It occurred to me only after I started this series of posts that the title's misleading, or will be when we actually get the new core rulebooks in 2024. That's still two years off, but given the warping of time in these plague years, who knows how soon that will feel? (I'd love to hope that we'll be fully beyond the plague at that point, but I find pessimists only get good surprises).
Anyway, the Ranger has suffered for much of 5E, though I think it might be unwarranted. More recent Ranger subclasses have had a fair amount of power, while the Tasha's changes (with one exception, and sadly it's the one that seems intended to buff the class) have done a lot to take idiosyncratic abilities and make them more broadly applicable.
To be honest, I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, I love the flavor idea of picking a favored enemy and favored terrain, but on the other, you have central class features that are sometimes totally worthless.
On my own Ranger, I swapped out Natural Explorer for the new feature, Deft Explorer perhaps a little early, meaning that we actually now had a chance to get lost while exploring Chult (we've since arrived in Omu, though that campaign has sort of fallen off since then). But the bonuses to movement and generally useful abilities are really welcome.
Enshrining these new features as the core Ranger might do a lot to spark a reevaluation of the class. I think the Beast Master changes that came with them are similarly welcome, but demand fresh eyes given the reputation that the class and particularly that subclass had earned in its early years.
As I see it, the Ranger has to answer an important question: why am I playing this and not a Fighter with a bow?
Of course, Rangers aren't even strictly ranged characters (mine is a Strength-based dual-wielder, though I wouldn't recommend that build).
But Rangers are kind of caught in the middle of two themes that are each represented more clearly with a different class - the nature-based character (Druid) and the martial warrior (Fighter). You could argue that Paladins are in a similar position, but there are some really unique mechanics they have that set them apart.
One of the issues at play, I think, is that D&D's combat mechanics are deeper than its exploration and social encounter mechanics. You basically just have ability checks in the latter two cases. I don't know that convoluting those systems is the right way to make the game work better, but I think what it does mean is that combat features for classes are very important. The Tasha's era rules give Rangers some clearer bonuses that can be used in combat, which I think is a good choice.
Now, I've already written about Favored Foe, but I think it bears reexamination. This replacement for Favored Enemy is intended to give a broadly-applicable damage bonus, but its design is profoundly conservative. Dealing damage only once a turn, being non-transferrable, and still requiring concentration means that you're almost always better off just casting Hunter's Mark once you hit level 2. And other spells will start to outpace even Hunter's Mark, which you'll want to use your concentration on.
I like the idea of dealing extra damage to special foes - embodying the "hunter" feeling of the class. But I think there needs to be a smoother application.
I don't really want to get into homebrewing my own solutions here - I'm mainly just anticipating what will change - but I think it would be very much in keeping with the general flavor of the Ranger to do something that involves preparing for one's foes.
I think you first give them something at level 1 that makes them a little better at tracking - maybe just giving them all advantage on Survival checks to track creatures and then Intelligence checks of any kind to identify creatures. Then, at a later level, though pretty early on, like 6, you give them the ability to, at the end of a long rest (or even the end of a short rest,) pick a creature type and adjust their fighting techniques to deal with that sort of foe - which is reflected in giving them a bonus to their damage when they hit said foes with their attacks equal to their Wisdom modifier.
Depending on their stats, this might be a small or large bonus, but even an extra 5 damage on each attack is not that much more than what a Paladin or Barbarian gets to tack on - and the counterbalance to it is that they need to declare that creature type ahead of time. Yes, this puts them at the mercy of DMs who like to pull switcheroos and unexpected monsters at them, but it would be a very tangible reward for doing their due diligence.
Ok, now let's talk subclasses.
The long-maligned Beast Master is, I would think, actually not too bad now with the Tasha's changes. Letting the creature really scale with your level and being able to easily summon it again if it goes down in a fight would really open the subclass' power up. Vex in Critical Role's first campaign was often reluctant to bring her bear, Trinket, into battle, because lorewise, he was a beloved pet and companion. Rangers all have a little magic to them, so I see no contradiction in flavor to the idea that the beastly companion is bound to the Ranger in such a way that its soul can always return to the Ranger.
The Hunter, conceptually, is a pretty good idea (though the name is profoundly generic and feels like it's just another name for Ranger). I see the Hunter's focus as being more on the martial side of things.
To me, though, the problem is that by making the Hunter choose between the various options at its subclass feature levels what seems like a variety of badass fighting techniques becomes a sort of thin repertoire of subclass features. Thus, I think what I might propose is actually letting the Hunter get all of those features, but to instead give them a limited use of them. This is, I'll admit, pretty close to just making them Battle Master Fighters, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
But I've also argued that each class needs at least three subclass options. What archetype feels like it should be at the Ranger's core?
This might just be my own biases speaking, but I think the Ranger is the best class to represent your Solomon Kane-style monster-hunters. (Though I will say that Geralt of Rivia is 100% an Eldritch Knight Fighter). I think the Monster Slayer subclass from Xanathar's Guide to Everything is clearly meant to evoke that feeling, and seems like a good fit for a somewhat more gothic take on the Ranger.
Something they've been pretty inconsistent about is whether subclasses get their own spells. The Xanathar's ones all do, as do the Tasha's ones, though the Drakewarden does not. I think subclass spells are pretty much always a good thing (we're going to talk about Warlocks when we get to them,) and I'd like to see every subclass get some thematic spells.
I think that the subclasses could use some revisions, of course, but I also think that putting a little more power into the base class could do a lot to lighten the load on the subclasses as well.
One last note: in the PHB, they suggest Strength as a primary stat for melee Rangers. They should not. Without access to heavy armor, a Ranger will already need at least 14 Dexterity, and then as a melee class they'll want high Constitution. And then they'll need good Strength and Wisdom for their spells? Just recommend that they take a pair of scimitars or shortswords and go with finesse weapons.
No comments:
Post a Comment