Has anyone used the variant redesigned ranger from UA?

[Quintessence]

If so, how does it stack up to the spell-less ranger and default ranger?

UA for reference: http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DX_0907_UA_RangerOptions.pdf


Also I'm a bit confused, are Spirit paths basically archetypes or do they get a archetype in addition to the spirit path?

[Kane0]

I've used parts of all the UA ranger stuff in my rework, but I don't think thats what you mean.

I believe the spirit choice is your archetype with that one.

[AmbientRaven]

The Ranger re-make is horrible for balance.

The core Ranger is fine. If BM is the concern make it so the pet needs a BA to attack not an action. Fixed.

[MrStabby]

So somehow I missed this UA. It looks a little... excessive.

2d6 HP per level - averaging more than the barbarian. A 1 level dip pretty much gets you action surge - only its once per encounter not once per short rest. A 2 level dip gets you something similar to cunning action (less versatile but much harder to hold your action to deal with it). 2 strong saving throws in both dex and wis? This thing is crazy.

Is there any class that can meet the multiclass requirements that wouldn't consider starting off with one level of this version?

So no - never used it, but have some concerns over balance.



On a side note - ambuscade says you get an extra turn, but with restrictions on what you can use your action for, however no restriction for the use of a bonus action? So quite fine to have a multiclass that can attack, play spiritual weapon all on the zeroeth turn? This is miles better than action surge at a lower level!

[Arkhios]

Honestly, the first variant with combat superiority and poultices was best so far when it comes to non-spellcasting ranger.

[GlenSmash!]

I have not played it because it is in my opinion very poorly thought out.

The Spirit stuff doesn't fit with any version of the ranger I have in my head and is more suited to a spirit shaman. It also just feels like a re-hash/one-up of the Barbarian Totem options. Ambuscade feels like a re-hash/one-up of the Barbarian level 7 ability Feral Instinct.

Skirmisher's Stealth is the only ability that looks unique, and while it might be challenging to find a good narrative reason while the Ogre can no longer see the range right in front of his face. I could see it working for some groups.

If 2 of the 3 new mechanical options are just re-hashing the Barbarian, I'd rather just make a Barb/Ranger multiclass, or re-fluff the Barbarian entirely.

Even not counting the mechanics, I dislike parts of the UA article. For example - "Guardians: Rangers are champions of the natural world. They are typically good aligned, and their link to nature gives them supernatural abilities. They are the paladins of the forest.". To me there are more Rangers in the wild protecting civilization from the wild, than protecting the wild itself. In LotR The Ranger of the North protect the Shire and Bree etc. while the Ranger of Ithilien protect Gondor. In the Rangers Apprentice Series Halt and Will and all rangers serve the king and defend the kingdom. Or take a look at the Witchers.

To me a Ranger most certainly spends time in the wild, but that doesn't define what she is fighting for. Good/Neutral/Evil rangers are all valid. Lawful and Chaotic Rangers are equally valid too. Rangers who fight for Nature, or Rangers who hunt dangerous beasts to protect the village are both valid.

They way they are defining the ranger in this UA is just too narrow. In fact I think that is one of the biggest critiques of the 5e PHB ranger. I want the option of a Ranger who specializes in stealth or combat or spells or beast companionship to be equally viable options in the class, or they shoudl just give up and split it up into different fighter, rogue, druid archetypes.

Whoa that turned into quite the rant. Sorry about that.

No I haven't played this version of the Ranger :smalltongue:

[Easy_Lee]

Abuscade gives you an extra turn at the start of combat. Know what else does that? The Thief level 17 ability. Except that the Thief ability gives you the extra turn at your initiative minus ten, instead of at the start of the fight. So at level 1, this variant ranger gains a better ability than Thief 17, which would probably stack with Thief 17.
2d6HP / level is higher than even the barbarian.
Skirmisher's Stealth - stay hidden from a creature at the end of your turn automatically, and use a bonus action to attempt to stay hidden period. That's completely broken.

I don't need to read any further. This crap is broken. I'd make a Ranger 3 / Rogue Thief 17, have stealth expertise, take three turns at the start of every combat, and never need to leave stealth. This is a better Assassin than the Assassin.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Anyone who tried to convince me I should let them play an "Ambush Ranger" at my table would be handed a character sheet for my homebrewed Flumph Barbarian. Yes, I'd force them to role-play a raging Flumph. It's their penance for being such a flaming munchkin.

[ZX6Rob]

Abuscade gives you an extra turn at the start of combat. Know what else does that? The Thief level 17 ability. Except that the Thief ability gives you the extra turn at your initiative minus ten, instead of at the start of the fight. So at level 1, this variant ranger gains a better ability than Thief 17, which would probably stack with Thief 17.
2d6HP / level is higher than even the barbarian.
Skirmisher's Stealth - stay hidden from a creature at the end of your turn automatically, and use a bonus action to attempt to stay hidden period. That's completely broken.

I don't need to read any further. This crap is broken. I'd make a Ranger 3 / Rogue Thief 17, have stealth expertise, take three turns at the start of every combat, and never need to leave stealth. This is a better Assassin than the Assassin.
...At 20th level.

I'm not going to sit here and say it's the most in-line class ever written, and Ambuscade is certainly a good ability, but I don't think it's quite as bad as all this. As for the auto-stealth, well, that only applies to a single critter. It loses a lot of its efficacy if you're fighting a handful of things with good Perception (like well-trained human or elven opponents), and it's only usable to re-hide at the end of your turn if your DM determines that you still meet the conditions to hide, so there's some mitigation possible there, too.

The class' combat abilities are on the high end of the scale, but I don't think it would utterly ruin the game to let this into the table. Thematically, it all seems well in-line with the way a Ranger would fight in my opinion. Lots of hit-and-run for massive damage, staying hidden in the shadows between attacks... It's a lot of why I liked the Deep Stalker archetype from UA, too.


Anyone who tried to convince me I should let them play an "Ambush Ranger" at my table would be handed a character sheet for my homebrewed Flumph Barbarian. Yes, I'd force them to role-play a raging Flumph. It's their penance for being such a flaming munchkin.
That seems harsh, but your table, your rules. I generally like to allow UA stuff, with the provision that, if something becomes obviously out-of-line during game, I'll work with the player to figure out a way to modify the ability or power such that they still feel effective, but it doesn't dominate encounters (combat or otherwise). I'd rather a player get a chance to try something new and cool, get some real play-test information, and help to mold something overpowered into something useful and cool than just flat-out ban things. I certainly wouldn't pre-emptively punish someone just for asking, though -- that feels pretty adversarial.

To the OP: I say you should allow the player to try it out with the caveat that you reserve the right to modify abilities as needed to preserve your intended game balance. I think the Ambuscade ability is generally the most divisive of the class' powers, so watch out for how that plays. One common thing is to limit the ability to making a single extra attack, rather than all the ones you'd get from the Extra Attack feature. I'd try it without changing it before you nerf it down, though -- it may end up not being all that bad to start with. Honestly, the only way you'll ever know whether or not it's a fit for your game is to try it for a while. If you end up deciding that the whole class is a bit of a bust (and you might -- it's a playtest version, after all!), tell your player that you'd like to help rebuild their character as a standard Ranger with a different archetype -- maybe even the Deep Stalker one from UA since, as I mentioned above, it has some thematic similarities.

The real problem is that the class is only 5 levels, so there's the question of what you do after that. For a low-level game, though, it'd be an interesting experiment.

[MrStabby]

The class' combat abilities are on the high end of the scale, but I don't think it would utterly ruin the game to let this into the table. Thematically, it all seems well in-line with the way a Ranger would fight in my opinion. Lots of hit-and-run for massive damage, staying hidden in the shadows between attacks... It's a lot of why I liked the Deep Stalker archetype from UA, too.



To the OP: I say you should allow the player to try it out with the caveat that you reserve the right to modify abilities as needed to preserve your intended game balance. I think the Ambuscade ability is generally the most divisive of the class' powers, so watch out for how that plays. One common thing is to limit the ability to making a single extra attack, rather than all the ones you'd get from the Extra Attack feature. I'd try it without changing it before you nerf it down, though -- it may end up not being all that bad to start with. Honestly, the only way you'll ever know whether or not it's a fit for your game is to try it for a while. If you end up deciding that the whole class is a bit of a bust (and you might -- it's a playtest version, after all!), tell your player that you'd like to help rebuild their character as a standard Ranger with a different archetype -- maybe even the Deep Stalker one from UA since, as I mentioned above, it has some thematic similarities.

The real problem is that the class is only 5 levels, so there's the question of what you do after that. For a low-level game, though, it'd be an interesting experiment.

I think part of the issue is that there are a whole load of strong abilities that are in line with other classes, but there are a lot of them crammed onto one base. Barbarian style HP, wisdom save, dex save are by themselves not too powerful and available to any other class. The problem is that this class can get all of them.

Ambuscade is nuts though. For a 1 level dip it is extraordinary. Combine it with something like a rogue sneak attack and even if it is capped at only 1 attack you are still dishing out a load of extra damage. Every class gets something like this - action surge, expertise, rage... this is among the top tier.

Combine such a strong set of other class abilities with Ambuscade, top it up with the others - its just too much in too few levels. Too easy to dip for multiclass.

[Foxhound438]

I've dm'd for it once and the only change I made was that during the ambuscade turn they only get one attack, and that worked out fine.

[Easy_Lee]

I've dm'd for it once and the only change I made was that during the ambuscade turn they only get one attack, and that worked out fine.

Mostly fine as long as nobody multi-classes. Rogues and Paladins can do a lot with one attack.

[Quintessence]

Alright, thanks for all the great responses. I'll look into slightly changing it in some ways.

[Siirvos]

http://i.4cdn.org/tg/1467046170364.jpg

Try that on for size.

[MrStabby]

http://i.4cdn.org/tg/1467046170364.jpg

Try that on for size.

Certainly an improvement in terms of balance.

I have a slight worry it needs a bit of refining to be fun to play. First of all there is still a lot of power from the two strong saves - seems very attractive as a starting class still. This is entirely passive.

Secondly the class takes three upgrades for ambuscade, which is three levels that only improve what you do on one turn of combat.

After the first turn, you are relying on the level 3 and level 11 abilities to actively distinguish yourself from other characters. If your abilities are situational then there may be whole fights where this guy doesn't do much special.

This isn't a damming problem though. Feats help, multiclassing helps and it is a minor issue anyway.

[Siirvos]

I have a slight worry it needs a bit of refining to be fun to play.


Youre probably right. Sneak attack definitely gives it a bit more oomph, but lack of spellcasting gets rid of a lot of their versatility. If only the ranger had more flavorful archetypes..

[JumboWheat01]

Youre probably right. Sneak attack definitely gives it a bit more oomph, but lack of spellcasting gets rid of a lot of their versatility. If only the ranger had more flavorful archetypes..

There was a UA a while back that released the Monster Hunter archtype for Fighters that I think would fit a Ranger to a tee.