Unearthed Arcana - Variant Ranger

[DanyBallon]

WotC just released a plytest variant of the Ranger class

UA Ranger variant (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DX_0907_UA_RangerOptions.pdf)

Seems interesting so far; 2d6 hit die is quite interesting as it will allow a bigger hit dice pool for healing on short rest. I like the ambuscade and skirmisher stealth mechanic, but I think the later might be abuse by MC Ranger/Rogue, as far as Spirit path and companion I'm not sure about it. The loss of spellcasting is something to consider as well

[Demonic Spoon]

How is primeval awareness supposed to work? Doesn't that require spell slots which this new class lacks?

[Dralnu]

How is primeval awareness supposed to work? Doesn't that require spell slots which this new class lacks?

Seems like they messed up there. Probably need to change it to X number of times per day equal to WIS mod or something like that.

I love this draft. Really dig the fluff tied to the mechanics. The initial reaction from other sites seems bad though; a LOT of people don't like that they get 2d6 HD because "Why 2??? No one else does that!" and "nothing should come close to Barbarian HP!"

I love the 2d6 HP thing. I don't think going from 1dX to 2d6 is killing a sacred cow. Also no one comes even close to a Barbarian's tankiness, since a bear totem that rages at the start of combat effectively becomes (1d12+CON)*2, DOUBLE even the Ranger's HP. But unfortunately that takes an extra step of thought process.

I like it. I really like it.

[DanyBallon]

How is primeval awareness supposed to work? Doesn't that require spell slots which this new class lacks?

You're absolutely right, that, and the fack that you're sipirt is dismiss if you break concentration, yet your spirit act on his own if you're unconscious... :smallconfused:
I think that the document lack a final read, but since it's a playtest document I'm more forgiving :smallwink:

[DanyBallon]

I'll need to talk with my group, but we may steal the new Hit Dice and maybe change the beastmaster companion to a spirit with limited use but free control (with the concentration check)

Ambuscade and Skirmisher stealth would need to be check for balance before being added on top of the rest of the PHB ranger's abilities

[Socko525]

Wait...does Ambuscade give you another Attack action?

So use your "special turn" to take the attack action (2 attacks at level 5) and then another attack (2 attacks at level 5) at your regular initiative?

Cause if so as a fighter a one level dip in ranger+action surge+3 attacks as a level 11 fighter would be huge.

[DanyBallon]

Wait...does Ambuscade give you another Attack action?

So use your "special turn" to take the attack action (2 attacks at level 5) and then another attack (2 attacks at level 5) at your regular initiative?

Cause if so as a fighter a one level dip in ranger+action surge+3 attacks as a level 11 fighter would be huge.

As written, yes but only at the beginning of combat. Yet it could be devastating

Ambuscade, could be tone down to a single attack or hide, or to wear no more than medium armor or have some other requirement

[sigfile]

UA Playtest: "Rangers: Seeker Spirit and Other, Lesser Options"
Also, "Rangers: One Level for Every Rogue!"

[Dralnu]

Yeah, the Ambuscade is ripe for abuse. Also another obvious synergy with between Ambuscade and Assassinate. It's not clear how they work with surprise, but one interpretation is you can potentially have two back-to-back rounds of auto-crits at the beginning of combat, which is a bit silly.

Might be best if that ability gets replaced with something less breakable.

[Demonic Spoon]

Yeah, the Ambuscade is ripe for abuse. Also another obvious synergy with between Ambuscade and Assassinate. It's not clear how they work with surprise, but one interpretation is you can potentially have two back-to-back rounds of auto-crits at the beginning of combat, which is a bit silly.

Might be best if that ability gets replaced with something less breakable.

The new special round is explicitly not surprise, so I'm pretty sure it does not work with assassinate. The "1 level dip gets you an extra attack at the start of combat" needs to be reeled in, though.

[Kryx]

a LOT of people don't like that they get 2d6 HD because "Why 2??? No one else does that!" and "nothing should come close to Barbarian HP!"
People don't like it because of the implications: You get to add your con twice as much as any other class. 1d6+con for each hit dice. https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/641654679206686721

This turns ranger into a tank.

I much prefer a caster ranger that doesn't have the myriad of problems that this has.

[SharkForce]

UA Playtest: "Rangers: Seeker Spirit and Other, Lesser Options"
Also, "Rangers: One Level for Every Rogue!"

3 levels gives you some pretty amazing options too.

it definitely looks more interesting than the old ranger. not sure where it sits in terms of power though.

[DireSickFish]

I like the idea of it. Needs a bit of play-testing. Not a huge fan of them getting Dex and Wis as primary saves, presumably this will be changed to a primary and secondary stat save if it gets released.

2d6 HP is fine, no big deal.

Abuscade finally gives a ranger something useful at level 1 good ability, epecialy with multiclass. It should be expanded on at higher levels so that you have a compelling reason to stick with ranger.

Skirmisher's Stealth is a bit confusing but the hide rules are already somewhat muddles this edition with lightfoot haflings and rogues hiding as a bonus action never being target able. Against a single foe this would be -devastating- as they could never take actions against you because even if you went up and stabbed them you're still hidden at the end of your turn. Fighting style is already a good boost, either move this later or remove it is my initial thought. It is a cool flavorful ability though.

Love the spirits assuming I'm reading them right. They give you 1 summon of 1min and a special power usable 1/long rest. The powers scale of Wis so we finally have a decent reason to have good Wis on a ranger.

All in all like where they're going with this, feels distinct.

[sigfile]

The new special round is explicitly not surprise, so I'm pretty sure it does not work with assassinate. The "1 level dip gets you an extra attack at the start of combat" needs to be reeled in, though.

No, but it's not clear what it does if the enemy would normally be surprised. If an enemy was surprised, it would (probably?) be surprised for the ambush round. And then not surprised (?) during the regular first round of combat when it would normally have been surprised, since it has arrows sticking out of it alerting it to the presence of foes.

[Rhaegar14]

I love this take on the Ranger. I think the 2d6 hit die creates interesting mechanics for short rests, and with such high hit dice Rangers don't need to invest as much in their Constitution as members of other classes -- not MUCH less, but potentially the difference between needing a 12 and a 14 -- which allows them to spread their ability scores around a bit more and be good at more skills.

I don't see Skirmisher's Stealth as problematic with the Rogue, as it's essentially a more limited Cunning Action (although the remaining hidden thing could create some shenanigans depending on how exactly your table runs the intentionally vague Stealth rules).

I think Ambuscade is a cool mechanic and is balanced in a vacuum, but also agree that it can create some abuses as a dip for multiclassing. My suggested fix would just be to make it come at a slightly higher level to create more of an opportunity cost to obtain it. Maybe shift Fighting Style to level 1, Primeval Awareness (however that is meant to work now) at level 2, and Ambuscade at level 3?

[sigfile]

People don't like it because of the implications: You get to add your con twice as much as any other class. 1d6+con for each hit dice. https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/641654679206686721.

Mearls has got to stop answering rules questions. That's clearly not the way Hit Dice work (PHB12,186). The UA Ranger's Hit Die is in 2d6 increments. You don't get to split that up.

[DireSickFish]

Mearls has got to stop answering rules questions. That's clearly not the way Hit Dice work (PHB12,186). The UA Ranger's Hit Die is in 2d6 increments. You don't get to split that up.

Actually according to the deisgner notse they should be able to.


In
addition, having a higher total number of Hit
Dice means a ranger can more efficiently heal
with short rests, providing finer control over
how much healing to shoot for when spending
Hit Dice.


They have finer control, meaning they can split them up. Rangers seem to be built for endurance.

[DanyBallon]

People don't like it because of the implications: You get to add your con twice as much as any other class. 1d6+con for each hit dice. https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/641654679206686721

This turns ranger into a tank.

I much prefer a caster ranger that doesn't have the myriad of problems that this has.

You only get you CON modifier on spending hit dice for healing not on your total hit point.

And since you resplenish you hit dice pool at the same rate that everyone else, your advantage is only the first time you use hit dice to heal.

[Merellis]

Mearls has got to stop answering rules questions. That's clearly not the way Hit Dice work (PHB12,186). The UA Ranger's Hit Die is in 2d6 increments. You don't get to split that up.

Need to edit the pdf there to show that you can split the Hit Die. Which works pretty well as a survivalist mechanic for short rest healing. Primeval Awareness needs a good deal more editing due to the fact you no longer have spell slots.

Loving the idea of the spirit companion.

All in all, this looks like a fun and interesting class, depending on what they do to edit and tune it.

[DanyBallon]

Mearls has got to stop answering rules questions. That's clearly not the way Hit Dice work (PHB12,186). The UA Ranger's Hit Die is in 2d6 increments. You don't get to split that up.

You get 2 hit dice (d6) per level. So a level 3 variant ranger will have 6 dice in its hit dice pool to be use for healing.

[Kryx]

You only get you CON modifier on spending hit dice for healing not on your total hit point.

And since you resplenish you hit dice pool at the same rate that everyone else, your advantage is only the first time you use hit dice to heal.
Assuming 16 con:
Level 10 barbarian = 7+3=10*10 = 100hp recovered on average for spending all of their hit dice.
Level 10 Ranger = 3.5 + 3 + 3.5 + 3 = 13*10 = 130hp recovered on average for spending all their hit dice.
That's a problem.
Not to mention ambuscade or dex+wis.


I would much prefer any new classes follow the design paradigm that they have set forth. They had similar problems with the Psion in allowing someone to attack something other than AC.

New and unique things are great, but they must follow the set paradigm otherwise it creates bloat and kills stuff that is bound to the earlier paradigm.

[CNagy]

It's clearly so rough that it is still in the chiseling stage, but I like the direction to which this overpowered monster speaks, design-wise.

Initial thoughts:
--Dexterity and Wisdom saving throws? Guess they are taking that survival thing seriously.
--2d6 HP is cool, and it ties Barbarian using the average rolls (because Barb gets rounded up to 7).
--Loss of medium armor proficiency is a bit of a drag for Strength-based Rangers, especially since Wisdom is still decent enough to have for your Nova fight of the day (the 10 rounds when you summon your nature spirit, which returns when you take a short or long rest.)
--Seeker is basically the "Let's kill that guy" ability. Advantage on all attacks? Ouch.
--Guardian is very meh, destined to become meh-er at higher levels.
--Stalker is a bit better, but still far below Seeker. I'm not too troubled by their lack of balance at this stage because unlike the Hunter abilities (where you get choices, some of which are a lot better than others), it looks like these are three proper Archetypes, so you might have to accept an ability like Shroud because you are actually in it for the level X Guardian power. And Seeker might be, by comparison, front-loaded with an awesome ability and abilities that don't stack up as well at later levels.
--Ambuscade is ripe for abuse; it is essentially a slightly stripped down version of Thief's Reflexes. You could literally have a Ranger1/Rogue17/Fighter2 that could get 3 turns (start of combat, initiative count, initiative -10) on the first round, with 2 actions in one of those turns. So... this is probably going to have to be tinkered with.
--I like Skirmisher's Stealth, it is a seriously cool hit-and-run type of ability.

This kind of over-answers the concerns about the viability of Rangers (which, barring a few bad design choices, aren't really that underpowered), I imagine they'll end up settling somewhere nicely between this design and where the Ranger currently is.

[DanyBallon]

Assuming 16 con:
Level 10 barbarian = 7+3=10*10 = 100hp recovered on average for spending all of their hit dice.
Level 10 Ranger = 3.5 + 3 + 3.5 + 3 = 13*10 = 130hp recovered on average for spending all their hit dice.
That's a problem.
Not to mention ambuscade or dex+wis.


I would much prefer any new classes follow the design paradigm that they have set forth. They had similar problems with the Psion in allowing someone to attack something other than AC.

New and unique things are great, but they must follow the set paradigm otherwise it creates bloat and kills stuff that is bound to the earlier paradigm.

Except the ranger would take twice as long before being able to pull that trick again as he don't regain more hit dice than half his level. So by the time the ranger will be able to use all its hit dice to heal, the barbarian, will already have done so, and will be able to do it once more.

So we talk about roughly 300 hp recovered for the barbarian, vs 260 hp recoverd for the ranger

[Kryx]

Except the ranger would take twice as long
Twice as long? each recovers half. Ranger recovers 10 and the barbarian recovers 5. Ranger wins.

[DanyBallon]

Twice as long? each recovers half. Ranger recovers 10 and the barbarian recovers 5. Ranger wins.

Your right, my bad, we are using a house rule where you get only half your level in HD

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with ranger healing faster. I wouldn't mind if it was d4 instead, but this would put ranger at lower HP than other martials

[treecko]

So they lose medium armor. Also, they get Dex and Wis saves, 2 of the most commonly encountered.

[DireSickFish]

Is being the best at short rest self healing really a big deal?

[Rhaegar14]

I disagree about Seeker being objectively the best. Admittedly it's no contest on an archer Ranger (because of flight), but let's not forget that two-weapon fighting is the Ranger's other big archetype. For a TWF Ranger, the Stalker's dire wolf companion is going to routinely provide the Ranger (and any of his allies) with advantage for its entire duration by knocking enemies prone on its bite attack. On top of that it has that nice damage boost, and the knocking prone adds a nice crowd control element.

Unfortunately I do not have my Monster Manual on hand right now, so I may be missing something if the giant eagle's stats are much better than the dire wolf's.

[obryn]

Is being the best at short rest self healing really a big deal?
It depends on whether or not it fits the class, thematically.

I think it's a clear callback to 1e where Rangers got 2d8 hit dice at 1st level. Of course, there, they kept on getting 1d8 every level afterwards until hitting the flat bonuses.

[SharkForce]

the active spirit abilities using a bonus action unfortunately somewhat much kills the TWF ranger dead as can be.

[sigfile]

I disagree about Seeker being objectively the best. Admittedly it's no contest on an archer Ranger (because of flight), but let's not forget that two-weapon fighting is the Ranger's other big archetype. For a TWF Ranger, the Stalker's dire wolf companion is going to routinely provide the Ranger (and any of his allies) with advantage for its entire duration by knocking enemies prone on its bite attack. On top of that it has that nice damage boost, and the knocking prone adds a nice crowd control element.

That's once per day and requires concentration. The spiritual invocation related to a spirit path is recovered with a short rest. For the Stalker, that's a buff worth probably 9-11 points of damage. For the Seeker, that's two full ranger rounds (minus one bonus action) and the rest of the party's next turn worth of free advantage.

Unless the spirit companion can be used more often at higher levels, it's going to be something that gets pulled out just before "the big fight" of the day, where I fear the concentration requirement will take a big bite out of its effectiveness.

[Dralnu]

It seems clear to me that healing more on rests is an intentional perk of this Ranger, not an accidental side-effect. It emphasizes the ranger's survivalist fluff. I don't see why healing more on rests than any other class is crossing some sort of line.

Plus, remember that this Ranger doesn't have spells. No Cure Wounds or similar things that also could've helped them recover during downtime.

[AuraTwilight]

2d6 hit dice a level is a dealbreaker for me. It screws with the math in ways I don't like; I'd rather just give them a class feature that does the same thing.

Spirit Companion's kinda cool. I'm not impressed though, overall.

[treecko]

So brown bear has the lowest armor but high hit point, which will become irrevivent at higher levels. He also has the best damage by a small amount. The eagle has good damage and health, and can fly. The dire wolf has the best AC and has a nice prone effect but low damage.

Edit: Bear has AC 11, 34 health, +5 to hit on 2 attack with and average of 19 total damage. He can also climb.
Eagle has 13 AC and 26 health, +5 to hit on 2 attacks, with a total of 16 damage. It can fly, of course.
The dire wolf has 14 AC and 37 health. He gets 1 attack with 10 damage, but advantage if allies are nearby. The attack also has a DC 13 str save or fall prone.

Looks like bear scales badly and wolf scales the best with prone, with the eagle being a good scout.

[DMBlackhart]

Question, if one were to strip away the 2d6 hit dice, and just stick with normal ranger HD; But also give them an early (level 2 or 3) feature that DOUBLES the amount of HD, or MAXIMIZES the amount healed on a short rest, what would this do for balance?

[Dralnu]

The 2d6 HP does a few things:

1) Makes the Ranger much tankier in combat; especially important for melee Rangers now that they've lost medium armor
2) Lets them recover health much more efficiently during downtime, which lets them be more self-sufficient especially with the loss of healing spells
3) Their animal companion can use up to half the Ranger's total HP, which makes them more durable than the Beastmaster pets
4) Less rare applications are protection against spells that care about HP totals (sleep) or a few monsters

To change the 2d6 HP would be a nerf to multiple aspects of this Ranger. So to have the same effect you'd need to implement multiple additions to the class.

[Theodoxus]

Meh. 2d6 per level isn't much more than 2d8 at 1st, and 1d8 there after, which is what the 2nd Ed Ranger got.

I was shocked at the saves though. That I think was unfortunate, and I'd go back to the book saves instead.

Honestly, I think I'd swap the spirit companion for the beast master companion and call it a day. (Though I'd probably have it reset on a short rest, rather than long.)

[Yagyujubei]

I dont think ambuscade is as abusable as you guys think. It only says you can use your action to attack or hide, and doesnt say anything about being able to move. therefor i see it as either you were able to sneak up point blank to en enemy, or you get a free hide at the start of any fight.

there's no way you just get a full turn. thats the thief capstone at level 2 for rangers? WotC isnt that stupid.

[DMBlackhart]

I dont think ambuscade is as abusable as you guys think. It only says you can use your action to attack or hide, and doesnt say anything about being able to move. therefor i see it as either you were able to sneak up point blank to en enemy, or you get a free hide at the start of any fight.

there's no way you just get a full turn. thats the thief capstone at level 2 for rangers? WotC isnt that stupid.

Or you get a free ranged attack.

[treecko]

I dont think ambuscade is as abusable as you guys think. It only says you can use your action to attack or hide, and doesnt say anything about being able to move. therefor i see it as either you were able to sneak up point blank to en enemy, or you get a free hide at the start of any fight.

there's no way you just get a full turn. thats the thief capstone at level 2 for rangers? WotC isnt that stupid.

Moving isn't part of your action, therefore you can move (or at least that's how I read it, I might be wrong)

[KorvinStarmast]

To those screaming "ubertank" I looked at the hit dice language again.

Hit Points at Higher Levels: 2d6 (or 7) + your Constitution modifier
per ranger level after 1st. That isn't a con modifier per hit die, it's a con bonus per die (each a d6). I read that as each HD that you burn during a short rest is a unit of 2d6.

It seems pretty clear from what was written. The unit of HD for a Barb is a 1d12, the unit of HD for a ranger is a 2d6 which at first blush is not splittable. With the lower AC, I'd expect the Ranger to need to handle being hit more often.

I looked at Mearl's post again and wish that -- if they way he responded is how it is supposed to work -- they'd have specified that detail in the UA they just issued. It's a non trivial distinction in terms of rapid recovery between fights.

As I don't have an adventure league game locally, I guess I'll not be able to playtest. Don't have the time either, I think.

[DireSickFish]

It's rather frustratingly undefined. It says you get a special turn and you can use your action for the attack action or to hide. It doesn't say anything about movement or bonus actions so this being a specific rule means that the general rule about turns still applies and you would get both.

Presumably you are limited to either the attack action or hide action on this turn and the only other thing you could do would be to take no action. It doesn't however that you can -only- take the attack or hide actions. I think the intent is that you can only take those actions but it could be made clearer.

[DanyBallon]

Moving isn't part of your action, therefore you can move (or at least that's how I read it, I might be wrong)

Actually, it doesn't give you a full round, but a special round where the only thing you can do is take the attack action or hide action. Extra attacks apply, but it's not clear about bonus action

[Strill]

The new special round is explicitly not surprise, so I'm pretty sure it does not work with assassinate. The "1 level dip gets you an extra attack at the start of combat" needs to be reeled in, though.

Creatures are surprised until the start of their turn, so it doesn't matter.

[Yagyujubei]

Actually, it doesn't give you a full round, but a special round where the only thing you can do is take the attack action or hide action. Extra attacks apply, but it's not clear about bonus action

yeah thats how I saw it as well...although with a bow you dont need to move >_>.

def. makes the gap between archer and TWF ranger that much bigger...

[treecko]

Actually, it doesn't give you a full round, but a special round where the only thing you can do is take the attack action or hide action. Extra attacks apply, but it's not clear about bonus action

If it works that way, archer ranger is really good but duel wielder is hit pretty hard. That goes against their design goals, so I would run it by my ruling. You're free to do whatever.

[Strill]

I don't like the spirit guardian. That should've been its own "shaman" archetype. I want to see a revision of the Beastmaster specifically. The Hunter is fine anyway. I think revising the whole class instead of just the archetypes was overkill.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

the active spirit abilities using a bonus action unfortunately somewhat much kills the TWF ranger dead as can be.No it doesn't. Each of the bonus actions abilities can only be used once until your next short or long rest.

All rangers gain a spirit companion and the ability to invoke its magical power. (Your spirit companion grants you one benefit you can call on in this playtest version of the revised ranger, with more benefits gained at higher levels.) You regain your ability to call on your spirit companion in this way when you finish a short or long rest.All those turns when you don't use the ability still have their bonus actions available for off-hand attacking.

[obryn]

No it doesn't. Each of the bonus actions abilities can only be used once until your next short or long rest.
All those turns when you don't use the ability still have their bonus actions available for off-hand attacking.
I'll go out on a limb and say that the rounds where you use those bonus abilities are also the ones where you could really, really use that TWF bonus attack, too.

[DireSickFish]

I don't like the spirit guardian. That should've been its own "shaman" archetype. I want to see a revision of the Beastmaster specifically. The Hunter is fine anyway. I think revising the whole class instead of just the archetypes was overkill.

The biggest problem with Ranger is that all of it's cool and powerful things come from the archetype. It's level 1 and 6 features are basically "ribbon" features that shouldn't be factored into the power of the class.

Giving them a round all to themselves and the hide and attack thing are steps to alleviate that problem.

I think you could take this new chassis and apply the Beastmaster or Hunter archetypes to it without a problem.

[DanyBallon]

If it works that way, archer ranger is really good but duel wielder is hit pretty hard. That goes against their design goals, so I would run it by my ruling. You're free to do whatever.

Nothing prevent a dual wielder to attack at range on ambuscade, then on initiative count to closeup in melee dualwielding. You're not as good with a range weapon but you get to deal damage before closing in on your target.

[DanyBallon]

The biggest problem with Ranger is that all of it's cool and powerful things come from the archetype. It's level 1 and 6 features are basically "ribbon" features that shouldn't be factored into the power of the class.

Giving them a round all to themselves and the hide and attack thing are steps to alleviate that problem.

I think you could take this new chassis and apply the Beastmaster or Hunter archetypes to it without a problem.

That's what I want to try, ambush should be made clear as if move and bunus action are allowed. Hit dice, saving throws, armor proficiency is quite easy to implement. Beast Master could benefit from the use of spirit to replace their companion, but instead of a path, the ranger is allowed to all three spirit, but must bond with a single one per day.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

I'll go out on a limb and say that the rounds where you use those bonus abilities are also the ones where you could really, really use that TWF bonus attack, too.They'd be nice, but none of them have to be used the same turn. Guardian's temp HP aside, Seeker give advantage on all attacks until the end of your next turn so you'll get at least one turn of two-weapon fighting in and Stalker only gives extra damage on the next attack so two-weapon fighting the same turn would be an extra chance to hit, but not an extra chance to get the bonus damage.

Yeah, there's some opportunity cost, but either way I'm just saying it hardly "kills the TWF ranger dead as can be".

Edit: Misread Stalker's ability. Fixed my analysis.

[Strill]

The biggest problem with Ranger is that all of it's cool and powerful things come from the archetype. It's level 1 and 6 features are basically "ribbon" features that shouldn't be factored into the power of the class. No they aren't. Have you never looked at ranger spellcasting?

[DireSickFish]

No they aren't. Have you never looked at ranger spellcasting?

Yes I have. Much like a paladin there power spikes are not tied to there spellcasting, and they aren't a spellcasting focused class. Hunters mark being the exception. If they had a good base class with useful abilities it wouldn't matter how bad there spellcasting was. And because bards can just ape there spell list earlier I don't think there main point of power and uniqueness should come from spells anyway.

[Strill]

Yes I have. Much like a paladin there power spikes are not tied to there spellcasting, and they aren't a spellcasting focused class. Hunters mark being the exception. If they had a good base class with useful abilities it wouldn't matter how bad there spellcasting was. And because bards can just ape there spell list earlier I don't think there main point of power and uniqueness should come from spells anyway.

Their power spikes are not tied to spellcasting? So I guess Swift Quiver, Conjure Woodland Beings, and all the Arrow spells don't exist.

[DireSickFish]

Their power spikes are not tied to spellcasting? So I guess Swift Quiver, Conjure Woodland Beings, and all the Arrow spells don't exist.

I'm sorry mate but could you please be a bit more constructive with your arguments. Tone is hard for me to interpret over text.

Spikes should come at levels 5, 11, and 17 as they do for almost all classes. I don't have my book with me, do any of those spell levels come online then?

There level 5 spike is easy to spot as with all martials it is the extra attack. Level 11 is tied to subclass, which is a strange choice. Whirlwind attack and the aoe ranged thing I find underwhelming, but some like the aoe ranged attack fine. Not sure what there spike is at 17.

Also I don't think there spikes should come from spellcasting. Especially not int he form of a singular spell as it is easy for a new player to simply not pick that spell and miss out on the power spike. It also feels very limiting to have to chose a specific item of many options to make a competent ranger.

Hunters Mark for example should come as a pre-known or automatically know spell to anyone playing a Ranger can take advantage of the class.

[Strill]

I'm sorry mate but could you please be a bit more constructive with your arguments. Tone is hard for me to interpret over text. You said "all of it's cool and powerful things come from the archetype." That's demonstrably false. They get a handful of non-combat perks at lower levels, but also get powerful perks like fighting style, spellcasting, and a bonus skill proficiency,


Spikes should come at levels 5, 11, and 17 as they do for almost all classes. I don't have my book with me, do any of those spell levels come online then?Yes. Swift Quiver at level 17.


Also I don't think there spikes should come from spellcasting. Especially not int he form of a singular spell as it is easy for a new player to simply not pick that spell and miss out on the power spike. It also feels very limiting to have to chose a specific item of many options to make a competent ranger. So then are Bards or Sorcerers bad classes as well, since they have the same problem?

[CNagy]

Actually, it doesn't give you a full round, but a special round where the only thing you can do is take the attack action or hide action. Extra attacks apply, but it's not clear about bonus action

It does not create a special round. It creates a special turn that takes place before the initiative count. In case of multiple ambuscades, initiative count is the tie-breaker. A turn is a turn is a turn, however, and the only limitation specified is on the action. So as written (though it may not stay that way), you get your full movement and bonus action if you have one, because that's what you get on your turn.

[treecko]

So then are Bards or Sorcerers bad classes as well, since they have the same problem?

I'm going to assume he means for half casters, because all full casters get spikes by spell casting. Strong points of the ranger are:
Lv 2, hunters mark and a fighting style really up damage.
Lv 5, extra attack, 2nd lv spells
Lv 9 3rd lv spells
Lv 11, archtype feature, which as someone pointed out is strange for a class
Lv 13, 4th lv spells
Lv 17, swift quiver and 5th lv spells

I've played with a ranger three times at the level range of 1 to 7. The ranger does pretty good damage, can heal a bit in a pinch, and can do outdoors stuff. I never felt that the ranger was outclassed by anyone, except for the fact that anyone with survival can do most of the outdoorsy stuff. In combat she felt pretty strong.

[DireSickFish]

You said "all of it's cool and powerful things come from the archetype." That's demonstrably false. They get a handful of non-combat perks at lower levels, but also get powerful perks like fighting style, spellcasting, and a bonus skill proficiency,


Fighting style, spellcasting, and bonus skill proficiency are all perks that other classes get which I suppose is the reason I don't find them cool. Per hams I should have said unique, flavorful, and powerful things. I find there biggest holes in ability being there Favored Enemy and natural explorer which are treated as full class features and don't add much that someone with the survival skill couldn't already add. Or someone with expertise in the survival skill couldn't do.

The paladin for comparison gets Divine sense (which is mostly a ribbon feature and comparable to Favored Enemy and natural explorer), Lay on Hands (which is flavorful and scales with level), and Aura of protection (which is a very strong class feature in an edition where it is had to up saving throws).

The spell-casting is also comparatively worse than the Paladin if not for spell selection then for the fact that while the Paladin can select spells known from his entire list every long rest the ranger has to take spells known as he levels up and can't change them.

It's not necessarily that the ranger isn't "strong enough" as pre 11 it holds up quite well. It is that the abilities unique to it, outside of subclass abilities, are not good.

[VelixNobody]

It is a good thing to finally see the Ranger as a badass survivalist with his incredible durability and swanky saves. I much prefer this version to the pseudo-expertise Survival/ enemy knowledge spellcasting flowerchild.

The writeup still seems rough though; hopefully they'll gain abilities that remain relevant throughout a Ranger's adventuring career without requiring DM pandering, which has been a sore spot of the Ranger since 3.x.

[BootStrapTommy]

How is primeval awareness supposed to work? Doesn't that require spell slots which this new class lacks?
They explained how to use Primal Awareness sans spells. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modifying-classes)

This is basically the ranger class I've always wanted!

Didn't quit catch why it's only stated through 5th, though, if they need it tested through 20th...

[CNagy]

They explained how to use Primal Awareness sans spells. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modifying-classes)

This is basically the ranger class I've always wanted!

Didn't quit catch why it's only stated through 5th, though, if they need it tested through 20th...

I'm guessing they haven't written it through 20th, or that their full writeup is even less proofwritten than this sneak peak. I'm sure once they've ironed out the obvious kinks and bugs, we'll see a full progression to play(test) with.

[Rhaegar14]

That's once per day and requires concentration. The spiritual invocation related to a spirit path is recovered with a short rest. For the Stalker, that's a buff worth probably 9-11 points of damage. For the Seeker, that's two full ranger rounds (minus one bonus action) and the rest of the party's next turn worth of free advantage.

Unless the spirit companion can be used more often at higher levels, it's going to be something that gets pulled out just before "the big fight" of the day, where I fear the concentration requirement will take a big bite out of its effectiveness.

Oh, missed that part. I had to skim pretty quick this morning while I was getting ready for class. Then yeah, I'm pretty in agreement that Seeker is much much better than the other two.

@Strill: I'm kind of on DireSickFish's side here. Even if there are demonstrable power spikes, 1) they should not be attached to spells on a Ranger, which as a fantasy archetype typically doesn't even cast spells and 2) these power spikes are almost nonexistent for two-weapon fighting Rangers (Hunter's Mark competes with their off-hand for their bonus action, and it's much easier to break concentration when they're in melee, so Hunter's Mark is not as good and all of the specifically-ranged-attack spells are irrelevant). I would rather see a take on Ranger that has useful features for two-weapon fighting and that aren't bound to their spell slots.

EDIT: On Ambuscante, I really, really hope that they're allowed to move, or else this is just more archer favoritism. Skirmisher's Stealth is already certainly much easier to use at range, though melee certainly can still make use of it.

[Giant2005]

Thid UA actually gives me renewed hope for the Mystic class's UA.
Both the new Ranger and Mystic are seemingly 5 level classes that take super high level abilities and give them to the new classes at low levels. Rather than believe that WotC have thrown balance to the wind like I originally did with the Mystic, I am now thinking that those abilities are just placeholders on those low levels to show us what they have in mind for the higher levels rather than just abolishing balance itself.

[Nifft]

Ambruscade: LOVE IT. This is a solid mechanical way to model the "ever vigilant" aspect of a consummate wilderness ninja, plus it's a nice nod to how old-edition Rangers had special treatment regarding surprise at the start of an encounter.

Skirmisher’s Stealth: It's okay. It's a solid ability with interesting applications, but I don't think it needs to be something which every Ranger always does -- I don't think it should be part of the core Ranger. This could be the level 3 path feature for a Skirmisher Path, and the Skirmisher Path could steal from the 3.5e Scout class (which I loved).

Barbarian Totem Ranger Paths: DO NOT WANT. These aren't a valid replacement for spells, not even the current Ranger's crappy level 3 spellcasting.

I could see a Spirit Walker Path which had some kind of Barbarian Totem Spirit Animal thing going on, as one Path choice. But I don't want three Paths which are all just the Totem Barbarian choices.


The hit dice... I dunno. I'd rather give them some kind of early-levels boost which didn't multiply at higher levels. Maybe one extra HD at first level, and the ability to recover +1 HD whenever they recovered HD at 5th level.

[Steampunkette]

Ambuscade+Assassinate.

Works nicely? But honestly the bonus turn makes me want to play a Thief Rogue/Ranger. Use the bonus action from the extra turn to use objects, disarm traps, open a lock, dash, or disengage if I walk around a corner face-first into patrolling guards.

Then again, you could make an amazing Ranger/Fighter archer and fire off 8 arrows in the first round of combat. 11 with Action Surge.

And Ranger/Fighter with Seeker? *whistle* Give up 1 (bonus action) attack during the first turn to throw all of your attacks with Advantage?

Chuck Sharpshooter onto that and you've got a ridiculously accurate and deadly single-target archer.

Admittedly, you probably won't compare to some of the other builds in this thread, but it'd be pretty swank, to me.

[Bellberith]

I Dub this class the MetaRanger

Ambuscade - "Yo dawg, i heard you liked suprise rounds. So we put a surprise round in your surprise round so you can surprise people while you surprise people."

[Steampunkette]

Of note: This ranger makes melee rangers VASTLY BETTER than before. People keep saying that Melee Rangers are getting shafted, here, and maybe they kind of are a little if you're playing like a tank.

If you're playing like a Skirmisher, however, they just got a huge freaking buff.

Stealth ahead of the party for recon and ambush-laying. Declare someone unable to see through your stealth. Initiate combat with murder because you're right next to the dude, even though you're not in cover/concealment because dude cannot see you.

Even if the special turn doesn't allow you to move or take a bonus action you can still kick butt in melee in that first round: If you're playing a skirmisher/scout instead of a wandering scrapper. Sneaking is your friend with this class.

And yes. There will be times where you can't melee on your special turn. There's gonna be times where the archer ranger can't fire arrows, too. But both of them can do something about it by using stealth and preparing ambushes.

[R.Shackleford]

WotC just released a plytest variant of the Ranger class

UA Ranger variant (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DX_0907_UA_RangerOptions.pdf)

Seems interesting so far; 2d6 hit die is quite interesting as it will allow a bigger hit dice pool for healing on short rest. I like the ambuscade and skirmisher stealth mechanic, but I think the later might be abuse by MC Ranger/Rogue, as far as Spirit path and companion I'm not sure about it. The loss of spellcasting is something to consider as well

I'm not to worried about Ra/Ro abuse, as strong as it seems it won't touch what mid to late level magic can do.

But it is nice to see more martial abilities that are actually conceptually awesome, useful, and specific to the class. Now if they can make a decent mid to high level martial we may have a decent game.

[Malifice]

I'm not to worried about Ra/Ro abuse, as strong as it seems it won't touch what mid to late level magic can do.

But it is nice to see more martial abilities that are actually conceptually awesome, useful, and specific to the class. Now if they can make a decent mid to high level martial we may have a decent game.

{scrubbed}

On topic, I read Ambuscade to grant a single either (attack or hide) action - no movement or bonus actions allowed. It definitely gives the Ranger an Identity, but I worry that it's a little OP even with this restrictive reading.

I reckon if left as is, there isn't a class in the game (barring Casters) that wont dip Ranger 1.

Skirmishers Stealth is souped up Skulker on steroids. As long as you roll high enough Stealth checks (over your opponents passive perception) at the end of your turn (as a bonus action) you are immune to being attacked in return. WTF? Thats... massive. Way OP for my liking. Perhaps if they imposed a -5 on the check?

These two abilities make a 2 level Ranger dip mandatory for every Rogue, ever. Particularly Assassins. I don't like that.

Seriously picture a Rogue (assassin) 11, Ranger 2. Expertise in Stealth, reliable talent. Unless your Passive perception is at least 23, you can never attack it, and its always hidden (permanent advantage + sneak attack). I don't think there is a single monster in the MM that has a passive perception of over 22.

I don't like Rangers being forced into 'Spirit Paths' and summoning ghost bears. I don't mind these abilities as an option, but I would like to see a less 'supernatural' and more mundane 'hunter' type Ranger option, rather than being forced into summoning a spirit animal every day.

The Spirit Path abilities also should to scale with level.

Overall, I'm not sold.

[Sindeloke]

No one else is bothered by having their animal buddy chosen for them?

Half the fun of the old Ranger (and all the fun of the 5e beastmaster) was choosing an animal that suited you. Strong, tough bear? Canny, trail-following wolf? Sharp-eyed hawk? Sure, okay. But skittering giant scorpion, prowling panther, silent owl, trampling elk, desert-dwelling axebeak or riverside crocodile, rideable swiftclaw dinosaur or at higher levels, soaring hippogriff or rampaging baby mammoth? Also okay! Completely valid! Flavorful, fun, and ripe with roleplaying! Permits customization to multiple environments!

I mean obviously "You and your DM can tweak this" is a thing, whatever, but that's not even explicit in the text as an alternate rule, much less an option built into the class.

[R.Shackleford]

{scrubbed}


I have no clue who that is, this is the second time I've been refered to by that name... Is that some sort of forum joke/slur that I'm not aware of?


No one else is bothered by having their animal buddy chosen for them?


They are using a method to create a balanced feature. Essentially they make Option 1, 2 and 3 balanced (mostly) and then give it fluff. These options will be specifically chosen because giving players open ended features is bad for balance and also bad for design. Giving some people open ended features and others very specific features causes problems.

They seem to be bringing in more concept from 4e/Essentials.

But don't worry about fluff, worry about mechanics. After all, fuff never unbalances a game or causes someone to be left behind.

[Malifice]

{scrubbed}


But don't worry about fluff, worry about mechanics. After all, fuff never unbalances a game or causes someone to be left behind.

I dont like the fluff or the balance of this Ranger.

[Malifice]

Seriously. Is anyone else thinking:

http://www.ksmfilm.de/images/web/bravestarr2.jpg

[CNagy]

On topic, I read Ambuscade to grant a single either (attack or hide) action - no movement or bonus actions allowed. It definitely gives the Ranger an Identity, but I worry that it's a little OP even with this restrictive reading.

I agree that it should read like that, but what it says is it gives you a special turn, and on that special turn your action can only be Attack or Hide. If it wants to bar you from having a bonus action and movement, it has to say it because you get those every turn barring some status effect.


Skirmishers Stealth is souped up Skulker on steroids. As long as you roll high enough Stealth checks (over your opponents passive perception) at the end of your turn (as a bonus action) you are immune to being attacked in return. WTF? Thats... massive. Way OP for my liking. Perhaps if they imposed a -5 on the check?

You do have to meet all the conditions to hide in order to pull that off, so it's definitely dependent on terrain. This makes for a scary sniper, who can take his attack action firing arrows with advantage (so... Sharpshooter damage), then either hoof it to another location to hide, or hide and move silently to another location, depending on how the DM likes to do stealth in combat. In melee, this is like someone blurring past you, slicing you to ribbons, and they are gone before you realize you've been hit. I imagine you'd have to ready an action to attack when someone attacks you, and then try to grab the tricksy ranger by his neck with a grapple.


Seriously picture a Rogue (assassin) 11, Ranger 2. Expertise in Stealth, reliable talent. Unless your Passive perception is at least 23, you can never attack it, and its always hidden (permanent advantage + sneak attack). I don't think there is a single monster in the MM that has a passive perception of over 22.

You wouldn't be dealing with passive Perception, though, because that is the contest for when a creature isn't actively searching for you. Active searching doesn't take an action, just awareness that something really is out there. So even if you snipe and hide or strike and hide perfectly, you make the creature aware that something is hitting it and it goes from passive perception to perception checks contested against your hide--which granted may not make much of a difference, but it isn't quite as dire as enforced 10s on the enemy.

[Malifice]

I agree that it should read like that, but what it says is it gives you a special turn, and on that special turn your action can only be Attack or Hide. If it wants to bar you from having a bonus action and movement, it has to say it because you get those every turn barring some status effect.

I don't think it needs to. The phrase 'special turn' indicates that it's not a normal turn (where one gets a move+bonus+action+object interaction). It should definitely be clearer though.

I'm confused as to why it cant just be a simple initiative boost (that ties into Ranger level) though, with a special rule attached that only triggers when the Ranger goes first. Something that lets you add your ranger level to initiative, and lets you add your ranger level on damage in the first turn of any combat (or something).

That would fix my concerns re: Dipping and the abilities power all in one swoop.


You do have to meet all the conditions to hide in order to pull that off, so it's definitely dependent on terrain.

Yeah, but in most dungeons that's a given (wall, corner.. or for halfling Rangers - any other PC will do!)


I imagine you'd have to ready an action to attack when someone attacks you, and then try to grab the tricksy ranger by his neck with a grapple.

At no stage during the attack is the Ranger 'not hidden' and that includes as he makes his attack. You cant ready an action to attack him with the ability as written.


You wouldn't be dealing with passive Perception, though, because that is the contest for when a creature isn't actively searching for you. Active searching doesn't take an action, just awareness that something really is out there.

Yes it does. Have a read of the PHB and the 'Search' action.

Stealth checks are made v the targets Passive Perception. The target can then attempt the Search action as an Action on its next turn (if it wants to and is somehow aware of your general presence).

PC 1's turn : Takes Hide action (rolls stealth and compares to passive perception) if check > Passive perception he is 'hidden'.
Enemies turn: Cannot attack (or even move towards PC1) as does not know where PC1 is. Can make an active Perception check (with the Search action) on his turn to locate PC1 if he desires.

I personally would like to see the Ranger get an ability (similar to cunning action) that lets the Ranger take the Search action as a bonus action (and maybe lets him take the hide action as well).

This makes the Ranger both perceptive (they can scan for hidden enemies with a bonus action, and still have an action remaining to do something if they find them) against hidden foes and stealthy.


So even if you snipe and hide or strike and hide perfectly, you make the creature aware that something is hitting it and it goes from passive perception to perception checks contested against your hide--which granted may not make much of a difference, but it isn't quite as dire as enforced 10s on the enemy.

Nah man. Your DC for the check to Hide is the passive perception of the creatures around you.

If you make the check and they want to actively search for you, they need to waste a turn with the Search action.

[DanyBallon]

Maybe tieing Ambuscade to favored terrain and Skirmisher's Stealth to the removed Favored Ennemy, would make sense and limit the MC abuse?

[R.Shackleford]

I dont like the fluff or the balance of this Ranger.

The fluff is pretty much standard for what the ranger has always been. Martial woodsmam ninja with divine magic.

The abilities are starting to get closer to where Martial fantasy character should be. Less based on reality and more based on fantasy and because of this it is starting to look like that someday we will have a better balanced martial.

[Malifice]

{scrubbed}

[R.Shackleford]

{scrubbed}

{scrubbed}

And if you disagree that the Ranger has always been a Martial Woodsmam Ninja w/ Divine Magic then that's fine, wrong, but fine. Maybe in 2e they were different but since 3e this is exactly how they are (some with less and more of different qualities, 4e tones down the divine magic and have it to the Seeker in the form of Primal Magic).

[MinotaurWarrior]

The big problem I have with this, is that I think it takes the lone ranger style too far.

Ignore, for a second, the actual amount of damage a RaRo does. For one thing, we can't even really guess at it, because we don't know what the full ranger progression looks like. Instead, consider how a ranger does it. A ranger shines by acting when nobody else can. It's spotlight-stealing from level 4 - the character. A RaRo wants to take two turns before anyone else acts, every single combat. And at the end of that, they don't even really want to let others have a go mopping up the mess they made. No, they're built to be great at washing, rinsing, and repeating, because this whole routine doesn't rely on any limited resources, and you're arguably the best (tied with monk) at fleeing and re-starting combats.

The ranger is best when everyone else sucks. Rangers don't want to be in the situation where they're party members are doing well, and their party members don't want them to be in the situation where they're doing well. That's not good.

[Malifice]

{scrubbed}

And if you disagree that the Ranger has always been a Martial Woodsmam Ninja w/ Divine Magic then that's fine, wrong, but fine. Maybe in 2e they were different but since 3e this is exactly how they are (some with less and more of different qualities, 4e tones down the divine magic and have it to the Seeker in the form of Primal Magic).

I've been playing them since 1e mate.

First time I've seen ghost bears and such. But hey. That's a taste thing.

[Steampunkette]

The big problem I have with this, is that I think it takes the lone ranger style too far.

Ignore, for a second, the actual amount of damage a RaRo does. For one thing, we can't even really guess at it, because we don't know what the full ranger progression looks like. Instead, consider how a ranger does it. A ranger shines by acting when nobody else can. It's spotlight-stealing from level 4 - the character. A RaRo wants to take two turns before anyone else acts, every single combat. And at the end of that, they don't even really want to let others have a go mopping up the mess they made. No, they're built to be great at washing, rinsing, and repeating, because this whole routine doesn't rely on any limited resources, and you're arguably the best (tied with monk) at fleeing and re-starting combats.

The ranger is best when everyone else sucks. Rangers don't want to be in the situation where they're party members are doing well, and their party members don't want them to be in the situation where they're doing well. That's not good.

I think that is an extreme overstatement.

Yes. They rock the first turn. Much like Assassin rogues they want to go first. But it also is a limited resource, since combat only starts once. Sure. If your party lets you run around starting and restarting fights to your heart's content you can do that. But most won't sit back while you faff about like a crazy person.

Instead, you'll get off that one round coolness and then be relying on other abilities for the rest of the fight. Though as I said, upthread, they're gonna make awesome skirmishers with the hide ability.

[PhantomRenegade]

I personally don't really like this new variant at all even taken on its own.

Ambuscade is either exploitable as hell or awful, if its a full turn where you're only limited in how you use your main action pretty much every martial is going to want this, especially with the 2d6 die you get from the one level dip, if literally the only thing you can do is either hide or attack it makes ranged ranger king and makes hiding really fiddly because lets face it loads of times when combat starts you are just not in a position to hide right where you are.


Skirmisher's stealth is kind of bad, it sounds nice but i wonder how often you'll be using it? The feature requires you to be hidden to work and this class requires a full action to hide, in a three or four round combat that's a really steep price, plus it only lets you stay hidden from one enemy at the cost of your bonus action which hurts the two weapon fighter or the crossbow master, advantage against one enemy is nice but i'm not sure its "burn a turn of damage and then keep burning my bonus action" nice.

The path features require a bonus action to activate, which makes sense, but remember that’s going to break your skirmisher's stealth chain and you'll need to use an action to get that back, as for what they actually do seeker is actually really nice, probably one of the few things i like here its a great "get rid of that troublesome dude" feature, guardian is ok at first but it becomes irrelevant quick, stalker is a slightly better smite per short rest which doesn’t really feel good.


I left the Spirit companion for last because its more of a personal gripe i don’t really like how its only once a day and you can't pick the animal you get, i like the beastmaster archetype my whole gripe with the previous ranger was that the beastmaster was a joke (although favoured enemy/terrain was kinda bad), and it still feels like a oath of the ancients paladin with his find steed spell makes for a better beastmaster than the ranger.

[Strill]

I personally don't really like this new variant at all even taken on its own.

Ambuscade is either exploitable as hell or awful, if its a full turn where you're only limited in how you use your main action pretty much every martial is going to want this, especially with the 2d6 die you get from the one level dip, if literally the only thing you can do is either hide or attack it makes ranged ranger king and makes hiding really fiddly because lets face it loads of times when combat starts you are just not in a position to hide right where you are.It gives you a special turn, so you'd get your movement too. It just restricts what you can do with your action.

[DanyBallon]

Ambuscade allowing a full turn (with move, attack and bonus action) is a bit too powerful and can be abused by MC fighter. I might change it to allowing you to move and make a single attack or take the hide action at my table (not as part of UA ranger, but in addition to PHB ranger). This will reduce the appeal for 1 level dip.

As for Skirmisher's Sealth being too situationnal due to the hidden condition, being able to hide as part of Ambuscade is a great way to get that hidden condition.

[MinotaurWarrior]

I think that is an extreme overstatement.

Yes. They rock the first turn. Much like Assassin rogues they want to go first. But it also is a limited resource, since combat only starts once. Sure. If your party lets you run around starting and restarting fights to your heart's content you can do that. But most won't sit back while you faff about like a crazy person.

Instead, you'll get off that one round coolness and then be relying on other abilities for the rest of the fight. Though as I said, upthread, they're gonna make awesome skirmishers with the hide ability.

So, an assassin rogue at level three uses assassinate once to start the combat. It's a splashy solo move, which was proceeded by him having to do some stealthy stuff. What does he want to do next?

He tries to use the core combat ability of the rogue - sneak attack - which is very collaborative. The rogue desperately wants to set up flanking manuevers with his party members, or otherwise collaborate to create situations that proc his core combat ability.

This is a cooperative PvE game, and most of the classes really push that. Even in the classic case of the Save or Suck magic user casting, say, 3.5's mass hold person - they're setting things up for someone else to finish off the vulnerable targets. Sure, the PC being out shined isn't likely to be thrilled by the situation, but at least they're involved.

This Ranger never really wants to collaborate. Sure, the actual solo faffing is going to be limited by OOC tolerance for solo faffing, but imo it's a sure sign of bad design when people don't want you to be using your class abilities to the fullest. Nobody says, "hey, barbarian - don't tank all those monsters to maximize the effectiveness of the bear totem". I think people will say, to the RaRo, "stop stealthing on your own before every fight, taking two rounds of actions before anyone else, and only then retreating back to our position for the main combat - we're sick of starting every encounter with five minutes of you and the DM on a solo adventure" and there's something of an OOC silent covenant saying "don't, after stealthing and taking two rounds of actions, then proceed to use your class abilities to maximum effect and end the combat before anyone else can act by stealthing away." Good design works within those sorts of OOC restraints without brushing up against them, imo.

I'm really not worried about these abilities being broken, because this is just a playtest placeholder. Numbers can easily be tweaked for balance. What I'm worried about is the general direction this class seems headed towards. I'd like to see more class abilities that promote working with your part members, instead of acting alone.

[obryn]

Can someone clear up how Ambuscade isn't basically "Action point, but better because you get to do it before anyone else can go, potentially eliminating a threat from all action, and you don't need to short rest in between uses"? :smallwink:

[DanyBallon]

Can someone clear up how Ambuscade isn't basically "Action point, but better because you get to do it before anyone else can go, potentially eliminating a threat from all action, and you don't need to short rest in between uses"? :smallwink:

As per tweet from Mike Mearls (tweet link (https://twitter.com/jaa0109/status/641681131562213380)) Ambuscade is a full turn, hence the reason I proposing some way to limit it's effectiveness, while keepinp usefulness and flavor.

edit: add link

[DireSickFish]

Well then Alert could be a great pickup to combine with Ambuscade. Ambuscade gives you a free turn if not surprised or lets you act during the surprise round when you are surprised. Alert lets you never be surprised so when you get ambushed you actually get to hide before the ambush even starts.

[DanyBallon]

Well then Alert could be a great pickup to combine with Ambuscade. Ambuscade gives you a free turn if not surprised or lets you act during the surprise round when you are surprised. Alert lets you never be surprised so when you get ambushed you actually get to hide before the ambush even starts.

I think that's one of the option they were considering while designing Ambuscade.

You could roleply it this way: A groupe of bandit is hidden in the woods along a road ready to prey upon any unlucky traveller. The ranger being that traveller spot the bandit before they can act and is not surprised by them (Ambuscade) or the ranger being extremely vigilent spot the bandits from afar and hide from them now turning side aroud, and the bandits become the prey (Ambuscade with Alert feat).

[PoeticDwarf]

dex AND wis saves???!!! I liked the normal one, this is just a bit too much.

[DireSickFish]

dex AND wis saves???!!! I liked the normal one, this is just a bit too much.

I'm going to assume that this will be changed before a full release. As races tend to be missing a +1 to stat when written in UA, the classes thus far seem to ramp up the power. I think (and this is just speculation) that the idea is a class that's to strong can find where the powers are being to strong and what powers the players find good for the class then those can be used.

I'd be surprised if any class releases with 2 good saves.

[D.U.P.A.]

This class is flawed at many sides:
- 5e is supposed to have as less classes as possible. Having more classes for basically single class is bad.
- Hit dice are either d8 or d10. There are some extremes with d6 and d12 which only few classes have. 2d6 is overkill and can be reserved only for NPC
- Breaks the rule of common and uncommon saving throw, which should persist without exception
- Ambuscade is on too low level for such powerful ability. Already a little disappointed on fighter, who gets his good stuff already so early.

Seems they wanted to revive Seeker, but they did it badly, it should be just another Ranger path, who already has only 2.

[tieren]

I think this is a good start on the Ranger redesign, and I like it. Clearly needs some refinement but I appreciate where their heads are at and the reasons for the changes.

Basically ranger was a pre-cooked fighter/rogue/druid multiclass and they are moving more toward a barbarian/rogue multiclass. I never was a big fan of Barbarian but this incarnation looks pretty cool.

I think the spirit animals was a necessity and for just the reasons given. BM as written had some serious drawbacks, but common solutions to those drawbacks made rangers very powerful. And of course one of the biggest drawbacks was finding a new companion when the first died.

I believe I am reading that the spirit buff is per long or short rest and the animal is once per long rest. Without some kind of additional summoning as a higher level feature I don't think this will make any of the current BM's happy, and compared to just casting conjure animals you'll get less animal support than from today's higher level hunters, but the middle ground with a new direction is interesting.

[obryn]

This may be a dumb question, but did someone at WotC actually sit down, look at the Stalker and Seeker features, and say, "Yeah... these are about equivalent"? :smallsmile:

Maybe there's some long-tail balancing factors (mediocre stuff later to compensate for good stuff earlier or vice-versa), but you can't count on that balance style with ad-hoc multiclassing.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I like the basic ideas behind this variant ranger. The barbarian/rogue mix it has going on is very interesting.

But like many before, the rough edges and lack of balance are showing. My main concern is with how front-loaded it is.
It should not get 2 good saves, at least not immediately. A feature like the barbarian's Danger Sense or the rogue's keen mind which came online later would be better.
Ambuscade is neat, but needs to be pushed back to a higher level, and possibly further limited (half movement, single attack, etc.)

It would be nice to see some of the proposed higher level abilities, to get a better feel for the "personality" the designers are going for with the class and subclasses.

[Once a Fool]

I think this is a good start on the Ranger redesign, and I like it. Clearly needs some refinement but I appreciate where their heads are at and the reasons for the changes.

I think I agree, although I hope those changes pay closer attention to potential multiclass abuses. As-is, I would not make a rogue or fighter without dipping one to two levels into this class.


I believe I am reading that the spirit buff is per long or short rest and the animal is once per long rest. Without some kind of additional summoning as a higher level feature I don't think this will make any of the current BM's happy, and compared to just casting conjure animals you'll get less animal support than from today's higher level hunters, but the middle ground with a new direction is interesting.

I thought that at first, too. But, after several re-readings (could this article be any more opaquely written?), I'm pretty sure that the bonus action invocations of the spirit animals are abilities that are independent from the manifested forms; they are available to you once per rest whether or not you have an actual animal in play at the time.

[Ralanr]

Ranger is in that odd place where it can be seen as magical or not magical in many settings.

I think Wizards is going to do 5 levels whenever they preview a class concept from now on. Probably a better business model.

2d6 hit die. This is the only thing I don't think should fit. The other things are abusable, but this doesn't need clever thinking to abuse. This makes the durable feat great for other classes, but I think it should be 1 hit die.

Oh and change the saves. Maybe make the weak save strength. No idea on the strong save.

I like the subclasses. I prefer it over the hunter options past level 3.

[PhantomRenegade]

I think the spirit animals was a necessity and for just the reasons given. BM as written had some serious drawbacks, but common solutions to those drawbacks made rangers very powerful. And of course one of the biggest drawbacks was finding a new companion when the first died.

I believe I am reading that the spirit buff is per long or short rest and the animal is once per long rest. Without some kind of additional summoning as a higher level feature I don't think this will make any of the current BM's happy, and compared to just casting conjure animals you'll get less animal support than from today's higher level hunters, but the middle ground with a new direction is interesting.

See this is one of the problems i have with WotC they say its hard to give you a companion that feels good because it can be too powerful or it messes up with the action economy and every time they say that i think of the paladin and find steed.

They're willing to give the paladin at level 5 a CR 1 creature with its own full turn, that can talk telepathically with you, and has limited spell share.

I realise this isn’t all roses, the creature doesn’t scale, it doesn’t get a some of the BM's special features, and you need to spend resources to get it back if it dies, although i still consider forcing the adventure to a dead halt for 8hrs a much steeper price than any amount of level 2 spell slots, but if WotC are willing to let the paladin get something that good at level 5 as a second level spell i don't really see the problem with giving a beastmaster a proper beast companion when its his whole class feature.

[Demonic Spoon]

They're willing to give the paladin at level 5 a CR 1 creature with its own full turn, that can talk telepathically with you, and has limited spell share.

I realise this isn’t all roses, the creature doesn’t scale, it doesn’t get a some of the BM's special features, and you need to spend resources to get it back if it dies, although i still consider forcing the adventure to a dead halt for 8hrs a much steeper price than any amount of level 2 spell slots, but if WotC are willing to let the paladin get something that good at level 5 as a second level spell i don't really see the problem with giving a beastmaster a proper beast companion when its his whole class feature.


I'm guessing the intent was that the find steed mount be used as a mount, not as a bonus combatant, even though the RAW doesn't prevent you from doing just that.

[DanyBallon]

See this is one of the problems i have with WotC they say its hard to give you a companion that feels good because it can be too powerful or it messes up with the action economy and every time they say that i think of the paladin and find steed.

They're willing to give the paladin at level 5 a CR 1 creature with its own full turn, that can talk telepathically with you, and has limited spell share.

I realise this isn’t all roses, the creature doesn’t scale, it doesn’t get a some of the BM's special features, and you need to spend resources to get it back if it dies, although i still consider forcing the adventure to a dead halt for 8hrs a much steeper price than any amount of level 2 spell slots, but if WotC are willing to let the paladin get something that good at level 5 as a second level spell i don't really see the problem with giving a beastmaster a proper beast companion when its his whole class feature.

A steed will not be in every fight, escpecially indoor, on the other hand, a companion will get more opportunity to get itself in combat situation

[PhantomRenegade]

Its not nearly as cut and dry as that, situations in which you wouldn't have your steed indoor might also apply to a beast companion, they often don't because the DM will give one leeway and not the other but its a factor that can be worked around, it ammounts to another minor check in the negative column for the steed, either way i wasnt really trying to discuss the pros and cons of find steed vs the beastmasters companion.

My point was that WotC professes this great reluctance to give powerful companions but find steed is undeniably a very powerful companion that they give paladins at level 5 as nothing more than a spell.

[DireSickFish]

I think the fact that it is a spell makes it a lot easier to use as a feature. It's magic so it can be there when appropriate and not be there when inappropriate. In design a ranger with a pet you are tying the core of the class to having/working with that pet at all times.

To make it balanced often conflicts with making it actually make sense. Hence the limited time and ability to summon the new animals feature. It can act as the rangers trump card once a day and the creature behaves in a way that makes sense.

They were also receiving a lot more complaints about how the ranger, specifically the bestmaster felt to play. I doubt many people cared or brought up the Paladin and it's mount as an issue. If it's not a problem for a large amount of players then it isn't a problem for WotC.

[Gwendol]

I like the ranger, but then again I almost always do. This is an interesting take on the class, that I think is more of a scetch than an actual design.
I'd like to try it (sighing at the prospect of finding a game).

[DanyBallon]

Also (I just reread, Find Steed and the mounted combat section) an intelligent mount act independentaly (DM control) and won't necessarly do as you want in combat, You may find you valiant horse moving away to avoid being harmed, while you want it to attack. Companions on the other had do exactly what you tell them

[PhantomRenegade]

Also (I just reread, Find Steed and the mounted combat section) an intelligent mount act independentaly (DM control) and won't necessarly do as you want in combat, You may find you valiant horse moving away to avoid being harmed, while you want it to attack. Companions on the other had do exactly what you tell themFind steed also states that "Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit."

And whatever situations that doesn't cover, remember that you can talk to it telepathically and since its smart you can probably use persuasion instead of animal handling to convince it to do stuff.

[BootStrapTommy]

Looked it over and using the Variant Ranger on a No Spell Variant Ranger chasis is nice. Would be nicer homebrewing in an extra choice in Fighting Styles...

[Sindeloke]

They are using a method to create a balanced feature. Essentially they make Option 1, 2 and 3 balanced (mostly) and then give it fluff. These options will be specifically chosen because giving players open ended features is bad for balance and also bad for design. Giving some people open ended features and others very specific features causes problems.

True but irrelevant. For one thing, we already have the skill/spell dichotomy, so that horse has not only left the barn, it's three counties over and the door has fallen off the hinges and is on fire. Trying to shut it at this point is an exercise in futility and we might as well focus on making the game as much fun as possible instead. For another, it would be really easy for them just to say "the spirit has X stat block, and can look like whatever you want," or even, "here are X, Y and Z statblocks for flying, land and sea spirits, they can stand in for anything you want." They already do this in the whole "refluff a panther as a cougar if you need another cat" which is explicit in the PHB, there's absolutely no reason not to extend that philosophy to these ranger spirits. This is a world where the only difference between a rapier and a spear is the weight; assuming that a wolf, a hyena, a jaguar or an unusually aggressive white-tailed deer all have basically the same stats in combat is certainly no more of a stretch.


But don't worry about fluff, worry about mechanics. After all, fuff never unbalances a game or causes someone to be left behind.

In this case, mechanics are very much integral to the issue at hand, considering that whether your animal can fly, use pack tactics, or multiattack when you summon it is a completely mechanical question. If I want to be a Talenta halfling with a bonded clawfoot, but the path that best fits my concept of "loner on a lifelong quest to find an ancient dragon temple" is the Seeker, that's... going to be a tough sell when I blow my daily summon, considering the giant eagle statblock could not in any world be remotely interpreted as a landbound racing mount. And that's before we get into the issue of how I'm bonded to and riding an animal that's only around for one minute per day.


Can someone clear up how Ambuscade isn't basically "Action point, but better because you get to do it before anyone else can go, potentially eliminating a threat from all action, and you don't need to short rest in between uses"?

Well, action surge only gives you an extra action, not an extra turn (with movement and bonus action implied). So there's another difference. :smallamused:

I do like that it looks like they finally got a handle on the identity of the Ranger (skirmisher with a magical bond to nature, particularly in the form of a loyal animal). Giving them some actual, meaningful stealth tools instead of painful mockeries like Hide in Plain Sight is a big step in the right direction. But this revamp retains several of the worst design issues the default Ranger brought with it (heavy interference with TWF's bonus actions, heavy reliance on a very minimal list of completely fixed daily resources in order to perform its full role), and completely fails to address the core problem of the Beastmaster by turning the class into a sort of discount shaman and making what's meant to be a constant, reliable companion who can scout and track with you by day and curl up with you at night into... basically a single daily casting of the world's lamest Summon Nature's Ally. This variant ranger doesn't bring the BM past paladin mounts and chainlock familiars, it doesn't even close the gap - it widens it. And it's hilarious to me that they left Natural Explorer exactly as-is. The class feature that's worse than a background perk, and it was the only thing they didn't think needed tweaking.

Between the hit dice and skirmisher's stealth, I see two reasonable and interesting abilities here out of seven. Honestly if this is the best they can come up with, just have BMs give up the second attack, let the beast be an actual beast, give the base class flyby/mobility and hide as a bonus action and call it a day.

[djreynolds]

You can have this awesomeness, or you can have spell-less armless beastmaster with a chipmunk. I like it and the spell-less ranger variant. Ranger should not suck. I hope people optimize the **** out of it. Really. We actually just combine the both archetypes now, or we give you expertise is survival, nature, and perception, and stealth period.

The ranger, and especially, beastmaster appeals to fresh players. I mean it sounds cool. The new variants, especially this spirit guy, will appeal to veteran players.

[Shining Wrath]

Loss of spells is a big hit to flexibility of the class. This version of the Ranger is a melee beast, no question, but loses a little on the exploration side of things.

The 2d6 is a clear throwback to 1e with the 2d8 ranger HP at level 1. I do not agree with the sentiment that evidently is out there somewhere that "No one is allowed to have more HP than a Barbarian!". Rangers, fluff-wise, ought to be as tough as anyone out there - they are the people who wander alone, after all.

As many people have pointed out, this thing is a multiclass nightmare. As written, I'd be tempted to simply ban multiclassing this Ranger, or put some restrictions on it.

The class introduces (so far as I recall) the idea of a significant free action with the "Skirmisher's Stealth" feature. It's one thing to combine picking up a weapon or saying a few words with your action, but hiding from an enemy and hiding from everyone - two separate events - for free? That's a dangerous precedent, I think, and I don't think I much like it.

I'd vote for dropping Skirmisher's Stealth entirely and adding back in a 1/3 caster progression like Eldritch Knight, with the explicit proviso that you cannot cast spells during the round granted by Ambuscade.

[PhantomRenegade]

The class introduces (so far as I recall) the idea of a significant free action with the "Skirmisher's Stealth" feature. It's one thing to combine picking up a weapon or saying a few words with your action, but hiding from an enemy and hiding from everyone - two separate events - for free? That's a dangerous precedent, I think, and I don't think I much like it.
.You are miss remenbering, if you start your turn hidden skirmishers stealth allows you to remain hidden from only one enemy for free for the duration of that turn but you need to use your bonus action at the end of the turn to hide again. Not sure if the end of turn hiding applies to all creatures or if you can do it if you were not already hidden from one creature due to skirmishers stealth.

[DanyBallon]

The class introduces (so far as I recall) the idea of a significant free action with the "Skirmisher's Stealth" feature. It's one thing to combine picking up a weapon or saying a few words with your action, but hiding from an enemy and hiding from everyone - two separate events - for free? That's a dangerous precedent, I think, and I don't think I much like it.


Skirmisher's Stealth, let you remain hidden from a creature, but in order to do so, you must be already hidden from that creature at the beginning of your turn. It's just that attacking or being pointed out by someone else, won't allow that particular creature to spot you. As if some point out that there is someone behind your back, but when you turn around, you find nothing, because it moved out of sight already.

As a bonus action, Skirmisher's Stealth let you take the Hide action, in order to be hidden from other creatures. To continue my example from above, it's as if after being pointed out and the target creature turn around, the one who point you out, just say " I saw it, it was there just a few seconds ago..."
Note that your are subject to the same hidding rules agains the other, so you won't disapear, if you try to hide in while being in front of a creature that sees you.

If you want to restrict it a bit more, tie the ability to no medium or heavier armoir, and/or to favored terrain and/or to needing to move at least half your movement during your turn, etc.

[Und3adCat]

I think Ambuscade is a cool mechanic and is balanced in a vacuum, but also agree that it can create some abuses as a dip for multiclassing. My suggested fix would just be to make it come at a slightly higher level to create more of an opportunity cost to obtain it. Maybe shift Fighting Style to level 1, Primeval Awareness (however that is meant to work now) at level 2, and Ambuscade at level 3?

About the Ambuscade.
Instead of making it a higher lvl I'm thinking something like an adrenaline shot. Make it rely on a CON save and if you fail you get 1 lvl of exhaustion or something like "You can do it and there is a 50/50 chance you get 1 lvl of exhaustion". Then at a higher lvl it's a 40/60 or you get one free use without the CON save and so on. Just an idea...

[Mechaviking]

Ambuscade should probably just scale in attacks from ranger levels(1 attack at level 1-4, 2 attacks at 5+).

That bonus action really cuts into the two weapon fighting, but other than that I see it as a more dynamic version of the class.

Otherwise It looks pretty good to me, looking forward to how it shapes up.

Abuse wise, With Ambuscade, awakened mystic and level 11 fighter you can throw out a veritable barrage of arrows(or blades) at level 17 if they don´t change the wording :D

[Person_Man]

My opinion is very of the Variant Ranger is very negative. It's abilities are confusing and ripe for abuse, and they add nothing new to the game. All of them are basically just more/bigger numbers (damage, attacks, etc) or variants on existing abilities (Cunning Action/Action Surge). I probably would not allow it in one of my games, which is an odd thing for me to write, because in general I do allow players to try homebrew or tweaks.

[Mechaviking]

My opinion is very of the Variant Ranger is very negative. It's abilities are confusing and ripe for abuse, and they add nothing new to the game. All of them are basically just more/bigger numbers (damage, attacks, etc) or variants on existing abilities (Cunning Action/Action Surge). I probably would not allow it in one of my games, which is an odd thing for me to write, because in general I do allow players to try homebrew or tweaks.

This is what my thought was on the original ranger, which I almost classify it as a waste of space in the phb, but the first 4 levels are filled with value, the rest... not so much.

Concearning the bigger damage numbers, at 5th level with marksmanship and longbow you can do the same thing as a fighter at the same level, assuming it is an attack action allowing for 2 attacks.

If you describe it as a variation on abilities already existing what is the problem?

If ambuscade is too broken, then tweak it in your game and post it here or even better e-mail it to wizards, this is a playtest version after all and they do use our feedback.

Skirmisher´s stealth is a pretty cool and fluffy ability imo, but it´s basically a more limited version of cunning action.

The one who wrote this playtest version was probably playing metal gear solid V, because that´s what most of these abilities(aside from spirit summoning) remind me of and that is great in my book :D

[Malifice]

This is what my thought was on the original ranger, which I almost classify it as a waste of space in the phb, but the first 4 levels are filled with value, the rest... not so much.

Concearning the bigger damage numbers, at 5th level with marksmanship and longbow you can do the same thing as a fighter at the same level, assuming it is an attack action allowing for 2 attacks.

If you describe it as a variation on abilities already existing what is the problem?

If ambuscade is too broken, then tweak it in your game and post it here or even better e-mail it to wizards, this is a playtest version after all and they do use our feedback.

Skirmisher´s stealth is a pretty cool and fluffy ability imo, but it´s basically a more limited version of cunning action.

The one who wrote this playtest version was probably playing metal gear solid V, because that´s what most of these abilities(aside from spirit summoning) remind me of and that is great in my book :D

If they want it to hit hard in the first round of combat there are less a abuseable ways of doing it.

There is no assasin ever that wouldn't take 2 levels in this class.

It would be the most broken thing ever.

[obryn]

If they want it to hit hard in the first round of combat there are less a abuseable ways of doing it.

There is no assasin ever that wouldn't take 2 levels in this class.

It would be the most broken thing ever.
Ranger as a 2-level dip? It's like 3.0 all over again!

[Malifice]

Ranger as a 2-level dip? It's like 3.0 all over again!

Except this is way worse.

Imagine copping 2 x turns of assassinate auto crits, and then having the assasin 11/ranger 2 using its bonus action to hide (with reliable talent and expertise in stealth it gets a minimum of 27 on the check - and up to 37 - compared to your passive perception).

It wins (and it will) and you can't attack it in return - even if someone else points out to you where it is.

It then repeats, shooting you to death with impunity.

[DanyBallon]

Except this is way worse.

Imagine copping 2 x turns of assassinate auto crits, and then having the assasin 11/ranger 2 using its bonus action to hide (with reliable talent and expertise in stealth it gets a minimum of 27 on the check - and up to 37 - compared to your passive perception).

It wins (and it will) and you can't attack it in return - even if someone else points out to you where it is.

It then repeats, shooting you to death with impunity.

Then just limit Skirmisher's stealth to favored enemy or favored terrain only. The first option being much more limitative to when it will be usable.

Remember that's a playtest. Playtesting will get data to correct the abilities for a future release

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I wonder what the level 11 feature for this variant would look like. That's when most martials get another spike in effectiveness, but each is different. Paladin and fighter get damage boosts, Barbarian gets more tank (after getting a little damage at 9th), Rogue gets a boost to skills, but their damage is on a linear track anyway.
So far the core features seem to be based around stealth, ambushes and endurance, so maybe some further enhancement of those.

[Malifice]

Then just limit Skirmisher's stealth to favored enemy or favored terrain only. The first option being much more limitative to when it will be usable.

Remember that's a playtest. Playtesting will get data to correct the abilities for a future release

Yeah. As written it's broken.

I don't think we need the ranger to be all 'super stealth'.

I'm OK with giving it cunning action (Hide, Search) at second level. Tack on a fighting style, and favoured terrain and you're set (and its on par with the Rogue).

Makes it the only class that can search as a bonus action.

At 1st level maybe a 1/ long rest striker type ability. 'Rangers focus' Bonus action to activate wis to damage for 1 minute type of thing (on par with rage). plus give them natural explorer. Gain more uses of focus per long rest as you level, and perhaps it also gains other benefits as you level also.

At 3rd choose archetype (in line with other martials). Fix the beast master template, and leave the hunter more or less as is. Add in a third option (spell casting ranger) in line with the EK and the AT.

[obryn]

This is pretty much exactly why I dislike 3.x-style ad-hoc multiclassing. A neat, flavorful, balanced ability needs to be balanced for every class, under this system.

[DanyBallon]

We got a new ranger character joining tonight and we will test some of the UA ranger abilities, but they would be modified as follow (I'm not the DM so I wasn't the one having the final call)

Ranger as per PHB with the following changes:
HD: 2d6
Armor proficiency: loose medium armor proficiency
1st level: add Ambuscade
2nd level: add Skirmisher's Stealth

Ambuscade: You get a special turn that you can before anybody act in combat. You can move your full speed and take a single attack or use the hide action. You don't get to take a bonus action or reaction.

If you would be surprised, you aren't and act normally on your initiative count.

Skirmisher's stealth: while wearing light or no armor (no shield) you may remain hidden from a single creature you target whatever you or others do, as long as you started your turn hidden from that creature. As a bonus action, you may take the hide action.

I'll let you know how it turns out.

[PhantomRenegade]

Then just limit Skirmisher's stealth to favored enemy or favored terrain only. The first option being much more limitative to when it will be usable.
People didn't like Favoured enemy/terrain because depending on the adventure being run you'd get large swathes of time where those abilities were irrelevant, tying combat abilities to those things is even worst and creates a dichotomy where the class is a beast if its fighting in the right place or against the right enemy but if its not it becomes a de-clawed kitten.

[Nifft]

Yeah. As written it's broken.

I don't think we need the ranger to be all 'super stealth'. I do like having a super stealth option for the Ranger.

Wilderninja could be one viable archetype.

I just don't like it as a core part of every Ranger.

[Ralanr]

I really don't get why people say the class will be abusable in multiclassing. If this does evolve into a full class I have a feeling that a lot of these abilities will be much more spread out and rewritten.

So far it gives the feel of someone with supernaturally quick reflexes and an animal spirit buddy hanging around. As people have pointed out, it does not feel like a ranger.

As I've said before, Ranger falls into that category of being magical or being mundane in a large amount of settings. When you think of a fighter you have an image of a guy with a sword and no magic yet he's fighting a dragon. Paladin? Weapons that glow with holy might and they themselves are surrounded by holy auras. Monk is a guy from the east that likes to kick people, rogue is your local resident of the hive of scum and villainy.

Rangers? Either guy with a bow/two melee weapons (often swords), pet/animal companion, and lives in the woods. Or guy with magical version of the previous.

Actually I never imagine the magical version. Why must rangers be magical?!

[-Jynx-]

All this hate for Ambuscade, but how is this that much more broken than say superiority dice?

If at 3rd level you get 4 superiority dice (which are d8s with either extra damage, or a condition attached to them) and you use just one per combat which recharge on a short rest... (I mean do you normally have more than 4 encounters per short rest?) How farther ahead is ambuscade really?

[Malifice]

I really don't get why people say the class will be abusable in multiclassing. If this does evolve into a full class I have a feeling that a lot of these abilities will be much more spread out and rewritten.

So far it gives the feel of someone with supernaturally quick reflexes and an animal spirit buddy hanging around. As people have pointed out, it does not feel like a ranger.

As I've said before, Ranger falls into that category of being magical or being mundane in a large amount of settings. When you think of a fighter you have an image of a guy with a sword and no magic yet he's fighting a dragon. Paladin? Weapons that glow with holy might and they themselves are surrounded by holy auras. Monk is a guy from the east that likes to kick people, rogue is your local resident of the hive of scum and villainy.

Rangers? Either guy with a bow/two melee weapons (often swords), pet/animal companion, and lives in the woods. Or guy with magical version of the previous.

Actually I never imagine the magical version. Why must rangers be magical?!

Rangers are magical in DND because they always have been.

They even got limited magic user (wizard) spells in 1E.

They've never modelled Aragorn well. And it's always been a gripe of many

[Nifft]

All this hate for Ambuscade
What?

I love Ambuscade.

I just think it should give more benefit to a Ranger 15 than it does for a Fighter 11 / Rogue 3 / Ranger 1.

[DanyBallon]

People didn't like Favoured enemy/terrain because depending on the adventure being run you'd get large swathes of time where those abilities were irrelevant, tying combat abilities to those things is even worst and creates a dichotomy where the class is a beast if its fighting in the right place or against the right enemy but if its not it becomes a de-clawed kitten.

Tying these abilities to favored enemy or terrain will only get burst of damage in the right condition much like smite is not always available to Paladin. If these abilities were the only potable damage source then I would agree with you, but P
HB ranger is a strong class (with clunky mechanic for beast master, still pretty decent damage output). In our playtest we will add these ability on top of the PHB Ranger, so you still get spellcasting, and other archetype feature

[-Jynx-]

What?

I love Ambuscade.

I just think it should give more benefit to a Ranger 15 than it does for a Fighter 11 / Rogue 3 / Ranger 1.

But again I look at superiorty dice. How much more broken is ambuscade than the battlemasters dice at 3rd level? I would imagine they do very close to the same damage or at least equally as useful. Not to forget that the BM still has ea use of action surge before his rest as well.

[sigfile]

All this hate for Ambuscade, but how is this that much more broken than say superiority dice?

If at 3rd level you get 4 superiority dice (which are d8s with either extra damage, or a condition attached to them) and you use just one per combat which recharge on a short rest... (I mean do you normally have more than 4 encounters per short rest?) How farther ahead is ambuscade really?

The superiority dice will usually inflict some sort of save-or-bad effect and bonus damage. They're really good. And, yes, you get them back with a short rest. But you can only spend one per triggering attack, and the resulting effects tend to skew in favor of giving the rest of the party more options (ally gets a free attack, enemy is left prone, enemy is disarmed...).

Ambuscade grants a first+ level ranger a full round of actions before anyone else for free every single encounter. And since the UA ranger is pushed heavily towards dex, it stands a good chance of going first in the first actual round, too. At level one that's potentially four attacks - each capable of dropping a level-appropriate critter (kobold) - plus two movement actions plus two interaction events before anyone else gets to act. That's great fun... for the ranger player.

Spells and multiclassing make it even more "It's All About Me!"; a sixth level character (fighter 5 / ranger 1) with Haste could be looking at ten attacks before anyone else gets to blink.

[Nifft]

But again I look at superiorty dice. How much more broken is ambuscade than the battlemasters dice at 3rd level? I would imagine they do very close to the same damage or at least equally as useful. Not to forget that the BM still has ea use of action surge before his rest as well.

Well, you get the full benefit for one level instead of three, for one thing.

It stacks with Fighter bonus actions, for another thing -- just Action Surge during the bonus round. You can't Action Surge to get double benefit from the same number of Battle Master dice, only to spend them faster. And yeah, faster spending is a benefit, but it's less a benefit than getting double value without expending any additional resource.

What I'm suggesting is to require more commitment to get the full value from Ambuscade, and IMHO that's enough to ensure that single-class Rangers don't feel really dumb when standing next to another class who just took a one-level dip.

[TopCheese]

WotC just released a plytest variant of the Ranger class

UA Ranger variant (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DX_0907_UA_RangerOptions.pdf)

Seems interesting so far; 2d6 hit die is quite interesting as it will allow a bigger hit dice pool for healing on short rest. I like the ambuscade and skirmisher stealth mechanic, but I think the later might be abuse by MC Ranger/Rogue, as far as Spirit path and companion I'm not sure about it. The loss of spellcasting is something to consider as well

Absolutely loving the ranger and where they seem to want to go with martials... If we can get better Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues then we can have us a game!

What I'm wondering is if they will make a spell-less Paladin *coughCrusadercough*.

[Ashrym]

I really don't like it. I do appreciate the spirit totem animal companion and that seems to fit more anime style characters, and I could see that as the basis for a great 3rd subclass concept.


First, I think 2d6 hit dice is overly complicated if the goal was better short rest healing. Just leaving that at d10 was fine and giving a bonus healing die at 4 different levels accomplished the same effect. Second, skirmisher's stealth is an awkward limited form of cunning action that appears to be meant for flavor that would have been simpler to simply give cunning action and relabel it. Third, two good saves breaks the one good save rule and increases the benefit of the ranger splash dips. Finally, ambuscade really is too powerful for a 1st level ranger ability and is basically giving thief's reflexes at level 1 for splashing.

I would just continue playing a hunter ranger, personally, because I'm familiar with and appreciate the shamanistic hunter style of ranger and it is plays well in my opinion. I think the only changes that would have been appropriate are adjustments to the clunky restrictions on the beastmaster pet actions; maybe adding some spells to the ranger list and maybe sharing the hp pool of the beastmaster with the companion somehow. I would probably be just as happy with a spell-less ranger that has a spellcasting subclass like fighters and rogues, tbh. This UA variant seems like a downgrade in the ranger concept to me and less ranger-like.


For players who do like it, I would swap the ambuscade ability with the primeval awareness ability as pretty much a requirement to maintain the ability for rangers quickly but drop the splash factor. Primeval awareness is a weaker ability that still carries flavor for 1st level and 3rd level isn't far for ambuscade but a 3 level dip can be fairly significant. It looks like an 11th level ability to me.

I would also recommend replacing the skirmisher's stealth ability with the cunning action ability but keeping the name, keeping the PHB save proficiencies, and keeping d10 hit dice but adding a pool of dice for bonus healing during short rests that increases based on ranger level.

[PhantomRenegade]

Tying these abilities to favored enemy or terrain will only get burst of damage in the right condition much like smite is not always available to Paladin. If these abilities were the only potable damage source then I would agree with you, but PHB ranger is a strong class (with clunky mechanic for beast master, still pretty decent damage output). In our playtest we will add these ability on top of the PHB Ranger, so you still get spellcasting, and other archetype featureThe comparison is unfair and we were talking about the variant ranger as is not with its abilities tacked on top of the regular ranger's abilities.

Sure the paladin might not have smite all the time but he expends his ability to use smite however he pleases, on the other hand if you tied the variant ranger's abilities to favoured enemy and favoured terrain his uses of said abilities would be entirely in the hands of the DM, and given that the variant ranger doesnt get any of the PHB ranger abilities you'd basically be tying his whole kit to the whims of the DM, which would be awful.

[KorvinStarmast]

{scrubbed}

And if you disagree that the Ranger has always been a Martial Woodsmam Ninja w/ Divine Magic then that's fine, wrong, but fine. Maybe in 2e they were different but since 3e this is exactly how they are (some with less and more of different qualities, 4e tones down the divine magic and have it to the Seeker in the form of Primal Magic).
Ranger did not start as any kind of ninja. Ranger was always a martial, was originally a stud fighter with some spells. Reference is OD&D (Strategic Review) and 1e AD&D. The class was also kind of hard to qualify for until the revised rolling rules in 1e Unearthed Arcana.

[Ashrym]

Ranger did not start as any kind of ninja. Ranger was always a martial, was originally a stud fighter with some spells. Reference is OD&D (Strategic Review) and 1e AD&D. The class was also kind of hard to qualify for until the revised rolling rules in 1e Unearthed Arcana.

I think the better surprise benefits were meant to simulate ninja stealth back in 1e.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think the better surprise benefits were meant to simulate ninja stealth back in 1e.Nope. Nothing to do with ninja. Ninja came later. Woodsman, outdoorsman, ranger, Robin Hood and his merry men, Faramir and his Rangers of Ithilien.

As to playtesting:
@DanyBallon

We got a new ranger character joining tonight and we will test some of the UA ranger abilities, but they would be modified as follow (I'm not the DM so I wasn't the one having the final call)

I don't think it's playtesting unless you are playing it as written.

[Alerad]

So far I like the new Ranger. There are of course some abilities ripe for abuse, but I guess they'll get nerfed over time. The concept looks strong on purpose, to make people want to try it out.

Hit Dice: 2d6/level. "Having a higher total number of Hit Dice means a ranger can more efficiently heal with short rests, providing finer control over how much healing to shoot for when spending Hit Dice". (1d6+Con) per die recovery, (2d6+Con) hitpoints per level. Works great for downtime recovery and makes the Ranger the most self-sufficient character. Kind of incorporates using poultices and herbal medicine. Take the Durable feat and 20 Con for maximum abuse (you always recover 11, maybe 12 hitpoints per Hit Die - a pool of 440 - 480 hitpoints at level 20).
I see nothing broken about it (I'm not being sarcastic), it shows one of the Ranger's strengths.

Saving Throws: Dexterity, Wisdom. Makes you more durable, again. Take the Resilient (Constitution) feat in combination with the above for maximum abuse.
Having its Protection spells removed, it's not much of an abuse. For comparison - Barbarian has Advantage on Str, Dex saves, proficient in Str and Con, and depending on the path cannot be charmed while raging.

Loss of Medium armor - the best medium armor gives you Disadvantage on your Stealth anyway. You can also take it as a feat, or multiclass for 1 level.

Ambuscade - I like it, but it can be abused, especially with Assassin. Not clear how it works with Surprise, but here's my speculation:
- Your special turn takes place before others. So:
(You surprised them): Ambuscade -> Surprise round -> Regular rounds. Assassin's auto-crit applies twice (they are not Surprised after the Surprised round, otherwise the distinction in the Assassin's ability description wouldn't be needed).
(They surprised you): Surprise round -> Regular round.
(They surprised you, but you have the Alert feat): Since you can't be surprised, you "wouldn't be normally surprised" and you don't lose Ambuscade. Ambuscade -> Surprise round -> Regular rounds. If you win initiative, you get to shoot them twice before they act. (Four times with double Attack action). Assassin isn't auto-crit because they're not surprised, but it still grants you Advantage and Sneak Attack.

For maximum abuse take 3 levels of Assassin and the Alert feat. Might be a little OP. I would probably limit it to Wis/day or once/short rest.

Skirmisher's Stealth. Now you can remain hidden from your target after your first attack, and also get Advantage on your second attack (at Level 5 when you can attack twice). Now you can hide in the bushes, jump out, approach your target and still be hidden (otherwise he sees you when you jump out). Other enemies will see you and shout out warnings, but to no avail. Very good for roleplaying a stealthy skirmisher. At the end of your turn, you're not hidden anymore, but you can take a bonus action to Hide again - jump out, attack, hide in the bushes again. Rogues can hide as a bonus action too, among other things, so it's not a big deal. Being hidden from your target no matter what is huge though. With Rogue's expertise and reliable talent it's ripe for abuse. If you're a Wood Elf the Skulker feat is now officially obsolete. Even if you're not Wood Elf taking 2 levels in Ranger is still better.

Primeval Awareness - probably X/day, like the Paladin's Divine Sense.

Spirit Path - I like it, at least I don't dislike it more than Find Familiar. In generally I find the idea of having spirits as pets not as cool as having real pets, but mechanically I find it good. Can you ride your Giant Eagle? Of course you can. Fly/Feather fall once/day at level 3.

[Steampunkette]

The stealthy bit is, for me, the best part of this ranger. Stealthy strikes will make for awesome skirmishing.

[Malifice]

The stealthy bit is, for me, the best part of this ranger. Stealthy strikes will make for awesome skirmishing.

Too awesome is my issue.

[Steampunkette]

Everyone has to be awesome at something.

[Giant2005]

Everyone has to be awesome at something.

That is probably why Malifice was complaining about an ability which makes everyone else crappy at everything against the Ranger.

[Malifice]

Everyone has to be awesome at something.

I see it as a class with an identity crisis.

'Stealthy striker ambush' type is the domain of the Rogue. 'Tanky in your face warrior' type is the domain of the Fighter.

It also has no ties to its prior incarnations. Im not opposed to killing the sacred cow, but Im not persuaded this is the way to go.

For a great example of how to design it, look at the Monk. It has a clearly defined role in the game (precision guided high mobility BBEG stun lock delivery system). It's a high mobility striker best used against high profile targets (particularly spellcasters) to lock them down.

The Ranger has a clear role outside of combat in the Exploration pillar. Id like to see a fair bit of stuff (bonus action search, wilderness explorer, wilderness lore, expertise like the Bard, perception buffs, track, forage, monster lore etc crammed in). Thats all fairly non controversial.

For the social pillar side look at things that fits the 'rugged outdoorsy survivalist' type; you dont need much here - most peeps that play a Ranger tend towards the lone wolf types (and Rangers generally) are depicted as not being social skill gurus. This is the domain of the Bard.

In a nutshell (barring a combat role) it needs: 'Exploration pillar - best in the game, along with the Rogue;' 'Social pillar: mediocre at best'

That high exploration/low social pillar stuff needs to be tacked onto a base chassis that has a clear role in combat pillar of the game. As long as the base chassis is OK (martial weapon proficiency, fighting style, extra attack at 5th, high HD) then something as simple as giving it a favored enemy bonus (say Wisdom to damage v Favored enemies, bonus language) for a rage equivalence is OK (and carries on a tradition since 1E).

Add a few extra bennies along the way to bolster it (similar to brutal critical, imroved smite) and get it to a baseline of 'situationally amazing, but otherwise good but not as good as a Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin' chassis to work off. Tacking an archetype on top of that, and we have a class.

I'd look at the following three archetypes:

1) Hunter (more martial focus as the current Hunter) - abilities that make it the Aragorn/ Drizzt we have always wanted.
2) Beastmaster (a better version of the archetype as written) for peeps that want a pet animal.
3) Warden (Spellcasting ranger with a Druidic focus - like the EK or Arcane trickster) to maintain the Rangers spellcasting - just as an option.

Thats what I would be looking at personally,

[Steampunkette]

You're looking for a woodland focused support rogue. Which is great. We have that, already, with the first Ranger.

For me, this is a better class because it's an ambushing skirmisher who weaves through combat and is self reliant in the wildlands, a scout and a scoundrel, Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

It's a very different character, to be sure. Maybe just change the name and make it a separate class that plays in an interesting new way.

[Malifice]

You're looking for a woodland focused support rogue. Which is great. We have that, already, with the first Ranger.

For me, this is a better class because it's an ambushing skirmisher who weaves through combat and is self reliant in the wildlands, a scout and a scoundrel, Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

It's a very different character, to be sure. Maybe just change the name and make it a separate class that plays in an interesting new way.

Sorry, who's the Rogue again?

[Steampunkette]

The one who spends his time making search and knowledge or charisma checks instead of setting up ambushes for encroaching armies and relaying information back to the front lines while engaging in guerrilla warfare...

Rangers lead the way!

[Malifice]

The one who spends his time making search and knowledge or charisma checks instead of setting up ambushes for encroaching armies and relaying information back to the front lines while engaging in guerrilla warfare...

Rangers lead the way!

Any reason why the Ranger can't just be a Fighter archetype like it was back in 1e?

Favored enemy, track, expertise in survival, perception or stealth, wilderness lore, forage, improved favoured enemy etc could all just be archetype abilities that tack onto the standard Fighter chassis.

If you want more stealth - dip Rogue.

[Steampunkette]

No reason at all, really.

I think the only reason it was ever separated out is Drizzle and the massive nerdgasm of his mostly teenage fanbase squealing over his self congratulatory angst of being the only special snowflake drow good guy in the whole wide world.

[Ralanr]

No reason at all, really.

I think the only reason it was ever separated out is Drizzle and the massive nerdgasm of his mostly teenage fanbase squealing over his self congratulatory angst of being the only special snowflake drow good guy in the whole wide world.

...wow. Where did that come from?

[DanyBallon]

Rangers are meant to be stealthy in their element, but peoples complained that limiting rangers abilities to it is to situationnal and make the ranger worthless most of the time. So WotC decide to give the ranger stealth that work all the time and now they are stepping on the rogue toes. Someday the community will need to figure out what they really want.

[Ralanr]

Rangers are meant to be stealthy in their element, but peoples complained that limiting rangers abilities to it is to situationnal and make the ranger worthless most of the time. So WotC decide to give the ranger stealth that work all the time and now they are stepping on the rogue toes. Someday the community will need to figure out what they really want.

Considering how the community is made up of individuals, that's not really possible.

[DanyBallon]

About our game yesterday, here is my first impression of how it turn out.
*we use PHB ranger with 2d6 HD, no medium armor, modified Amuscade that allow only half movement + a single attack or the Hide action, and a modified Skirmisher's Stealth that can be use with only light or no armor

We were exploring a dungeon and the ranger was in front opening doors, so it limited the possibility for hiding, but Ambuscade seem to have been useful and not too powerful as we play it, but tend to slow the game a little bit as everyone is waiting for the ranger to act before everyone else get to into action. Once, against the BBEG, we had the evil guy speech before the start of the combat, and there was draperies hanging on the walls so when the combat started the ranger used ambuscade to hide behind those draperies while the BBEG was busy talking with our face. It then used it's Skirmisher's stealth against the BBEG for the rest of the combat. There was an argument at the table weither the hidding condition ended or not, and we ruled that it didn't for that combat but we'll need to sit and discussed it more. Skirmisher's Stealth against a single enemy is pretty strong as you don't need to fear any other one that the target that can't see you, and advantage is almost an auto success. Luckily for us, everyone manage to deal damage to the BBEG before he went down and we didn't feel outshine by the ranger. But it may end up problematic in other situation.

[Shining Wrath]

I'm coming around to the idea that this Ranger is a bit of a muddle. Let's look at the fluff of the features. What do these things say about the character?

2d6 HD: Rangers are tough, and recover quickly. That's standard for this class.
Martial weapons: Rangers are trained in fighting. Again, standard.
Herbalism kit: Rangers are accustomed to living off the land and making things they need from what they find. Not too unusual, this has an Aragorn flavor.
Saving throws: D, W. Dexterity an odd choice for the tough guy who lives off the land, exploring and taking what he needs from nature. Constitution seems more Ranger-ish. This is where the muddle begins.
Skills: Athletics but not Acrobatics even though Dexterity is a saving throw and the class has many features designed to emphasize Dex over Str. The muddle continues.
Equipment: TWF + bow but you can go with shield if you want. Sounds like a Ranger.
Ambuscade: Rangers are attuned to their surroundings. You do not successfully sneak up on Rangers. They often sneak up on you. This seems very Aragorn, again, but it makes multi-classing very powerful. I think it has good fluff, though, which is what we're talking about.
Natural Explorer: Standard Ranger - the guy who lives in nature so much it's second nature to him.
Fighting Style: like martial weapons, this suggests the Ranger is adept at killing things.
Skirmisher's Stealth: This feels like Rogue. I can see this happening in a Ranger's terrain chosen with Natural Explorer - he knows Grasslands so well that he can always blend in to them - but a Ranger doing this in the middle of a dungeon room, empty except for the Ranger and her enemy - uh, no. It's not "attuned to surroundings", it's "expert at hiding from one enemy at a time who may be a construct or a fiend or something else unnatural". It feels off to me. Also, the fluff text refers to "speed and stealth in combat", but the Ranger gets no improvement to move. This feels muddled.
Primeval Awareness: This feels very Ranger. "Listen to the wind. Listen to the birds. Something is wrong".
Spirit Companion: This feels shaman, or druid. I think the Beastmaster pet makes more sense although the implementation was botched. A guy who can summon a spirit, but can't befriend a wolf, seems off. Another muddle in my opinion.

So what we wind up with is a tough high-dex fighter who can't take Acrobatics, is attuned to her surroundings, is an expert in living outdoors, and has learned how to hide in the middle of a fight and summon spirit companions. It seems like they stuck 2 or 3 ideas together and called it a Ranger. And in a game with multi-class option, Ambuscade and Skirmisher's Stealth are dip-bait. This harks back to 3.5 where martial classes got a lot of stuff front-loaded.

Give the Ranger back some casting, maybe with the Eldritch Knight 1/3 progression. Add the Spirit Companion as a spell. Drop Skirmisher's Stealth. Limit Ambuscade to L/2 times per long rest, where L is your Ranger level, so it's not quite such a strong dip for Rogues and Fighters.

[KorvinStarmast]

Skirmisher's Stealth: This feels like Rogue.
Nope. Feels exactly like a professional/veteran/crafty/canny soldier who fights well in any terrain and looks for the chance to use surprise as a force multiplier.

Rangers lead the way... which includes knowing how to apply the principles of warfare (http://www.wpi.edu/academics/military/prinwar.html).

Think about it: this UA kit is a step toward the Ranger returning to his roots as a better than standard fighter, particularly in the wilderness ... which if he's crafty, he can apply to the urban jungle as well, and the subterranean terrain as well.

So what we wind up with is a tough high-dex fighter who can't take Acrobatics ...
Ever heard of Backgrounds? If you want acrobatics so bad, use the background that provides it and then figure our your backstory from there. Entertainer provides acrobatics.

You can still use acrobatics, where needed, without all of the buffs, and Athletics for many of the checks a fighter needs in combat and exploring/adventuring situations.

[Shining Wrath]

Nope. Feels exactly like a professional/veteran/crafty/canny soldier who fights well in any terrain and looks for the chance to use surprise as a force multiplier.

Rangers lead the way... which includes knowing how to apply the principles of warfare (http://www.wpi.edu/academics/military/prinwar.html).

Think about it: this UA kit is a step toward the Ranger returning to his roots as a better than standard fighter, particularly in the wilderness ... which if he's crafty, he can apply to the urban jungle as well, and the subterranean terrain as well.

Ever heard of Backgrounds? If you want acrobatics so bad, use the background that provides it and then figure our your backstory from there. Entertainer provides acrobatics.

You can still use acrobatics, where needed, without all of the buffs, and Athletics for many of the checks a fighter needs in combat and exploring/adventuring situations.

Know what would say canny soldier who fights well in any terrain to me? Something like "If you move during your turn, you have a partial cover (+2 AC against missile attacks)". Or "You may ignore difficult terrain". Or "At the start of each turn, choose one creature that you can see. That creature cannot take a reaction to anything you do".

Not "While on the Plane of First Semester Physics Students, which is perfectly flat and without borders or features, you can hide from a Beholder trying to watch you with all 11 eyes which is hovering above a 20' wide infinitely deep hole such that you cannot possibly be beneath the Beholder, even though its 275 allies all know your exact position and are communicating that position clearly and concisely". That's not special forces, that's silly.

[Steampunkette]

...wow. Where did that come from?

I never liked Driz'zt. Ever. I thought he was a terribly written character from the start. The kind of psychological trauma he would have received from being raised in such a society would have manifested pretty clearly in a continuation of the violent hatefulness of the society, or at least into a serious difficulty of interacting with other people on an even keel.

Instead we get occasional self-flagellation and lots of angsty teen gothbro "No one understands me" silliness in fitful spurts between him acting and interacting with people like a completely normal person, from the waving glee at seeing the child when he stumbled out of the underdark to his relationships with his friends. But the only one he trusts/loves/understands him/etc is the freaking panther... It's just so badly written! Like Dexter, the self-deluding serial killer.

And then there's Salvatore's writing. He describes fight sequences with Artemis Entreri in one of the early books of the Halfling Gem trilogy and it's just awful. There's no sense of positioning or angle. Half the time I don't know whether the characters are even supposed to be standing or floating, the way he describes them moving moment to moment.

All in all, the books and the character just annoy me to bits. And I don't get how they became -so- popular. It's right up there with Twilight and 50 Shades, for me: Terrible books that have mass appeal for mysterious reasons.

[acid_ninja]

Overall, my reaction is lukewarm. I like the 2d6 HD because it uses a quirk of the mechanics to give a useful and flavorful bonus.

The two 'good' saves is a rule that shouldn't be broken (but a class feature wouldn't go amiss: rogue, pally, fighter all get buffs to their saves - maybe something like Wis and Str to start with an evasion-like feature for Con saves?)

The problem is that the spirit guide and ambush stuff feel like two different subclasses that don't really go together. I don't like the idea of every single ranger being locked into having a pokemon. Stealthiness is a classic part of the class, though. I would limit movement in ambuscade and/or only allow a single melee weapon attack. Skirmisher's stealth makes me laugh a bit:

"Dude, where'd this arrow come from?"

"Seriously? You don't see the guy in the bushes over there?"

"See who?"

"Dude, I'm literally pointing at him and he just shot you again"

I'd like to echo the suggestions of others and just give them cunning action at second level, limited to hide, search, and use an object. That's the same number as the rogue gets; rogue keeps disengage, while the ranger gets a unique ability that no one else can have (bous action search) and also enables the Healer's kit-Healer feat combo (and really, that has 'ranger' written all over it, making them effective combat medics without spells - you'd still have to take the feat). It also allows for a bit of the 'trapper' as you can use that to throw out caltrops or ball bearings.

I'd pretty much give out the hunter archetype stuff for free and add new archetype features at 6, 9, 13, and 17 to make up for the loss of spells on the base class.

There needs to be a replacement for Beastmaster and a Pokemon/Spirit Guide thingy is as good an answer as any, I guess, even if it does feel a lot like a barbarian totem.

I'd like to see a Tempest archetype - something that makes the ranger the undisputed master of Two Weapon Fighting. Maybe a rend ability that lets you add a damage bonus if both weapons hit (Paladins and Clerics get a flat 1d8 damage bonus, I'd make this higher, maybe 2d8 or even 2d8+mod, to reflect the extra cost of the bonus action and the need for two hits), also allow them to make OAs with both weapons as a single reaction, maybe?

I don't worry too much about how balanced everything is with multiclassing as it's a playtest so more proof of concept - seeing what people like about the general direction of the ideas, not the finished product.

[MinotaurWarrior]

What do people think of the following changes:

Hit die: 2d4 - so, you have fewer HP at any one time, but still out heal anyone else.
Saves: Dex & Str - so they only have one good save
Ambuscade: On this turn you can act normally, except you cannot attack, ready, or cast spells. - So you are still are the guy who's sort of always on edge, but you don't get double assassinate, and don't take up too much time acting when nobody else can. I think starting of each combat where you want to be, and either hiding or dodging, seems good enough for first level.
Skirmisher Stealth: you only remain hidden from the enemy at the end of the turn if the enemy cannot see you. - just to add an element of common sense.
Spirit Companion: You have a CR0 animal as your companion. It is always present, and can be recovered on a long rest. It benefits from Ambuscade and Skirmisher stealth. It also gets your proficiency bonus on Wisdom (Perception) Checks - So that you're not doing the weird pokemon thing. CR0 seems right to me, but I'm sure this is the feature I'm being silliest about. A goat, dealing 5 damage with a rider, with a +6 to hit, often having advantage on attacks, seems about right for a pet that contributes without being overwhelming. This also allows for free searching in a way I think is much cooler than bonus action searching (have your Jackal or Owl find the enemy for you).
Natural Awareness & Fighting Style: Switch places - To smooth out the removal of Ambuscade attacks.
Primeval Awareness: #times / day equal to your wisdom modifier, lasts for a number of minutes equal to your proficiency bonus. - just so it works.


So, this strikes me as a bit more balanced than the playtest version, while using mostly the same ideas, and creating a bit less of an uneven play experience. But maybe I'm being a fool, so that's why I'd love to hear others feedback.

[DanyBallon]

About Ambuscade, we (our DM and the players around the table) talked about it, the ranger's player absolutely love it but understand that the other players are bothered that we just sit and watch while he get it's extra turn. So we come up with an agreement. On the next session, we will modify Ambuscade to be usable only once per rest, but we will give back the full turn, instead of limiting to half-movement and only a single attack.

As for Skirmisher's Stealth, we haven't decide yet, but having to rehide after your attack would be a good compromise. This will force the ranger character to be tactical in the mean that he'll need to get into a situation that will allow him to hide enforcing the idea of mobility (in theory you could be static and still be able to hide, but most of the time you'll need to move into an other location), and at the same time prevent some abuse when there is only a single enemy as ther is always a chance to fail a stealth check.

[R.Shackleford]

I never liked Driz'zt. Ever. I thought he was a terribly written character from the start. The kind of psychological trauma he would have received from being raised in such a society would have manifested pretty clearly in a continuation of the violent hatefulness of the society, or at least into a serious difficulty of interacting with other people on an even keel.

Instead we get occasional self-flagellation and lots of angsty teen gothbro "No one understands me" silliness in fitful spurts between him acting and interacting with people like a completely normal person, from the waving glee at seeing the child when he stumbled out of the underdark to his relationships with his friends. But the only one he trusts/loves/understands him/etc is the freaking panther... It's just so badly written! Like Dexter, the self-deluding serial killer.

And then there's Salvatore's writing. He describes fight sequences with Artemis Entreri in one of the early books of the Halfling Gem trilogy and it's just awful. There's no sense of positioning or angle. Half the time I don't know whether the characters are even supposed to be standing or floating, the way he describes them moving moment to moment.

All in all, the books and the character just annoy me to bits. And I don't get how they became -so- popular. It's right up there with Twilight and 50 Shades, for me: Terrible books that have mass appeal for mysterious reasons.

Holy carp I'm not the only one that sees those books for the crap they are!

But I'm actually not sure why the ranger and Paladin for that matter aren't just subclasses for Fighter and Rogue.

They should have made 4 classes then have everyone else be subclasses.

Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard.

Then have most classes have subclasses that overlap but are different.

Wizard subclass "Ranger" would be that weird prestige class from 3e that combined the two.

Cleric subclass Ranger would just be the Druid.

Ranger subclass Ranger would be a sneaky shabby 4e ranger.

Fighter Subclass ranger would be the tough type. 4e ranger "Warden".

[Mechaviking]

If they want it to hit hard in the first round of combat there are less a abuseable ways of doing it.

There is no assasin ever that wouldn't take 2 levels in this class.

It would be the most broken thing ever.

This is already possible with fighter 2 giving you action surge, however action surge won´t give you sneak attack.

So lets see

Assassin 5 vs Assassin 3/UA ranger 2

Assassin 5 is:
8d6+4 and a 2d6 assuming hits and dual wielding, attack bonus +7, 39 AVG

Assassin 3/UA ranger 2
6d6+3 and 2d6+3 assuming hits and dual wielding, attack bonus +6, 34 AVG
6d6+3 and 2d6+3 assuming first after that and dual wielding, attack bonus +6 34 AVG

The damage drops a bit if you are using a bow but is more accurate, also these attacks have advantage so they are very likely to hit, this assumes that ambuscade and assassinate stack which they might, seeing as the wording on ambuscade is special turn before other creatures act. Then again the special in special turn might mean it doesn´t. This is why there are playtests, this can be clarified later.

As to whether it´s the most broken thing ever?

This will probably one shot a lot of creatures if the start of battle is further away it doesn´t really work, except with a bow reducing the damage slightly.

What if the original ambush target was a feint or an illusion? That´ll probably never happen... right?

Also at level 6 you can be assassin 3/Sorcerer 3 and double scorching ray **** for 24D6(84 AVG) fire damage I´ve never seen anyone do that yet, but that burns through all your ****, still this is a pretty interesting game of who´s the better killer :D, not many people whom I´ve played with play rogue or have even come close to thinking about that :D, tack on warlock 3 and you can even doi it every encounter :D, or do 4 advantage autocritting eldritch blasts :D

Yup it´s pretty broken in the vacuum of optimal rules, so lets continue the discussion and help the developers out :D

[Malifice]

Assassin 5 vs Assassin 3/UA ranger 2

Assassin 5 is:
8d6+4 and a 2d6 assuming hits and dual wielding, attack bonus +7, 39 AVG

Assassin 3/UA ranger 2
6d6+3 and 2d6+3 assuming hits and dual wielding, attack bonus +6, 34 AVG
6d6+3 and 2d6+3 assuming first after that and dual wielding, attack bonus +6 34 AVG

Don't forget with a high enough initiative on a surprised creature, it's actually three turns in a row (ambuscade, then surprise round, then 1st actual round) before the creature gets a turn in response.

And here's the kicker - thanks to Skirmishers Stealth + expertise in Stealth + bonus action Hide, when the target gets a turn (assuming it's still alive)... it cant even fight back or even target you with an attack even if it's friends point out where you are.


Also at level 6 you can be assassin 3/Sorcerer 3 and double scorching ray **** for 24D6(84 AVG) fire damage I´ve never seen anyone do that yet, but that burns through all your ****, still this is a pretty interesting game of who´s the better killer :D, not many people whom I´ve played with play rogue or have even come close to thinking about that :D, tack on warlock 3 and you can even doi it every encounter :D, or do 4 advantage autocritting eldritch blasts :D

AFB but pretty sure Assassinate only works on weapon attacks and not spell attacks. You definitely don't get sneak attack on spell attacks.

[acid_ninja]

Guys, remember that this is a playtest. Don't judge the class based on how bad you can break it with multiclassing. It's 5 levels - it's still in Beta. Don't try to break it, try to use it. There is no way that the final class will look anything like this. They're clearly simultaneously testing a few ideas: the idea of animal companion as combat-capable-familiar, the idea of adding more stealth and rogue-like abilities, adding barbarian stuff, etc.

The question being asked is, "What do you want the ranger to be", not "How much can you break this non-official, still in playtest rule".

Of course there are unintended consequences, but that's missing the forest for the trees.

[R.Shackleford]

Guys, remember that this is a playtest. Don't judge the class based on how bad you can break it with multiclassing. It's 5 levels - it's still in Beta. Don't try to break it, try to use it. There is no way that the final class will look anything like this. They're clearly simultaneously testing a few ideas: the idea of animal companion as combat-capable-familiar, the idea of adding more stealth and rogue-like abilities, adding barbarian stuff, etc.

The question being asked is, "What do you want the ranger to be", not "How much can you break this non-official, still in playtest rule".

Of course there are unintended consequences, but that's missing the forest for the trees.

If you don't judge it as if it was official then it may become official even though you really wouldn't want it to.

Kinda like political elections, if you don't take them seriously during the primary, you may end up with an elected official that isn't good for your area.

[KorvinStarmast]

Or "At the start of each turn, choose one creature that you can see. That creature cannot take a reaction to anything you do".
That's similar to what the rule says now. I like your idea on the move with partial cover, though I suspect the "it is overpowered" whining would start immediately.

Not sure where this comes from.
Not "While on the Plane of First Semester Physics Students, which is perfectly flat and without borders or features, you can hide from a Beholder trying to watch you with all 11 eyes which is hovering above a 20' wide infinitely deep hole such that you cannot possibly be beneath the Beholder, even though its 275 allies all know your exact position and are communicating that position clearly and concisely".
That's not special forces, that's silly. OK, that scenario isn't what the rule states, and I don't understand why you tried to associate that load of nonsense with my post.

More to the point, any DM who implemented the proposed turn applicaiton in that manner ought not to be running a game.

I'd offer that whomever forgets rule 0, and the KISS principle, is missing part of the point.

PS: this UA reflavoring is still rough, but I think that a Ranger having some combat advantages fits the core concept pretty well.

I am not sure if it was you or someone else, upthread, but the comment that the Ranger class is looking for its place strikes me as correct. What they tried to do with the Ranger in 5e still strikes me as "hmmm, not quite right" so far.

[Nifft]

Guys, remember that this is a playtest. Don't judge the class based on how bad you can break it with multiclassing. It's 5 levels - it's still in Beta. Don't try to break it, try to use it.

Er.

A valuable function of testing is trying to break things.

If a thing is easy to break, then that's a thing which needs to be fixed so that it does not break.

Tests can be failed -- and if this fails, that's useful feedback.

[R.Shackleford]

Er.

A valuable function of testing is trying to break things.

If a thing is easy to break, then that's a thing which needs to be fixed so that it does not break.

Tests can be failed -- and if this fails, that's useful feedback.

I wouldn't say that easily broken is a failed test. The test was successful, it just has results that weren't favorable to you or someone else, however some people may like the idea of a broken Ranger to fit in with the Cleric and Wizards of the game.

[Ralanr]

I wouldn't say that easily broken is a failed test. The test was successful, it just has results that weren't favorable to you or someone else, however some people may like the idea of a broken Ranger to fit in with the Cleric and Wizards of the game.

But we're trying to make 5e as balanced as possible. That's why casters have concentration.

[R.Shackleford]

But we're trying to make 5e as balanced as possible. That's why casters have concentration.

Then the test parameters are flawed, 5e is only balanced when you compare it to 3e. It is still broken, just not as broken as the defacto broken game.

Concentration could work as a balancing mechanic if it was applied to all the spells it should be (Spiritual Weapon, etc). However even with concentration casters are not balanced to non-casters.

This is fine for some people, if this is what you want then have at it. Embrace it. Don't pretend that it doesn't exist though.

Also when you have classes that can be built to become any type of character and others that can be one type of character then you have issues.

Clerics and Wizards can become any sort of character, effectively, Fighters and Barbarians become one type of characters effectively.

You can't make a good defender fighter because no matter what the fighter gets one reaction. The cleric with Spirit Guardian gets their reaction and has a great spell boosting their defensive capabilities. Even with concentration the Cleric is essentially breaking the action economy.

I'm not sure why people are afraid of broken martials but don't blink an eye at broken casters.

[Shining Wrath]

That's similar to what the rule says now. I like your idea on the move with partial cover, though I suspect the "it is overpowered" whining would start immediately.

Not sure where this comes from. OK, that scenario isn't what the rule states, and I don't understand why you tried to associate that load of nonsense with my post.

More to the point, any DM who implemented the proposed turn applicaiton in that manner ought not to be running a game.

I'd offer that whomever forgets rule 0, and the KISS principle, is missing part of the point.

PS: this UA reflavoring is still rough, but I think that a Ranger having some combat advantages fits the core concept pretty well.

I am not sure if it was you or someone else, upthread, but the comment that the Ranger class is looking for its place strikes me as correct. What they tried to do with the Ranger in 5e still strikes me as "hmmm, not quite right" so far.

If you are hidden from the Beholder, you can do anything you want on your turn to the Beholder, no matter how many of its friends can see you and warn it you're coming. That seems wrong. And then you can hide again as a bonus action; upon reflection, though, the usual rules for Hide being a contest between Stealth and Perception ought to be in effect, I was taking the Hide as automatic. So that changes my objection from "abusively hidden all the time" to "lots of die rolls", which is considerably less serious.

I like the idea of the Ranger being the toughest gal in the party. I like the idea of Rangers being so attuned to their surroundings that they are difficult to surprise. I think the idea of "Rangers lead the way" is of people who try to avoid combat, but if you're smart, you'll avoid combat with them, because they can bring it.

The move = partial cover is a throwback to the 3.5 Scout, which got AC +2 if they moved at least 10'. I think the feel we're going for, of the astute warrior accustomed to scouting and fighting a "stick and move" style is some combination of stealth out of combat, mobility in combat, and ability to use terrain to advantage.

So I propose drop "Skirmisher's Stealth" and "Ambuscade". Replace them with:

level 1, the Ranger has Advantage on any roll to determine if they achieve surprise, or if they are surprised
level 2, the Ranger gains the ability to choose one creature at the start of their turn. That creature cannot take reactions against the Ranger until the end of the Ranger's turn. If this is too strong, "cannot take attacks of opportunity".
level 3, the Ranger's move increases by 5'
level 4, the Ranger gains partial cover and +2 to AC any round they move at least 10' in combat.
level 6, the Ranger gains Stealth as a proficient skill. If the Ranger is already proficient in Stealth, they gain Expertise in Stealth.
level 8, the Ranger is treated as lightly obscured any round they move at least 10' in combat, in addition to partial cover
level 10, the Ranger's move increases by 5'.


If the Ranger is fighting a Favored Enemy or in a Explorer Terrain, the benefit of level 4 increases to
"3/4 cover" and +5 to AC, and the benefit of level 8 goes to "heavily obscured". If in an Explorer Terrain, the Ranger cannot be surprised by anything not using high-level magic (DM decides what that is, but we're talking something like popping in from the Ethereal Plane, not using Silence + Invisibility).

[KorvinStarmast]

If you are hidden from the Beholder, you can do anything you want on your turn to the Beholder, no matter how many of its friends can see you and warn it you're coming. That seems wrong.
And revisit my previous response again.
Just as an aside:
(a) Initiative is a game mechanic, does that seem wrong too? Is your answer "but, Beholder!!!!!" or something else? Someone has to go first.

(b) When's the last time a single melee attack one-shotted a beholder?

And then you can hide again as a bonus action
True, but that isn't a guaranteed success is it? Hide requires a throw/check.

I was taking the Hide as automatic. So that changes my objection from "abusively hidden all the time" to "lots of die rolls", which is considerably less serious.Yay, we agree! :smallbiggrin:

Have you forwarded your suggestions to WoTC? Seems like some nice meat on those bones.

[R.Shackleford]

An
(b) When's the last time a single melee attack one-shotted a beholder?


Assasin Rogue seemed to be quite adept at ending beholders in one shot.

[Mechaviking]

Don't forget with a high enough initiative on a surprised creature, it's actually three turns in a row (ambuscade, then surprise round, then 1st actual round) before the creature gets a turn in response.

And here's the kicker - thanks to Skirmishers Stealth + expertise in Stealth + bonus action Hide, when the target gets a turn (assuming it's still alive)... it cant even fight back or even target you with an attack even if it's friends point out where you are.



AFB but pretty sure Assassinate only works on weapon attacks and not spell attacks. You definitely don't get sneak attack on spell attacks.

First two are totally valid points :D

Also I´m in front of the book and the book states advantage on attacks and any hit you score is a critical hit(vs surprised creatures), fyi that damage was scorching ray + quickened scorching ray no sneak attacks for spells as you stated.

[Edit]

Can´t quicken two rays captain :D

guess well have to default to scorching ray + something else :D

Unless you can cast scorching ray and then quickened scorching ray... Can we do that?

[SharkForce]

Unless you can cast scorching ray and then quickened scorching ray... Can we do that?
nope.

one of them needs to be a cantrip, or some action other than casting a spell.

[MeeposFire]

nope.

one of them needs to be a cantrip, or some action other than casting a spell.

Technically by RAW the bonus action spell would have to be scorching ray because if you cast a cantrip as a bonus action then your action must also be a cantrip. For example if you cast shillelagh then you cannot cast flame strike.

[R.Shackleford]

Technically by RAW the bonus action spell would have to be scorching ray because if you cast a cantrip as a bonus action then your action must also be a cantrip. For example if you cast shillelagh then you cannot cast flame strike.

One would think that with the goal of getting rid of finiky rules that such a issue wouldn't exist.

[Sindeloke]

It appears to be an accidental oversight as a result of their "things don't interact with other things" design policy.

[Ralanr]

Then the test parameters are flawed, 5e is only balanced when you compare it to 3e. It is still broken, just not as broken as the defacto broken game.

Concentration could work as a balancing mechanic if it was applied to all the spells it should be (Spiritual Weapon, etc). However even with concentration casters are not balanced to non-casters.

This is fine for some people, if this is what you want then have at it. Embrace it. Don't pretend that it doesn't exist though.

Also when you have classes that can be built to become any type of character and others that can be one type of character then you have issues.

Clerics and Wizards can become any sort of character, effectively, Fighters and Barbarians become one type of characters effectively.

You can't make a good defender fighter because no matter what the fighter gets one reaction. The cleric with Spirit Guardian gets their reaction and has a great spell boosting their defensive capabilities. Even with concentration the Cleric is essentially breaking the action economy.

I'm not sure why people are afraid of broken martials but don't blink an eye at broken casters.

Because Wizards does not have a good track history of balance that people like and are going to make mistakes along the way?

Why are people so frustrated when they make mistakes. I get it's annoying, but they aren't perfect in everything they do.

[MadBear]

Seems to me a simple line stating:
- The rangers actions do not benefit from abilities of other classes (rogue sneak attack, assassin's crit strike, paladin's smite, etc.)

Considering that the barbarian's rage ability already has something similar, this would still allow from ambuscade to be awesome while not allowing rogue's to benefit from it as much (the move might set them up for success during their actual turn, or maybe now they use ambuscade to shove ahead of time).

In other words, this ability can remain really flavorful and strong, without losing its niche in the ranger arsenal.

[Giant2005]

Seems to me a simple line stating:
- The rangers actions do not benefit from abilities of other classes (rogue sneak attack, assassin's crit strike, paladin's smite, etc.)

Considering that the barbarian's rage ability already has something similar, this would still allow from ambuscade to be awesome while not allowing rogue's to benefit from it as much (the move might set them up for success during their actual turn, or maybe now they use ambuscade to shove ahead of time).

In other words, this ability can remain really flavorful and strong, without losing its niche in the ranger arsenal.

The ability isn't a problem and doesn't really need to be changed - it is almost identical to the Thief's capstone although it is marginally more powerful.
The issue is the 5 level class showcase format that UA has been using of late. Because there are only 5 levels, the high level abilities are coming much sooner than they otherwise would be if it was released in its final format. It is an undeniably OP ability to have at level 1, but it is less-so when it arrives at level 17+ as it will almost certainly be in the final release.

[MeeposFire]

One would think that with the goal of getting rid of finiky rules that such a issue wouldn't exist.

One of my few houserules is to change this rule to read "in any turn in which you cast more than one spell and one of those spells are cast using a bonus action then at least one of those spells must be a cantrip" which prevents the timing from being an issue and also allows reaction spells to be cast during the turn as well.

[R.Shackleford]

Because Wizards does not have a good track history of balance that people like and are going to make mistakes along the way?

Why are people so frustrated when they make mistakes. I get it's annoying, but they aren't perfect in everything they do.

What are you talking about, they have a decent track record up until 5e. They started out baaad and then got better and better until the recent essentials/5e drop off.

3E: First shot, not sure if balanced mattered, they were trying to make Diablo.

3.5: Started off as 3e but eventually you could use tier 3 and 4 to make a very very balanced game. Martials and casters in those tiers were balanced just fine outside of extreme optimization.

4E: Blanaced pretty well with some minor exceptions.

4ee: Less balanced that 4e but still very balanced compared to 3e. Though the fighter was +do more damage+ we have martial classes like the ranger and rogue that had options outside of +do more damage+.

5e: Not balanced, took 4ee and kept going down the road of unbalanced in the same way.

I mean, yeah 3e was bad, but eventually it got to the point you could have a balanced martial/caster game. 4E was balanced. So their track record isn't really that terrible.

When people who don't get paid can make balanced, effective, and interesting classes one would expect people getting paid to have at least half as much ability to do the same.

I recently saw a playtest fighter that looked fantastic and didn't have a caster style Battle Master maneuver system attached to it. Their abilities actually grew, they needed a bit better abilities, but they didn't stagnate.

[DanyBallon]

What are you talking about, they have a decent track record up until 5e. They started out baaad and then got better and better until the recent essentials/5e drop off.

3E: First shot, not sure if balanced mattered, they were trying to make Diablo.

3.5: Started off as 3e but eventually you could use tier 3 and 4 to make a very very balanced game. Martials and casters in those tiers were balanced just fine outside of extreme optimization.

4E: Blanaced pretty well with some minor exceptions.

4ee: Less balanced that 4e but still very balanced compared to 3e. Though the fighter was +do more damage+ we have martial classes like the ranger and rogue that had options outside of +do more damage+.

5e: Not balanced, took 4ee and kept going down the road of unbalanced in the same way.

I mean, yeah 3e was bad, but eventually it got to the point you could have a balanced martial/caster game. 4E was balanced. So their track record isn't really that terrible.

When people who don't get paid can make balanced, effective, and interesting classes one would expect people getting paid to have at least half as much ability to do the same.

I recently saw a playtest fighter that looked fantastic and didn't have a caster style Battle Master maneuver system attached to it. Their abilities actually grew, they needed a bit better abilities, but they didn't stagnate.

4e was effectively the most balanced system. The major problem with 4e, is that it didn't feel like D&D anymore. While a good system, it had more the feel of a MMO than a TTRPG.

3e was a good improvement of the mechanics over the previous editions, it simplified combat and skill use and bring intersting new idea like feats. But, they also came up with one thing that pushed toward a greater martial/caster disparency, they start removing limitation on characters (wizards going from d4 to d6 HD, speel failure for wearing armor being removed, no more restriction on school of magic etc.) When they did so it was with good intentions, no one like to have harsh limitation built in their character. But by doing so you just gave caster more power, and they forgot to give martial classes an equivalent power up.

5e tried to get back the feel of 1e/2e D&D while keeping what's good came from 3.P and 4e, without having a rule heavy system. Unfortunately you can't go back to restrict classes and races, so they come up with new and interesting idea to boost martial, yet it might still not be enough.

[Nifft]

4e was effectively the most balanced system. The major problem with 4e, is that it didn't feel like D&D anymore. While a good system, it had more the feel of a MMO than a TTRPG. What's funny is that 4e -- with its interrupt actions all over the place -- would be a terrible MMO.

2e actually used MMO mechanics ("You have 9 seconds to interrupt the wizard's spellcasting animation!").

[DanyBallon]

What's funny is that 4e -- with its interrupt actions all over the place -- would be a terrible MMO.

2e actually used MMO mechanics ("You have 9 seconds to interrupt the wizard's spellcasting animation!").

You mean MMO made a better use of 2e interrupt mechanic, as MMOs came much more later :smallwink:

I didn't say 4e played like a MMO, I said it had the feel. Every character in 4e were geared toward fighting the next boss. The exploration, and to a certain extent, roleplaying aspect became secondary.

[R.Shackleford]

What's funny is that 4e -- with its interrupt actions all over the place -- would be a terrible MMO.

2e actually used MMO mechanics ("You have 9 seconds to interrupt the wizard's spellcasting animation!").

I always brought this up and no one ever listened (back when 4e first came out).

Even 3e was called videogamey, it was table top Diablo.

Calling 4e an MMO (in a bad way) is the pot calling the kettle black. Even when compared to 5e as it was mostly based off 2e3e (and essentials).

[Nifft]

You mean MMO made a better use of 2e interrupt mechanic, as MMOs came much more later :smallwink: Baldur's Gate invented 2e.

Yeah, you're right. I should have said 2e shares mechanics with MMOs.

[Malifice]

What are you talking about, they have a decent track record up until 5e. They started out baaad and then got better and better until the recent essentials/5e drop off.

3E: First shot, not sure if balanced mattered, they were trying to make Diablo.

3.5: Started off as 3e but eventually you could use tier 3 and 4 to make a very very balanced game. Martials and casters in those tiers were balanced just fine outside of extreme optimization.

4E: Blanaced pretty well with some minor exceptions.

4ee: Less balanced that 4e but still very balanced compared to 3e. Though the fighter was +do more damage+ we have martial classes like the ranger and rogue that had options outside of +do more damage+.

5e: Not balanced, took 4ee and kept going down the road of unbalanced in the same way.

I mean, yeah 3e was bad, but eventually it got to the point you could have a balanced martial/caster game. 4E was balanced. So their track record isn't really that terrible.

When people who don't get paid can make balanced, effective, and interesting classes one would expect people getting paid to have at least half as much ability to do the same.

I recently saw a playtest fighter that looked fantastic and didn't have a caster style Battle Master maneuver system attached to it. Their abilities actually grew, they needed a bit better abilities, but they didn't stagnate.

Can you stop slagging off/ critquing 5E in every thread you appear in and kicking off edition wars?

Please?

Seriously. We get it. We got it in your last dozen incarnations too.

[fishyfishyfishy]

4e was effectively the most balanced system. The major problem with 4e, is that it didn't feel like D&D anymore. While a good system, it had more the feel of a MMO than a TTRPG.

3e was a good improvement of the mechanics over the previous editions, it simplified combat and skill use and bring intersting new idea like feats. But, they also came up with one thing that pushed toward a greater martial/caster disparency, they start removing limitation on characters (wizards going from d4 to d6 HD, speel failure for wearing armor being removed, no more restriction on school of magic etc.) When they did so it was with good intentions, no one like to have harsh limitation built in their character. But by doing so you just gave caster more power, and they forgot to give martial classes an equivalent power up.

5e tried to get back the feel of 1e/2e D&D while keeping what's good came from 3.P and 4e, without having a rule heavy system. Unfortunately you can't go back to restrict classes and races, so they come up with new and interesting idea to boost martial, yet it might still not be enough.

The bolded portion is incorrect. Pathfinder gave wizards d6 HD but they were d4 in 3.5e. Spell failure for wearing armor was removed in 5e, not 3.5e. I cannot remember what it was in 4e despite DMing it for over a year. I think it was present in sone way, but it was not a % roll like 3.5e. As for school restrictions, I'm not entirely sure what you mean because specializing in a specific school requires giving up access to 2 other schools of magic.

The real brokenness of 3.5e was not the class design of full casters, but the spells themselves. They very quickly outstripped anything a non caster could hope to accomplish. And that is not even getting into the flawed feat design mentality they had.

[DanyBallon]

The bolded portion is incorrect. Pathfinder gave wizards d6 HD but they were d4 in 3.5e. Spell failure for wearing armor was removed in 5e, not 3.5e. I cannot remember what it was in 4e despite DMing it for over a year. I think it was present in sone way, but it was not a % roll like 3.5e. As for school restrictions, I'm not entirely sure what you mean because specializing in a specific school requires giving up access to 2 other schools of magic.

I wrote "start removing" restriction, then gave a few example of restriction that went down. I never pretend that 3e removed all of these at once.

[R.Shackleford]

Can you stop slagging off/ critquing 5E in every thread you appear in and kicking off edition wars?

Please?

Seriously. We get it. We got it in your last dozen incarnations too.

So you want people who come to 5e threads to have only nice things to say?

One could expect this though as it seems to be the way 5e was made. "If you have any objections then get the hell out"

Sorry but you don't own this forum (unless you are implying you are the giant) and being critical where critical is due is not a crime.

How about not looking at 5e with rose colored glasses?

I'm not kicking off edition wars, I have things I like about each edition I have played and I have things I hate. 5e seems to have potential and I would really like to have my opinion of it improved but so far that has not been the case.

I don't have a previous incarnations on this or any forum as I just joined this forum not long ago and never joined forums in the past (was a little bit of a lurker but I prefered real life conversations). If you are projecting feelings from another person on to me then that is your issue, not mine.

[obryn]

4e was effectively the most balanced system. The major problem with 4e, is that it didn't feel like D&D anymore. While a good system, it had more the feel of a MMO than a TTRPG.
Having run it since its release ... no, it feels like an RPG to us.


3e was a good improvement of the mechanics over the previous editions, it simplified combat and skill use and bring intersting new idea like feats. But, they also came up with one thing that pushed toward a greater martial/caster disparency, they start removing limitation on characters (wizards going from d4 to d6 HD, speel failure for wearing armor being removed, no more restriction on school of magic etc.) When they did so it was with good intentions, no one like to have harsh limitation built in their character. But by doing so you just gave caster more power, and they forgot to give martial classes an equivalent power up.
It removed limitations, but not the ones you're listing here. :smallsmile: The issues pop up with the general system overhaul, scaling of saving throws, and non-scaling of damage.


I cannot remember what it was in 4e despite DMing it for over a year. I think it was present in sone way, but it was not a % roll like 3.5e.
It's not really present at all; it isn't needed as a balancing mechanic. You just get penalties for wearing armor you're not proficient in. Because INT can modify AC while in Light armor, Wizards don't often bother with anything beyond Leather or the feat that gives you +2 to AC while in robes.

[KorvinStarmast]

Even 3e was called videogamey, it was table top Diablo
I don't quite see that. Diablo (the original) was a dungeon crawl with nominal story elements. (And I had immense fun with it!) Looks like a bit of an ouroboros if Diablo influenced the 3e design philosophy. We'd been using battle maps and grids for decades before 3e came out.

(I remember that I got a little D&D game/scenario with my order of the Diablo II collector's game ... memory fuzzy).

Hmmmm. A major revision of the AD&D rules was released in 2000. (D&D 3e) Diablo was released in 1997. It is a Rogue-like game that used real time to great success. I remember reading an article with one of the developers (Bill Roper?) about the decision at Condor/Blizzard North) on the final decision to go Real Time versus turn based.

While I am not sure if there's documented proof of such a connection, the release time lines allow for it.

[obryn]

I don't quite see that. Diablo (the original) was a dungeon crawl with nominal story elements. (And I had immense fun with it!) Looks like a bit of an ouroboros if Diablo influenced the 3e design philosophy. We'd been using battle maps and grids for decades before 3e came out.

(I remember that I got a little D&D game/scenario with my order of the Diablo II collector's game ... memory fuzzy).

Hmmmm. A major revision of the AD&D rules was released in 2000. (D&D 3e) Diablo was released in 1997. It is a Rogue-like game that used real time to great success. I remember reading an article with one of the developers (Bill Roper?) about the decision at Condor/Blizzard North) on the final decision to go Real Time versus turn based.

While I am not sure if there's documented proof of such a connection, the release time lines allow for it.
If it helps...

2e supplement, published in March 2000:
http://i.imgur.com/ls8Wbko.jpg

3e supplement, published in March 2001:
http://i.imgur.com/96KwX4z.jpg

[R.Shackleford]

Do note, I don't think videogamey is a bad thing. Videogames and TTRPGs have many things in common and if they can learn and grow from each other then more power to them.

Calling a TTRPG too videogamey is like calling a go cart too corvette-ish.

[Malifice]

So you want people who come to 5e threads to have only nice things to say?

If I was posting on a football fan forum, I wouldnt be posting about how much I dislike football.

Its OK to be critical man, but you literally slag off 5e in every thread youre in. That or slag odd 'martials' as being nothing more than DPR machines, or both.

Literally, every single thread.

The edition wars are over, and I dont particularly want to repeat them. This board has a 4e forum (which I dont visit as I have little nice to say about the game) and Im asking you nicely to post your stuff about 4e over there, or maybe create a 4e vs 5e thread and contain your posting about it there (or in threads dedicated to the topic).

Its just getting monotonous and rage inducing. We get it, you prefer 4E to 5E, dislike rule 0 and think casters are all kinds of broken at high levels and martials are just good at hitting the high numbers and have no variety.

Can we move on now? Please?

[R.Shackleford]

If I was posting on a football fan forum, I wouldnt be posting about how much I dislike football.

Its OK to be critical man, but you literally slag off 5e in every thread youre in. That or slag odd 'martials' as being nothing more than DPR machines, or both.

Literally, every single thread.

The edition wars are over, and I dont particularly want to repeat them. This board has a 4e forum (which I dont visit as I have little nice to say about the game) and Im asking you nicely to post your stuff about 4e over there, or maybe create a 4e vs 5e thread and contain your posting about it there (or in threads dedicated to the topic).

Its just getting monotonous and rage inducing. We get it, you prefer 4E to 5E, dislike rule 0 and think casters are all kinds of broken at high levels and martials are just good at hitting the high numbers and have no variety.

Can we move on now? Please?

I'm not pushing edition wars, you are. You are the only one bringing up a fight between whatever editions. In giving points of what I see from each, especially 5e, because I'm in a thread dedicated to 5e. If I start just saying critical things about 4e people will tell me to go to the 4e threads. I'm not here to learn/grow my knowledge of 4e, I'm here for 5e.

I didn't come to a 5e forum, I came to a TTRPG forum that has 5e subtopics.

If you can't handle critical thoughts on 5E then block me. If I say something critical then give reasons why I'm wrong, dontnjust tell me to leave because you can't handle critical thoughts on a game we both play.

[Giant2005]

{scrubbed}

[R.Shackleford]

{scrubbed}

I've never had an account on here before.

[Malifice]

I'm not pushing edition wars, you are. You are the only one bringing up a fight between whatever editions. In giving points of what I see from each, especially 5e, because I'm in a thread dedicated to 5e. If I start just saying critical things about 4e people will tell me to go to the 4e threads. I'm not here to learn/grow my knowledge of 4e, I'm here for 5e.

I didn't come to a 5e forum, I came to a TTRPG forum that has 5e subtopics.

If you can't handle critical thoughts on 5E then block me. If I say something critical then give reasons why I'm wrong, dontnjust tell me to leave because you can't handle critical thoughts on a game we both play.

Please stop? I dont want to hear about 4E here, and your constant sniping of 5E.

Please? Its really uncool man.

[R.Shackleford]

Please stop? I dont want to hear about 4E here, and your constant sniping of 5E.

Please? Its really uncool man.

Just because you hate something doesn't mean everyone has to keep quiet about it.

Whatever issues you have with 4e is your problem, not mine.

When I see 5e, especially a martial ranger, I'm going to compare it to previously seen rangers. My main experience is in 4e with a little in 3e and a bit in 2e (friends talk about it). If you have a problem with my experience and what I compare things to then block me.

I see this ranger and see a move in the right direction, making martials good again.

The 4e ranger had the +move and do damage+ problem that all official 5e martials have. They fixed the ranger in 4ee to not just be +i do damage+.

Am I supposed to just ignore my years of gaming and pretend it didn't happen just because you have 4e hate?

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean I have to not like it too. I don't care if you like certain aspects of 5e, that's your opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to like those aspects of 5e too.

[Malifice]

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean I have to not like it too. I don't care if you like certain aspects of 5e, that's your opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to like those aspects of 5e too.

Im not asking you to like 5E, im just asking you not to stink up every thread with 5E hate.

You wouldnt do it at a party, or join a meetup group just to turn up and slag off whatever the group was about the members enjoyed, so please dont do it here?

Not in every thread at least?

Please? Its really disrespectful, annoying and a crap thing to do to the rest of us who are trying to discuss 5E.

[R.Shackleford]

Im not asking you to like 5E, im just asking you not to stink up every thread with 5E hate.

You wouldnt do it at a party, or join a meetup group just to turn up and slag off whatever the group was about the members enjoyed, so please dont do it here?

Not in every thread at least?

Please? Its really disrespectful, annoying and a crap thing to do to the rest of us who are trying to discuss 5E.

I don't hate 5e, I hate parts of 5e, if you can't handle critical comments on 5e then block me.

Stop trying to moderate this subthread.

[Malifice]

I don't hate 5e, I hate parts of 5e, if you can't handle critical comments on 5e then block me.

Your signature literally infers you hate it.

Why waste your life, and create enemies, talking about something you dont like on a forum with people who do? You just keep creating aliases and come back repeating the same crap over and over and over and over again. Youre not fooling anyone. Its really weird, totally rude and kinda silly.


Stop trying to moderate this subthread.

Im not moderating, I'm asking you kindly to please stop. One person to another. Pleaase. Go to the 4E forums and bash 5E all you want. You're annoying everyone else on this forum with your repetitive making of the same point that no-one agrees with over and over and over and over again.

[-Jynx-]

Just because you hate something doesn't mean everyone has to keep quiet about it.

There is a 4e forum you know. It's not about whether people hate it or not, but if you clearly prefer 4e why not go brag it up in the forum for 4e rather than talk about it in the 5e forum ya dig?


Whatever issues you have with 4e is your problem, not mine.

Again, it's not about who has issues or not, this just ins't the place to be talking about 4e or comparing 5e in a negative light to other editions.


When I see 5e, especially a martial ranger, I'm going to compare it to previously seen rangers. My main experience is in 4e with a little in 3e and a bit in 2e (friends talk about it). If you have a problem with my experience and what I compare things to then block me.

You come off as 5e bashing though. All you're saying is how much more balanced other editions are (in your opinion) and how unbalanced (again your opinion) 5e is. If it's so unbalanced and just not your cup of tea we could all gladly show you the door.


I see this ranger and see a move in the right direction, making martials good again.

I agree, and it's awesome you like it. It seems to my understanding that the main quarrel regarding this new variant ranger is how balanced it is in comparison to other classes. I'm guessing you don't think its unbalanced since you seem to like it so much when ironically enough the main argument is reigning back ranger so that it isn't unbalanced in an edition you claim is so unbalanced.



Am I supposed to just ignore my years of gaming and pretend it didn't happen just because you have 4e hate?

I yield to your expansive omniscient understanding and experience. Thank goodness that in this sea of wrong you can be our shining beacon of right.



Just because you don't like something doesn't mean I have to not like it too. I don't care if you like certain aspects of 5e, that's your opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to like those aspects of 5e too.

That's fine, but there's no need to keep comparing it to its cousins. 5e is not 4e, it's not 3e and it's not 2e.

[R.Shackleford]

That's fine, but there's no need to keep comparing it to its cousins. 5e is not 4e, it's not 3e and it's not 2e.

Yes there is, I've seen what works and what doesn't work, how to get martials in two separate systems to be good.

If people like something I hate then I expect a better response than "sit down, shut up, and like what we like".

I'm trying to like more about 5E than what I do now, however the toxic attitude of "shut up, 3e4e didn't happen" makes me regret coming to this forum.

[obryn]

Im not moderating, I'm asking you kindly to please stop. One person to another. Pleaase. Go to the 4E forums and bash 5E all you want. You're annoying everyone else on this forum with your repetitive making of the same point that no-one agrees with over and over and over and over again.
He or she is not annoying me, at least. Except for this back and forth bickering that you're both complicit in.

Really, if Shackleford is bothering you, just block them. Please.

[Kryx]

You can't block people on GiantITP.

[Nifft]

You can't block people on GiantITP.

http://imgur.com/eRvAqi0

That "ignore" link does nothing?

(I haven't actually tried ignoring anyone.)

[Kryx]

Damn, I tried finding that forever a while ago. I just suffered through.

[obryn]

http://imgur.com/eRvAqi0

That "ignore" link does nothing?

(I haven't actually tried ignoring anyone.)
It works; I've used it before back when lokiare was posting.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm coming around to the idea that this Ranger is a bit of a muddle. Let's look at the fluff of the features. What do these things say about the character?

2d6 HD: Rangers are tough, and recover quickly. That's standard for this class.
Martial weapons: Rangers are trained in fighting. Again, standard.
Herbalism kit: Rangers are accustomed to living off the land and making things they need from what they find. Not too unusual, this has an Aragorn flavor.
Saving throws: D, W. Dexterity an odd choice for the tough guy who lives off the land, exploring and taking what he needs from nature. Constitution seems more Ranger-ish. This is where the muddle begins.
Skills: Athletics but not Acrobatics even though Dexterity is a saving throw and the class has many features designed to emphasize Dex over Str. The muddle continues.
Equipment: TWF + bow but you can go with shield if you want. Sounds like a Ranger.
Ambuscade: Rangers are attuned to their surroundings. You do not successfully sneak up on Rangers. They often sneak up on you. This seems very Aragorn, again, but it makes multi-classing very powerful. I think it has good fluff, though, which is what we're talking about.
Natural Explorer: Standard Ranger - the guy who lives in nature so much it's second nature to him.
Fighting Style: like martial weapons, this suggests the Ranger is adept at killing things.
Skirmisher's Stealth: This feels like Rogue. I can see this happening in a Ranger's terrain chosen with Natural Explorer - he knows Grasslands so well that he can always blend in to them - but a Ranger doing this in the middle of a dungeon room, empty except for the Ranger and her enemy - uh, no. It's not "attuned to surroundings", it's "expert at hiding from one enemy at a time who may be a construct or a fiend or something else unnatural". It feels off to me. Also, the fluff text refers to "speed and stealth in combat", but the Ranger gets no improvement to move. This feels muddled.
Primeval Awareness: This feels very Ranger. "Listen to the wind. Listen to the birds. Something is wrong".
Spirit Companion: This feels shaman, or druid. I think the Beastmaster pet makes more sense although the implementation was botched. A guy who can summon a spirit, but can't befriend a wolf, seems off. Another muddle in my opinion.

So what we wind up with is a tough high-dex fighter who can't take Acrobatics, is attuned to her surroundings, is an expert in living outdoors, and has learned how to hide in the middle of a fight and summon spirit companions. It seems like they stuck 2 or 3 ideas together and called it a Ranger. And in a game with multi-class option, Ambuscade and Skirmisher's Stealth are dip-bait. This harks back to 3.5 where martial classes got a lot of stuff front-loaded.

Give the Ranger back some casting, maybe with the Eldritch Knight 1/3 progression. Add the Spirit Companion as a spell. Drop Skirmisher's Stealth. Limit Ambuscade to L/2 times per long rest, where L is your Ranger level, so it's not quite such a strong dip for Rogues and Fighters.

I disagree about the saving throws, I think of Rangers (in the Aragorn sense) as quick and wise, but not necessarily tough. Constitution is more like...Heracles.

Athletics covers more rangery proclivities (swimming, climbing, jumping) so I think that makes more sense, Acrobatics is more like tumbling and well, acrobatics. I see your point that it's not keyed to dexterity, but I'd imagine the Ranger could always make the argument to the DM that they want to perform a Dexterity (Athletics) check.

Skirmisher's Stealth is exactly what I think of when I think of a Ranger, attacking and fading away before the enemy knows what hit them. I think the speed simply references their ability to fade back into the shadows before the enemy knows what hit them.

I'm also not a fan of the spirit animal, that screams shaman to me, and ironically dampens my enthusiasm for this variant even though I see alot that looks fun in the other substitutions.


I'm not sure why people are afraid of broken martials but don't blink an eye at broken casters.

Because the casters in 5e aren't broken or overpowered or whatever you want to call it.

[acid_ninja]

My point is that it looks like they are testing out two or three mechanics at once. I don't think the actual class will be that front-loaded and may not include all the mechanics in one package (might be new archetypes). Feedback is important but this is still early stages so worrying about how this feature will interact with other classes is probably a bit farther down the line.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Guys, please remain on topic when posting on this thread.

Banned posters are not permitted to return. If you believe a banned poster has returned, please report them or PM Roland St. Jude. Public accusations and discussions of banned posters are not permitted (or helpful, for that matter).

[D-naras]

My point is that it looks like they are testing out two or three mechanics at once. I don't think the actual class will be that front-loaded and may not include all the mechanics in one package (might be new archetypes). Feedback is important but this is still early stages so worrying about how this feature will interact with other classes is probably a bit farther down the line.

Is it really front loaded though? Comparing it to rogue, this ranger gains potentially 2 extra attacks per battle, which will amount at most 2d6+Dex damage (dual wielding short swords) or 1d8+dex (using a longbow) until he hits 5th level and gets a second attack. The rogue will deal 1d8+Dex+Sneak Attack damage each turn of the battle. Also Skirmisher's Stealth allows you to remain hidden from a target but if you don't spend the Bonus Action at the end of your turn to hide (which hoses dual-wielding :smallyuk:), you will be seen even by the target. If you do spend the BA to hide, you will still have to beat their perception so it's not a sure thing, even more so because the ranger has no Expertise. The rogue in the meantime, only has to attack once, benefitting more from the Advantage he gains for hiding, deal consistently more damage once he gains his second sneak attack die and also hide better than the ranger afterwards if he chooses to do so thanks to Expertise.

All in all, I think this ranger is on par with rogue and fighter when it comes to martial prowess.

[ravenlikestea]

My group has been playing HotDQ lately, and our ranger decided to try out this variant (he's been pretty disappointed with the phb version). Our group was small this time, a devotion paladin (who constantly forgets he has spells), a rouge who really enjoys twf, and the ranger who mostly shoots arrows; all of whom were level 3.
We had three encounters, and in each one he used ambuscande, twice to shoot an arrow and once to hide. In one of the battles he then also went first w/ initiative, but it honestly didn't feel like it too long (maybe this would change at level 5 w/ extra attack, but i still kind of doubt that).
He only used skirmisher's stealth during a battle with Cyanwrath and a couple of barbarians. He mostly was trying to keep the barbarians off him while he battled Cyanwrath (he really held a grudge after that 1st episode). It didn't really seem to have much of an effect in this instance, but I do worry if it's a one on one encounter between the ranger and some enemy. Honestly not sure how that's going to work out if it comes up..
He also used the spirit animal (bear one) during that encounter to give himself the extra hitpoints. The temp hit points plus the new hit die allowed him to take more damage, but he really missed that AC.

Honestly, this variant wasn't a big change in performance, at level 3. It seemed a little more straightforward for him to play, and the flavor of the spirit animal was kind of intriguing (he worded it as his personal guide through/with nature). As far as in relation to the other players, the rouge still outdamaged the others, although by a little less than usual compared to the ranger. The paladin still took most of the damage, and the ranger still seemed the best at surviving.
I'd be happy to see the upper levels of this class flushed out.

[Shining Wrath]

You can't block people on GiantITP.

Actually, you can, and I have. Usually I unblock them after a while, but when someone is just being tendentious in a particular thread I *poof* them right out of it and all those walls of text go away.

[georgie_leech]

tendentious

I have a new favourite word.

[Shining Wrath]

I have a new favourite word.

NO YOU DON'T. It's not really a word as such, and you can't favorite it, and I have a dozen specious arguments why not!

[Nifft]

It's not really a word as such, and you can't favorite it

You just verbed "favorite" while attempting to smite a neologism.

Perchance, do you have a weakness to cold irony?

[georgie_leech]

You just verbed "favorite" while attempting to smite a neologism.

Perchance, do you have a weakness to cold irony?

I could be wrong, but I suspect he was parodying how the discourse in this thread has progressed.

/killingthejoke

[Soular]

No reason at all, really.

I think the only reason it was ever separated out is Drizzle and the massive nerdgasm of his mostly teenage fanbase squealing over his self congratulatory angst of being the only special snowflake drow good guy in the whole wide world.

WTF are you doing?

A post like that needs a warning label!

I just blew Pepsi out my nose...

[Soular]

Holy carp I'm not the only one that sees those books for the crap they are!

Yeah, I hated that Mary-Sue drow even before I read the books.


But I'm actually not sure why the ranger and Paladin for that matter aren't just subclasses for Fighter and Rogue.

They should have made 4 classes then have everyone else be subclasses.

Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard.

Then have most classes have subclasses that overlap but are different.

Wizard subclass "Ranger" would be that weird prestige class from 3e that combined the two.

Cleric subclass Ranger would just be the Druid.

Ranger subclass Ranger would be a sneaky shabby 4e ranger.

Fighter Subclass ranger would be the tough type. 4e ranger "Warden".

Not sure I am totally on board here. I agree with the whole classes/subclasses idea; I wish they stuck with that. I think you just take it in a slightly different direction than I would.


And now a public service announcement:

Guys, can we please stop the edition wars? The constant bickering is really non-productive, and just leads to bad feelings all around. I think we can and should all agree that every edition of D&D deserves to sit at the same table, and none of the editions are without merit, or flaw.

That said, it is common knowledge that 4E was so bad that it killed Gary Gygax. MHRIP.

[R.Shackleford]

Yeah, I hated that Mary-Sue drow even before I read the books.



Not sure I am totally on board here. I agree with the whole classes/subclasses idea; I wish they stuck with that. I think you just take it in a slightly different direction than I would.


And now a public service announcement:

Guys, can we please stop the edition wars? The constant bickering is really non-productive, and just leads to bad feelings all around. I think we can and should all agree that every edition of D&D deserves to sit at the same table, and none of the editions are without merit, or flaw.

That said, it is common knowledge that 4E was so bad that it killed Gary Gygax. MHRIP.

There was no edition war in that post you quoted.

Also dude, seriously with the killing jokes? That's pretty messed up right there. Its one thing to joke that 5e killed the Wotc forum but to say a real person died because of an edition of a game is pretty terrible.

Have a bit of respect for the dead.

[obryn]

And now a public service announcement:

Guys, can we please stop the edition wars? The constant bickering is really non-productive, and just leads to bad feelings all around. I think we can and should all agree that every edition of D&D deserves to sit at the same table, and none of the editions are without merit, or flaw.

That said, it is common knowledge that 4E was so bad that it killed Gary Gygax. MHRIP.
Edition warring is awful.

So is showing disrespect for the dead.

You've manged to do both in one post. Congratulations on being worse than anyone you're scolding.

[Steampunkette]

WTF are you doing?

A post like that needs a warning label!

I just blew Pepsi out my nose...

/e fancybow

[MinotaurWarrior]

Is it really front loaded though? Comparing it to rogue, this ranger gains potentially 2 extra attacks per battle, which will amount at most 2d6+Dex damage (dual wielding short swords) or 1d8+dex (using a longbow) until he hits 5th level and gets a second attack. The rogue will deal 1d8+Dex+Sneak Attack damage each turn of the battle. Also Skirmisher's Stealth allows you to remain hidden from a target but if you don't spend the Bonus Action at the end of your turn to hide (which hoses dual-wielding :smallyuk:), you will be seen even by the target. If you do spend the BA to hide, you will still have to beat their perception so it's not a sure thing, even more so because the ranger has no Expertise. The rogue in the meantime, only has to attack once, benefitting more from the Advantage he gains for hiding, deal consistently more damage once he gains his second sneak attack die and also hide better than the ranger afterwards if he chooses to do so thanks to Expertise.

All in all, I think this ranger is on par with rogue and fighter when it comes to martial prowess.

It's not front loaded out of context.

The issue is that it gets a new-to-the-game multiplicatively powerful mechanic at level 1. Fighters get action surge at level 2, Assassin's get Assassinate at level 3, Sorcerers get Metamagic at level 3. Still, people dip for those classes. Every additional multiplicative mechanic you introduce is better than the last, and so this one ability is both very very tempting and very easy to get.

[INDYSTAR188]

Is the variant ranger something Wizards has announced as being released in an upcoming splatbook? I don't think the Ranger in the phb is really that bad but I'm curious to see how they incorporate all the feedback they solicited in the questionnaire. Presumably these abilities will be stretched out across 20 levels and be better balanced. Does this ranger still choose a sub-class at level 3?

[R.Shackleford]

Is the variant ranger something Wizards has announced as being released in an upcoming splatbook? I don't think the Ranger in the phb is really that bad but I'm curious to see how they incorporate all the feedback they solicited in the questionnaire. Presumably these abilities will be stretched out across 20 levels and be better balanced. Does this ranger still choose a sub-class at level 3?

Hunter Ranger isn't really that bad, the beast master is pretty messed up.

This ranger has been part of the Unearthed Arcana, which in the past has been a book, who knows when they will release this stuff.

[The Troubadour]

I love the 2d6 HP thing. I don't think going from 1dX to 2d6 is killing a sacred cow.

While I can't speak for possible mechanical implications, it seems like using 2d6 instead of 1d6 is based off the original Ranger class all the way back from OD&D, where the Ranger started out with one (or was it two?) extra Hit Die at first level and also gained bonuses against orcs, giants and goblinoids in general (so, basically, it was a lot closer to an actual "Lord of the Rings" Ranger than the class eventually became).

[DanyBallon]

Beast master isn't bad either, and can keep up dealing damage and has can use it's companion outside of combat. What's the major problem is that in order to prevent companion to be OP they had to limit their actions to the one you have and you end up with companion that act like mindless automaton if you don't give them an order.

I'd say allowing the DM to take control of the companion when not given an order and having the companion acting the best he would naturally i.e. wolf moving in position to benefit from their pact tactic and maybe attacking once in a while

[INDYSTAR188]

Hunter Ranger isn't really that bad, the beast master is pretty messed up.

This ranger has been part of the Unearthed Arcana, which in the past has been a book, who knows when they will release this stuff.

You know, someone on this forum (I don't remember who or what thread) calculated and demonstrated that the BM is competitive in damage with the Fighter through fairly high levels. I don't recall exactly how high, maybe 15? That's not to say you couldn't make the argument that the BM is less fun to play; of course fun is subjective though.

I thought it seemed underwhelming on paper, especially the 'robotic' feel to the companion. But then i saw the comparison and felt a little better.

[R.Shackleford]

You know, someone on this forum (I don't remember who or what thread) calculated and demonstrated that the BM is competitive in damage with the Fighter through fairly high levels. I don't recall exactly how high, maybe 15? That's not to say you couldn't make the argument that the BM is less fun to play; of course fun is subjective though.

I thought it seemed underwhelming on paper, especially the 'robotic' feel to the companion. But then i saw the comparison and felt a little better.

It took a lot optimization and/or a specific build. I recall seeing the guide to BMR and I think you even had to be a small race to ride the companion.

[MadBear]

You know, someone on this forum (I don't remember who or what thread) calculated and demonstrated that the BM is competitive in damage with the Fighter through fairly high levels. I don't recall exactly how high, maybe 15? That's not to say you couldn't make the argument that the BM is less fun to play; of course fun is subjective though.

I thought it seemed underwhelming on paper, especially the 'robotic' feel to the companion. But then i saw the comparison and felt a little better.

The BM's problem is it's staying power and how it feels RP wise. The damage of that class is pretty decent. For instance.


Level 15 BM Ranger with Snake
str10
dex-20
con-14
int-10
wis-14
char-10

Snake: attacks twice per turn with each hit dealing 1d8+7. If it's first attack hits, it's second attack has advantage due to constrict.

By this level the Ranger can attack dealing 1d8+5, that due to the snake should have advantage.

This is before spells. If it's a mook battle/gonna be a long day, hunters mark will add an additional 3d6 damage to this equation. If it's an important battle then Swift Quiver will add 2 extra attacks in for an additional 2d8+10 damage.

On top of this, the Sharpshooter feat serves the ranger even better then most since he'll often have advantage when he attacks. In this scenario the Ranger is making 5 attacks per round (2 from beast, 3 from himself). That's a whole lot of pain to put out. Not saying that it has the best DPR, but the BM ranger's problems stem from something bigger then "not enough damage".

[R.Shackleford]

My biggest issue is that they took the BM ranger from 4E and thought the same thing would work again. The 4e BM ranger has pretty much the same exact issues except the 5e one can do damage at end game/late levels. I guess that's an improvement?

The 4ee druid had a wicked good animal companion if I recall correctly. Though they had special animals and not just +pick from MM+.

The variant ranger is very 4E shaman. They need to let the 5e ranger let their animal companion, while in spirit form, walk into/merge with an ally so that ally gains advantages.

[Malifice]

I have a new favourite word.

Ditto. 10 points for word usage.

Its a totally cromulent word.