Unearthed Arcana - Modifying Classes, Spell-less Ranger, and Favored Soul Archetype

[Edge of Dreams]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modifying-classes

New Unearthed Arcana article from WoTC features advice on modifying classes, a no-spells Ranger variant, and the Favored Soul class from 3.5 re-imagined as a Sorcerer bloodline.

[silveralen]

{scrubbed}

Except ranger (hunter) has high level maneuvers built in. Whirlwind and stand against the tide are actually two of the more common suggestions for what high level maneuvers should look like. It's actually a good archetype for people who aren't satisfied with default fighter/battle master, as it ditches the abilities they don't like, which are mainly just pure damage/toughness increases, replacing them with more control and utility options.

I also predict the argument about whether whirlwind counts as a single attack made against many enemies or a separate attack against each will come up again in the context of maneuvers.

[DanyBallon]

As a DM I would argue that Manoeuver dices don't add when multiclassing, kinda how different Extra attack don't stack unless it's from the fighters extra attack

[Joe the Rat]

The guidelines and pointers on the class features was good. Don't break what's central, and balance swap-outs so you don't over- or under-power things too much (more).

Quick show of hands: How many people were already swapping subclasses around for new Paths/Traditions/Archetypes?
(This guy - Battlemaster Monk)

Edit:


{scrubbed} That's a good point. I can see the merit of superiority dice stacking like multiclassing spell slots. So going 2/3 gives you the superiority dice of a... 5th level Battlemaster (or no-cast Ranger).

[silveralen]

{scrubbed}

How are they crap? Not many spells known? Restrictive, but that's far from a death sentence. You are more focused than many other casters.

I think the favored soul archetype is a bit too much, mainly because they apparently balanced 1 HP a level and speaking Draconic against 10 spells known, which is a bit silly.


{scrubbed}

Right... you clearly only want to play super high utility casting classes. Which is fine. Just be aware of the difference between opinion and balance.

[Demonic Spoon]

{scrubbed}


Spell slots only stack in a very specific way based on established multiclassing rules. They say nothing about stacking superiority dice, but it seems incredibly obvious what the design intent is.

[Joe the Rat]

I think the favored soul archetype is a bit too much, mainly because they apparently balanced 1 HP a level and speaking Draconic against 10 spells known, which is a bit silly. Would these have balanced better if they were added to the spell list, but not the spells known? That's the deal Warlocks get.

[DanyBallon]

{scrubbed}


On the Basis that

{scrubbed}


Multiclassing spellcaster don't get you more powerful than a full spellcaster. So it's fair game to say that Manoeuver dice shouldn't stack. Other abilities (superiority dice increase, additionnal manoeuver, etc.) should consider the the combine level in order to keep up

[silveralen]

Would these have balanced better if they were added to the spell list, but not the spells known? That's the deal Warlocks get.

That's going to be a lot better balanced, and quite possibly was the intent.

[eastmabl]

On the Basis that


Multiclassing spellcaster don't get you more powerful than a full spellcaster. So it's fair game to say that Manoeuver dice shouldn't stack. Other abilities (superiority dice increase, additionnal manoeuver, etc.) should consider the the combine level in order to keep up

Or, at the very least that the manouver dice should stack in terms of progression in the base class.

For example, spell-less ranger 2 / battlemaster fighter 2 would give you the equivalen of level (2+2) 4 in either class for the maneuvers.

[HoarsHalberd]

How are they crap? Not many spells known? Restrictive, but that's far from a death sentence. You are more focused than many other casters.
Whilst I am a great lover of the sorceror they are on the weak end of the casters (obviously and unfortunately above the mundanes at higher levels.) They lack the versatility and adaptability of the wizard or cleric or druid. The metamagic pool is too small to truly make up for that loss. IMHO.


I think the favored soul archetype is a bit too much, mainly because they apparently balanced 1 HP a level and speaking Draconic against 10 spells known, which is a bit silly.
Whilst 10 spells known against 1hp a level, proficiency in all charisma checks against Dragons and Draconic is an obvious trade. Extra attack with no martial abilities compared with +cha to spell damage for one element and resistance to that element is equally an obvious trade. In return the wings are slightly stronger for favoured souls and then a small healing bonus vs charmed/feared is fairly balanced

[silveralen]

{scrubbed}

So... more damage, HP, AC, and resistances aren't wanted features?

You don't like combat focused characters. I get that. That's an opinion, not a balance issue. Plenty of people like sorcerer, but they aren't the same people who might want to play lore bard.


{scrubbed}

Okay, so your idea is nothing between levels 2-11 is interesting on ranger. Yet monk clearly has interesting things all the way through.

So between stunning strike (lvl 6) and diamond soul (lvl 14), you have magical punches (mainly there so resistance doesn't screw you), immunity to some conditions, and the ability to speak languages, plus a minor archetype ability (mostly minor spell likes stuff). Plus various combat things like more ki and more unarmed damage.

For the new ranger, in those same levels he'd have the ability to detect creatures of certain types nearby, some various resistances/immunities, the ability to heal and cure others, natural explorer and favored enemy for additional types to expand your focus (including more languages, weeeeee), hide in plain sight for some neat but limited stealth, and some combat stuff like a new maneuver/superiority dice plus various combat abilities from the hunter archetype and extra attack.

Seems very comparable to me /shrug.


{scrubbed}

Because at all levels it feels generally good in practice? Have you actually played a BM at high levels. It does not feel resource starved.

[silveralen]

Whilst I am a great lover of the sorceror they are on the weak end of the casters (obviously and unfortunately above the mundanes at higher levels.) They lack the versatility and adaptability of the wizard or cleric or druid. The metamagic pool is too small to truly make up for that loss. IMHO.

They aren't designed to be as versatile. Not every class has the same level of versatility. Nor is that required for balance. Specialization in an area can make up for lack of versatility, and vice versa.


Whilst 10 spells known against 1hp a level, proficiency in all charisma checks against Dragons and Draconic is an obvious trade.

Are you claiming that's balanced? That's not even close to balanced. Two abilities which will rarely, if ever, see the light of day and have a limited effect even if they do and 20 HP do not equate to 10 spells known.

[HoarsHalberd]

They aren't designed to be as versatile. Not every class has the same level of versatility. Nor is that required for balance. Specialization in an area can make up for lack of versatility, and vice versa.
Correct, specialization in an area can make up for a lack of versatility, Draconic bloodline on its own is competitive with most wizard/cleric archetypes, which then pits the class features against each other, and MM is too limited, in my opinion, to allow the sorcerer to compete with the sheer versatility the other classes bring to the table.



Are you claiming that's balanced? That's not even close to balanced. Two abilities which will rarely, if ever, see the light of day and have a limited effect even if they do and 20 HP do not equate to 10 spells known.

You seem not to be able to read a whole post. I addressed that. I didn't call it balanced. I called it "an obvious trade" because it isn't balanced. However an extra attack on a class with no martial abilities whatsoever is not balanced against charisma to an elemental damage type and resistance for a sorcery point.

[eastmabl]

{scrubbed}

Because... the multiclassing mechanics of 5e do not favor this?

- Look at Extra Attack. When you are multi-classing, it does not stack. Ever. EVER.

- Look at spellcasting. When you multiclass in a spellcasting class, you get access to more spells per day as a larger pool.

So let's analogize spellcasting to the manuevers. They are fairly similar, can't we agree? Manuevers are like sword spells, in a way.

Now, if you have a multi-classed character who has a fixed number of spells per day (their spell pool), why wouldn't it stand to reason that the sword spells (manuevers) would also have a similar pool of total manuevers to avoid a player from expanding his pool through multi-class cheese?

Otherwise, this just smacks of the multiclassing problems that came out of 3.xpf.

[silveralen]

Correct, specialization in an area can make up for a lack of versatility, Draconic bloodline on its own is competitive with most wizard/cleric archetypes, which then pits the class features against each other, and MM is too limited, in my opinion, to allow the sorcerer to compete with the sheer versatility the other classes bring to the table.

I disagree personally. I think sorcerer's spells know, while limited, aren't as big a hindrance as some think, and the utility and power metamagic brings balances it out. Twin, empower, and heighten can make a huge difference in potency of combat abilities, careful spell is great for being able to use spells where other casters couldn't risk it, and subtle/silent spell are unique and interesting utility options. It is combat focused, but it offers enough there it balances it out imo.


You seem not to be able to read a whole post. I addressed that. I didn't call it balanced. I called it "an obvious trade" because it isn't balanced. However an extra attack on a class with no martial abilities whatsoever is not balanced against charisma to an elemental damage type and resistance for a sorcery point.

Yeah I had a hard time understanding, I was actually asking because I needed you to rephrase it not a rhetorical thing, I'm a little slow right now so bear with me.

Interestingly enough we once again disagree about value. You aren't a blaster, but you can use spells like quickened haste with your attacks for sustainable damage in excess of cantrips (and con save prof helps a ton here) then transition to heightened debuff/control spells on enemies as needed. It's different, but I think equally powerful.

[Finieous]

Honestly, this stuff doesn't look very well designed. Am I reading this correctly that "spell-less" rangers learn combat maneuvers a level earlier than battlemasters do?

[silveralen]

Honestly, this stuff doesn't look very well designed. Am I reading this correctly that "spell-less" rangers learn combat maneuvers a level earlier than battlemasters do?

Yep. To be fair rangers also learn spells a level before eldritch knight, so it is kinda understandable.

[Daishain]

Honestly, this stuff doesn't look very well designed. Am I reading this correctly that "spell-less" rangers learn combat maneuvers a level earlier than battlemasters do?
Yep, though to be fair, the battlemaster's superiority dice upgrade to d10s and then d12s. The ranger's don't

[Finieous]

Yep. To be fair rangers also learn spells a level before eldritch knight, so it is kinda understandable.

That's because rangers are half-casters and EKs are fighters! That's no excuse for spell-less rangers to out-maneuver battlemasters. I understand the designer was intentionally trying to replace new spellcasting levels, but this just shows how NOT to do it, IMHO.

[silveralen]

That's because rangers are half-casters and EKs are fighters! That's no excuse for spell-less rangers to out-maneuver battlemasters. I understand the designer was intentionally trying to replace new spellcasting levels, but this just shows how NOT to do it, IMHO.

Honestly it looks fine to me. I can see it bothering a low level fighter in a group with a spell less ranger, but it actually swings the other way around once you get past lvl 3. Which is weird I'll fully admit but just one of those game design things.

[PhantomRenegade]

Honestly i'm pretty dissapointed with the whole thing, mostly because i was expecting a beastmaster fix like they said they'd do last month, yeah i know they didnt say when but i was hopeful.

I probably can't make a fair assessment of the options on display but is it just me or is Favored soul pretty much going against the sorcerer's usual flavour of "this power is yours, nobody else gave it to you, you just got it from your bloodline or whatever".

[Joe the Rat]

This is one of the fiddly things with hot-swaps: You will get some misalignments where the "donor" class gains features after the "recipient."

If that aspect is an issue, beware the Variant Human. There are a lot of "Play at" feats that dip into other classes domains. Including maneuvers.

[Finieous]

Honestly it looks fine to me. I can see it bothering a low level fighter in a group with a spell less ranger, but it actually swings the other way around once you get past lvl 3. Which is weird I'll fully admit but just one of those game design things.

I agree it's weird, but I think it's one of those bad game design things. You want a spell-less ranger, start with a spell-less class template and work from there. You don't try to bolt spell-less class abilities over top of spellcasting progression.

[Joe the Rat]

I agree it's weird, but I think it's one of those bad game design things. You want a spell-less ranger, start with a spell-less class template and work from there. You don't try to bolt spell-less class abilities over top of spellcasting progression.Don't make a spell-less ranger, make a rogue or fighter with ranger features?

I know this isn't where you were going with it, but I feel a set of subclasses a-brewin'

[HoarsHalberd]

I disagree personally. I think sorcerer's spells know, while limited, aren't as big a hindrance as some think, and the utility and power metamagic brings balances it out. Twin, empower, and heighten can make a huge difference in potency of combat abilities, careful spell is great for being able to use spells where other casters couldn't risk it, and subtle/silent spell are unique and interesting utility options. It is combat focused, but it offers enough there it balances it out imo.
It's not just the small spells known, it's the spell list, sorcerers miss out on some of the really important spells that wizards and clerics have in terms of lists, and I do agree sorcerers are fun and unique. I love them. But they really miss out on some whoppers. If they just had more control and or buffing spells in their list I'd be happy to call them balanced but as it is they are pushed towards blasting and aren't as good at blasting as warlocks.




Yeah I had a hard time understanding, I was actually asking because I needed you to rephrase it not a rhetorical thing, I'm a little slow right now so bear with me.

Interestingly enough we once again disagree about value. You aren't a blaster, but you can use spells like quickened haste with your attacks for sustainable damage in excess of cantrips (and con save prof helps a ton here) then transition to heightened debuff/control spells on enemies as needed. It's different, but I think equally powerful.

Aah, sorry, I'm used to people being a touch on the rude side here so I assumed it was rhetorical.
And it takes haste in order to be viable, which means a 3rd level spell slot an encounter gone towards making a class feature useful, and if you have 1 martial you'll be using twin not quickened. If you have two martials you're best served by twinning haste and giving it to them. With simple weapons you are limited to greatclub for damage, and hence become insanely MAD, needing Cha, Str, Dex of at least 14 and con. You end up with 3d10+15 vs 4d10+5 which has a difference of 4.5 per turn for the cost of a 3rd level spell slot, which could be used to cast fireball for 8d6+5 save for half on every foe in a 1200 square foot area and end the fight more quickly.

[silveralen]

I agree it's weird, but I think it's one of those bad game design things. You want a spell-less ranger, start with a spell-less class template and work from there. You don't try to bolt spell-less class abilities over top of spellcasting progression.

Again, I agree, but these articles are very much quick and dirty material from what we've seen. The examples are more for someone who wants to quickly swap some features out to get something new. That's always going to have sacrifices, and could be argued as a reason to not do it, but it was an easy article to make to show people some basic homebrew examples that are reasonably competent.

[Finieous]

{scrubbed}

I agree. Stuff like this just encourages sloppy homebrews. They're corrupting the minds of impressionable young DMs! :smallbiggrin:

[HoarsHalberd]

{scrubbed}

That's abusing RAW and isn't going to go well with most DMs around here at least. QS+Duelling gives you better DPR than Halberds and 2AC for reach isn't a balanced trade. Balancing a class around an unbalanced mechanic isn't worth talking about.

[silveralen]

It's not just the small spells known, it's the spell list, sorcerers miss out on some of the really important spells that wizards and clerics have in terms of lists, and I do agree sorcerers are fun and unique. I love them. But they really miss out on some whoppers. If they just had more control and or buffing spells in their list I'd be happy to call them balanced but as it is they are pushed towards blasting and aren't as good at blasting as warlocks.

True I suppose, though one of my favorite spells, enhance ability, is on the sorcerer list and not the wizard list (really annoying for arcane trickster who would really love that spell for their skill monkey shenanigans).

I'm curious what spells in particular compared to wizards stand out as missing. Forcecage and wall of force are the two that stand out for control but with heighten they can toss out things like dominate/hold with more confidence so bypassing saves isn't as critic. Buffs I'm not sure about beyond foresight. These aren't play styles I engage in heavily so I don't know the ins and outs of it this edition as of yet.



Aah, sorry, I'm used to people being a touch on the rude side here so I assumed it was rhetorical.

Rereading it I have to say that it sounded fairly rude though that wasn't my intent, so my apologies.


And it takes haste in order to be viable, which means a 3rd level spell slot an encounter gone towards making a class feature useful, and if you have 1 martial you'll be using twin not quickened. If you have two martials you're best served by twinning haste and giving it to them. With simple weapons you are limited to greatclub for damage, and hence become insanely MAD, needing Cha, Str, Dex of at least 14 and con. You end up with 3d10+15 vs 4d10+5 which has a difference of 4.5 per turn for the cost of a 3rd level spell slot, which could be used to cast fireball for 8d6+5 save for half on every foe in a 1200 square foot area and end the fight more quickly.

True, the MAD creates problems with a tactic that might struggle regardless. Spirit guardians is probably better if you go war than haste, shame none of them know elemental weapons that would be a bit more competitive.


{scrubbed}

I don't either. Even when Eberron came out I wondered why it was a bit lack luster. I'm not entirely sure if they are working on new supplements full time and these are the beta versions, or if that's just what happens when the adventure path guys need a break, or what.

[DanyBallon]

Actually, I don't think it's quirk and dirty. They're good guidelines for any DM, they remind you that classes are built around the 3 pillars (combat, interaction, and exploration) and that if you need to change an ability geared toward one of the pillar, then you should do it with something that affect the same pillar. This leave a wide range to creativity while still guiding you through balance. Critics against classes I've seen so far are more about how weak a class in combat vs other classes, but not all classes are meant to be combat oriented. Some need to remember that D&D is a roleplaying game, not just a miniature combat game.

[Person_Man]

And once again I regret that 5E did not institute Legend style Tracks for abilities, or some similar "each class is balanced but different from each other" methodology.

Using the current setup, as they continue to churn out new variants, subclasses, and classes, the creation of Tiers (or some similar categorization of resources) is inevitable. The gulf between optimized and unoptimized builds will grow. And 5E gameplay will drift back to having many 1E/2E/3.X/PF issues. (Which in fairness, any experienced DM can fix. Which I guess is the point).

[calebrus]

Aah, sorry, I'm used to people being a touch on the rude side here so I assumed it was rhetorical.

That's pretty funny coming from the guy who basically said "learn to read" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?408099-Unearthed-Arcana-Modifying-Classes-Spell-less-Ranger-and-Favored-Soul-Archetype&p=19070091&viewfull=1#post19070091) earlier, when the discussion had been civil until then.

[Madfellow]

{scrubbed}

To be fair, they have prefaced basically every Unearthed Arcana article by saying that this material should be considered experimental and subject to change. UA is not official expansion material. It's more like a workshop.

[DanyBallon]

{scrubbed}

As far as I know, the Spell-less Ranger and Favored Soul are given as examples on how using the guidelines. Nowhere it is said that the intent for both was to be created balanced and ready to fit in your game. Same goes for the Artificier that was released part of a playtest document.

edit:
ninja'd by MadFellow, and way more elegantly than what I wrote :smallbiggrin:

[silveralen]

And once again I regret that 5E did not institute Legend style Tracks for abilities, or some similar "each class is balanced but different from each other" methodology.

Using the current setup, as they continue to churn out new variants, subclasses, and classes, the creation of Tiers (or some similar categorization of resources) is inevitable. The gulf between optimized and unoptimized builds will grow. And 5E gameplay will drift back to having many 1E/2E/3.X/PF issues. (Which in fairness, any experienced DM can fix. Which I guess is the point).

It's a little easier to fix this edition so far. A few mechanics introduced help prevent things from spiraling out of control. I don't think I'll ever have to ban classes or introduce mandatory gestalt at least, so.... improvement? (At least I couldn't do that with PF, maybe other people could be I just used the advanced player's guide classes as stand ins for a lot of the tier one classes. Even then a gap existed).


That's pretty funny coming from the guy who basically said "learn to read" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?408099-Unearthed-Arcana-Modifying-Classes-Spell-less-Ranger-and-Favored-Soul-Archetype&p=19070091&viewfull=1#post19070091) earlier, when the discussion had been civil until then.

He thought I was being a jerk to him, for rather obvious reasons as my post did come across that way, and reacted. We dealt with it and moved on, no need to start something else.

[HoarsHalberd]

That's pretty funny coming from the guy who basically said "learn to read" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?408099-Unearthed-Arcana-Modifying-Classes-Spell-less-Ranger-and-Favored-Soul-Archetype&p=19070091&viewfull=1#post19070091) earlier, when the discussion had been civil until then.

I thought he was being rhetorical and if you'd note, that was after the quote in question. "Learn to relativity."

{scrubbed}


Fighting styles are balanced on the weapons they affect, it is a combination of features that create the imbalance. the fact that duelling affects a bonus action attack in this build makes it the best build overall, equivalent to a d8 bonus action attack and d10 attacks. And hence, is unbalanced. The necessity for balance based on the weapon is obvious. Archery style would always be the most powerful fighting style if it didn't apply to to a way of fighting that involves lower damage and cover.

But yes the build itself isn't too bad. It's akin to the paladin x/Bladelock x.



Rereading it I have to say that it sounded fairly rude though that wasn't my intent, so my apologies.

True, the MAD creates problems with a tactic that might struggle regardless. Spirit guardians is probably better if you go war than haste, shame none of them know elemental weapons that would be a bit more competitive.


I apologise for my hasty response, it appears we both had real communication issues.

And yup, the MAD and the necessity for spell slots in order to get real use out of a class feature, in my eyes, balances out the known spells.

[eastmabl]

{scrubbed}

But we have rules about how multiclassing works - see Chapter 6 of the PHB. While the authors did not provide us with rules on how the spell-less ranger and his maneuvers are supposed to work when multiclassed with a battlemaster fighter, we can discern how the rules probably ought to work.

There are four rules governing multiclassing in 5e:

1. Ability granted: generally, when you would get a class ability when you would level up, you get that ability. For example, when a Fighter 2 levels up and takes a level of Rogue, he gains Expertise, Sneak Attack and Thieves' Cant.]

2. No stacking: if you get the ability twice, it does not stack. For example, a Fighter 5 / Paladin 5 does not get a third attack when she gains the Extra Attack ability a second time.

3. Pooling: when you multiclass amongst spellcasting classes, you get a combined pool of spells to draw upon.

4. No ability: multiclassing rules restrict characters from becoming proficient in certain abilities upon taking a new class. For example, a wizard who multiclasses into rogue does not gain proficiency in Dexterity saving throws.

While the suggested subclass for ranger does not deal with multiclassing rules, 5e has given us these four canons of interpretation. When you interpret multiclassing the spell-less ranger with the battlemaster fighter, which do you think it's most like?

The answer should be pooling.


{scrubbed}

Except, as above, you shouldn't be dipping for both. They should pool.

As for the battlemaster fighter, you forget that the fact that you can get four attacks / round if you stick in the fighter class.

Now, if you think that this Unearthed Arcana article is somehow fixing the game - you're sadly mistaken. The article is to help players create new class options, as well as playtest the proposed rules therein.

[PhantomRenegade]

2. No stacking: if you get the ability twice, it does not stack. For example, a Fighter 5 / Paladin 5 does not get a third attack when she gains the Extra Attack ability a second time.
To be fair this is not because of some no stacking rule, but because extra attack abilities specifically state how many attacks you get so in actuality you do have two extra attack abilities when you multiclass like that, you just don't get three attacks because when you attack you pick one or the other and both only give you two attacks.

Whether this argument can be extended to the matter being discussed or not i don't really know.

[Freelance GM]

Hey, so, did anyone else read the part where they said,

"The material presented in Unearthed Arcana will range from mechanics that we expect one day to publish in a supplement to house rules from our home campaigns that we want to share, from core system options such as mass combat to setting-specific material such as the Eberron update included in this article. Once it’s out there, you can expect us to check in with you to see how it’s working out and what we can do to improve it."

WOTC's throwing this material to us, seeing what we do with it, then taking notes and making revisions. Expecting this stuff to be balanced or polished would be like expecting your dinner to be cooked because you took it out of the fridge.

How about instead of raging about how weak or overpowered the stuff is, we stop and appreciate that they're at least sampling some of this material with us before they make us shell out a bunch of money on a new book?

Seriously. 5E, for all of its quirks and quarterstaff exploits, is a pretty damn good RPG. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be this interested after six or seven months.

[eastmabl]

To be fair this is not because of some no stacking rule, but because extra attack abilities specifically state how many attacks you get so in actuality you do have two extra attack abilities when you multiclass like that, you just don't get three attacks because when you attack you pick one or the other and both only give you two attacks.

Whether this argument can be extended to the matter being discussed or not i don't really know.

At character creation, you have a similar no stacking rule which says effectively that "if you would be proficient in the same thing twice, pick something else."

However, since you don't run into this issue past first level, it really only comes up when a character gets extra attack from two classes.

Coaching the issue in a language of old editions, it's a "no stacking" rule because extra attack doesn't stack.

[PhantomRenegade]

After a very cursory reading I'd agree that they wouldn't stack but due to linguistic reasons, both class features state that you have four superiority die, and if you look at the text of the martial adept feature it states that if you already have superiority die you gain another one, which means the language of the text is on your side.

And given how tightly written the whole PHB is i wouldn't be quick to discount the language used as an argument.

[Finieous]

How about instead of raging about how weak or overpowered the stuff is, we stop and appreciate that they're at least sampling some of this material with us before they make us shell out a bunch of money on a new book?


I don't think anyone's raging. And most of the complaints are about design, not how weak or overpowered the stuff is.



Seriously. 5E, for all of its quirks and quarterstaff exploits, is a pretty damn good RPG. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be this interested after six or seven months.

Agreed!

[eastmabl]

After a very cursory reading I'd agree that they wouldn't stack but due to linguistic reasons, both class features state that you have four superiority die, and if you look at the text of the martial adept feature it states that if you already have superiority die you gain another one, which means the language of the text is on your side.

And given how tightly written the whole PHB is i wouldn't be quick to discount the language used as an argument.

I would say that it's more like spellcasting than it is extra attacks - the levels should pool together.

Therefore, Fighter (battlemaster) 5 and ranger (spell-less) 5 should get the same amount of maneuvers/superiority dice as a Fighter (battlemaster) 10.

You wouldn't get the maneuvers/superiority dice just via dipping.

[HoarsHalberd]

At character creation, you have a similar no stacking rule which says effectively that "if you would be proficient in the same thing twice, pick something else."

However, since you don't run into this issue past first level, it really only comes up when a character gets extra attack from two classes.

Coaching the issue in a language of old editions, it's a "no stacking" rule because extra attack doesn't stack.

"Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts
a general rule, the specific rule wins."

The fact that there is no general rule and the rules you are citing are all specific examples it means the general rule is implied to be stacking is allowed.

-BUT-

As there is no RAW or RAI available in this issue it is especially up to the DM, and even if there was RAW or RAI, DM's rules always come first.

My mistake, you're arguing for the middle ground, I find your idea of levels stacking the best combination.

[PhantomRenegade]

I would say that it's more like spellcasting than it is extra attacks - the levels should pool together.

Therefore, Fighter (battlemaster) 5 and ranger (spell-less) 5 should get the same amount of maneuvers/superiority dice as a Fighter (battlemaster) 10.

You wouldn't get the maneuvers/superiority dice just via dipping.
I wouldn't necessarily do that since my argument is grounded on the wording of the abilities and according to that the number of superiority die that particular multiclass character would have is 4 and the number of maneuvers would be 5, since at fighter level 3 you'd learn three maneuver and a ranger level 2 you'd learn an additional 2 or vice versa.


It's good to keep in mind that while multiclassing spellcasting doesn't really punish you in terms of spellslots it does limit spell availability as you can only have the spells you'd get from each individual class resulting in possibly greater variety but much less depth, I.E. not high level spells.

That isn't really a balancing factor here since as far as i know you there is no limiting factor to keep you from choosing maneuvers, you're just limited by how many you know.

And by saying that in that combination you just get the maneuvers/dice you'd get from battlemaster you're making this weird exception when it comes to multiclasses, you'd need to consider if the added number of maneuvers would offset the possible loss of capstone abilities.(probably not since most of the capstones are really weak, honestly I have no idea how you'd balance this properly)

[DanyBallon]

What about if you go the same route as for caster? Battle master would add their full level for calculation (equivalent to full caster as far as manoeuver are concerned), and spell-less ranger would add half (considered half as good as a battle master).

[Ralanr]

I will be supremely disappointed/surprised if the homebrew section doesn't explode with new 5e homebrew over the next few days.

[PhantomRenegade]

Oh wow, so i was going to make fun of wizards for just straight up giving the spell-less Ranger an ability(call natural allies) that's actually better than the whole beastmaster archetype (i was thinking of the spell thats basically like that but works everywhere, that beastmaster beast dies so easy) but then i actually read it properly, and you gotta love the irony of it only being usable in favoured terrain when just last month they said this about the favoured enemy:

"But taking a deeper dive into the ranger, we can see that favored enemy and the beast master archetype received the lowest ratings."

edit:They even say in their own flippin guide that you shouldn't tie combat bonuses to Favored enemy, so why would you tie it to favored terrain especially when there are some pretty glaring omissions of places where you do combat on those terrains you can choose from.

[Rfkannen]

Seems like some cool stuff

I could see a lot of fun with a paladin 2 favored soul 18. Good divine gish build, flavor works to.


yeah, start level 1 paladin, go 6 levels flavored soul, 1 paladin, rest favored soul. Race I think half elf would work best. Grab dueling fighting style, a rapier. Grab life domain. Grab warcaster at level 5, inspiring leader, and a charisma buff. Sounds like a fun build. Backround... criminal would work optimization wise and would get some good flavor. Actualy, on second thought not sure what backround would be best optimization wise.


Yeah sounds like a good build, might do that for my next character.

edit; just remembered paladin has cure wounds. So war domain might be better. I think I would personally still go with life domain, but war might be better.

[Symphony]

Seems like some cool stuff

I could see a lot of fun with a paladin 2 favored soul 18. Good divine gish build, flavor works to.

Yep. Paladin 2 gives shield and martial weapon proficiencies, a fighting style, and divine smite, and up to 6 prepared 1st level Paladin spells.

[miburo]

Would the Pal 2/Favored Soul X really be all that great as a gish? Seems you'd be doing it pretty much only for smiting, and RAW smiting slots only scale up to 5d8 at 4th level (you can use the higher ones but they don't scale any higher in damage). Compared to a Paladin 6/Draconic Sorcerer X you are also significantly lower on hit points. I guess you do have nearly full spell progression though. And you can scale up Pally Spells like Cure Wounds.

Edit: Posted this before I saw the previous comment. I guess that is a pretty substantial list of benefits.

[silveralen]

Would the Pal 2/Favored Soul X really be all that great as a gish? Seems you'd be doing it pretty much only for smiting, and RAW smiting slots only scale up to 5d8 at 4th level (you can use the higher ones but they don't scale any higher in damage). Compared to a Paladin 6/Draconic Sorcerer X you are also significantly lower on hit points. I guess you do have nearly full spell progression though. And you can scale up Pally Spells like Cure Wounds.

Edit: Posted this before I saw the previous comment. I guess that is a pretty substantial list of benefits.

Personally I'm with you, I think the extra 4 levels of paladin is worth it for the saving throw aura, but I always prefer martial heavy gishes.

[Symphony]

Personally I'm with you, I think the extra 4 levels of paladin is worth it for the saving throw aura, but I always prefer martial heavy gishes.

It just gives more options. I'd say that 2/18, 6/14, and 12/8 are all good mixes for Paladin/Sorcerers now.

[Ichneumon]

I like the article a lot and I also like both example variant classes.

Personally, I don't really see the need for a spell-less ranger like the presented here though. Many of the spells the normal Ranger gets would be used in game for spells that are actually more like regular 'class abilities' like Hunter's mark, which can be role-played as non-magical or don't really feel like spells anyway. To me, the regular ranger therefore doesn't really feel like a real spell-caster. I can understand wanting a more 'martial' ranger without those abilities, my main player character is a fighter (battle-master) with the Outlander background and fits that theme perfectly. I don't really understand the point of replacing spell-casting with abilities that allow you to do practically the same you would be able to do with those spells only without it being 'spell casting'.

So, I don't quite understand what need this ranger variant fills, but I'm happy its there for people who do desire it. :smallsmile:

[rollingForInit]

I like the article a lot and I also like both example variant classes.

Personally, I don't really see the need for a spell-less ranger like the presented here though. Many of the spells the normal Ranger gets would be used in game for spells that are actually more like regular 'class abilities' like Hunter's mark, which can be role-played as non-magical or don't really feel like spells anyway. To me, the regular ranger therefore doesn't really feel like a real spell-caster. I can understand wanting a more 'martial' ranger without those abilities, my main player character is a fighter (battle-master) with the Outlander background and fits that theme perfectly. I don't really understand the point of replacing spell-casting with abilities that allow you to do practically the same you would be able to do with those spells only without it being 'spell casting'.

So, I don't quite understand what need this ranger variant fills, but I'm happy its there for people who do desire it. :smallsmile:

The flavour of a spell-less ranger is only half the reason people want it, though. The other half is spell slot management, which some people really dislike. Having to pick and choose between spells, wondering which will be best, if some spell maybe has hidden faults or is a trap that won't be used, having to consider whether to cast this spell now or later ... with a spell-less ranger, you get rid of that particular resource management.

Now this one introduced the maneuvers instead, which is also a resource issue ... but at least it's better than spells. Not as many to choose from, less issues with spell slots, etc.

[Joe the Rat]

At character creation, you have a similar no stacking rule which says effectively that "if you would be proficient in the same thing twice, pick something else."

However, since you don't run into this issue past first level, it really only comes up when a character gets extra attack from two classes.

Coaching the issue in a language of old editions, it's a "no stacking" rule because extra attack doesn't stack.
Something worth noting here is what is specifically covered by the multiclassing rules: Proficiencies, Extra attack, Spell Slots, Unarmored Defense, etc. These are all features that exist in more than one class, and need special handling. Up until ICBINA* Ranger, Martial Supremacy only existed in the Battlemaster Fighter and its associated Feat. With more than one source, you need to call out how (or if) it combines across classes. If multiple classes/subclasses offered Sorcery Points (Sorcerous Knight) or Ki Points (Kensei Paladin, Shadow Rogue), you would need a rule on how they combine as well.

* - I Can't Believe It's Not Aragorn

[JAL_1138]

Seriously. 5E, for all of its quirks and quarterstaff exploits, is a pretty damn good RPG. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be this interested after six or seven months.

Hear, hear. I can nitpick it to heck and back and have a lot of changes I'd like to make to it (although most of those came out with something pretty close in the DMG as optional rules anyway, which was great) but overall I haven't been this happy with D&D since before TSR got bought out.

[Gwendol]

Hear, hear. I can nitpick it to heck and back and have a lot of changes I'd like to make to it (although most of those came out with something pretty close in the DMG as optional rules anyway, which was great) but overall I haven't been this happy with D&D since before TSR got bought out.

Very true. Still happy!

[weaseldust]

Running the numbers on the spell-less Ranger, the poultices seem to allow you to heal more hp than an ordinary spell-casting Ranger would if they spent all their slots on Cure Wounds. The difference becomes enormous if the Ranger has high Wisdom. I expect that the designer thought having to spend a minute applying a poultice makes it considerably less useful than Cure Wounds and that spell-less Rangers would probably not raise their Wisdom all that much.

I assume that an hour spent making poultices counts as a short rest, and any short or long rest can be used to make poultices, and the DM allows the recommended 2 short rests per day. The amounts healed are somewhat overestimated because sometimes you hit the target's hp maximum, so part of your spell or poultice is wasted, but it's easier not to try to model that.

At level 3, with a modest wisdom modifier of +2, the poultice-using Ranger heals 4d6 (the half level rounds up now for some reason) per short rest, or 12d6 per day, giving an average of 42 hp healed per day. If they spend all their spell slots on Cure Wounds they will heal 3d8+6 or an average of 19.5 hp per day. With a wisdom mod of +3, the poultices heal 63 hp per day and Cure Wounds heals 22.5.

At level 9, with a wisdom mod of +2, the poultices heal 105 hp per day and can replicate one effect of Lesser Restoration each time. Using all spell slots on Cure Wounds heals 16d8 +18 or an average of 90 hp per day. Increasing the wisdom mod by 1 lets the poultices heal 52.5 more hp per day, but only lets Cure Wounds heal 9 more per day. E.g. with a wisdom mod of +3, it's 157.5 versus 99.

At level 15, with wisdom mod of +2, the poultices heal an average of 168 hp per day and using all spell slots on Cure Wounds heals 27d8 + 24 for an average of 145.5. Increasing the wisdom mod by 1 lets the poultices heal 84 more hp and lets Cure Wounds heal 12 more.

I'll also note that 4 superiority dice per short rest will typically mean 12 per day. That's an expected 54 damage per day at level 2 (unless you use them in ways they don't increase your damage, or do so unpredictably). The superiority dice are supposed to be replacing mostly Hunter's Mark, and to a lesser extent the various 'magic arrow' spells. Hunter's Mark gives you an average of 3.5 damage per hit, so to match 54 damage you have to hit 15 to 16 times with it on. If you hit with about 2/3 of your attacks and are using 2 weapons, that will take you about 12 rounds at level 2, or probably 3 encounters. That's doable, but you'll have to spend at least two spell slots on it and make sure not to lose concentration. If you use a bow, it will take twice as long to make up the damage, but you're less likely to lose concentration. You'll have Hail of Thorns for damage too, though.

At level 5, the superiority dice give the same expected extra damage, but you have an extra attack so it will only take you 8 rounds or so for Hunter's Mark to catch up, and you have more and better spell slots for it. I expect Hunter's Mark and the superiority dice to be fairly even from this point on, but it does suggest that something like 3 superiority dice at level 2 and another 1 at level 6 (and 9 and 17, as they already have) would be a more accurate replacement.

[DanyBallon]

Running the numbers on the spell-less Ranger, the poultices seem to allow you to heal more hp than an ordinary spell-casting Ranger would if they spent all their slots on Cure Wounds. The difference becomes enormous if the Ranger has high Wisdom. I expect that the designer thought having to spend a minute applying a poultice makes it considerably less useful than Cure Wounds and that spell-less Rangers would probably not raise their Wisdom all that much.

The biggest difference is that Ranger Poultices can only be used on the ranger itself, Cure Wounds can be used on anybody.

[Finieous]

The biggest difference is that Ranger Poultices can only be used on the ranger itself, Cure Wounds can be used on anybody.

Can only be used by, not on.

[DanyBallon]

Can only be used by, not on.

My mistake. I've always interpreted "only usable by user" as if only usable on user. Kinda like if it was a "Self" spell.

[Easy_Lee]

The poultice could at least make a Ranger an interesting healer. That said, considering a life cleric has better armor, combat healing, 9th level casting, and possibly even better damage with scaling spiritual weapon, I don't see why anyone would want to play a ranger in this manner.

[Fwiffo86]

The poultice could at least make a Ranger an interesting healer. That said, considering a life cleric has better armor, combat healing, 9th level casting, and possibly even better damage with scaling spiritual weapon, I don't see why anyone would want to play a ranger in this manner.

Character choices are not always based on what is "optimal". Many times, its just what they want to play.

[Easy_Lee]

Character choices are not always based on what is "optimal". Many times, its just what they want to play.

While that's true, it does not change the fact that every class and archetype should have advantages.

Let us say that we prove, undeniably, that A is superior in all situations to B. It may be the case that B is more enjoyable for some people to play. However, B players will resent the fact that their choice is sub-optimal.

I think spell-less ranger should not be up-staged by anyone else at the role it fills. But I cannot see any role for a spell-less ranger, as written, to take that would not be outdone by another class choice. Even a theif rogue with the healer feat is likely more effective at doing what the spell-less ranger does, in addition to the other rogue benefits.

In short, I agree that player choices do not need to be optimal, but I do think that every choice should at least have advantages. The spell-less ranger advantages are so few that I cannot see reason to pick this option.

[silveralen]

The poultice could at least make a Ranger an interesting healer. That said, considering a life cleric has better armor, combat healing, 9th level casting, and possibly even better damage with scaling spiritual weapon, I don't see why anyone would want to play a ranger in this manner.

Spiritual guardians isn't that amazing as an always on option, as it only last 10 mins (meaning 1-2 fights per casting at most), so the majority of your 3-5 spell slots go directly towards it, which leaves you little in the tank for healing besides low level abilities that aren't actually much better than say rally, or high level slots best used for other tasks. With it being fairly easy to disrupt the caster's concentration unless he takes prof in CON and/or warcaster (with only of the two still kinda likely) and the caster needing to be in the midst of the fighting to make usage it isn't all that reliable in either. By contrast, ranger has healing which doesn't drain resources and an at will AoE.

I see pros and cons to both personally.

[Person_Man]

The poultice could at least make a Ranger an interesting healer. That said, considering a life cleric has better armor, combat healing, 9th level casting, and possibly even better damage with scaling spiritual weapon, I don't see why anyone would want to play a ranger in this manner.

Because some players love being contrarian?

[Easy_Lee]

Because some players love being contrarian?

Haha, I'm actually like this in a way myself. I enjoy playing the underused options, finding ways to make them work. But I'm really struggling with this spell-less ranger.

[silveralen]

Haha, I'm actually like this in a way myself. I enjoy playing the underused options, finding ways to make them work. But I'm really struggling with this spell-less ranger.

Well remember whirlwind attack can work in one of two ways depending on reading.

1. The entire thing is a single attack with multiple attack rolls. This means a single manuever/dice can effect everyone you hit, good crowd control and cost effective.

2. It's multiple attacks, meaning you can move between them, allowing you to dance around the field getting an attack at everyone who becomes adjacent. The mobile warrior feat is recommend so you don't die and to add some distance.

Before this, a lot of people read it as 1 to prevent the blade dervish (though it made entangling strike pretty cool), but now even that's got some major benefits as a manuever user.

[Easy_Lee]

Well remember whirlwind attack can work in one of two ways depending on reading.

1. The entire thing is a single attack with multiple attack rolls. This means a single manuever/dice can effect everyone you hit, good crowd control and cost effective.

2. It's multiple attacks, meaning you can move between them, allowing you to dance around the field getting an attack at everyone who becomes adjacent. The mobile warrior feat is recommend so you don't die and to add some distance.

Before this, a lot of people read it as 1 to prevent the blade dervish (though it made entangling strike pretty cool), but now even that's got some major benefits as a manuever user.

Fair point, though I'm not sure if a DM would allow. The movement is allowed because the ability is multiple attacks, while affecting a group with the same maneuver would be possible if the whole thing was one attack. Either it is one attack, in which case a group ensnaring strike or lightning arrow would be possible, or it is separate attacks, in which case movement between them is possible (and extending whirlwind range via movement may be possible depending on DM interpretation).

If one's DM allows one maneuver to affect the whole thing, one could make a niche but effective whirlwind trip / menacing strike build with the mobile feat. However, I'm not sure why that would be allowed if group ensnaring strike waa not.

[silveralen]

If one's DM allows one maneuver to affect the whole thing, one could make a niche but effective whirlwind trip / menacing strike build with the mobile feat. However, I'm not sure why that would be allowed if group ensnaring strike waa not.

I was wrong, I thought the language of maneuvers was different that that of ensnaring strike. They both say something like the next creature you hit takes that effect/you can activate it on hit. Sadly, whirlwind attack makes it pretty clear that hits are resolved individually, even if it is one attack.

The only maneuver that might work is lunging attack, which species that, when making a melee attack on you turn, you can expend a die to increase the reach of the attack by five feet. So either way you can expand whirlwind attack a bit, but that's about it sadly.

[Easy_Lee]

I was wrong, I thought the language of maneuvers was different that that of ensnaring strike. They both say something like the next creature you hit takes that effect/you can activate it on hit. Sadly, whirlwind attack makes it pretty clear that hits are resolved individually, even if it is one attack.

The only maneuver that might work is lunging attack, which species that, when making a melee attack on you turn, you can expend a die to increase the reach of the attack by five feet. So either way you can expand whirlwind attack a bit, but that's about it sadly.

I think even reach may not do it, sadly. The whirlwind wording specifically stated targets within 5' are affected, meaning that a weapon's reach does not matter without house ruling.

[silveralen]

I think even reach may not do it, sadly. The whirlwind wording specifically stated targets within 5' are affected, meaning that a weapon's reach does not matter without house ruling.

True, you could claim 5' is the reach of that melee attack, with lunge extending that, but it would be a bit questionable.

[Giant2005]

I think even reach may not do it, sadly. The whirlwind wording specifically stated targets within 5' are affected, meaning that a weapon's reach does not matter without house ruling.

Not really - reach weapons don't have a 10' reach. They add 5' to the normal range of your attack.

[Strill]

The guidelines were good. It's a shame Wizards didn't take their own advice. Take their advice on Ki points:


Ki points have some subtle guidelines in how they are expended; features that cost 1 ki point usually focus on utility, or are the equivalent of a single unarmed strike. Features that cost 2 ki points should be on par with a 1st-level spell, while a feature that costs 3 ki points should be on par with a 2nd-level spell. Examine the elemental disciplines of the Way of the Four Elements monk for further examples of how to match ki points to spell levels.

Hey let's add Stunning Strike, which is better than 2nd-level spells since it requires no action at all, and we'll make it cost 1 ki! That certainly won't render all the Elemental Monk abilities obsolete!

[Easy_Lee]

Not really - reach weapons don't have a 10' reach. They add 5' to the normal range of your attack.

Right, and are specified to happen when one takes the attack action. As has been specified many times, this is likely against intent, since reach should apply to opportunity attacks. Regardless of interpretation, whirlwind explicitly states its radius as 5', which is more specific than the general reach rules.

[SharkForce]

The guidelines were good. It's a shame Wizards didn't take their own advice. Take their advice on Ki points:



Hey let's add Stunning Strike, which is better than 2nd-level spells since it requires no action at all, and we'll make it cost 1 ki! That certainly won't render all the Elemental Monk abilities obsolete!

stunning strike also only lasts 1 round no matter what. it's a good ability, but hold person against the right target is vastly more devastating.

[Giant2005]

Regardless of interpretation, whirlwind explicitly states its radius as 5', which is more specific than the general reach rules.

It is no more specific than the standard weapon rules "A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet o f you". If a reach weapon is able to add 5' to that then it adds 5' to Whirlwind Attack.

[Easy_Lee]

It is no more specific than the standard weapon rules "A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet o f you". If a reach weapon is able to add 5' to that then it adds 5' to Whirlwind Attack.

Whirlwind states you make an attack roll against any number of targets "within 5'" of you. That statement is going to take a house rule to overrule.

[Giant2005]

Whirlwind states you make an attack roll against any number of targets "within 5'" of you. That statement is going to take a house rule to overrule.

And melee weapons state that they attack targets "within 5'" of you. The statements are exactly the same...

[Easy_Lee]

And melee weapons state that they attack targets "within 5'" of you. The statements are exactly the same...

Good thing this isn't the RAW thread, since I had thought this one was pretty cut-and-dried. "You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a seperate attack roll for each target." I had no idea that could be interpreted to mean more than 5 feet. Perhaps Crawford should be questioned, so that we can have some sort of a RAI answer and will at least know what the developers thought it meant.

[Giant2005]

Good thing this isn't the RAW thread, since I had thought this one was pretty cut-and-dried. "You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a seperate attack roll for each target." I had no idea that could be interpreted to mean more than 5 feet. Perhaps Crawford should be questioned, so that we can have some sort of a RAI answer and will at least know what the developers thought it meant.

RAW, Whirlwind Attack isn't treated any differently to any other attack regarding range. Under melee attacks on page 195 it says "can thus attack targets within 5 feet o f them when making a melee attack.". Under the weapons section on page 146 it says "A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet o f you" and of course for Reach weapons it says "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it."
The wording for Whirlwind Attack is no different to that of any other melee attack. If Reach Weapons are incapable of adding to the range of Whirlwind Attack, then they are incapable of adding to the range of any attack, in essence Reach Weapons simply could not exist under your ruling.

[jkat718]

@Giant2005:
What Lee is saying is that--in general--weapon attacks are made at 5', but--more specifically--reach attacks are made at 10'. However, Whirlwind Attack--even more specifically--states that the enemies must be within 5' of you. Therefore, Whirlwind Attack can only be made within 5', even though reach attacks are made at 10'.

[Giant2005]

@Giant2005:
What Lee is saying is that--in general--weapon attacks are made at 5', but--more specifically--reach attacks are made at 10'. However, Whirlwind Attack--even more specifically--states that the enemies must be within 5' of you. Therefore, Whirlwind Attack can only be made within 5', even though reach attacks are made at 10'.

I know what he is saying, I am just saying there is no basis for it.
Weapon attacks specifically state that the enemy must be within 5' of you.
Whirlwhind Attack specifically states that the enemy must be within 5' of you.
Reach Weapons specifically state that attacks can be made with +5' of reach than normal.
If A=B and A+C = 10, then B+C = 10

[Gwendol]

I really don't care what the RAW might say about the range of whirlwind. RAI using a reach weapon should add 5' to your melee attacks, including whirlwind. It's kind of the basis of their existence. For the record, I'm also in the camp that claims movement between attacks is allowed when using the whirlwind maneuver.

[Strill]

stunning strike also only lasts 1 round no matter what. it's a good ability, but hold person against the right target is vastly more devastating.

Except to use Hold Person, you have to sacrifice three attacks, AND 3 ki. If you'd just used Stunning Strike 3 turns in a row, you'd have done way more damage, and gotten a way more reliable stun since even if one save succeeds, you can just stun again on your next attack.

You're nearly guaranteed to keep the target stunned that way, whereas a Hold Person could just get resisted immediately, and been totally wasted.

[SharkForce]

Except to use Hold Person, you have to sacrifice three attacks, AND 3 ki. If you'd just used Stunning Strike 3 turns in a row, you'd have done way more damage, and gotten a way more reliable stun since even if one save succeeds, you can just stun again on your next attack.

You're nearly guaranteed to keep the target stunned that way, whereas a Hold Person could just get resisted immediately, and been totally wasted.

in the first round, yes, it is a loss. if you have the DC for it, it will make up for it in later rounds. particularly since paralysis turns hits into crits against the creature.

[CyberThread]

So my question is, if we are talking about a ranger, that is more focused on damage instead of utility, does the spell less ranger provide that?

[SouthpawSoldier]

So my question is, if we are talking about a ranger, that is more focused on damage instead of utility, does the spell less ranger provide that?

Dunno about damage vs utility; I'm going this route b/c it fits the character.

BM Ranger with a Rat as companion. Rat actually serves as companion within a companion; he's trained, and serves as Alpha of a Swarm of Rats.

Character is built around his backstory; a renaissance half-orc. Studied fencing (TWF) medicine, philosophy, and the like. Lives in a swamp b/c half-orcs aren't really welcome in society. Think a blend of Shrek, Cyrano, and Dr. House, with Willard for the Beast Master portion. Maneuvers are built around control (Disarm and the like), not pure DPR.

Game hasn't started yet, so can't argue crunch. What I can argue is the character was fun to build and conceptualize. Heck, if you stick with online forums, I've made an awful character. TWF & BM Ranger are both considered junk options. When I built the character, I didn't read threads, or do probability math, or any research of that nature. I just used the books to look up the maneuvers, background options, etc that fit the concept.



Character Sheet (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=134061)


AC: 13
HP: 49
STR: 9
DEX: 11
CON: 9
INT: 2
WIS: 10
CHA: 3

Resistance: Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing

Immune: Charmed, Frightened, Paralyzed, Petrified, Prone, Restrained, Stunned

Darkvision: 30, Passive Perception: 10

Keen Smell: Advantage on Perception (scent)

Bite: +5 Attack, 2d6+3, 1d6+3 when at <50% HP

Swarm: Can occupy another creature's space, move through Tiny openings. Cannot be targeted by spells or spell-like abilities (including magical healing) that target individual creatures.

Leaderless: If struck with Critical Hit, attempts to flee, attacking any creature or barrier that prevents escape.

Pack Recruitment: Can heal 3HP by recruiting a replacement Rat after a Short Rest, or 24HP by recruiting 8 Rats after a Long Rest (17 Rats total).




AC: 15 (Barding; Studded Leather)
HP: 3
STR: 2
DEX: 11
CON: 9
INT: 2
WIS: 10
CHA: 4

Darkvision: 30, Passive Perception: 10

Keen Smell: Advantage on Perception (scent)

Bite: +3 ATK, 4 DAM (Piercing)

Leader of the Pack: If Swarm is struck by Critical Hit, becomes incapacitated; Swarm will disperse and flee. Can be resuscitated after the encounter.

Immune: Charmed, Frightened, Paralyzed, Petrified, Prone, Restrained, Stunned; Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing while Swarm is at greater than 3HP. Cannot be individually targeted while part of the Swarm. If separated from the Swarm, Immunity to physical damage become standard Rat Resistance.

Tiny: Can occupy the space of another creature.


Idea is that while the Swarm is around, it takes the brunt of attacks that would otherwise harm Little Nicky. If an opponent is lucky enough the get a Crit, Nicodemus is knocked out and the swarm becomes uncontrollable. No Swarm, and Nicky is like any other individual Rat Animal Companion.

This makes the Swarm tough, but not unkillable (Crit or AoE), and Nicky even tougher, but he's no threat without the Swarm to lead.

[Gwendol]

So my question is, if we are talking about a ranger, that is more focused on damage instead of utility, does the spell less ranger provide that?

I'm not sure you can make that division. Ranger spells add more damage to their attacks, to some degree. A lot of the ranger utility is kept with the spell less ranger (favored enemy, favored terrain, pet, skills, etc). The BM ranger will play slightly differently: spike damage more reliably thanks to the short rest mechanics of the dice, and also add rider effect with attacks. My guess is Beast Master ranger will gain slightly more out of this version.

[Easy_Lee]

So my question is, if we are talking about a ranger, that is more focused on damage instead of utility, does the spell less ranger provide that?

Not really. The spell-less ranger adds some maneuvers and gives up spells. So you can do more damage with the maneuvers than regular attacks, but not when you subtract hunter's mark, spike growth, lightning arrow, conjure volley, swift quiver, and so on. It's fundamentally a nerf, in my opinion.

[Person_Man]

Not really. The spell-less ranger adds some maneuvers and gives up spells. So you can do more damage with the maneuvers than regular attacks, but not when you subtract hunter's mark, spike growth, lightning arrow, conjure volley, swift quiver, and so on. It's fundamentally a nerf, in my opinion.

I concur. If anything, it would be wiser to allow the Ranger to change their spell selection with a Short Rest. That would encourage the use of more situational utility spells, instead of having the Ranger to spend more of their resources on combat.

[silveralen]

Not really. The spell-less ranger adds some maneuvers and gives up spells. So you can do more damage with the maneuvers than regular attacks, but not when you subtract hunter's mark, spike growth, lightning arrow, conjure volley, swift quiver, and so on. It's fundamentally a nerf, in my opinion.

Hunter's mark is the big one imo. It's such an easy source of sustainable damage. Sure, the BA to re-target can be an issue for duel ranger, but at best you'd still draw even.