D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[Ashdate]

What might be interesting is to have the Ranger's "favoured enemy" be somewhat fluid; perhaps they can borrow a page from the 4e Avenger and mush it together with the idea of the 3.5e Ranger.

Allow the ranger [to spend a standard action]/[upon killing an enemy] to "store" the information about a particular creature type, gaining bonuses to fight that particular type of creature until it's swapped for something else. This represents the Ranger "studying" his opponent, and represents then the rationale for skill/combat bonuses.

[TheOOB]

Great ideas, but only getting one niche ability per level is still kind of a drag. How often do you run into a flying enemy?

They could be arranged in packages. Maybe every 2-5 levels they pick a favored enemy, who gives them a suite of monster hunting abilities, or maybe in addition to getting monster hunter tactics, they still game some combat tricks stealth/tracking abilities, and nature powers.

[Doug Lampert]

One weapon rangers.

...But 2 weapon Drow.

Just like in ye olde days (Drizzt could use 2 weapons because he was a Drow, not because he was a ranger).

Yep. See THIS comic. Which references Female Dark Elf Cavaliers wielding two lances from the back of a unicorn precisely BECAUSE the 2WF was a drow characteristic so that was a legal build.

Remember, the race was completely unballanced in all the best ways.

[Nu]

I'm still very much against the ranger having to pick a certain kind of enemy to be good against, however, the implementation may be. If anything, what I'd rather them do is have rangers set a quarry during combat, which may give them different bonuses against the type of enemy they face--but have all of the options available without having to specialize in hunting a particular kind of enemy. So no picking humanoids at level 1, undead at level 3, etc.. Just you set your quarry during combat and get a bonus against that enemy and other enemies of the same type, but possibly have it vary depending on what kind of quarry you set.

It's kind of complicated, but so are a lot of these proposals I think.

[Kurald Galain]

what I'd rather them do is have rangers set a quarry during combat, which may give them different bonuses against the type of enemy they face

But that just means that rangers always get their bonus regardless of anything. That's what the fighter is for.

It's really okay if the edition contain a class that you, personally, don't want to play; not everybody has the same playstyle, after all. I'm sure some people would enjoy a class that is particularly effective against one kind of enemy, and less effective than the fighter against others.

[noparlpf]

What if the Ranger picked up abilities by defeating different monsters over their career? And then some of those abilities might carry over to other monster types, or apply to a certain ability regardless of what uses that ability in the future. That way individual characters would be different, they'd feel more organic, and they're not limited to only a couple of choices. It would be kind of like how the Wizard searches out new spells.

[Nu]

But that just means that rangers always get their bonus regardless of anything. That's what the fighter is for.

It's really okay if the edition contain a class that you, personally, don't want to play; not everybody has the same playstyle, after all. I'm sure some people would enjoy a class that is particularly effective against one kind of enemy, and less effective than the fighter against others.

I don't see a reason to make a class that's good against a particular kind of enemy, and have it run alongside a class that's good against any kind of enemy. There's very little reason to pick the former unless you're okay with gimping yourself. I don't want a system with built-in newbie traps.

What if the Ranger picked up abilities by defeating different monsters over their career? And then some of those abilities might carry over to other monster types, or apply to a certain ability regardless of what uses that ability in the future. That way individual characters would be different, they'd feel more organic, and they're not limited to only a couple of choices. It would be kind of like how the Wizard searches out new spells.

Interesting, but too campaign-dependent for my tastes. How do you handle characters that don't begin at level 1, assume they've already killed X types of monsters?

[Kurald Galain]

I don't see a reason to make a class that's good against a particular kind of enemy, and have it run alongside a class that's good against any kind of enemy. There's very little reason to pick the former unless you're okay with gimping yourself. I don't want a system with built-in newbie traps.

The point is that the former is better against those kinds of enemies. Of course it has to be a broad class, not just "beholders" or something similarly rare.

And, "less effective" doesn't mean "ineffective". Most classes are going to be less effective in the hands of a beginner, that's what "beginner" means.

[noparlpf]

Interesting, but too campaign-dependent for my tastes. How do you handle characters that don't begin at level 1, assume they've already killed X types of monsters?

Well, for one, the books assume you start at level 1. But yes, you'd assume encounters with some number of monsters. It would be pretty simple math. You know how much XP it takes to level, you know how much XP a level-appropriate encounter gives, you know that most adventures have three to six encounters. So you can figure out how many adventures it takes for each level, and assume one adventure involves between one and six different types of monsters, tops.
Edit: Starting with something at level 1 would be good, so maybe something basic like some kinds of animals, vermin, or maybe goblins or kobolds, would be good.
Though, I don't like how in 3.X the Favored Enemy types were split up. You have "animals" as anything from a weasel to a bear to a T-Rex to an octopus, and then split up "humanoids" even though humans and dwarves have very similar physiology, abilities, and fighting styles? Seems to me like "animals" should be broken up into smaller groups, like "quadrupedal hunters", "reptiles", "aquatic", stuff like that just off the top of my head.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The point is that the former is better against those kinds of enemies. Of course it has to be a broad class, not just "beholders" or something similarly rare.

And, "less effective" doesn't mean "ineffective". Most classes are going to be less effective in the hands of a beginner, that's what "beginner" means.

I still say making permanent investments for non-permanent bonuses is bad design. Having a "sometimes awesome" class makes as much sense as depriving a Wizard of his spellbook or a Fighter of his weapons: it removes their iconic trait and leaves the Player with what exactly?

If you want to make "sometimes awesome" a feature of a class you can't let it be its defining trait too since it will be, by definition, irrelevant for some portion of every campaign (if not every session). By all means grant Rangers their "Monster Hunter" abilities as a Specialty or something similar but that still leaves the question of "what is the defining schtick of the Ranger" unanswered.

[Nu]

The point is that the former is better against those kinds of enemies. Of course it has to be a broad class, not just "beholders" or something similarly rare.

And, "less effective" doesn't mean "ineffective". Most classes are going to be less effective in the hands of a beginner, that's what "beginner" means.

Well, I don't like it. I like rangers, and I was glad to see the concept of "favored enemy" gone from the 4th edition ranger and I don't want to see it come back to the class. Make it a specialty or even a background, I say, if it must exist. I'd hate to see the ranger ruined for me by that concept once again.

As for newbie traps, what I want to avoid is a player getting stuck in a build or class that doesn't suit them because they thought it looked decent/cool at level 1. I see favored enemy as a particularly egregious example because it can be quite easy to pick an enemy type you will see 10-25% of the time. I understand that newbies are going to be "less effective" with most classes (not the slayer fighter though, I haven't made a single meaningful decision during play since I made the character), but I draw the line at just completely not getting to use the defining feature of the class on any kind of regular basis.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Well, I don't like it. I like rangers, and I was glad to see the concept of "favored enemy" gone from the 4th edition ranger and I don't want to see it come back to the class. Make it a specialty or even a background, I say, if it must exist. I'd hate to see the ranger ruined for me by that concept once again.

If the 4e version is your favorite and you think favored enemy ruins rangers, what is it you liked about rangers, exactly? The Ranger class has been "specializes in hunting certain monsters + spells + special companions + combat perks" since AD&D, until they dropped the first two in 4e to turn the ranger into an archer or dual-wielder. What does the 4e ranger do that doesn't fit under archer fighter or TWF fighter (besides the animal companion, which again they've said will be a module-only thing)? If you take the 4e ranger and add spells, you've created a duskblade or fighter/magic-user or other gish build whose spells focus on TWF+archery+stealth instead of blasting and self buffs, but again that's not a class that's particularly ranger-y.

You can take a fighting style for TWF or archery and a companion from a module. The only thing in that list that's uniquely ranger-y is the monster hunter part.

[Kurald Galain]

Actually that's really funny.

A common complaint about 4E is that you can't (e.g.) play a dual-wielding fighter, and the answer has always been that sure you can, you just play a ranger and call yourself fighter. Well, until a splatbook added dual-wielding fighters, anyway.

So it would be very funny if in 5E, people complain that you can't play an always-effective-striker ranger, and the answer will be that sure you can, you just play a fighter and call yourself ranger.

[Knaight]

I'm sure some people would enjoy a class that is particularly effective against one kind of enemy, and less effective than the fighter against others.

This seems like the sort of thing that feats do well, that should be left to them.

[Nu]

If the 4e version is your favorite and you think favored enemy ruins rangers, what is it you liked about rangers, exactly? The Ranger class has been "specializes in hunting certain monsters + spells + special companions + combat perks" since AD&D, until they dropped the first two in 4e to turn the ranger into an archer or dual-wielder. What does the 4e ranger do that doesn't fit under archer fighter or TWF fighter (besides the animal companion, which again they've said will be a module-only thing)? If you take the 4e ranger and add spells, you've created a duskblade or fighter/magic-user or other gish build whose spells focus on TWF+archery+stealth instead of blasting and self buffs, but again that's not a class that's particularly ranger-y.

You can take a fighting style for TWF or archery and a companion from a module. The only thing in that list that's uniquely ranger-y is the monster hunter part.

Actually, the thing I like most about the ranger is probably the animal/beast companion. That's getting relegated to "optional" at the whim of the DM though. I also didn't actually mind spells or spell-like powers on the ranger that were nature-themed, I just don't think they're coming back.

I liked the idea of a ranger as a pack hunter who works in tandem with their beast companion, each bringing out the full effectiveness of the other. My favorite type of ranger in 4th edition would be the paragon-tier Ranger/Beast-master/Sharpshooter.

Oh, and I never really said I found the 4th edition ranger to be my favorite. Most of them were actually pretty boring to play (to me), though I liked the build I listed above. If the beast companion build had been a bit stronger I think I would've liked it a lot.

Actually that's really funny.

A common complaint about 4E is that you can't (e.g.) play a dual-wielding fighter, and the answer has always been that sure you can, you just play a ranger and call yourself fighter. Well, until a splatbook added dual-wielding fighters, anyway.

So it would be very funny if in 5E, people complain that you can't play an always-effective-striker ranger, and the answer will be that sure you can, you just play a fighter and call yourself ranger.

Well, if I can take the animal companion as a fighter, perhaps... I don't think that's going to happen, though. The feeling I got from the article was that, even as an optional module, that companion was for rangers and druids, not fighters.

Edit: The first ever DnD game I played (3.5), I played as a ranger with an animal companion that was house-ruled to have the same rate of progression as the druid's animal companion. I think that colored my impression of the ranger: I like the companion aspect because it made me feel effective and powerful, but I fell into the newbie trap of almost never getting to use my favored enemy feature (I picked humans, don't think I applied the bonus even once).

[1337 b4k4]

What if the ranger's favored enemy was a fairly fluid thing? I've been mulling on this for the last day or two and in sticking with the idead of trying to move away from random pluses everywhere, this is what I've come up with so far. A ranger can spend X day either studying in a suitable library or X/2 days studying hidden in the field a particular monster type of their level or lower, where X is the monster level. After this period of study, and until they study a different monster, the ranger is gains advantage on all checks against that monster type, and all saves vs that monster's attacks, or can spend his or her turn to "instruct" another party member, granting them advantage instead.

Obviously the monster types would be somewhat narrow (e.g. Not all humanoids, more like goblins, or trolls, or giants), but the fluidity of it should make up for that narrow range. In this way, the ranger truly becomes the party's hunter class, a resource when going after specific targets, but not overshadowing the fighter in damage dealt. Additionally, I should mention that the advantage would work as normal, so that if they also had disadvantage, it would just cancel out.

[navar100]

I'm still very much against the ranger having to pick a certain kind of enemy to be good against, however, the implementation may be. If anything, what I'd rather them do is have rangers set a quarry during combat, which may give them different bonuses against the type of enemy they face--but have all of the options available without having to specialize in hunting a particular kind of enemy. So no picking humanoids at level 1, undead at level 3, etc.. Just you set your quarry during combat and get a bonus against that enemy and other enemies of the same type, but possibly have it vary depending on what kind of quarry you set.

It's kind of complicated, but so are a lot of these proposals I think.

That sounds like Pathfinder Cavalier's Challenge ability. If you stretch it, what you're looking for is a Ranger to have its own "smite" effect like a Paladin, details to be determined but have the resource.

The idea is sound, but the issue is making the Ranger a Paladin of a different color. However, that's something that has been proposed before in sincerity and not a bad idea. There is one base class, call it Warrior or Fighter, but you choose among various abilities. Depending upon abilities chosen you are a "paladin" or "ranger" or "barbarian".

[Kurald Galain]

I liked the idea of a ranger as a pack hunter who works in tandem with their beast companion, each bringing out the full effectiveness of the other. My favorite type of ranger in 4th edition would be the paragon-tier Ranger/Beast-master/Sharpshooter.

Ironically, taking any beast-related powers is considered a newbie trap in 4E.

[noparlpf]

What if the ranger's favored enemy was a fairly fluid thing? I've been mulling on this for the last day or two and in sticking with the idead of trying to move away from random pluses everywhere, this is what I've come up with so far. A ranger can spend X day either studying in a suitable library or X/2 days studying hidden in the field a particular monster type of their level or lower, where X is the monster level. After this period of study, and until they study a different monster, the ranger is gains advantage on all checks against that monster type, and all saves vs that monster's attacks, or can spend his or her turn to "instruct" another party member, granting them advantage instead.

Obviously the monster types would be somewhat narrow (e.g. Not all humanoids, more like goblins, or trolls, or giants), but the fluidity of it should make up for that narrow range. In this way, the ranger truly becomes the party's hunter class, a resource when going after specific targets, but not overshadowing the fighter in damage dealt. Additionally, I should mention that the advantage would work as normal, so that if they also had disadvantage, it would just cancel out.

Like Kurald said,

But that just means that rangers always get their bonus regardless of anything. That's what the fighter is for.

Your suggestion isn't quite the same as the other one, but it's similar. In practice, you'd basically end up saying "you studied the monsters", and then you're set for the encounter. Before the next encounter, you do the same. You end up having the bonuses almost all the time anyway.

[1337 b4k4]

Your suggestion isn't quite the same as the other one, but it's similar. In practice, you'd basically end up saying "you studied the monsters", and then you're set for the encounter. Before the next encounter, you do the same. You end up having the bonuses almost all the time anyway.

That was what the fact that it takes days (not hours or minutes) and the "hidden" requirement for field study was supposed to prevent. The ranger can't just bring "Ye Olde Booke of Beasties" with him and read up on a new monster after every encounter, they actually have to stop and take the time. Sure I suppose the DM could allow the party to spend days between every single encounter but then I'd be less worried about the fighter being overshadowed by the ranger and more worried about the wizard with full spell access each encounter.

The idea here is that the party knows they're going hunting through the drop caves, so the ranger studies up on drow. Now he has an advantage against the drow, or can sacrifice his turn to give his companions the advantage. Sure he gets the ability all the time, just like the fighter does, but his ability isn't versatile. The fighter can shift his ability around per turn, the ranger is stuck until they either get back to town, or he can find a hidden vantage to observe this new enemy from without him (or the party) being discovered.

In other words, your ranger is the party specialist. Given the time, he knows the best way to deal with a single enemy. The fighter on the other hand, is the versatile party member, the one that no matter what you throw them up against, they can quickly come up with a way to come out ahead.

Ultimately though, this is one of the biggest fatal flaws that WotC will have to overcome with their decision to include all PHB classes. So many of these classes hae overlap, and theirs only so much mechanical variation you can do without wandering into random pluses territory. As I lauded to some threads back in my discussion on whether WotC should just drop the fighter entirely, too many classes in D&D, especially of the mundane variety, a essentially "a fighter except X and Y"

[Nu]

Ironically, taking any beast-related powers is considered a newbie trap in 4E.

I wouldn't say that. Beastmaster might have problems but it's not unplayable. There's a vast difference, I think, between a feature that just flat-out does nothing a lot of the time, and a feature that is less powerful than other options. Beast-related powers tend to be weak, but they at least do something.

[Camelot]

What would be interesting is if the Ranger got a unique advantage against each type of enemy, instead of just a +1 bonus against a Favored Enemy. This hypothetical Ranger would always have an advantage, just like the Fighter always has an expertise die, but it would change depending on the opponent. It could be very specific (i.e., a different advantage against goblins, orcs, kobolds, etc.) or more broad (i.e., grouping all humanoids together, all beasts, etc.).

Each advantage could be based on depriving the enemy of its strength or exploiting a weakness. Some ideas:

• Whenever you hit a kobold, you can push it 10 feet (to prevent them from ganging up on one target).
• Whenever you hit an orc, you can move 10 feet through its space (to disorganize them).
• Whenever you hit a goblin, it cannot attack you on its next turn (because it is easily intimidated).
• Whenever you hit a beholder, it loses one of its many eye ray attacks on its next turn.
• Whenever you hit a dragon, it cannot fly on its next turn.

This way, you aren't deprived of a class feature because you picked the wrong Favored Enemy for your adventure (like choosing human when you are fighting only goblinoids and monsters), but you also aren't just a fighter in ranger's clothing.

The problem would arise when you make new monsters. Do you have to include the special ranger effect for every new category of monster? This seems to go against the "modular, exception-based" design that Wizards favors.

What do you think?

[Menteith]

I would be fine with keeping a system similar to Favored Enemy if it was more robust. Let a Ranger choose a Favored Enemy, gain bonuses to damage/skills against that enemy, with unique abilities on top of that. If someone chose, say, Humanoid [Aquatic], they could gain a Swim speed, the ability to hold their breath for an extended period, and have a severely lessened penalty to underwater combat. If they chose Dragons, they might gain elemental resistances, bonuses to saves against Fear, and increased AC against enemies larger than themselves.

Favored Enemy being flat numeric bonuses to a handful of skills/damage is boring, but if it could offer unique, mutually exclusive choices which appeal to different builds, I could get behind it.

[1337 b4k4]

Each advantage could be based on depriving the enemy of its strength or exploiting a weakness. Some ideas

I think you're right that the problem is its too much on an "exception based" system. There would be so much to remember all the time, and either you'd need to keep a copy of the rule books on hand to look it up, or it would have to be included in the monster stat blocks. I could get behind something like the ranger can nullify a monsters special abilities when those abilities target the ranger, but something that broad is likely to be too powerful

[Stubbazubba]

It's really okay if the edition contain a class that you, personally, don't want to play; not everybody has the same playstyle, after all.

It's OK for a consumer to buy a system that has classes they don't like, but if I have any voice in its design, then I want every class to appeal to me. I don't want my fluff choice to be made because the class' mechanics are distasteful to me.

And honestly, no, I don't think people would choose a class that is sometimes up to par and sometimes not when given the choice of having something interesting to do/contribute for each and every combat.

[Kurald Galain]

I wouldn't say that. Beastmaster might have problems but it's not unplayable.

Sure. And likewise, the 5E ranger I suggested above might have problems but it's not unplayable. Actually it's more playable, because it will be extra effective against certain enemies, whereas 4E ranger's beast powers are never extra effective.

[shadowmage]

What about instead of a Favored Enemy a Ranger gets a Favored Terrain like in PathFinder. They you could give ability based off the terrain type. Or even some just general abilities that apply no matter what the terrain type. Bonus to track and stealth, Bonus to attacks during a surprise round, I.E. Ambush bonus, and maybe some feat like ability based on the terrain.

[noparlpf]

What about instead of a Favored Enemy a Ranger gets a Favored Terrain like in PathFinder. They you could give ability based off the terrain type. Or even some just general abilities that apply no matter what the terrain type. Bonus to track and stealth, Bonus to attacks during a surprise round, I.E. Ambush bonus, and maybe some feat like ability based on the terrain.

But again, the bonus would be there most of the time. You pick a couple of super-common terrains, now you just have a flat bonus all the time. It also feels less interesting (to me anyway) to specialise in fighting in a certain terrain instead of specialising against monsters.

[Clawhound]

For ranger, i would do favored enemy as a per-encounter bonus. Each encounter, you pick your favored enemy. For single-creature encounters, you'd become a pure striker. For mixed creatures, you'd quickly take out one opponent, but become weaker against other. For solo creatures, the power wouldn't work at all.

On the other hand, if we make the ranger a type of fighter in Next, then the fighter's damage mechanic would take over. Ranger would become more of a background.

[Knaight]

And honestly, no, I don't think people would choose a class that is sometimes up to par and sometimes not when given the choice of having something interesting to do/contribute for each and every combat.

I play characters that are sometimes up to par, sometimes not, and sometimes above it all the time. Maybe the mounted or ranged specialist gets caught in a fight inside, which isn't ideal. Maybe the duelist gets caught in thick swamp that puts the kibosh on footwork. Maybe the pilot ends up in a tank fight. These things happen, with specialties only sometimes being useful, and it isn't a problem unless they just keep happening. Plus, all of these specialists have their areas where they really end up shining, so it all works out.