No new Ranger subclass in the new book?!

[Spacehamster]

So the class even wizards them self have admitted is unpopular and not as mechanically sound as the other classes get no new sub while the most other classes gets one? How on earth does that make sense? O_o

[KorvinStarmast]

So the class even wizards them self have admitted is unpopular and not as mechanically sound as the other classes get no new sub while the most other classes gets one? How on earth does that make sense? O_o
It makes sense if you consider that:


WoTC they wrote themselves into a corner with the two published in the PHB.
WoTC provided the "spell less" ranger as a class example of how to tailor a PC class ... but didn't make it an official class.
Sent out the UA trial balloon on a new idea and realized that they have a lot of work to do before going live with that mod.



The Ranger as its own class has some limitations since it began as a sub class of fighter with a bit of cleric and magic user magic, then a bit of druid and magic user magic, and then in time Ranger magic.

The Ranger is already a sub class to start with. Rather than a new sub class I'd like to see a tweak to the beast master.

[Lolzyking]

because wizard can't make up their mind on ranger,

Honestly I'd be happy if they just went with a combination of all the stupid **** they've tried.

Base ranger as is no spells

archetype 1 non magic> has battle master tactics like the article

archetype 2 guardian spirits

archetype 3 petmaster ranger, remove all action economy **** and give the ranger scaling benefits on pet (pet gets ASI when ranger gets ASI, gains health when ranger gains health.)

archetype 4 spell ranger


Ranger isn't a weak class, battlemaster is a gimped archetype because beast master pets are weak, and not worth the action economy they steal from rangers (considering Op ****s familiars are having their own god damned turn)

[DanyBallon]

It's better they shy away from releasing any ranger archetype, as long as they've not decide if they fix it (and how they would fix it).

For the moment Hunter is pretty good in itself, and if you somehow can set aside the in order to be balanced the beastmaster companion act as a robot, then you already have a good ranger class. And I don't think a setting book would be the best place for a complete overhaul of the class.

[Spacehamster]

Should have been 3 Ranger subclasses in the PHB

1: Spell ranger, gets utility and stronger attacks from spells.
2: Beast master, pet gains a "level up" when master hits each sweet spot(5, 11 and 17), at each of these levels
you get to increase the pet´s stats and choose from a couple of abilities.
3: Martial focused ranger: The more combaty, trackery ranger, when you take the subclass you choose either archery or twf,
his skills will be increasing the potency of his choosen style and his fluff skills will be around tracking/survival in the wilds and so on.

[Tanarii]

IMO it was probably a combination of not being ready yet, and it being a book about Forgotten Realms archetypes, and the PHB Ranger already covers FR Rangers fairly well. Especially Sword Coast/North/Heartlands Rangers.

Druids ran into the same thing for that matter. Circle of the Land is pretty much the archetypical FR Druid.

Spell less Ranger wouldn't have been appropriate for the PHB, spells are an integral part of the iconic Ranger. In fact, I'm a little surprised Beastmaster made it. I probably shouldn't though, 3rd edition cemented it enough for it to be an option.

[Smashwidget]

because wizard can't make up their mind on ranger,

Honestly I'd be happy if they just went with a combination of all the stupid **** they've tried.

Base ranger as is no spells

archetype 1 non magic> has battle master tactics like the article

archetype 2 guardian spirits

archetype 3 petmaster ranger, remove all action economy **** and give the ranger scaling benefits on pet (pet gets ASI when ranger gets ASI, gains health when ranger gains health.)

archetype 4 spell ranger


Ranger isn't a weak class, battlemaster is a gimped archetype because beast master pets are weak, and not worth the action economy they steal from rangers (considering Op ****s familiars are having their own god damned turn)

This seems like it would be interesting to homebrew. How would archetype 2 work?

[DanyBallon]

This seems like it would be interesting to homebrew. How would archetype 2 work?

Probably with the spirit path of the UA ranger

[ImperiousLeader]

And neither did the Bard or Druid. Clearly, the sky is falling.

Eh, I ended up passing on the book for now, as the fluff was not super enticing, though if I end up in a Rage of Demons campaign I'll revisit that. And the classes that did get content didn't exactly blow me away. The bladesinger is merely okay, and while I understand the Storm Sorcerer nerf, it still hurts, and none of the others got content that I really ended caring for. The only one I might consider playing is the Sun Soul Monk.

[mephnick]

They're not ready to release a new ranger yet, I mean, they literally had a poll article about how to fix it.

It'll be the only core class chassis that gets completely deleted and rewritten.

Hunter and Beast Master aren't bad subclasses really, but the general Ranger chassis itself is easily the worst in the book.

[Spacehamster]

And neither did the Bard or Druid. Clearly, the sky is falling.

Eh, I ended up passing on the book for now, as the fluff was not super enticing, though if I end up in a Rage of Demons campaign I'll revisit that. And the classes that did get content didn't exactly blow me away. The bladesinger is merely okay, and while I understand the Storm Sorcerer nerf, it still hurts, and none of the others got content that I really ended caring for. The only one I might consider playing is the Sun Soul Monk.

Both Bard and Druid are good classes already tho and generally seen as powerful. :)

[AbyssStalker]

Both Bard and Druid are good classes already tho and generally seen as powerful. :)

They could still use another subclass, options don't hurt, especially given that they both only have two sub-classes.

[Spacehamster]

They could still use another subclass, options don't hurt, especially given that they both only have two sub-classes.

True more options is always fun just meant the Ranger is in more need of getting a sub or two more to choose from. :)