1: Ambush seems OP paticularly at 1. That's like an action surge every combat. And, since it's a "turn", you can sneak attack twice.
Maybe as the level 11 ability.
2: This i like. Makes ranger's good 1v1, but leaves them vulnerable to hordes. And still different enough from rogues.
3: Conjure animal as a bonus action... almost, but not quite.
The spell-ish feature is ok.
IMO:
Level 1: You can conjure your spirit animal as a living creature, if it dies, it recovers durring a short or long rest. Scales by ranger level (say... 10+Wis AC and 4 HP per level).
Natures Explorer.
Level 2: Skirmisher's stealth.
Fighting Style.
Level 3: Sub-Class: Your companion get's a benifit (+damage, +defense, or +support).
4: Feat
5: Multi-attack.
First impressions:
2d6 hit die? How does the min roll work on this? Minimum 4+4=8? I get that they want to increase the consistancy of the hp, but this will result in rangers having more hp on average than a barbarian. Thats not cool.
Proficient in wis and dex? The only class to get two "good" saves at level 1.
Ambuscade: Probably overpowered for a level 1 feature, especially combined with assassin 3.
skirmisher’s Stealth: This seems pretty cool, actually. You can walk up, pick someone's nose, walk away and hide, and they never knew you were there. I like it but i can imagine some abuse potential.
Spirit Path: I like the mechanics, but im not sure how the flavor fits with ranger. Seems more like a shaman or druid thing. In any case it actually seems worth using, so thats nice.
Between Ambuscade, the 2d6 hd, proficiency in wis and dex, martial weapons, and shields this would be the premier level 1 dip class if you don't need heavy armor.
TheBigHouse wrote:
Lots of interesting stuff.
I would happily trade spell casting for these spirit path benefits. These are neat & focused.
Hit die increase was weird at first but it grew on me. These Rangers are robust.
Ambuscade is a little out of synch but it makes sense. I go first! feels right, as does the new skirmish ability.
So far, I want to incorporate all these things into the existing ranger.
But then we get the spirit companion and I'm dissatisfied. It's a sort of totem spirit that grants spell like abilities but also fights alongside you for 1 minute per day (w/concentration). And that's where I'm totally underwhelmed.
Id like the companion to be constant. And maybe on action economy mitigation, it uses its own actions to grant the spirit path benefits (instead of you using a bonus action). I'd like it to grow alongside you (as the current companion does), and id like it to be perhaps summon able as a 1 hr ritual.
So if you had the guardian path, you'd have this brown bear with you and it could use its actions to be a brown bear (attacking or whatever) or grant the guardian shroud benefit (2d6+con temp hp to an ally).
if we do that, I'd be pretty satisfied with the spirit animal companion.
The stuff in this UA feels close, but I'm not totally sold yet.
"2d6 hit die? How does the min roll work on this? Minimum 4+4=8? I get that they want to increase the consistancy of the hp, but this will result in rangers having more hp on average than a barbarian. Thats not cool."
No. It specifically says 7 for HP's at higher levels in "Class Features".
DemoMonkey wrote:
I like class features from the ranger subclasses.
My suggestion is to create a list of subtitute features fro ranger-seeker subclass, with more magic powers about ranged attacks.
Yunru wrote:
Looking it over, I like everything I see, and I'll be incorporating one rule specifically for the beast master.
A beast master's animal companion goes on the same initiative as the Ranger, right after the Ranger acts. Having the animal companion act requires concentration - you're keeping some of your attention on what the animal is doing and giving it commands. It doesn't take an action. If the Ranger wants to concentrate on a spell, then it requires an Action to allow the animal companion to continue to act. This way, there's a cost for having the animal companion remain active, but it isn't always going to be one of the Ranger's actions.
This suits me just fine.
This looks... actually decent.
Ambuscade is a class-defining trick, so I love it.
2d6 HD feels kinda revolutionary, so I love it.
Skirmisher's Stealth is... wow, very close to rogue turf. Still, it carves out a nice place in combat for the stealthy ranger.
Spirit Companion nicely packages the Animal Companion with a hint of Find Familiar in there that really makes it shine.
All in all, these guys look ready to cause enough trouble as currently written that most people will forget about the problems inherent in the PHB ranger, if for no other reason than to complain about how outclassed it is compared to the UA Ranger.
Anyone else notice this yet? 
Your spirit companion manifests as an animal for 1 minute or until your concentration is broken (as if you are concentrating on a spell).
You control its actions, even if you are unconscious or otherwise unable to act.
Concentration maintained while unconscious?
Ambuscade says you gain a "special turn," and on this turn you can attack or hide. It doesn't say you can move, which makes the hide option a little tricky.
*Comment deleted, didn't read the rule closely enough*
TheBigHouse wrote:
Seems like it's too tempting for a 1 level dip for...just about everybody.
You can still move on your "Special turn." You are simply limited to using your action for Hide or Attack. You can Move/Hide, or Move/Attack. You cant Move/Cast a spell. It is better than Action Surge, but only goes off once a fight, if you're not surprised. Pretty powerful stuff for a level 1 Power. I hate the name of it.
Nevvur wrote:
DMcatts wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
I love the spirit guide concept...sort of like a familiar, but a larger beast...but don't like the 1 minute/day. There are lots of other ways to limit the damage output.
DMcatts wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
TheBigHouse wrote:
"It's not per day."
You can only manifest the spirit companion as a living creature once per day. (First sentence of paragraph 2 under "Spirit Companion).
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Ah, my mistake, so, hmm, not sure exactly how I am feeling about the whole deal. I would prefer no companion shenanigans.
I'm not thrilled about every part of this ranger, but I do like that they are thinking outside of the box and experimenting
Azzy1974 wrote:
Did they intentionally leave the spellcasting off this ranger? That seems like a big loss even if the rest of these features are good.
Brock_Landers wrote:
TenaciousJ wrote:
TenaciousJ wrote:
I think if Ambuscade limited the Attack to only 1, ever (like the Haste spell), and didn't refer to it specifically as a turn, but phrased it as a special limited type of action you take at the start of every combat, then it'd be perfect.
Serpine wrote:
mellored wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
mellored wrote:
Serpine wrote:
mellored wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Wait a second, I just noticed a funny problem with this build: They get Primeval Awareness, which consumes spell slots to fuel, but don't get Spellcasting to provide the slots. 
Edit: that's why I didn't see it: it's a single line.
Brock_Landers wrote:
At first glance, the 2d6 hit dice at first level seems like an obvious tip of the hat to the ranger's original appearance in The Strategic Review (and later, in the 1e AD&D PHB). But, then, seeing that it continues at 2d6 per level just throws that off, and also seems like an unnecessary break from the rest of the classes.1d10 is fine.
Also, not a fan of the ranger having two good saves.
Ambuscade is really nice. I like it. Is it too good for 1st level?
Skimisher's Stealth is pretty rocking!
The Spirit Companion. Sigh. If this were part of a subslass, I'd love it. As part of the base ranger, I don't like it at all. Especially when it replaces the ranger's use of spells.
The loss of spell use... There are some people that prefer spell-less rangers, and I respect that. I, however, am not one of them. Also, the ranger spells in the game are pretty neat. I don't want to see the ranger lose use of them.
Also, this ranger doesn't actually fix the Beastmaster problem and altogether nixes the Hunter (and who want's that? Not me!). While a spirit companion is a great idea and worthy of a subclass, a Beastmaster ranger with an animal companion that's real and a constant companion is also desirable. Heck, you could even take a note from the spirit companion and allow the Beastmaster to infuse his animal compaion with magic or the "spirit of nature" or whatever to boost the animal companion once per day (or however) to make it more powerful for combat and still have the constant companion that's useful in noncombat, exploration purposes.
Elfcrusher wrote:
mellored wrote:
I looks like they are tryng to merge the 4th edition shaman into the ranger class.
Serpine wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
There seem to be general agreemant about the ranger getting ambush or sneak features.
Even if they could use some tweaking.
But little concencious over the spells / pet.
Okay, knee-jerk changes I would make to these "Paladins of the Forest" ranger types:
* They roll 2d6 per level when healing with Hit Dice, but still only use d10 for determining Hit Points. They heal fast but aren't massive barbarian types.
* You can't use bonus actions in the turn gained by Ambuscade. That's a bit excessive.
* Skirmisher's Stealth and Ambuscade swapped as to when gained. Single level dipping for Ambuscade? No.
* Skirmisher's Stealth requires Dex (Stealth) check to initiate, not just refresh.
* Making a melee attack against the target of of your Skirmisher's Stealth or using Ambuscade ends the Skirmisher's Stealth effect. Seriously if I stab you in the head or blip anime style across the field you are going to bloody well notice.
* Primeval Awareness can be used once per short rest without using any of your non-existent spell slots.
* A manifested companion spirit lasts for as long as you have Concentration up and for one minute (10 rounds) beyond that.
* When the Spirit Path is gained, rather then the ability to manifest a spirit companion one of the following two abilities can be selected instead. Note that the ability to the non-manifester spell-like powers like Seeker's Eye is not impacted.
1) Path Focus: Use any one spell-like ability from the Spirit Path an additional time per long rest.
2) Poultices: You can make poultices per the Class Design Variants article in the 3rd Unearthed Arcana pdf.
Zardnaar wrote:
mellored wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Maybe the animal companion should be the one to get the free initial attack, not the Ranger.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Mechatarrasque wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
I LOVE it. This is a ranger I want to play!
edwin_su wrote:
mellored wrote:
I don't like it. I don't care for the new hit dice, having broken the one good / one bad save standard, the spirit companion as a class feature, and ambuscade. A spirit companion subclass seems better to me and ambuscade is too good. Ambuscade looks like a 11th-ish level ability as a class-defining tier transition.
If there is one lesson we can learn from 5e's original ranger, it is that balancing a pet subclass vs a nonpet subclass doesn't work very well. As such, I think the UA ranger is on the right track by making it a pet class instead of a pet subclass. Whether or not the ranger is the right class to do this with is something I am undecided on.
The companion (or at least the summoning of it and the special ability it grants) fights for your bonus action, which imo specifically hurts anyone that wants to go for the dual-wielding ranger fighting style. Its better than the pet fighting for your action, but still.
2d6 HD is interesting, I like the concept of the finer healing, but it seems like a bit much to me.
Ambuscade and Skimisher's Stealth are pretty amazing, but gotta agree, despite loving the concept, they may arguably be too amazing. One or the other might work for a higher level ranger though.
The idea of a spiritual companion is pretty cool, admittedly, but as much as I like this concept as well, I also don't. I like the "Paladin's Mount of editions past" vibe, but the very limited nature of it isn't something I find myself keen on. I say 'limited' in terms of both its duration (and use of concentration, but I gotta remind myself this incarnation lacks spells) and in the animal options available (one of three as opposed to virtually anything). I'm also not entirely a fan of the trade-off from the pet as part utility (and a cool roleplaying feature) to pretty much just a single-fight combat boost. I appreciate the difficulty in balancing an animal companion, but it is my genuine opinion that this veers a bit too far in the direction it went. I have to believe there's more of a middle ground to be found, somewhere.
Everyone seems to be up in arms about the increased health. Did anyone else notice that you dont have access to medium armor anymore?
Bartock1925 wrote:
ambuscade reminds me of a kensei feature, and doesn't quite fit. this would be the 2nd kensei feature on rangers counting whirlwind attack, 3rd counting two weapons. I'm beginning to think Kensei are the magic bacon 5e has hidden somewhere in their character class kitchen, and whenever they need a class to be more badass, they go to the secret fridge, grab some bits of kensei/bacon, and vwalla, tasty high calorie class abilities!
the 2d6 is a throwback to 1st edition rangers rolling 2d8 in first edition. The spirit guardian thing is something vaguely alluded to in previous editions for variant clerics - there was a version in Spells & Magic.
the 2d6 for each level will definitely put them in the zone with Barbarians. Originally, barbarians rolled 1d12+8 max, because they doubled their con, producing 9-20 hit points in AD&D. The Ranger rolled 2d8+8, producing a range of 10-24 hit points in AD&D. While the barbarian continued to get 1d12+8, this stopped at 8th level, whereas the ranger i think got up to 10 or 11d8. Plus the barbarian needed like double to triple the XP of the ranger, so after 5-10 adventures, the ranger still had more HP than the barbarian, but if they were both level 20, typically the barbarian had more.
The bear, wolf, and eagle. I was literally predicting the animals while i was reading it. i even guessed dire wolf. Big sturdy badass animals that when adding wisdom bonus and potentially half hit points are quite a sight, for 10 rounds of battle.
So the spirit companion feature has some conflicting wording. The first paragraph states that the ranger regains the ability to call on the spirit after a short or long rest, in a way that leaves it vague about whether it's referring to the special ability of the spirit animal or actually calling it. Then the next paragraph says the spirit animal can be summoned once a day. So if the spirit animal can be summoned once a day, why would the special ability be usable after a short rest? The spirit animal couldn't be called on again to use the special ability regained at the short rest.
If however that first paragraph means the spirit companion can be summoned after a short rest, and the special ability of the companion can be used as long as you can maintain concentration, then this new ranger has a bit of life to it.
Someone with twitter should ask Mike Mearls to clarify how often these abilities are intended to be used.
Even healing 1d4 + Con twice is better than barbarian. That's 9 vs 8.5 for Con+2.
OTOH, 2d4 HD is weaker than 1d10.
Bartock1925 wrote:
TenaciousJ wrote:
What the heck is this monstrosity?!
I can see a spirit shamanist ranger subclass but as a full variant. Maybe. But this looks like a weird backwards way to do it.
DesPika wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Tempest's idea about using Hit Dice as a resource is interesting. That could really gate it's OP-ness as a 1-level dip.
I know some people are opposed, but I'm ok with both making it a pet class and getting rid of spellcasting. Although a few ranger spells (e.g. Hunter's Mark) could remain as spell-like abilities.
What would people think about the following, regarding animal companion:
- It's more like a familiar: it's full-time, and if it dies you can re-summon it without too much trouble
- Because it's a spirit instead of the real thing, it can "age" at any time scale, and therefore its power (hp, ac, attack bonus, damage, etc.) can scale with ranger level. Therefore it can have its own attack starting at level 1 without unbalancing things.
- Each subclass determines both stat growth (guardian gets more AC, etc.) and special abilities of the companion.
Expend a HD and be able to cast Hunter's mark, maybe?
jaden_stormtracker wrote:
IMO, the designers are still lost in the realm of over balance to design a proper beast master.
I'm also not a fan of a class that has Hit dice as a key mechanic. I'd actually like to see hit dice completely removed from the game
bid wrote:
jaden_stormtracker wrote:
I like it as an variant take on the ranger. I'd like to try it out but currently I'm the DM of the group so won't have a chance to play it unless my group ends up alternating campaigns.
I'm fine with the hitdice and class abilities, some of it is a little confusing though, such as the concentration on the companion even when unconscious. Might have to have another read of the UA article when I get home.
Count me among the critics.
I am not a hater on the design team or Mearls. I think they do great work, generally.
But this is awful.
It's not even a mechanical issue.
It's a flavor issue.
Mearls stated that he wanted to give the Ranger a new defining feature. Something akin to the Barbarian's Rage, the Paladin's Smite, the Sorcerer's Metamagic, the Rogue's Cunning Action or Sneak Attack.
So what is the defining feature here? A spirit animal ability that you can use once per day? That's the defining feature? Or is it Ambuscade? Or Skirmisher's Stealth? What exactly is the core of this class? I see a hodge podge of random mechanics that feel just as hodge podge as the current Ranger.
The team didn't hit the goal they defined for themselves.
They need to go back to the drawing board.
Give me something fun and flavorful that will make me relish playing a Ranger!
Just think how much the classes changed from playtest to playtest while developing 5e.
They're messing around with some new ideas, soliciting feedback. I'm glad they share this early in the process rather than keeping it secret until it's "done".
Haters should chill out, test the class with some friends, and give specific feedback. And bear in mind they're calling this "Ranger Options" not "Ranger Replacement".
THEMNGMNT wrote:
mellored wrote:
That Spirit Companion feature seems like a flagrant dodge in making a Shaman class. And a bad dodge at that, like that whole Battlemaster/Warlord debacle, though not as comparatively repulsive in my eyes.
On a less... caustic note, concentration, short duration, and daily use makes it quite obvious that Spirit Companion would work best as a low level spell rather than a class feature. Just needs Chainlock-esque subclass for Rangers to get a good Beastmaster replacement (and maybe one for Druids to get a... passable Shaman, I hope).
As it stands, I'm strongly against this ranger just for the above. Don't really have much opinions on everything else.
I like the new class features for levels 1-5; but, I'm not a fan of the Spirit Companion.
EDIT: I don't think Ambuscade is overpowered, since it's only once per encounter.
Also, Skirmisher's Stealth is only effective during the Ranger's turn (against a single creature); requiring their Bonus action to remain hidden (or re-hide) past that.
i also like the nod toward the 1st Edition AD&D Ranger, with multiple HD.
I'm undecided on the new Paths; they'd be fine for class features without their Spirit Companion connections. I may incorporate them into the Beast Master in a fashion similar to the Hunter's "make a choice" features.
I'd rather they just allow the Beast Master's companion to continue performing whatever command it was given (as its own action, on its own initiative), as long as it remains a relevant course of action; otherwise, it defends itself (Dodge action) while awaiting a new command. It could also grant aid (Help action) to the Beast Master or nearest ally; but, that might be better as a command of its own.
Who wants to take a guess at what this ranger would look like at 20th?
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
mellored wrote:
Ambuscade & Skirmisher's Stealth
I like a lot of the concepts, but it definitely requires tuning. A lot of the abilities are overly complex, and I think they'll be painful for DMs. Both ambuscade and skirmisher's stealth sound like they'll end up being really annoying for DM's to design around.
DM: "You are ambushed by goblins!"
Player: "Actually, I go first and shoot their shaman, and kill him."
DM: "The dragon swoops down from nowhere and looks like he's going to eat you!"
Player: "Actually, since he's the only enemy, I'm going to be automatically and permanently hidden from him."
…not to mention that both abilities are grist to be cherry-picked for multiclassing. Ambuscade would be fine as a bonus to initiative or even alert as a bonus feat. Skirmisher's Stealth could be a bonus to stealth checks; it shouldn't be automatic and unmitigateable.
Hit dice
I love the HP thing. I notice that the class lost proficiency with medium armor, which I don't like; it pretty much ensures all rangers must be dex-based, and I like having the option to be strength-based. Rangers also don't get damage resistance like barbarians do, so even though they'll have a lot of hit points, their effective hit points will be lower.
Existing Features
Why omit the protection fighting style? They can use shields. They're freaking guardians. All classes with the fighting style class feature should get access to all of the fighting styles. Period.
Spirit Companion
Elfcrusher wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Dual weilding was a thing years before drizzt appeared the rules for it exist in the 1E DMG page 70 it was the only way short of multiclassing into Fighter that other classes could get multiple attacks that did not involve a ranged weapon.
As for the Article I am not sure my opinion would be well recieved so i will just say that i was dissapointed and i believe they can do better
RCanine wrote:
Out of nostalgia for the days when 3.5 was coming out, I'm going to dub this variant the "wilderogue."
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
bawylie wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
moonbeast wrote:
All-in-all, I'm going to stick with the "Ranger with no spells" version from the earlier UA.
I considered both Ambuscade vs. Favored Enemy and Skirmisher's Stealth vs. Combat Superiority; I prefer both the latter options (those from the "Ranger with no spells" version).
I still prefer the Beast Master's companion over the Spirit Companion as well; even without my houserule modifications. I really don't like the companioin being a non-natural creature, for starters; I also don't like that it isn't a constant, physical companion.
I prefer the idea of "followers" from the AD&D Rangers; mostly handled as NPCs. I allow plenty of "influence" from the character/player but, ultimately, I'm going to adjudicate on the side of common sense, for actions that don't make sense coming from an independant companion; because that's how I see companions, they aren't dominated creatures.
EDIT: I treat familiars the same way; they're natural creatures that are summoned by the ritual spell. Although, wizards can communicate better with their familiars and, thus, give more detailed commands; and, expect them to be followed in more detail as well.
Not a fan. I waited quite some time for a fix to my Beastmaster... and thats what I get?
Hunter is okay - just fix the Beastmaster ...
The real questions are... (and my opinions are)
1: Does 2d6 hit dice feel like a ranger. (yes, maybe 2d4)
2: Does Ambuscade feel like a ranger. (yes, needs tweaked or moved to 11)
3: Does Skirmisher's Stealth feel like a ranger. (yes, perfect)
4: Does the 1/day companion feel like a ranger. (no, i prefer a full companion)
5: Does the 1/short rest spirit ability feel like a ranger. (no, i prefer spells, though i don't mind a shaman sub-class)
I'd also like to see some use of terrain. Like getting +2 AC while on difficult terrain. Or something.
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Granville7482 wrote:
It seems to me like the Ranger would be better off as a fighter or rogue archetype than its own class. I know there is zero chance of that happening, but in 5E, that's where the ranger seems to have ended up.
Elfcrusher wrote:
As I mentioned elsewhere, if the pets are fluffed as spirit pets and not actual animals, it would be reasonable for their damage to scale with the Ranger's level (like Monk's martial arts damage), thus solving at least some of the action economy/damage problem.
2d6 HP per level seems bizarre to me, and totally unnecessary. If they want the ranger to heal faster due to their gritty wilderness survivalism, then just add a feature where they can add an additional bonus to each hit die roll after a rest (a flat +2, or maybe +1d4, and maybe it increases to +1d6 at level 11, etc.) Otherwise, how do you manage spending the 2d6 hit dice? Do you have to spend them in "pairs"? Or do you get to roll 1d6+CON modifier for every hit you spend? That is overpowered.
There is unnecessary confusion on the Beast companion. They say it sticks around for 1 minute or until you lose Concentration. Later on they say it keeps acting even when unconscious. Concentration is by definition automatically broken when unconscious.
Ambuscade seems too strong, I'd like it better if they gained a single action in this "special turn" rather than a whole turn (Move, Action, Bonus Action), or maybe a whole turn but the action can only be used to Dash, ready, Hide, etc, but not attack. - Otherwise, think of the abuse....EVERYONE will combine this with some levels of Rogue, so they can get a whole free turn to target creatures who haven't acted, and thus pile on extra sneak attack damage, and then if they roll high on Initiative (which they probably will with a high DEX already), they get to pile on a second round of sneak damage before the creatures can even act.
The feature I really wanted as a class defining feature for Rangers is more stuff on the favoured enemy class feature... I mean, I like this new stuff, it's cool. But I think it's almost a completely new class. There's enough stuff to work with in the existing cannon on "Ranger stuff" without adding new stuff from whole cloth like ambuscade.
bawylie wrote:
CrustyCurmudgeon wrote:
Direach wrote:
CrustyCurmudgeon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
I agree that simply giving the ranger the ability to befriend/train animals without difficulty, with the CR limited by the ranger's level, would make it an appealing feature. A trained animal could potentially be governed by the same rules for controlled/uncontrolled mounts: if commanded, it can perform a limited selection of actions (Move, Dodge, Attack, Harry), if not commanded, it acts according to its nature, but not against the ranger or her allies.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
mellored wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Gotta say that while I'm not loving the new UA Ranger, I'm am absolutely in love with the UA process. Even when things don't work it often sparks great ideas and conversations and is way better than having these things just show up in splat books. It's a fantastic way to reduce the negative impact of groupthink within the design team.
Really liking the 1/4 CR fix to the Beast Master Ranger. Wondering if this could go a little further and pull the straight magic from the class and instead incorporate special abilities like the UA Ranger? Things like once per day you can power up your Beast to a CR equivenlent of yourself? Or can summon a pack of your companions base type equal to your CR (or half CR if that breaks the action economy too much) to fight with you for 1 minute?
CrustyCurmudgeon wrote:
Yeah, I don't like it.
The biggest problem I see is that they are not going to fix the current Rangers at all. It is like they are locked in stone. So they have to come up with something completely different so the don't mess up someone's character in case they already like it? The problem is that then you have 3 Rangers, one that is sub-par (Beastmaster), one that is passable (Hunter), and one that is flat out better than the other two (UA Ranger). That will not keep current players happy. They will not be happy that their character is now overshadowed by a better option.
Plus I just don't like the abilities. I agree with some previous posters that there is no consistent theme with the new abilities. There is a first strike ability (overpowered), an auto-stealth ability (wonky at best), and a mystical spirit power (weak all day, then powerful for one minute, and unsatisfying all the time).
What if you don't put points in Stealth? If your party starts hidden behind a wall, the clumsy Ranger can cross an open courtyard without being seen by the lone guard, but the Rogue that is Proficient with Expertise in Stealth can't? Really?
Some people like Hit Dice, some hate them, some (like me) just ignore them as much as possible. It is enough that they are in the game, you don't need to base a whole class on them. Keep the d10 Hit Die and give Rangers a bonus +1d6 every other level or something, and they get them all back after a long rest. This keeps their Hit Points the same, but they can last longer through the day with short rests.
Wizards seems stuck on this idea that "balancing an animal companion is hard!" But it's not. It has already been done multiple ways by the community.
Part of the problem is they don't want it perfectly balanced, they want it perfectly balanced so that it is just like everybody else. This class has this many attacks and does this much damage, so the Beastmaster Ranger needs to have the same number of attacks with the same damage. Why not let the Ranger and companion have more attacks that just do a little less damage or have less chance to hit? It's too hard I guess. 
Finally, some automatic prepared spells would go a long way to enhancing the flavor of the Ranger without adding any power at all. It would just add some versatility, which should be what the Ranger is about anyway. There are already numerous suggestions as to which spells they should be.
LordTwig wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
bawylie wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Fluffy Feline Spirit. New Ranger Companion.
Great! I got plenty of options for that now.
Too bad the new Ranger attempt from Unearthed Arcana is still terrible. 
By the way, I have yet to see a comment on one aspect of the spirit beasts: that your subclass determines what kind of animal you get.
I'm gonna be in the minority here (is 1 a minority?) but I think I'd be ok with subclass determining animal type, even if it's an always-on animal companion. Especially if Mike M. lets me pick the animal for each subclass, but even if he doesn't I'm ok with it.
Like many of you, when I heard the new ranger was up I clicked through to the PDF without reading a word of the redirect page. Look what I missed:
Look what I missed:
These game mechanics are in draft form, usable in your campaign but not fully tempered by playtests and design iterations. They are highly volatile and might be unstable; if you use them, be ready to rule on any issues that come up. They’re written in pencil, not ink.
I can't say I love it, especially the unprecendented edgy stuff like 2d6 HP (no, thanks, let's keep it simple and streamlined. 1d10 is fine). It's trying too hard to be too outside the box, most likely due to desperation in trying to find a solid and unique identity to the ranger. But, honestly, we need official fixes to the ranger as it appears in PHB, and this sort of experimentation should be used for new classes and official variants.
My opinion of "what makes a ranger" is simple.
1) They live in the wilderness.
2) They're skilled at hiding and surviving in a variety of wilderness locations, and their appearance is tailored to their domains.
Everything else is optional.
a) They may or may not have animal companions. They may have one animal, or a pack of animals, or a variety of different animals, depending on their personal tastes. I can see a Ranger with a wolf pack just as easily as I could see a ranger with a grizzly bear, or a ranger with a leopard and a white owl.
b) They may or may not be spiritual. The ranger may cast druidic like spells, or spells to enhance their hunting talents, or spells to augment their animals.
c) They may or may not be skilled archers. The ranger may be skilled with the bow, or may be skilled with the hatchet, or may have two weapon style. Regardless, I have trouble seeing rangers as shield-types, but that's because I usually see rangers as 'woodsy'. They may not ever see a forest though, so I would say weapon style could be related to terrain (and in fact, 'favoured weapon by terrain' could be a thing).
d) A ranger may or may not be totemic - having a spiritual companion or totem, a representation of an animal, or of nature, or a specific terrain, or a primeval ancestor, which grants abilities depending on what the ranger has.
Anything between (a) to (d) is entirely optional to the idea of what a 'ranger' is. The archetype being tested out is acceptable within the scope of what I think a ranger is. The 2d6 hit dice and limit to light armour, I think, fits easily with this thing.
Tashiro wrote:
Not impressed enough with the article to not take the stadnard builds out of the players guide.
Marvin.r.brown wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
Scallat wrote:
mellored wrote:
For flavor I think Rangers should have a link with nature. They should be one with their environment, and they should be able to use knowledge of their enemies in combat.
So what is all that? That means more than just the Survival skill. They should be able to attune with their environment in a significant way, either magical or not. That could be increased stamina, toughness or elusiveness (bonus to HPs, saves, AC, stealth, survival, etc.) in a variety of combinations. It shouldn't be fixed, they should be able to adapt to whatever their environment is.
The same for combat. Hunter's Mark is already a good example. They pick a target and focus on that target. In the case of Hunter's Mark it is magical, but it could be just studying an opponent and finding their weakness during combat. Maybe increased damage or accuracy after studying their opponent, or after so many rounds of fighting or after a successful hit. This would flow into finding their foes as well. An ability to track that boarders on the mystical.
Whereas Fighters specialize, Rangers should be flexible. So I guess the word to sum them up would be "adaptability". With that in mind it should be easy to take what has already been done, Hunter and Beastmaster, and improve upon them.
So the new ranger
1) Is the toughest class in the game, with more hitpoints than any other and better saves than any other, along with more short rest healing.
2) Is the stealthiest character in the game, surpassing all flavours of rogue as well as the shadow monk. Apparently someone being punched in the face by a ranger still does not know he is there.
3) Is the fastest acting character in the game, getting the equivalent of an action surge at the beginning of every single combat before anyone else even gets an action
4) has a poke-ball companion
5) still has a one-terrain-only (scaling to 3 terrains) utility feature that typically won't matter much anyway
Looks pretty terrible to me, and doesn't look like any fictional character that I would consider to be a ranger.
Personally my fixes to the ranger would be
1) Move favoured enemy to second level - favoured enemy should be chosen after encountering foes, making it more useful.
2) Make natural explorer work in any natural environment. It's not so amazing that it needs the heavy restrictions that it has.
3) Allow the beastmaster's pet to take it's own actions on the ranger's turn.
4) Allow attacks from the attack action to grant the pet extra attacks.
5) Remove bestial fury and exceptional training.
6) Instead of adding full proficiency to all the animal's capabilities, add proficiency bonus - 2, effectively giving them the same bonus as a character of their level.
7) Move fighting style to a bonus for hunters at 3rd level, removing it from beastmasters
8) Change primeval awareness to explicitly allow a radius of up to 6 miles, chosen when it is used, and allow it to give numbers.
9) Add the barbarian's eagle sight ability to 1st level.
Saeviomagy wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
A lot has been said about what the Ranger might gain (and I also agree that the HD is an awesome change, plus gaining the herbalism kit which no one else has mentioned) and the speed and stealth feel great. I'm less worried about multi-classing (optional rule and I feel just fine houseruling some stuff if neccessary) but I admit it is a point to look at.
However, we also need to look at what was lost. No favored enemy (not a bad thing, though the monster hunting specialist this ranger is not), no spells (and rangers had some very good spells) and their damage is reduced signifigantly.
Take a Hunter ranger with Colossus against big bag of Hp. At level 5 they will do 3d8+8 (dex mod +4) against that target. This new ranger does 2d8+8 in the same turn. Grant him that extra turn at the beginning and they even back out. Then Colossus consistently does more damage every round, until they even out for a turn or two when a new target is chosen that has not been injured.
So, no spells to increase damage and no special abilities that straight increase damage. That really hurts this new ranger and drops them a lot further down the charts for damage dealing classes.
I agree btw that the companion should be a spell, allowing druids to become the Shamans as, to my mind, that ability to summon a specific spiritual guardian is all that divides druids from shamans.
Chaosmancer wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
I'm disapproving of it more and more as the days go buy (looks worse every time I have another gander), it just doesn't jive, something about it is off.
As others have said, the 2d6 HD and two good saves thing is just a slap in the face to the other classes, and what's with the baked in companion, just make a 5th Ed Shaman, and stop beating around the bush. Basically, feels like a confused amalgamation of several classes.
Worst, UA article, ever...*as said by Comic-Book Guy*
I will look to my favorite Rangers for inspiration.
I think of Aragorn when I think Ranger. But not just him the Rangers of the North and of the South. Did any of them have a pet? I can't recall a one, though maybe there is one, still it does not seem to be a defining or even small part of what it was to be a ranger taking it from tolkien at least. The rangers of both the north and south were military units that patrolled and protected the out skirts of civiliation. They were not forest dwelling hippies, they worked in the woods they protected civilization. They were excellent woodsmen to be sure, they had to go on long patrols with little to no support so sure they had mad survival skills. They were on the look out for danger so sure they were excellent at spotting danger both using tracking and general alertness. They were not all scouts or all skilled at ambush though they were able at it. Stealth was but on weapon in their arsenal. So was the ability to armor up and go toe to toe if needed. Aragorn wore some heavy armor at Helms Deep (you could certainly argue medium but it was surely not light armor.). At the least these men were trained fighting men, skilled in bow, spear, and sword. They almost always also used a shield and could ride well. The northern rangers in whole spoke Sinarin (one of the elven languages) they also were closely allied with the elves of Rivendall. They had old knowledge and prehaps some magic, certainly Aragorn could heal using herbs and roots and could calm animals, but that could be portrayed as non-magical healing if desired. As they were all decendents of Dunedain from the lost Kingdom of Arnor they likely could use the Palantirs though not safely of course. Their use of the Palantirs was based on blood line though not magical study. The southern rangers were much more a stealth team fighting a near continues guerilla war against the forces of Sauron. They used their attire to blend in but as the Northern rangers did they were skilled in the same weapons and also spoke Sinarin. They were excellent trackers and tough skirmishers. They could also ride. One interesting point of the Southern rangers is they were religious, not worshiping nature but that which is beyond elvenhome.
So looking at the Tolken example I would see a ranger as veristal (varried survival, tracking skills, some stealth skills), trained in the ways of battle (martial weapons and likely at least medium armor), alert to danger (hard to surprise), and could use some form of the basic elven magics (again could be made into healing skills and animal training but there certainly is an implied magic nature to it all). I guess to me Rangers are not about being the stealthiest or using pets, they are elite warriors also trained in scouting and survival. They are not protectors of nature but quiet the opposite, they are protectors of civilization. I do think bringing them back under the warrior class and making them a subclass would be a good idea. You could also make a more stealth focused scout type unless it is deemed the assassin already covers that. Rangers are warriors first, second comes everything else. The South Rangers were an Elite force choosen from the best warriors, the Northen ones were all that was left and had to become elite warriors to survive in a most dangerous land.
Because of this being how I define the ranger, they one they printed will not work for me. If it does for you, enjoy I am sure there are fantasy Rangers it does fit well with and that is just fine.
Rottle wrote:
However, feedback on fifth edition D&D has shown that the ranger lags behind the other classes in terms of power and player satisfaction.
The Ambuscade ability alone is enough for me not to allow the class in my games all. (i'm not playing the game where one class gets this much alpha just for rolling innitiative.)
the Skirmishers stealth ability was enough to figuratively stop reading the playtest class. (smells like molten cheese to me, my abuse radar is tingling as well)
Rottle wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
mellored wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
[quote="Saeviomagy"]I assume you mean that spending a bonus action to hide is somehow superior to this rangers ability to never become unhidden from a single target while literally punching him in the face, and then re-hide from everyone with a bonus action the same as the rogue does.
[quote]Depends on the situation.
If your against 50 kobolds, then the rogue ability to shoot and hide from everyone is superior. He can also dash.
If your against 1 oger, then the rangers ability to shoot and hide from him is superior.
Also, nothing stops him from making an OA if you attempt to punch him in the face.
Yes they get basically an action surge in the first round of every combat, they don't have a consistent damage increaser that can be used for multiple rounds of a combat (like sneak attack, or hex, or more than two attacks per attack actions).
Rottle wrote:
I'm not sure I buy that "Anything you can do with multiclassing and feats shouldn't be a class." By that argument we don't really need anything except the base 4 classes.
On the other hand, I don't think every concept deserves a class or even a sub-class. But I think most people agree that "mobile warrior at home in the woods" is a concept worth exploring.
Draconism wrote:
Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing Ranger become something similar to Warlock. Melee subclass, Spellcasting subclass, Pet subclass, with a few overall abilites they share. Things like unparallelled tracking and terrain mastery. Instead of Invocations, they would have a similar choice of spell-like abilities that they could use at will to show their reliability. Or things like Pass Without Trace that could be considered either supernatural skill or nature's power.
Would also give players interested in that playstyle another competing option without stepping on any toes thematically. It's annoying to see virtually every class with a Warlock 2 dip, especially when contracts and patrons are seldom enforced.
Whatever a Ranger is, he is a natural warrior...so much so that many do not even like Spellcasting. So summoning a giant ghost-bear isn't flavorful for the class. Also, once-a-day abilities don't mesh as well with the survival theme as something that's versatile or can be often used.
The current UA would make for an interesting class concept, as DEX-barians and STR-rogues aren't as feasible or easily combinable, but would be better off as a Spirit Seeker or Shaman. I'd add/vary up the animals slightly though, because as written the totem animal thing seems pretty close thematically to the Barbarian subclass even if mechanically different. (That may be by design, but when I think about Barbs I think about superstition and savage thoughtless fury, whereas a Ranger should be calm and skilled and focused beyond belief. Odd choice to try to tie those two.)
Mechanically I think enough has been said already about Ambuscade and Skirmisher's Stealth...fits the right theme, but mechanically off and too tempting to dip. One additional thing I'd add however would be that this being a DEX-based class means yet another rapier user in melee. Aside from it being overdone in 5e, that doesn't seem to mesh well with my concept of a Ranger. I'm not sure how to counter this, but would probably enjoy it better if there were some workaround.
Draconism wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
I will just say that Aragorn was just a fighter who knew stuff (and who had the best background benefit ever). So maybe we could build something off of that. I suggest changing the ranger to an int-based fighter who does more damage as the fight goes on, because he/she notices weaknesses in his/her enemies (13th Age has some mechanics that could fit this). The ranger can know stuff about the favored terrain and the favorite enemies. I am thinking int/dex saves. The ranger would pick up "tricks" (# based on level), including tracking tricks, handle animal tricks, etc.
Subclases could include the beastmaster (animal training abilities), an eldritch knight type (benefitting from the class' high int), a really sneaky scout (with some stealth abilities), a warlord type (with people training abilities), and a vestige warlock-like shaman who gets different tricks by communing with spirits.
mellored wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Ambuscade+Rogue+Fighter means you could smack someone three times before they act (if you win initiative), and due to the way it is worded, you could sneak attack twice in those swings..
Ambuscade Turn: before everyone else, sneak attack
Standard Turn: Sneak attack again (becasue Sneak Attack is once per TURN, and Ambuscade states it is a special TURN, thus distinct and separate from your normal turn....)
Action Surge: another attack
This 'could' be done with a 4th level Character, and would only get stronger as Rogue gets to Assassin, Fighter gets to Champion or Battlemaster, to say nothing of what happens once the multiattack comes into play at either Ranger or Fighter 5th.
Another Example: UA Ranger - 5, Rogue - 3, Fighter -3 could open a combat at 11th level swinging 8 times if a two-weapon fighter and adding 2d6 sneak damage on two of those strikes (one during Ambuscade, one during the standard turn). Having access to two fighting sytles I may build someone like this with Mariner and two weapon fighting.
Ambuscade, as written, is too strong for level one. Additionally, consideration has to be given on rather it is, in fact, a separate "turn", thus allowing double use of some abilities at the open of a combat.
My recomendation:
This might fit better as a Ranger subclass: "Skirmisher"
Ambuscade and +1HD (which remains the d10 standard of the class) at 3rd level
Skirmisher's Stealth and +1 HD at 7th level
Multiattack (as Hunter) and +1HD at 11th
Not sure where to place Spirit Path. It is a match for the additional damage granted under hunter or (should be ) additional damage under Beastmaster (see below), and it is an item which some will say is weaker than Ambuscade since ambuscade is only once per encounter. Maybe Spellcasting OR Spirit Path as an election at 2nd level, and open that trait election to all of the Ranger class. Concern here would be a Hunter stacking damage from Hunter's Prey AND Spirit Path.
Maybe the answer is to change the Spirit path into a subclass with abilities elected as given levels, like the Barbarian Totem options.
Beastmaster should use the Druid Wild Shape chart for companion CR (needs to be expanded above 8th level, and multiple companions which add up to the max CR should be allowed with approval from the DM due to the multiple new concerns in a combat), and control of the companion(s) should be a bonus action and/or Concentration: i.e. bonus action until concentration breaks, then you have to use an Action to 'reconnect' (retrun to bonus action orders) or to issue a direct order to the companion(s). In the case of multiple companions one order can apply to them all, but different orders require different actions.
Just my two cents on possibilities.
Personally I don't think they have made "dipping" either costly enough or clear enough.
A multiclass use to be a jack of all trades type but not as tough as a "pure" class.
Ie: A Fighter 11/ thief 1 should not be more effective in combat then a F12
Dipping should be for flavor not power....
Elfcrusher wrote:
Another painfully bad UA that is worse than Johny Forum Poster's worst effort at a homebrew. Every character should dip this for ambush. The power level of a party that does this is off the charts. If you have a stealthy character who has also dipped or is a fighter for action surge you can be getting surprise + ambush + high init + action surge and solo kill bosses before the rest of the party even catchs up. The hiding in plain sight ability is equally ludicrous.
Elfcrusher wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
mellored wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Things I'd like the Ranger to get the following, all of which I think adds to their existing theme (Skilled in natural settings, able to detect and avoid traps, skilled trackers, good at hiding, quick to react and travel over short or long distances, and particularly against a favored enemy).
1) Skills: Add Medicine to their list of skills, and increase the number trained to four instead of three. Add Expertise in one of your Ranger skills (your choice): Animal Handling, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Nature, Perception, Stealth, Survival, and now Medicine.
2) Traps: Advantage on Wisdom (Perception) and Intelligence (Investigation) checks made to detect the prescence of traps. Advantage on saving throws made to avoid or resist damage from traps. The ability to search for traps while traveling at a normal pace, instead of only at a slow pace. Proficiency in thieves tools to disable traps (but not open doors).
3) Primival Awareness: once/short rest ability (no spell slot needed), applies to any creature type you select (not just those listed) and let it give you a general direction to the creature for one round.
4) Tracking: Advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track anything (instead of just your favored enemy).
5) Favored Enemy: Advantage on attacks against your favored enemey, usable once per short rest.
6) Hiding: Can try to hide when only lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding.
7) Speed: Add roficiency bonus to Dexterity (Initiative) checks, and increase regular speed by 5'.
That should be added to the base Ranger. Not sure which levels they should be added to, when it's a new ability, but most of these are low level additions.
bawylie wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
I think most barbarians will have higher CON scores than most Rangers, just for the secondary benefit of their AC.
So I think Barbs come out slightly ahead. And with rage active, way ahead.
mellored wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Haven't had the chance to play/run a game with one yet, but I like the abilities I'm seeing. I just wish the freakout segment of the forum population would realize that they compress full advancement into the first 5 levels to give easy access to the various features, cause, y'know, playtest material, but no harm, no foul.
I mean, personally I'm okay with the idea of no spell casting, and absolutely detest the whole idea of a spirit beast (terrific in WoW, awful for D&D, don't ask me, it's just how I feel about it) but I'll talk about those in the survey when it comes.
My first reaction to reading was also to consider 2d4. I worry that makes them too fragile, as their healing advantage only works during rests. But, then again, rogues seem to be doing ok with 1d8. With 2d4 I'd like to see one defensive ability.
Elfcrusher wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
mellored wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Ambuscade is cool (again, hate the name, just call it Ambusher), but it should be delayed until level 3.
bid wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I think I would switch Skirmisher's Stealth (which I would just call Skirmish) and Ambushcade on the level progression. Skirmish just seems to gel with Natural Explorer better thematically.
I'd also fold Favored Enemy into Natrual Explorer and have it work based on native enviroments of a creature. I don't think that would be too strong anyway.
Never really liked Primeval Awareness. It just seems really underwhelming, considering you could do basically the same thing by rolling Survival and actaully doing things hunters do in real life. Something akin to Feral Instinct instead seems like it might work well.
Other than that, I'm rally digging the direction of it and look forward to seeing how this shakes out. I would imagine that the Spirit Companion would get upgraded to short rest (or additional use/increased duration), in a manner similar to how Bards get thier Insiration upgraded. Sixth level seems like it would be a good fit for it, in addition to what ever other features they'd get.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
Nothing is written in stone yet for this class. I'd rather them introduce the new UA ranger as a Shaman class rather than a ranger fix. In fact, after looking over the Ranger class again, I'm not so sure it needs a fix other than allowing the Beastmaster to control his animal companion with a bonus rather than an action, which is easy enough to house rule.
RCanine wrote:
OB1 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
I'm generally not a fan of ever-more classes and subclasses, but I think there's room for a primal caster. I.e., Shaman. Subclasses could include spirit warrior, witch-doctor, and elementalist.
(Note that I have no idea what "Shaman" means to 4e players, but whatever it is I hope WotC doesn't bind themselves to that definition.)
So, yeah, keep Ranger and Shaman separate. Two completely different things.
Elfcrusher wrote:
i still see shaman as a druid sub-class, summoning a spirit in place of wild shape.
but i do agree it's not a ranger.
mellored wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
Base wildshape really doesn't do a whole lot. A shaman turning into a wolf at level 2 and a dire wolf at level 8 isn't really that big of a deal. The shaman wouldn't need to give up wild shape. Heck, they could use their wild shape usages for summoning their spirit. Where other druids take on the spirit of an animal and become that animal, shamans mold that spirit into a mostly physical animal.
I do also agree both that the existing druid and the shaman fit very similar roles, and that shaman is probably a better, broader word than druid. The only thing is that shamans (shamen?) deal with people just as much as if not more than nature/plants/animals, and the druid might need some more "spirit of the dead" type stuff to feel like a shaman. Easy change, just add some spells to thier list like circle spells. Should be real easy and nice and clean, without needing new classes added.
It's the ranger that needs more subclasses so that it feels good and broad.
Einlanzer wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Just in case, there is a fairly cool discussion ongoing about Rangers on this thread
http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4253616
A lot of talk about what people think rangers are and should be capable of doing
RCanine wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Ok, here’s what I’ve been working on:
Background
The Ranger archetype shares two features with the Rogue:
-
Lots of utility in various non-combat situations.
-
Damage based not on overwhelming might, but on guile and strategy.
And one could say that in the context of RPGs the two archetypes share a third feature: because their utility won’t always come into play, they also need some unique and flavorful combat abilities.
The difference between Rogue and Ranger utility can broadly be defined as urban thievery versus wilderness survival. There are overlaps, most notably stealth, and to a lesser extent trap detection and climbing, but there are also some clear areas of non-overlap: e.g. Rogues pick locks and pockets, Rangers track and hunt. Rogues know how to persuade and deceive, Rangers don’t get lost in the woods and know which mushrooms to eat.
The bigger challenge from a game design perspective is combat: on the surface both classes use surprise and “unfair advantages” to undermine, rather than overwhelm, their opponents. But giving Sneak Attack to the Ranger is both a cop-out, and suggests it’s a Rogue sub-class.
But with a little effort we can still define differences. For instance, the Rogue could be said to look for opportunities, including distraction by allies, in order to make devastating strikes. The Ranger, on the other hand, tactically maneuvers their opponents into positions of relative disadvantage, including isolating opponents so they can be killed individually rather than in a group. (Sorry, Horde Breaker….no room for you in this design philosophy.)
The Rogue uses his knowledge of anatomy. The Ranger uses his knowledge of terrain.
The Rogue tries to get himself into a superior position. The Ranger tries to catch his enemy into a vulnerable position.
The Rogue fights dirty. The Ranger fights patiently.
Mechanics
How does this translate into class mechanics? I can’t claim to have it solved, but I have some ideas. I’d love for feedback ideas so that I can eventually write this up as a full class proposal. And please note that I’m intentionally not fleshing out pets, or spellcasting, or Hunter’s Mark as a core class ability, or hit dice, or anything else. This is just meant to present a new model for Ranger combat.
The Ranger gets his bonuses when his target:
-
Has Disadvantage
-
Has reduced movement (regardless of whether it is trying to move)
-
Is Surprised
-
(See notes at end for possible 4th category)
The “bonuses” could be any number of things, but I’m currently thinking an extra damage die to every attack that starts off 1d4 and increases with level (like a Monk). Alternately/additionally, improved criticals, but have to be careful not to step on Fighter toes. Anyway, the bonuses are easier to solve than when and why they get them, which is what this idea is about.
So...how does the Ranger go about intentionally causing those situations?
Possible Ranger abilities:
-
A bonus action melee move that hampers/hinders enemies, reducing their movement until the beginning of your next turn, or even the end of your current turn (by 10’? by half? by 100% at high level or under certain conditions?)
-
Beastmaster: Pets could potentially Grapple, Restrain, or knock enemies Prone. (This would be a possible reason for putting pets into base class.)
-
The ability to prepare traps ahead of time, either creating Difficult Terrain or Immobilizing enemies who enter those squares.
-
Caster: spells such as Entangle
-
A ranged shot that imposes Disadvantage, or reduced movement. (Admittedly I’m not crazy about this one; feels too MMO.)
-
Even better stuff that the rest of you can suggest
And of course your allies may have a battery of tools to assist you (Ray of Frost, Vicious Mockery, etc.)
Here are a few specific things I’m struggling with:
-
I really wanted to include “isolated” as one of the triggering conditions, defined as “enemy is not with it’s own reach of any allies” but that pretty much means all the time for a lot of BBEGs. So you could modify it with “...and has allies” but that’s a fuzzy definition. It’s probably not strictly necessary, as the other conditions will pertain often enough, but it’s really flavorful, and it’s meant to give something to the archer Ranger, whereas the melee Ranger has the hampering strike thing. (Which also means we wouldn't need the MMO-shots.)
- I worry about adding a bonus to every attack (even though Hunter’s Mark and a lot of other classes’ abilities do so) because it favors dual-wielding. Which is why I added that hampering strike: to use up the bonus action. But if the bonus damage is balanced around the assumption of 2 attacks, for archers and single-weapon users, then in situations where the bonus action is available (e.g., one of the conditions is already met) then damage will be unbalanced. So my thought is that this Ranger would still need one more significant damage boost that applies equally to any fighting style. Does that make sense? Any idea what it would be? (Pet?)
- The mechanic that would have been the perfect ranged counterpart to the hampering strike was simply "use your bonus action to Hide". Except that it gives the Ranger Advantage, not the target Disadvantage, and I didn't want to add in Advantage as a condition, both because it's too much like the rogue and Advantage is about the Ranger, not the target. What else could archers do with their bonus round that would fit into this model? (Not that I'm opposed to give Rangers the ability to use their bonus action to hide, but it wouldn't provide the bonus.)
Reactions? Input/feedback/ideas? What did I not think of that makes this not work?
Elfcrusher wrote:
I think one of the major things that is continually overlooked is that Rogues excel at highly targeted assassination-style combat, while I would consider the Rangers to be more generalized and protection oriented. I disagree with the disregard of the "horedebreaker" style of Ranger - to me that is very ranger-esque and one of the things that sets them widely apart from Rogues. Think about it - Rangers are defenders and sentinels that independently roam frontiers. Self-sufficiency and versatility are their schticks, much more so than either the rogue or the fighter.
While most seem to think of the Ranger as being an isolate-one-foe-and-nail-him type of combatant, which does mirror thieves, that's not really how I see them. I see them as guerilla-style combatants who are adept at battlefield strategy and fighting when out-numbered. I think they intentionally went in this direction with 5e, and I think it's a good one.
Einlanzer wrote:
Well, an emphasis on Horde Breaking for melee is certainly a largely empty design space (Paladins don't get anything until 5th level spells, rogues never get anything, Fighters do a bit better with 4 attacks, but each is still a single target.) And I sort of get the logic...you're alone on the frontier and you come across a large band of orcs; you've got to wade in and deal death in all directions.
Except it doesn't fit with any of the archetypes from fiction and history that most people have suggested. It sounds more like Conan (or Groo) than the lone, stealthy, woodsman in light armor. Hitting multiple opponents with single blows just doesn't fit. In all of the stories I think about that have Ranger archetypes, the protagonist either sneaks away and warns the village/army/whatever, or he plays guerrilla and kills them one at a time. Again, only Conan and Groo charge in and fight them all at once.
(Never mind that if you can do a "volley" and hit everybody in a radius, why can't you do the same thing but make all those arrows hit a Dragon when you need it? Talk about MMOisms!)
But, anyway, my two cents. I know there are a lot of different ideas about what constitutes a ranger.
Elfcrusher wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Overall, I like the new ideas of the class, but there are a few concerns.
First, the class is way more suited for a ranged character than for a melee character. I'm unclear whether Ambuscade allows you a move, or if it's supposed to be limited to the one action you can use for an attack/hide. If the latter, then the ability will be mostly useless for melee characters, as the chances are they won't start that special turn next to an enemy. Skirmisher's Stealth works better for a ranged character, darting between cover/concealment on the edge of the battlefield, than for a melee character that has to move in for an attack and then move out to get concealment again before hiding, relying on their targets remaining very close to something they can hide behind. The change from medium armor to only light armor, and the dependency on Stealth for the Skirmisher's Stealth, makes the ranger a dex-based class, instead of allowing the option of a strength-based version. Making a dual-wielding ranger with this built is next to impossible, seeing how many of his abilities require the use of the bonus action. This basically limits this ranger to an archer, instead of having more than one funtional built.
Speaking of Skirmisher's Stealth, this feature has an effect in melee that I have a hard time envisioning. The ranger stays hidden from his chosen target for his entire turn. This means the ranger can walk up to the target without being seen, stab the target without being seen, then return to concealment without being seen (which probably means without provoking an opportunity attack as well). This is also regardless of other creatures actions, like one of the other enemies calling out "Othar, watch out, there's an enemy coming right at you with a shortsword". Actually, according to the letter of the ability, the ranger could walk over to the target yelling "HERE I COME TO STAB YOU" and still remain unseen.
Lastly there is the concern that it's too powerfull when multiclassing. Starting out in this ranger built for even one level gives you two good saves, 3 class skills instead of the usual 2 (including the ever useful Perception), 12hp's and the very usefull Ambuscade. As mentioned before, I concider this unclear, but if Ambuscade grants you a full round including movement, an action and a bonus action, with only the action restricted, then that can be very powerfull. Ranger/fighters+paladins can benefit from having extra attacks. A ranger/cleric could cast bless before the combat really starts. A wizard might not have many bonus-action spells, but moving out of harm's way is handy too. Even with a lousy perception, Ambuscade makes you immune to being surprised.
And the 2nd level Skirmisher's Stealth basically allows you to attack with advantage every round, as long as you can remain hidden. Combine this with a rogue for sneak attack, and you get a big damage-output. Combine it with a a rogue(assassin) and you get a character that gets a free round with an attack for an automatic crit and then a happens in which he can attack with an automatic crit again against surprised targets. Having seen a rogue(assassin) do 40+ damage on an attack against a surprised target, I don't want to see a ranger/rogue that does that twice before the enemy can even react.
So I actually took some time to build 4 different Ranger concepts up to Tier 2 (7th level) and what I found was a very robust system that relies on the limited number of spells known to fully form a concept. While the new UA Ranger could make a fine Warden or Shaman concept, I think the PHB Ranger is just fine. Each of the below is 7th level, no feats, point buy 14,14,13,12,10,10
Bountyhunter/ Marshal - Designed to hunt a single foe (in this case, humanoids on the run), can also guide groups saftely across the wilderness. The Bountyhunter is Str based and relies on a direct approach to hunt his foes (think along the lines of the Terminator). Rides a horese, carries a longsword and a heavy crossbow and travels the desert and grasslands but has a place in a small town that he calls home.
Half-Orc - St 16, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 10
Background - Solider. Favored Enemy - Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling (Switch to Undead and Fiends to make a Vampire Hunter). Terrain - Desert, Grassland Fighting Style - Dueling, Path - Hunter, Colossus Slayer, Multiattack Defense, Skils - Investigation, Intimidation, Perception, Survival, Athletics, Land Mounts; Spells - Hunter's mark, Goodberry, Ensnaring Strike, Locate Object, Lesser Restoration.
Protector - Roams the wilderness on the outskirts of civilization turning back small bands of wild Orcs, Gnolls and monstrosities before they can get to the farms. The protector spends long periods alone on patrol in the wilderness and relies on stealth to track his enemies and strike without warning.
Human- St 11, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 11, Wis 16, Cha 11
Background - Folk Hero; Favored Enemy - Orcs, Gnolls, Monstrosities; Terrain - Forest, Mountains; Fighting Style - Two Weapon; Path - Hunter, Horde Breaker, Escape the Horde; Skills - Perception, Stealth, Survival, Animal Handling, Nature; Spells - Cure Wounds, Spike Growth, Pass Without Trace, Hail of Thornes, Cordon of Arrows
Scout - Employed by the Kings Army, the scount specializes in working behind enemy lines to report back troop strength and movement to the army along with the best path through. Can also work to disrupt supply chains or ambush smaller groups of enemies. Favors stealth, quick hits, and staying alive in a desperate situation.
Wood Elf - St 10, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 10
Background - Outlander; Favored Enemy - Humans, Elves, Orcs, Gnolls; Terrain - Forest/ Grassland; Fighting Style - Archery, Path - Beastmaster, Hawk (28hp, +6 attack, 4 damage); Skills - Athletics, Survival, Stealth, Perception, Investigation; Spells - Speak with Animals, Goodberry, Pass Without Trace, Animal Messenger, Beast Sense
Survivalist - This ranger doesn't go looking for adventure, their life is an adventure. Living away from society they rely completly on their own skills to survive a dangerous world. The best friends of the Survivalist are the animals that inhabit the terrain he calls home.
Hill Dwarf - St 16, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10
Background - Hermit; Favored Enemy - Beasts, Monstrosities; Terrain- Underdark, Mountains; Fighting Style - Defense; Path - Beastmaster, Giant Wolf Spider (28hp, +6 to hit); Skills - Medicine, Relgion, Stealth, Survival, Perception; Spells - Speak with Animals, Animal Friendship, Alarm, Barkskin (cast on Animal Companion), Locate Animals or Plants
For real though.
So for complete broken nonsense including some house ruling of the Psionics UA I have a fun build going:
Human UA Ranger 3 / Immortal 5 / Assassin 3 / Paladin 9
13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12 base array ending with a 14, 14, 14, 13, 13, 13 {I gave the immortal a 13 int multiclass requirement because there needs to be something there and int is kindof their only real stat}
STR 13
DEX 14
CON 13
INT 13
WIS 14
CHA 14
Start with ranger and take 4 levels of immortal to get the resilient feat for con ASAP. Head to rogue after that for three levels to get the assassin subclass. from there you go to paladin for 8 to boost DEX and CHA (+3 to all saves is so worth it) with your other two ASIs. Then finish out the rest of the classes as you wish grabbing the last of immortal ranger and paladin in any order really.
Ending with
STR 13
DEX 16
CON 14
INT 13
WIS 14
CHA 16
Also take the Dueling fighting style and Defense Fighting Style to get that +2 to damage, and +1 to AC.
With a rapier, Stalker's fang, a full Leathal Strike, and a 3rd level spell divine smite active that first hit (which is a crit thanks to assassin) comes to 2d8+10d6+10d10+8d8+8 which is on average about 143 dmg. The second hit comes in at 2d8+10d10+8d8+6 which is on average about 106. so that's about 249 damage..and this is just the ambuscade round. Next up we've got the surprise round! first crit comes in at 2d8+6d6+10d10+6d8+6 so on average 118 and with the second crit we are at 2d8+10d10+6d8+6 which is about 97 damage so about 215 for the second round. So total between the two rounds we have about 464 damage on average...which means that I can, while blowing a large number of my resources, on average drop CR 22 monsters without letting them take any actions.
That doesn't even get into using the Poisoner's kit to bring in some nice wyvern poison (DC 15 con vs 7d6 damage so another average 21) to the first hit, or heck this is 20th level we should be bringing around Purple Wurm poison (DC 19 vs 12d6 for an average of 42). With good rolls this thing can straight drop a Kraken before it even gets to act, or at least turn that Kraken into a straight cleanup fight for the rest of the party if they don't just clean it up in the surprise round. Sure I lose some ASIs but really...I hardly need them. Heck my laying nothing on attacks to start a fight are 2d8+6d6+6 and 2d8+6 for the Ambuscade and 2d8+6d6+6 and 2d8+6 for the surprise round for an average of 204 damage tossed out before any enemies can act in a surprise round. Also to note, thanks to celerity, the chances of me getting a third round of attacks off as crits before any enemies get to attack is HIGHLY likely.
Along with that I have 9d10+5d8+9d6+40 hit points, pretty beefy coming in with 157 average hit points. with hit dice I can spend as an action, and I can heal 45 damage a day with lay on hands. My saves are:
STR +4
DEX +12
CON +11
INT +4
WIS +11
CHA +6
Also I have a floating +6 that I can change with a short rest to throw into STR, INT, or CHA.
Rock a breastplate to get to a 17 AC which thanks to Iron Durability I can pump to 18. This completely disregarding the possibility of getting magic armor. (Luckily I can continually break from melee so the average AC is not the worst thing to happen to me)
With a Soldier Background I have 6 skills (Lets say Athletics, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth, and Survival), two of them with expertise (Stealth and Intimidation) , and am proficient with the Herbalism Kit, Thieves Tools, Disguise Kit, Poisoner's Kit, A gaming set, and Vehichles(Land).
I can cast Bless, Cure Wounds, and Find Steed and quite a few other awesome spells that barely rely on level to be awesome.
I like to call this the Vin Diesel Build, because with it i enD liVes.
I know its a total BS build but it is funny to me none the less.
Mardermann wrote:
CCS wrote: