Would you let a player do this

[Sir cryosin]

Ok so a play comes up to and asks. " Can I play a fighter but use the ranger's hunter archtype instead?" Would you let them I don't think it would be broken would it? I just haven't Givin it to much looking in to right now. I'm at work so I thought I would post it up here and see what ya'll will say.

[Segev]

Provided the Hunter archetype doesn't rely on anything in the base Ranger chassis, I'd probably okay it.

As an example of "relies on the base chassis," I wouldn't allow, say, a Monk to take the Druid's Circle of the Moon in place of his Way; it relies on Wild Shape, which monks do not have.

[JNAProductions]

Ok so a play comes up to and asks. " Can I play a fighter but use the ranger's hunter archtype instead?" Would you let them I don't think it would be broken would it? I just haven't Givin it to much looking in to right now. I'm at work so I thought I would post it up here and see what ya'll will say.

Yes, I would. It doesn't seem overpowered at all. You'd have to add something extra for the Fighter level 18, but that's not liable to be an issue any time soon, is it?

[Ninja_Prawn]

Whether or not it's overpowered, I would be opposed to this. Especially in this case, because the UA spell-less ranger does a much better job of representing what the player wants.

But yeah, a lot of subclasses have features that key off the abilities of their base classes, and even those that don't generally have a certain consistency of theme and party role that you'd be throwing out of the window if you started mixing and matching. Plus half the levels wouldn't line up, so you could end up introducing abilities at a stage in the game they're not meant for, with unpredictable consequences.

I'd tell the player: "if you want to play a homebrew class, put some effort into making it work first."

[Foxhound438]

you're gaining 1d8 once a turn (most likely), one defensive boost (various specific effects), a multiattack (losing 4x cut that turn, not great bc the targets still get to deal their damage as opposed to focusing down one), and another defensive buff.

for champ, you lose out on crits on 18-20 (2 seperate boosts), a weak buff to ability checks/jumps, a second fighting style (probably +1 ac), and the ability to regain 10 hp per turn.

it's not a 1-for-1 trade in my opinion, there's benefits and definitely losses, but it's not broken. Only real issue is that there's 4 ranger archetype features but 5 fighter archetype features, so there's going to be some disconnect.

[Talamare]

Hmm, Hunter Archetype is pretty strong...

Probably better than the Archetype options you get in Fighter

I would allow it but he doesn't get Superior Hunter's Defense

[Oramac]

I'd just ask him if he'd be ok with a ranged Fighter.

Pump Dex, go Battlemaster for the Maneuvers, use a Longbow, grab Sharpshooter, and go to town. It's basically Hawkeye.

In fact, I'm planning to do exactly this in an upcoming game.

[Talamare]

I'd just ask him if he'd be ok with a ranged Fighter.

Pump Dex, go Battlemaster for the Maneuvers, use a Longbow, grab Sharpshooter, and go to town. It's basically Hawkeye.

In fact, I'm planning to do exactly this in an upcoming game.

Honestly, I think Archer Fighters are probably better at DPR than Hunter Rangers.
Well, then again... Even Archer Bards are better at DPR than Hunter Rangers

[gfishfunk]

The big question is 'why?'

Does the player want to play a spell-less ranger? Multiclassing into Ranger for only 1 level will probably give you this: favored enemy / terrain, + 1 ranger skill. This would be a good route for a ranged fighter / ranger hybrid.

Alternatively, Barbarians can feel very ranger-esque: they have a heavy melee combat focus and a naturalistic orientation that ties them to the land.

[Ruslan]

Honestly, the Hunter Ranger archetype looks like it belongs on a Fighter. There's little ranger-unique about it. You just fight stuff better. I would allow it. The added options are not (significantly) more powerful than the Battlemaster maneuvers or EK spells.

[Citan]

Ok so a play comes up to and asks. " Can I play a fighter but use the ranger's hunter archtype instead?" Would you let them I don't think it would be broken would it? I just haven't Givin it to much looking in to right now. I'm at work so I thought I would post it up here and see what ya'll will say.
Hi!
Well, my first reaction would probably be "what is the defining feature of your ranged warrior concept is unattainable in Fighter?"
Because a DEX fighter can use many feats to build a solid ranged warrior.

Beyond that, putting Hunter Archetype on top of Fighter chassis would be, certainly not overpowered, but probably a bit more "powerful" (hard as it is to compare) than a normal Fighter.

LVL 3 benefit
At lvl 3, Colossus Slayer allows you, during a given turn, to deal extra 1d8 damage on each different creature you hit with an attack.
Confer PHB: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, the creature takes an extra 1d8 damage if it’s below its hit point maximum. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn.

Note that the wording is very different from the usual "1d8 per turn" such as Cleric domains...
Once on each of your turns
when you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can cause the attack to deal an extra 1d8 cold/fire/lightning/thunder/poison/radiant damage to the target. When you reach 14th level, the extra damage increases to 2d8.

Where the "only once" is stressed by being put first, and the exclusion of AoO on other's turn very clear ("your turns").

As well as different from the Rogue's Sneak Attack
Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with
an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll.

Where, again, the most important (primary) part is "once per turn".

In contrast, for Ranger's, the primary part is "when you hit a creature with a weapon attack". The last sentence ("you can only deal this extra damage once per turn") is thus subordinated to "a creature".
It also perfectly fits with Ranger's fluff of martial AOE damage dealer. :)

So, if you attack the same creature, you deal only 1d8 extra damage. If you attack (and hit) two different creatures, you get 2d8 extra damage.
It also works on AoO since you use your reaction on another's turn. :)

For a Ranger, unless he manages to get an especially good situation where Volley or Whirlwind (which is not that often) can hit at least 3 enemies, it will be max 2 creatures hit with its Attack, so 2d8 (or 3 creatures if Crossbow Expert).
For a Fighter that ultimately gets 4 attacks with Attack action, it means potentially 4d8 extra damage every turn. And, since you can distribute attacks everywhere (contrarily to Volley) and move between (contrarily to Volley/Whirlwind), it will be much easier to enable.
So it's basically Manoeuvers extra damage, without riders, but without resource cost.

Horde Breaker however would not be a problem since the condition to enable it are as easy to fulfill in both cases (for a ranged build at least. Slightly better on Fighter for a melee build).

Nor Giant Killer obviously.

LVL 7 benefit
I see no particular problem here.

LVL 11 benefit
I see no particular problem here especially for a ranged build (you're bound to favor Fighter's Attack action over this most of the time anyways).

LVL 15 benefit
Here is another small problem. These options are tailored to compensate the fact that Ranger gets only 1d8 hit die, Medium armor and a bit of MADness, meaning less feats.
On a Fighter (SADness + more ASI + all armors + 1d10), this is the cherry on the top, making him a very hard to kill man without the drawbacks of multiclassing.

True, BM or EK could achieve similar survivability but it would require spending Feats or using Manoeuvers/spells which are limited resources.

Conclusion?
So... Sure, Ranger still has other class features and spellcasting.
But on the martial side, Fighter+Ranger is slightly better than "normal" (feats+archetype) Fighter and Ranger equally.

Not that big of a deal though (I'd say there is absolutely no problem if no other ranged martial in the group because no risk of tip-toeing).

If you felt it required to nerf a bit though, an easy way to be sure you keep the balance would be to force the choice on Horde Breaker (since no identified problem) and Evasion (since a Fighter with shield could do the same with Shield Master, so it's not so far-stretched). Or, impose a 14 WIS requirement to "force" one of the numerous ASI Fighter gets.

:)

[Sigreid]

I think I'd have to look really close at how the fighter's attack rate mixes with things like volley.

[Ruslan]

I think I'd have to look really close at how the fighter's attack rate mixes with things like volley.
Volley is an Action, so it doesn't matter if you can Attack 4 times per round, you still only get one Volley.

[Sir cryosin]

It's not for a range fighter it for a great sword fighter.

[Foxhound438]

LVL 3 benefit
At lvl 3, Colossus Slayer allows you, during a given turn, to deal extra 1d8 damage on each different creature you hit with an attack.
Confer PHB: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, the creature takes an extra 1d8 damage if it’s below its hit point maximum. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn.

Note that the wording is very different from the usual "1d8 per turn" such as Cleric domains...
Once on each of your turns
when you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can cause the attack to deal an extra 1d8 cold/fire/lightning/thunder/poison/radiant damage to the target. When you reach 14th level, the extra damage increases to 2d8.

Where the "only once" is stressed by being put first, and the exclusion of AoO on other's turn very clear ("your turns").

As well as different from the Rogue's Sneak Attack
Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with
an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll.

Where, again, the most important (primary) part is "once per turn".

In contrast, for Ranger's, the primary part is "when you hit a creature with a weapon attack". The last sentence ("you can only deal this extra damage once per turn") is thus subordinated to "a creature".
It also perfectly fits with Ranger's fluff of martial AOE damage dealer. :)

So, if you attack the same creature, you deal only 1d8 extra damage. If you attack (and hit) two different creatures, you get 2d8 extra damage.
It also works on AoO since you use your reaction on another's turn. :)


LVL 15 benefit
Here is another small problem. These options are tailored to compensate the fact that Ranger gets only 1d8 hit die, Medium armor and a bit of MADness, meaning less feats.
On a Fighter (SADness + more ASI + all armors + 1d10), this is the cherry on the top, making him a very hard to kill man without the drawbacks of multiclassing.

True, BM or EK could achieve similar survivability but it would require spending Feats or using Manoeuvers/spells which are limited resources.



nothing about the wording of colossus slayer indicates that you can deal the extra d8 to each creature. the sentence at the end applies the same way as "once per turn" does, or else it would specify that it's for each target.



Ranger gets only 1d8 hit die


certifiably false.

[Foxhound438]

It's not for a range fighter it for a great sword fighter.

looks to me like he might be looking for a "cleave"-esque feature (whirlwind, hoard breaker), which would be fine imo. At least that'd be why i'd go for it.

also remember that 2/3 superior defense skills can be obtained with a 7 level dip in rogue (kind of bad since sneak attack requires finesse/range and he wants to greatsword, but rapier would be better still at that point), so getting those features would not be broken.

[Citan]

nothing about the wording of colossus slayer indicates that you can deal the extra d8 to each creature. the sentence at the end applies the same way as "once per turn" does, or else it would specify that it's for each target.



certifiably false.

Arf, you're right on hit die, my bad, should have checked the book. ;)

However, I stand firm on my point about Colossus Slayer.
The fact that the "once per turn" is at the end for this ability and not at the start of the description like every other feature of such kind is not an error, a miss or anything else. It has been worded like this because they probably didn't find a better way to describe how they wanted the feature to work.

Remember that the authors of D&d told several times to people that argued about "imprecise or ambiguous wording" (when they published errata for example) that "every word counts" and "everything is calculated".

Also, how comes then that the wording is "auto-extra damage" and not "you can deal" like other abilities?
If it's only once per turn overall, considering Ranger gets 2 attacks, 3 with bonus action, more with Volley/Whirlwind, then such a wording is actually penalizing the player because he then has the obligation to aim first at the creature he wants to deal extra damage to. Whereas Rogue and Cleric can choose whether to apply it on a hit or not (you could for example want to dispatch, with a standard attack, a lesser mob that stands between you and the boss).

So, now, think about that.
1) If my interpretation of the current wording is incorrect, how would you then describe the behavior I'm talking about?
2) If they wanted to limit to "1d8" per turn, wouldn't such a wording be much simpler and coherent with all other?
"Once per turn, when you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can deal 1d8 extra damage if its hit points are below maximum."

Since PHB is a teamwork and will probably have been reviewed many times, the chance that the wording being so different is just a miss on the "wording harmonization" part is very low. :)


also remember that 2/3 superior defense skills can be obtained with a 7 level dip in rogue (kind of bad since sneak attack requires finesse/range and he wants to greatsword, but rapier would be better still at that point), so getting those features would not be broken.
Very true, but it still means multiclassing. Loss of ASI and everything blablabla.
Well, you also get Cunning Action, Expertise and Sneak Attack, so for ranged or finesse builds you could say it's at least as good as using Ranger archtype.

For a GWM build though, multiclassing in Rogue would be a meaningful decision because of drawbacks: some of the class features will be of no help to you, you probably lose at least one ASI and you never get your 4th attack.
You get no such drawback with the "Ranger archetype".

[PoeticDwarf]

Fighter has best DPR but is not OP.
The fighter subclasses don't improve DPR, higher crit and maneuvres are on average not even half a dmg per round more.

Hunter gives uncanny dodge for fighter as ultimate tank and a limited extra attack per round. Whireind can also improve DPR in certain situations

Yeah, I wouldn't allow it

[Talamare]

I'm pretty sure each class is written and designed by different people. I also know for a fact that humans mess up.

Now, unless there is an Errata or Sage Advice on it, its 1d8 once per turn.

[Sir cryosin]

Fighter has best DPR but is not OP.
The fighter subclasses don't improve DPR, higher crit and maneuvres are on average not even half a dmg per round more.

Hunter gives uncanny dodge for fighter as ultimate tank and a limited extra attack per round. Whireind can also improve DPR in certain situations

Yeah, I wouldn't allow it
A fighters superior dices get up to a d10 and they get up to 5 if I remember correctly. They all so refresh on a short rest. Only thing the hunter archtype adds to dpr is the Colossus slayer's d8 once per turn. Whirlwind and volley take your action so you won't get any of your extre attacks. The way I see a fighter with hunter as a archtype is your playing a monster slayer.

[Hairfish]

I'm guessing your player wants Horde Breaker so he can get more attacks per turn. That ability is balanced to the ranger, who only gets two attacks with extra attack, whereas the fighter eventually gets three (or four, if your campaign actually lasts to level 20).



It has been worded like this because they probably didn't find a better way to describe how they wanted the feature to work.

Remember that the authors of D&d told several times to people that argued about "imprecise or ambiguous wording" (when they published errata for example) that "every word counts" and "everything is calculated".

Reread that first sentence, then the sentence you immediately followed it with. There are much clearer ways to word that ability if it genuinely meant what you think it does. Your interpretation relies heavily on implied statements that simply aren't there. As you said, every word counts.

e: If we were to extend your reasoning to other abilities, perhaps you can see the problem? Look at Warlock's invocations that use a spell slot, but can only be used once per long rest. By your reasoning, you can use those abilities once per long rest for each warlock spell slot you have.

[PoeticDwarf]

A fighters superior dices get up to a d10 and they get up to 5 if I remember correctly. They all so refresh on a short rest. Only thing the hunter archtype adds to dpr is the Colossus slayer's d8 once per turn. Whirlwind and volley take your action so you won't get any of your extre attacks. The way I see a fighter with hunter as a archtype is your playing a monster slayer.

Collusus slayer is weaker than adding a limited attack to the attack action. A smart archer would get free d6+15 till d10+18 at least half of the time. For a fighter. Superior defense is really strong, for a fighter already worth a subclass