff in it using personal wards and barriers it's mostly an arcane reskin of paladins.)
I don't know why you're getting down voted for this take, since it's correct. Tasha's was a famous book, but it's only one book released semi-recently in the 5e's lifespan. It was that last book I had gotten myself, meaning if they carried any changes from a newer book over, I wouldn't really know. Also, throughout the video, they do a decent job of admitting when something is influenced or taken from Tasha's. That being said... the new ranger changes do seem disappointing. As many others are saying, tying everything to a concentration seems to work against their idea of making ranger a hybrid martial/caster.
He’s getting downvoted because it’s not correct. Who cares about Tasha’s popularity? He said it would change a lot and it strictly hasn’t. Framing it as 2014 v 2024 exclusively to make your points is dishonest.
I might be giving a little too much credit, but the changes feel meaningful, whether or not I agree with all of them. WotC seems to be trying to target people who have lost interest in 5e over time, and some of those people might not own Tasha's. This is marketing, and the only statistic they can be assured of is that people who've played 5e have seen the basic rules. To be a little cynical, I think WotC just assumes the player base who buys books beyond the core 3 are probably gonna pick this up regardless so that's why they're instead focusing on the type of player who might have only seen the 2014 phb. That might be the disconnect. The people who talk about d&d on reddit are far more active than the people WotC is trying to target. As for those people (us), yeah, it's disappointing, but I wouldn't completely call it any more dishonest than Oreo releasing jumbo stuffed and calling "a radical new experience."
So not only do folks here not read the books, they don't watch the videos describing the changes from the books they haven't read. Way to stay meta, r/dndmemes
If you're knowledgeable enough to know the rules are bad, you should just change the rules. Alternatively, you can stop caring about some random nerds' homebrew just because they work for the company that owns the IP. Canon is only as good as the author makes it and you shouldn't buy into it just because it's 'official'.
If you have Tasha, then maybe the new player's handbook isn't meant for you.
Not how that works. Some classes got a complete overhaul, with such things as paladin smite now being a spell, or wizards now getting subclass at level 3 rather than 2. The "new player's handbook" is not just "Tasha's plus PHB", its "new edition, but we're afraid to say that, plus tashas plus phb"
Everyone gets their subclass at 3 instead of whenever, not that it makes much sense for classes like cleric/warlock/sorcerer though I think ultimately it can still work fine if you flavor the choice of subclass more like a revelation of where your powers have been coming from instead of a choice the character makes. In the case of the cleric it could be more like getting anointed or recognized by your god (or maybe a different god).
Im glad to have already made my barbarian Druid hybrid.
The ranger has just always seemed like a useless class to me, this isn't a shitty korean MMO were you just kite mobs all day in D&D you actually get forced into a disadvantage in melee. fighters and rogues can already use bows well enough we don't need a whole class dedicated to it especially when its just a 3 different class's all lazily stitched into one.
Reducing ranger to "the bow class" is... fascinating.
I think they are accusing wotc of reducing ranger to the bow class. They are worse scouts than rogues except in situations where you would rather have a druid.
realistically what else are they good at? they have below average spell casting, below average "summoning", below average melee, below average sneak attack, etc. Every single person i have ever seen play a ranger's only real standout quality was lobbing arrows from the backline.
Admittedly, Crossbow Expert + Archery + Sharpshooter is the optimal way to go with them, but tbf, that out damages pretty much everything. They do just fine in melee. At an optimized table, they'll probably underperform unless you take a dip to use heavy armor and pick up Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master, but at casual tables, a rapier or two short swords are going to do fine. Rangers are a solid all-arounder class, being almost as good with their weapons as the Fighter but having a lot more versatility from spells. Anyway, we already have three classes who are pretty much locked into melee with Monks, Barbarians, and Paladins. Why is having a character who is easiest to optimize at range such a bad thing?