Ranger gone?

do you think the Sharpshooter style for fighter, and the specialties Archer and Dual Wielder is going to eliminate a Ranger class? 
do you think the Sharpshooter style for fighter, and the specialties Archer and Dual Wielder is going to eliminate a Ranger class? 


There is A LOT for to a raner than dual wielding and bows.
A LOT More.

That being said, the ranger will be in D&DD NExt (Or I wont buy it.)

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

They've just started with the core classes, then the magic users. It doesn't mean there won't be rangers in d&dn.

If I remember well, the dev. team mentionned that they were working on the barbarian, the paladin, the ranger and the druid. 
do you think the Sharpshooter style for fighter, and the specialties Archer and Dual Wielder is going to eliminate a Ranger class? 


There is A LOT for to a raner than dual wielding and bows.
A LOT More.

That being said, the ranger will be in D&DD NExt (Or I wont buy it.)



A lot meaning a pet and a handful of spells you have leveled past the point of their usefulness.
But isn't a ranged specialized fighter and a ranger a little too much? is there really a enough content to diferenciate those 2 classes? won't it be repetitive?
But isn't a ranged specialized fighter and a ranger a little too much? is there really a enough content to diferenciate those 2 classes? won't it be repetitive?



Oh i forgot to mention that Rangers could sneak too, so essentially, a Ranger is a mishmash of Fighter, Druid, and Thief, with a pretty heavy emphasis on the fighter part.  I  realize that there is a huge contingent of players clammoring for MOAR CLASSES, and can't convince themselves they are playing a Ranger without the official Ranger(TM) stamp on thier character sheet, but i would rather have more options to customize less classes than having a new class for everything.
 
 
I mean really look at the class bloat we've endured over the ages, currently  the classes  that D&D next have to cover to emcompass all editions are as follows.  Fighter, Paladin, Anti-Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Cavalier, Cleric, Druid, Thief, Assassin, Theif-Acrobat, Montebanc, Wizard, Illusionist, Speciality Preist, Anchorite, Monk, Psion, Wu-Jen, Yakuza, Sohei, Ninja, Samurai, Gladiator, Swashbuckler, Hexblade, Scout, Spirit Shaman, Favored Soul, Spelltheif, Warlock, Sorceror,  Psychic Warrior, Wilder, Soulknife , Healer, Marshal, Warmage, Shai'ir, Gypsie, Bard, Shaman, Dragon Shaman, Knight of Solomnia, Arcanist, Wild  Mage, Adept, Noble, Commoner, Expert, Warrior, Beguiler, Binder, Crusader, Dragonfire Adept, Dread Necromancer, Duskblade, Factotum, Incarnate, Knight, Shugenja, Sword Sage, Warblade, Totemist, Truennamer, Articifer, Magewright, Ardent, Avenger, Invoker, Runepreist, Seeker, Swordmage, and Wardens. 
 
These are just the ones i can remember as being base classes,  i'm not even going to go into Prestige Classes, Kits, Paragon Paths/Epic Destiinies, etc. I am sure there are more i have never encountered, so unless we have some consolidation into core concepts, we are looking a rather unweildy Tome of 1000+ pages, and that's just the PHB. 
There aren't druids in the classes manual either, but the "how to build a character" thing did mention druids, so I guess they're just not done writing all the classes (or options) in yet.
But isn't a ranged specialized fighter and a ranger a little too much? is there really a enough content to diferenciate those 2 classes? won't it be repetitive?



There's nothing wrong with multiple ways to realize a character concept.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
But isn't a ranged specialized fighter and a ranger a little too much? is there really a enough content to diferenciate those 2 classes? won't it be repetitive?




There is plenty of content to differentiate the classes.

In only one edition was the ranger archer and the fighter archer even similar. The fighter was always just combat prowess. The ranger was some combat, some skills, and some spells.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I hope they do include the ranger, and the paladin, and the bard!

In my view rangers need:

Archery Prowess (possibly with a few alternatives to choose in lieu of - but archery must be at least an option)
Sneaking abilities
Hunting/Tracking abilities
Some kind of animal affinity (whether that manifests as an animal companion, animal empathy skills or a Charm Animal spell)
Some kind of outdoor survival/nature/herb lore skills
Proficiency with heavy ranged weapons (they must have longbows)
Proficiency with all simple, martial and finesse weapons (I will NOT have a rogue outfight me because he chooses a katana - I want to at least equal him with my quarterstaff!)

They don't need: (however I won't complain if they have them)

Magical abilities (I never really understood where they got their spells from)
Proficiency with medium armour (I always saw rangers as skirmishers, never front-liners)
Proficiency with heavy melee weapons (again, I don't see them as needing two-handers or bardiches - Aragorn uses a hand and a half sword)

They must not have:

Proficiency with heavy armour (this is for fighters, paladins, and clerics of the War domain, not skirmishers)
Some silly "power" that totally defies believability (I don't want to be able to shoot while in melee, or shoot two arrows at once, or pin his foot to the floor, or anything daft like that)
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
They must not have:

Proficiency with heavy armour (this is for fighters, paladins, and clerics of the War domain, not skirmishers)
Some silly "power" that totally defies believability (I don't want to be able to shoot while in melee, or shoot two arrows at once, or pin his foot to the floor, or anything daft like that)


Why couldn't the Ranger have the ability to do a kind of "Trick Shot" thing like that? A I've always seen them as scouts and hunters and even skirmishers (as you said). Why not be able to shoot two arrows at once or pin their target to a tree? It makes sense, IMO, that a Bounty Hunter Ranger would have a trick to pin his target to a tree through the target's cloak or other clothing. 
I agree with not safely shooting while in melee. I usually base that idea as being a bad one on the scene in 13th Warrior where the archer on the roof gets cut down when he can't drop the two charging savages in time.
Because those kinds of things only happen in films.

Even if an archer could shoot accurately enough to hit someone's foot, there's no guarantee that it will punch through flesh, muscle and bone, embed half of the shaft into the ground, and somehow wedge itself in there so that it can't be pulled out easily. It's the kind of thing that might work once in a thousand times, but it's not something any archer can contrive to do whenever he felt like it.

If a player wanted to attempt something specific like that, it would be a GM FIAT thing, and a GM would say "Okay, give me an attack roll, but disadvantage, and at -2, because you're trying a very difficult shot." Not an innate ability that every archer can just do on a whim.

Giving improved accuracy and negate cover abilities is fine, but specific things like "pin a cloak to a tree" (i.e. things that depend on a cloak, a tree, and the person to be conveniently placed so that the cloak is right next to the tree) should be a GM ruling, not a specific skill.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
Because those kinds of things only happen in films.

Even if an archer could shoot accurately enough to hit someone's foot, there's no guarantee that it will punch through flesh, muscle and bone, embed half of the shaft into the ground, and somehow wedge itself in there so that it can't be pulled out easily. It's the kind of thing that might work once in a thousand times, but it's not something any archer can contrive to do whenever he felt like it.

If a player wanted to attempt something specific like that, it would be a GM FIAT thing, and a GM would say "Okay, give me an attack roll, but disadvantage, and at -2, because you're trying a very difficult shot." Not an innate ability that every archer can just do on a whim.

Giving improved accuracy and negate cover abilities is fine, but specific things like "pin a cloak to a tree" (i.e. things that depend on a cloak, a tree, and the person to be conveniently placed so that the cloak is right next to the tree) should be a GM ruling, not a specific skill.



It also happens in books. I get what you are saying, but real-life physics don't always apply to a fantasy game. After all, if rangers get magic then could just enchant their arrows to pin someone's shadow.
I think it would be fine for the NEXT to be without a ranger if the fighter or the rouge could choose a background of something like a clan, living among beasts or other outdoory past, giving them the ranger's skills, and then choosing speciality (or feats) that gives them the companion/tracking/two weapon wielding/fast moving but without heavy armour/animal empathy/ and even some druidic spells and rituals that have an still have impact at these high levels.

 Well, What I've acualy said have been said before: if you can make a ranger from another basic class, it will be acceptable.

 I want to say it would be better! Because with this option you will have more aproaches for been a ranger (or any other profficiency). You can be a renger that is more scout like if your basic class is rouge, and you can be one more like a skirmisher if you are a fighter. And you could even be a nature priest by that way, much like a druid or a shaman, if your basic class was Cleric.

By going that way, you can be anything. When you choose your class you actualy choose mainly your role in combat. by choosing your proficiency and background you choose the way you do that role, and at the same time, you choose your role in the world.

Neat, ain't that? 
Because those kinds of things only happen in films.

Even if an archer could shoot accurately enough to hit someone's foot, there's no guarantee that it will punch through flesh, muscle and bone, embed half of the shaft into the ground, and somehow wedge itself in there so that it can't be pulled out easily. It's the kind of thing that might work once in a thousand times, but it's not something any archer can contrive to do whenever he felt like it.

If a player wanted to attempt something specific like that, it would be a GM FIAT thing, and a GM would say "Okay, give me an attack roll, but disadvantage, and at -2, because you're trying a very difficult shot." Not an innate ability that every archer can just do on a whim.

Giving improved accuracy and negate cover abilities is fine, but specific things like "pin a cloak to a tree" (i.e. things that depend on a cloak, a tree, and the person to be conveniently placed so that the cloak is right next to the tree) should be a GM ruling, not a specific skill.



It also happens in books. I get what you are saying, but real-life physics don't always apply to a fantasy game. After all, if rangers get magic then could just enchant their arrows to pin someone's shadow.





This comes down to:  Is D&D a reality simulator?  Or is it a legend/genre fiction simulator.

Are trying to tell reality stories - or we trying to tells that stand alongside the stories of film and book?

Because unless you are trying to tell a strict reality based story (in which case I have to wonder why you have dragons and wizards) - "that only happens in films  (and books)" sounds more like an argument for the exact kind of thing we ought to looking for - not an argument against an idea.

Carl
I'm not really seeing why they couldn't just use a background and a specialty to make any class into a ranger type character. I mean beyond a few skills like stealth and animal handling there is nothing a background couldn't handle. Then for two weapon or archer a specialty, throw in a few feats for spells at higher levels and a ranger can be completely done with a specialty.

Ranger Specialty Feats
1st - Dual Wielding or Archery
3rd - Child of Nature (2 minor druid spells)
etc...etc..

Really not that hard...



because then I have a Specialty/Feat tax to play the class I want, while the fighter and wizard do not.

this is the problem with the "core four" idea, even if you can make any class from one of the four, it would mean that you have to alot of reasorces just to get your concept off the ground, let alone have some cool stuff
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )

because then I have a Specialty/Feat tax to play the class I want, while the fighter and wizard do not.

this is the problem with the "core four" idea, even if you can make any class from one of the four, it would mean that you have to alot of reasorces just to get your concept off the ground, let alone have some cool stuff



there's no feat/speciality tax if you get something that brings you to the same level with other specialties. lets say you choose the 2 weapon fighting specialty of the ranger, that gives you something close to three feats at a time at the cost of you can't wear heavy armour or your sneak-attack halves?
Well, it need more balance, but in principle that brings you to the same starting point.

On the other hand, if you choose the prebuild ranger class, you still don't get your concept off the ground, you get the designer of the ranger concept off the ground. Well, lets say one wants to be a forest warrior that know how to track a target and then one-shot kill it? wouldn't it be better if he chose the one-shot killer (the rouge) and add to it the forest tracker?
For we already were at the stage of making a Ranger class with some abbility to sneak-attack. Although I learned to enjoy that, we are not here to make another 4th edition. And I don't think that making a new class with some other class's special abbility gives credit to either of them.
My advice is to stay open minded. That's the main advantage of pen and paper RPGs. It's like real life - You start on one road but with many turns and junctions that you can choose to switch in the middle. you know they say all humanity have at most 0.2% difference each individual's genes (if I recall right), but look how many different personalities, looks, talnets and professions you can choose from by your lifetime!

If we call the main classes as their main role, Fighter - Defender, Cleric - leader and so on, and then call the Specialties: Ranger, Soldier, Paladin, Priest, Bard and so on, would any player claim there is no Ranger in D&D?
Moreover, you would then have a Battelion's Spearhead Ranger, A Scout-Assasin Ranger, A Guiding Ranger and a Trigger-Finger Ranger.

What do you say? 

because then I have a Specialty/Feat tax to play the class I want, while the fighter and wizard do not.

this is the problem with the "core four" idea, even if you can make any class from one of the four, it would mean that you have to alot of reasorces just to get your concept off the ground, let alone have some cool stuff



there's no feat/speciality tax if you get something that brings you to the same level with other specialties. lets say you choose the 2 weapon fighting specialty of the ranger, that gives you something close to three feats at a time at the cost of you can't wear heavy armour or your sneak-attack halves?
Well, it need more balance, but in principle that brings you to the same starting point.




3 things


  1. If every ranger build is the same then you are being taxed, A fet tax is when a customization option is sacrificed to make a concept.


    1. Class: Fighter

    2. Background: Hunter

    3. 1st Specialty: Dual weilder or Archer

    4. 2nd Specialty: Tracker


  2. If someone wants to be a fighter, they are only locked into the choice of Fighter. If someone wanted to be a ranger, they are locked into multiple choices. Where a fighter can be a military archer (soldier/archer), a magic noble (magicuser/noble), or religous thief (acolyte/thief), a ranger which requires a specific BG and Spec cannot be any of the three. 

  3. Backgrounds and Specialties are optional modules. If the group is playing without either, you can't play any class thet requires either.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!



This comes down to:  Is D&D a reality simulator?  Or is it a legend/genre fiction simulator.

Are trying to tell reality stories - or we trying to tells that stand alongside the stories of film and book?

Because unless you are trying to tell a strict reality based story (in which case I have to wonder why you have dragons and wizards) - "that only happens in films  (and books)" sounds more like an argument for the exact kind of thing we ought to looking for - not an argument against an idea.



This comes down to personal preference, with varying degrees of believability. I can suspend my disbelief to accept the existence of fantastical creatures and magic, but I want the rest of the world to behave logically around the existence of those things.

There's nothing to stop a player saying "I want to try and pin his cloak to the tree with an arrow!", and the GM can either say "okay, roll to hit!" or "Er...no." But if you make it an innate ability of the ranger, it's harder for a GM to say "actually, you're not having one of the key abilities of your class, because I don't like it!"

Keep the abilities simple, and believable. Let GMs decide if those abilities can be used creatively to gain a tactical advantage.

f we call the main classes as their main role, Fighter - Defender, Cleric - leader and so on, and then call the Specialties: Ranger, Soldier, Paladin, Priest, Bard and so on, would any player claim there is no Ranger in D&D?
Moreover, you would then have a Battelion's Spearhead Ranger, A Scout-Assasin Ranger, A Guiding Ranger and a Trigger-Finger Ranger.



But this comes down to: is the ranger a "defender" or a "rogue"? Should he get heavy armour, or sneak attack? Should he get the rogue's skills, or the fighter's expertise? I'd be loathe to make him a "fighter+1", but unless there's a mechanic for specialities removing core aspects of a class, the only other way is to make him a rogue, at which point he loses access to many weapons and things that would make the ranger useful as a skirmisher.

Also, I really don't want to use those names!
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!


Because unless you are trying to tell a strict reality based story (in which case I have to wonder why you have dragons and wizards) - "that only happens in films  (and books)" sounds more like an argument for the exact kind of thing we ought to looking for - not an argument against an idea.

Carl



I agree with this completely.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.


Because unless you are trying to tell a strict reality based story (in which case I have to wonder why you have dragons and wizards) - "that only happens in films  (and books)" sounds more like an argument for the exact kind of thing we ought to looking for - not an argument against an idea.

Carl



I agree with this completely.



+1

Many of us who play RPG envision the game as trying to give the feel of an adventure movie, the classical example being LotR. I mean, if I were an archer, and I saw my Wizard buddy going all "Spiked Tentacles of Forced Penetration" on my enemies, and my DM woudn't even allow me to shoot two arrows at once or pin a cloak against a tree... I would leave the game faster thank you can say "fantastical realism".
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />+1

Many of us who play RPG envision the game as trying to give the feel of an adventure movie, the classical example being LotR. I mean, if I were an archer, and I saw my Wizard buddy going all "Spiked Tentacles of Forced Penetration" on my enemies, and my DM woudn't even allow me to shoot two arrows at once or pin a cloak against a tree... I would leave the game faster thank you can say "fantastical realism".



*sigh*

Firstly, Just because there isn't an explicit ability that says you can do that doesn't mean you can't do that. Any GM can let you try it if he so chooses, but if such things are a part and parcel of the ranger class, it's less easy to rule that particular move out of the game. There's a big difference between "You want to try and pin his cloak to the tree? Okay, I'm going to let you try. Make an attack at -2." and "All rangers have the ability to pin someone's cloak to a tree." That kind of thing is something a character might try once in a hundred fights, not something they can easily do in every fight, to the point where it almost becomes expected of them.

Secondly, at no point in Lord of the Rings does anyone's cloak get pinned to a tree by an arrow. One character shoots more than one arrow at once at two points in the whole film, and in both cases it was at the same target and at a very close range. This character is a high level specialist archer. Ergo, this feat is something not every archer in the world can just do whenever he feels like it. That's why I don't want them as special moves (I could forgive the Manyshot feat because that carried hefty penalties).

Thirdly, again, pinning something to something depends on too many outside conditions to be true. If you're in a dungeon with a stone floor, can you still do it? What about if the tree is made of a particularly hard wood? What if it's not a tree, but a bush? Or one with a very thin bark? Maybe you want to try it on a wall instead? Is that wall made of brick? The point is, you can't really do it in the majority of cases, so it seems silly giving a ranger an ability that they can't use 9 times out of 10. And if they can pin anything to anything...well now it's just getting too silly.

Finally, why do we always have to end up in the usual "all or nothing" argument? According to you, it must either be an 100% realistic medieval simulator where the PCs are all big burly men with beards and nothing fantastical happens whatsoever, or an anime style world where the characters are superheroes (with enormous spaulders) and anything and everything is possible. There is no in-between.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
Because some of us don't want to go back to 'spellcasters get to do everything because they can create a spell to do it, while everybody else gets to play 'DM may I'.'
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

3 things


  1. If every ranger build is the same then you are being taxed, A fet tax is when a customization option is sacrificed to make a concept.


    1. Class: Fighter

    2. Background: Hunter

    3. 1st Specialty: Dual weilder or Archer

    4. 2nd Specialty: Tracker


  2. If someone wants to be a fighter, they are only locked into the choice of Fighter. If someone wanted to be a ranger, they are locked into multiple choices. Where a fighter can be a military archer (soldier/archer), a magic noble (magicuser/noble), or religous thief (acolyte/thief), a ranger which requires a specific BG and Spec cannot be any of the three. 

  3. Backgrounds and Specialties are optional modules. If the group is playing without either, you can't play any class thet requires either.




Got your point. You could never be a Ranger magicuser noble or the like. Very well then. I'm convinced.



But this comes down to: is the ranger a "defender" or a "rogue"? Should he get heavy armour, or sneak attack? Should he get the rogue's skills, or the fighter's expertise? I'd be loathe to make him a "fighter+1", but unless there's a mechanic for specialities removing core aspects of a class, the only other way is to make him a rogue, at which point he loses access to many weapons and things that would make the ranger useful as a skirmisher.

Also, I really don't want to use those names! 



What I meant is that you can be each. Choose your own persona of a ranger. and about the names: I don't like them either. They were just names that poped to my head in a few seconds thoughts to find a way to express the differences between one ranger specialty and the other. Wink forget it.

I still think it's good option, although I understand now why there should be a Ranger class all by it's own.
Because some of us don't want to go back to 'spellcasters get to do everything because they can create a spell to do it, while everybody else gets to play 'DM may I'.'



Double that! Well said!

But Ranger is right too, there should allways be the middle ground. 
Because some of us don't want to go back to 'spellcasters get to do everything because they can create a spell to do it, while everybody else gets to play 'DM may I'.'



And some of us don't want to go back to "every class is expected to do fantastical things that would be more in place in an anime".

Leave the fantastical things to the fantastical classes, and let fighters, rogues and rangers be ordinary people who are very good at doing ordinary things.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
Because some of us don't want to go back to 'spellcasters get to do everything because they can create a spell to do it, while everybody else gets to play 'DM may I'.'



And some of us don't want to go back to "every class is expected to do fantastical things that would be more in place in an anime".

Leave the fantastical things to the fantastical classes, and let fighters, rogues and rangers be ordinary people who are very good at doing ordinary things.



That's already covered.  You don't have to select powers that don't fit your character concept.  You don't like 'pin foot to ground' power, don't select it.  Boy, that was hard, and something nobody's ever thought of before.

Some of us actually like the idea that martial characters aren't second-stringers, thank you very much.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Because some of us don't want to go back to 'spellcasters get to do everything because they can create a spell to do it, while everybody else gets to play 'DM may I'.'



And some of us don't want to go back to "every class is expected to do fantastical things that would be more in place in an anime".

Leave the fantastical things to the fantastical classes, and let fighters, rogues and rangers be ordinary people who are very good at doing ordinary things.



That's already covered.  You don't have to select powers that don't fit your character concept.  You don't like 'pin foot to ground' power, don't select it.  Boy, that was hard, and something nobody's ever thought of before.



Not always that simple. We don't even know that it's going to feature a choice of "powers" like 4th edition. It might be something the ranger automatically gets, in which case, to remove it would be to either remove a part of the class, or to mess with the game mechanics. Even if I did have a choice, if all of the "powers" are similarly ridiculous, then I have no choice but to choose one of them. Then there's the GM's point of view...do I tell players that they can't choose certain skills because I don't like them, therefore I want to limit their available prowess? Have you ever told a group that a wizard can't choose certain spells?

Actually, as a side note, I've just this minute had an idea: I wonder what 4th edition with only a few "at-will powers" (but with every other class features) would be like...I must look into this.

Some of us actually like the idea that martial characters aren't second-stringers, thank you very much.



Well, some of us like the idea that martial characters aren't born superheroes, thank you very much.

But you know what, we are never ever going to agree on this because we both want different things. I want believability and gritty semi-realism, while you want superheroism and high-fantasy. We come from different eras of D&D, and both seem to hate each other's respective favourites. What's more, we've been through this countless times now. So with all due respect, shall we just agree to disagree?
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
Only if you drop that 'different eras' thing.  I've been D&Ding since the original red box, so don't try playing the 'old timer' card.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I've always seen the ranger as a kind of mix between a woodsman and a hunter. I am not against a bit of "old religion" mixed therein.

For me : the fighter remains a warrior, using any kind of weapon (can be specialized in any one of those - swordsman, archer, etc.) and
the thief is, well, a thief - whose usual place is within a town or a city (can also be called a burglar, thug or con artist). If the fighter is the
more adventure oriented of the two, the knowledge of the thief is useful to adventuring parties. He should not be used to the wilderness.
Thus, imho, the scout template would be better suited to the ranger.

I do really think that the ranger has his place in DnD and that it is would be needing a lot of mixing background/specialization/skills to
make one out of a fighter or thief.

As a DM I do like that no character outshines the others. Each class should have its uses and moment of glory. Each player should/could
imagine an action be it as in the real world or as described in books or seen in movies. That's the fun of roleplaying too. No need for
specific set of rules.  
Because some of us don't want to go back to 'spellcasters get to do everything because they can create a spell to do it, while everybody else gets to play 'DM may I'.'



Why should that not be the case for every class? If I play a wizard and want to cast grease on a fire to make smoke isn't that a case of ask the DM?

I just don't want to see them try to give mechanics that make not logic to the situation and force players to invent a reason why it works. Like trip used on a ooze. 
Because some of us don't want to go back to 'spellcasters get to do everything because they can create a spell to do it, while everybody else gets to play 'DM may I'.'


D&D is a game of "DM may I" if you want to look at it cynically. Doing anything in the game world requires asking the DM if you can do something to it. Though, more often than not these requests are not usually worded as questions. At any time the DM can rule against whatever a player wants to do, regardless of what a book says they can.

On the note of Rangers having the ability to do extraordinary things, why not use a modified version of Combat Superiority, (I don't have a good name for this, maybe Hunter Superiority). Extra dice to apply to damage, trick shots, tracking and skill checks. I've always seen Ranger as a variation on Fighters.
Because some of us don't want to go back to 'spellcasters get to do everything because they can create a spell to do it, while everybody else gets to play 'DM may I'.'


D&D is a game of "DM may I" if you want to look at it cynically. Doing anything in the game world requires asking the DM if you can do something to it. Though, more often than not these requests are not usually worded as questions. At any time the DM can rule against whatever a player wants to do, regardless of what a book says they can.

On the note of Rangers having the ability to do extraordinary things, why not use a modified version of Combat Superiority, (I don't have a good name for this, maybe Hunter Superiority). Extra dice to apply to damage, trick shots, tracking and skill checks. I've always seen Ranger as a variation on Fighters.



Except that spellcasters don't have to play "DM May I" because they have been liberated through the use of various spells that provide them with agency to challenge the DM.  That was the greatest strength of 4e, though it was also 4e's greatest weakness: it gave every character the agency to stand up to the DM, and thus also brought spellcasters down into balance with noncasters.  But as a weakness, people thought that the only thing they could do was what their powers said. 

That said, while "DM May I" should ALWAYS be an option, it should NEVER be the only option.  Combat Superiority is a good direction for the Fighter; it grants them things to do.  But I want to see higher-level Combat Superiority options that really are superheroic – beyond the mundane.  You don't have to choose them.  But martial characters are depicted in fictional media – movies, shows, books, games, comics – as being more than just your Average (GI) Joe as well.  So they deserve the options as well.  Even if those options start to feel more Psionic/Wuxia in the sense of the Monk, Ardent, Battlemind of 4e and Monk, Crusader, Warblade, and Swordsage of 3.5e.  

Ranger deserves the same as well.  Give us the options to choose; don't favour one play-style over the next.  We see them starting to do that with casters (giving Wizards non-vancian options like the Spell Point Sorcerer and the AER Warlock); now show that with martial characters too.  Fighters, Rogues, Rangers… they should all have an option of being either mundane (but still mechanically effective) or nearly-supernatural martial heroes. 

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Because some of us don't want to go back to 'spellcasters get to do everything because they can create a spell to do it, while everybody else gets to play 'DM may I'.'


D&D is a game of "DM may I" if you want to look at it cynically. Doing anything in the game world requires asking the DM if you can do something to it. Though, more often than not these requests are not usually worded as questions. At any time the DM can rule against whatever a player wants to do, regardless of what a book says they can.

On the note of Rangers having the ability to do extraordinary things, why not use a modified version of Combat Superiority, (I don't have a good name for this, maybe Hunter Superiority). Extra dice to apply to damage, trick shots, tracking and skill checks. I've always seen Ranger as a variation on Fighters.



Except that spellcasters don't have to play "DM May I" because they have been liberated through the use of various spells that provide them with agency to challenge the DM.  That was the greatest strength of 4e, though it was also 4e's greatest weakness: it gave every character the agency to stand up to the DM, and thus also brought spellcasters down into balance with noncasters.  But as a weakness, people thought that the only thing they could do was what their powers said. 

That said, while "DM May I" should ALWAYS be an option, it should NEVER be the only option.  Combat Superiority is a good direction for the Fighter; it grants them things to do.  But I want to see higher-level Combat Superiority options that really are superheroic – beyond the mundane.  You don't have to choose them.  But martial characters are depicted in fictional media – movies, shows, books, games, comics – as being more than just your Average (GI) Joe as well.  So they deserve the options as well.  Even if those options start to feel more Psionic/Wuxia in the sense of the Monk, Ardent, Battlemind of 4e and Monk, Crusader, Warblade, and Swordsage of 3.5e.  

Ranger deserves the same as well.  Give us the options to choose; don't favour one play-style over the next.  We see them starting to do that with casters (giving Wizards non-vancian options like the Spell Point Sorcerer and the AER Warlock); now show that with martial characters too.  Fighters, Rogues, Rangers… they should all have an option of being either mundane (but still mechanically effective) or nearly-supernatural martial heroes. 


I agree and disagree with various points.
First off, where is it said that Wizards are "liberated through the use of various spells that provide them with agency to challenge the DM." As a DM, if I wanted to be a jerk DM, I can easily shutdown Wizards as easily as any other class.
Wizard Player: "I want to cast a spell."
DM: "No, you can't."
There you go, jerk DMing at its finest. This would be a bad DM and I wouldn't play in this person's games, ever. As I said, "DM may I" is a cynical viewpoint on how gaming sessions go. The interactions of DM and Player need to be symbiotic not parasitic. The DM isn't a storyteller in the sense of "Shut up, sit down and listen!!!" and players don't dictate the world to the DM. The DM presents a world and population, (allies, antagonists, friends, loved ones) for the players to battle, interact and explore. While players work to advance a mutual narrative for whatever reason they have to do so.
Honestly, 4e encouraged player entitlement, IMO, far to greatly, and on the other side of the pendulum is 1st where the DM was god, "All bow before me." Entitlement on either side is detrimental to a game, in any system or setting. Again agreeing and disagreeing with points.

With that out of the way, I'm all for martial classes going into the realm of the super-heroic as they reach those higher levels. Look at Beowulf. He ripped apart monsters barehanded. Then there are a number of Greek tales of super-heroic warriors. There is plenty of precedent for this. I just don't want it at low levels. Not everyone agrees with that but hey. Give Rangers and Paladins great options that make them stand out and I'l love it. Give Fighters and Rogues creative and impressive options at high levels, excellent.  CS Dice are a great way down that road and I feel even greater as a Fighter with CS dice than I ever have with previous editions of Fighter or when I play a caster class now. Sure the potential math may not add up but I'll be happier as a Fighter that doesn't do, mathematically, the damage of a combat built wizard.
 
re: Hunter Superiority: that sort of thing I wouldn't mind, because it's still believable. I don't mind characters being able to do amazing things, as long as I can believe that those things are possible.

re: Legendary Abilities: Beowulf could (supposedly) do that because he was very strong, and if someone else became very strong, he could do that as well. It's not a special ability, it's just being very strong. He didn't use his "rip enemy in half" ability, he just did a standard grapple, which was so powerful that it had that result. Again, that I don't mind. Combat abilities should be vague in their application.

Good example: "you shoot twice at different targets, but do half damage each time, or with a penalty." (that can be interpreted in any way)
Bad example: "once in every fight, you can shoot an arrow that splits in half mid-flight, and strikes two separate targets." (that makes it a very specific way to be interpreted)

re: spells: personally I've always thought that there were too many spells, capable of too many world-breaking things ("Siege weapons? Pah! I can just fly over the wall, cast a Dimension Door and then port the entire army inside!"). Things like summons, creating items (I mean, "Create Shelter"? Come on!), teleportation, etc, either carry so much power that it makes one wonder why the man is even walking, or could potentially break the world's "eco-system" (for want of a better word). SOme spells should only be possible as rituals, and for truly powerful spells, you should need a bunch of high level wizards to help you. I also think they should bring back consequences for certain spells (interrupted while summoning a demon? Guess what! It turns on YOU! )
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!


re: spells: personally I've always thought that there were too many spells, capable of too many world-breaking things ("Siege weapons? Pah! I can just fly over the wall, cast a Dimension Door and then port the entire army inside!"). Things like summons, creating items (I mean, "Create Shelter"? Come on!), teleportation, etc, either carry so much power that it makes one wonder why the man is even walking, or could potentially break the world's "eco-system" (for want of a better word). SOme spells should only be possible as rituals, and for truly powerful spells, you should need a bunch of high level wizards to help you. I also think they should bring back consequences for certain spells (interrupted while summoning a demon? Guess what! It turns on YOU! )



Good. Then I hope the next time you bawl that any sort of cinematic ability a Martial class is given is "TOO ANIME!!!/TOO VIDEOGAME!!!" you also advocate for lowered Caster power.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
re: spells: personally I've always thought that there were too many spells, capable of too many world-breaking things ("Siege weapons? Pah! I can just fly over the wall, cast a Dimension Door and then port the entire army inside!"). Things like summons, creating items (I mean, "Create Shelter"? Come on!), teleportation, etc, either carry so much power that it makes one wonder why the man is even walking, or could potentially break the world's "eco-system" (for want of a better word). SOme spells should only be possible as rituals, and for truly powerful spells, you should need a bunch of high level wizards to help you. I also think they should bring back consequences for certain spells (interrupted while summoning a demon? Guess what! It turns on YOU!  )


And without armies or siege weapons to distract them, guess what those dozens of archers on the wall are going to concentrate on  
My two copper.
What I think would help the Ranger archetype a lot would be for wilderness hazards to be as dangerous as they are in real life. The last two editions have coddled characters big-time in this regard, and prior to that it was hardly codified in any coherant manner.

I want to see real dangers with:

Starvation
Thirst
Suffocation
Getting lost
Water hazards
Exposure
Infection
Falling
Drowning
Landslides
Bogs
etc...

All the above help make heroic stories, give these real teeth such as the example of falling damage, and the Ranger's story makes a heck of a lot more sense.
What I think would help the Ranger archetype a lot would be for wilderness hazards to be as dangerous as they are in real life. The last two editions have coddled characters big-time in this regard, and prior to that it was hardly codified in any coherant manner.

I want to see real dangers with:

Starvation
Thirst
Suffocation
Getting lost
Water hazards
Exposure
Infection
Falling
Drowning
Landslides
Bogs
etc...

All the above help make heroic stories, give these real teeth such as the example of falling damage, and the Ranger's story makes a heck of a lot more sense.


This seems like a PERFECT candidate for a modular ruleset. A lot of DMs don't care about it, which is largely why it was left out of 3.X and 4e. But the DMs who do want to use it I'm sure would LOVE some rules, that way the players don't think they are just being mean/dicks. I know thats the reaction I get when I try to enforce something like that.
My two copper.
What I think would help the Ranger archetype a lot would be for wilderness hazards to be as dangerous as they are in real life. The last two editions have coddled characters big-time in this regard, and prior to that it was hardly codified in any coherant manner.

I want to see real dangers with:

Starvation
Thirst
Suffocation
Getting lost
Water hazards
Exposure
Infection
Falling
Drowning
Landslides
Bogs
etc...

All the above help make heroic stories, give these real teeth such as the example of falling damage, and the Ranger's story makes a heck of a lot more sense.



the problems they need to avoid are A) making the ranger so vital that to not have one is susicide B) that you dont have situations where the ranger is the only one doing anything

and personly I feel past a certain level you should just be able to get by all mundain obstacles easily, a PC who can take on a elder dragon should not be chalanged by a bog, a PC who can take on a demigod and win should not care if he has to has to climb a mountain.
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )

the problems they need to avoid are A) making the ranger so vital that to not have one is susicide B) that you dont have situations where the ranger is the only one doing anything

and personly I feel past a certain level you should just be able to get by all mundain obstacles easily, a PC who can take on a elder dragon should not be chalanged by a bog, a PC who can take on a demigod and win should not care if he has to has to climb a mountain.



I doubt these things would make the Ranger vital. A lot of these things can be mitigated by maps, roads, guides, provisions, boats, shelter, avoiding rough terrain etc... It's just with a wise Ranger in the party you have more wilderness/overland options available.

Your elder dragon, demigod examples address the combat pillar - but why should combat skill directly translate into exploration (or social interaction) skill? Indirectly it would through the boosting of stats, aquisition of skills (if you use those) & the accumulation of quality adventuring gear. But directly? I don't thinks so.

A successful adventurer should be a well rounded figure. Where they have a weakness they should shore it up through a dozen different options as they aquire experience. Failing to do so (and not retiring), I have no problem with natural selection weeding out the unready.

And I don't think a deadly natural environment should be a module, it should be hard-coded core just like falling damage, which by the way makes higher level characters less vulnerable to the environment in any case because they have more HPs.