September UA: The Ranger, revised

[DanyBallon]

UA_RevisedRanger.pdf (http://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf)

Some of it was already spoiled over the week-end see this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500062-Potential-Ranger-Change-(may-be-adopted-to-AL-too)).

What do you think? Do you like the changes, do you think it will "fix" the ranger?

[dejarnjc]

UA_RevisedRanger.pdf (http://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf)

Some of it was already spoiled over the week-end see this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500062-Potential-Ranger-Change-(may-be-adopted-to-AL-too)).

What do you think? Do you like the changes, do you think it will "fix" the ranger?

This makes me want to actually play a beast master

[DanyBallon]

As for myself, I don't like the always on advantage to initiative check and advantage against creatures that haven't acted yet. If it was tied to a favored terrain, it wouldn't be as OP and be a must have 1 level dip.

I believe that the new beastmaster is decent and answer many complains. But since I was on the camp that thought that if was already fine, I think these chages are a bit too much, kinda like using a sledge hammer to kill a fly. On the other hand I like that they stated why they removed multiattack from companions and what to consider in order to allow other new creatures as possible companion. Those were nice design insight.

[atlas_hugged]

I like the new beast master features, but dislike that they made the animal companions so limited by RAW. I understand that there is an OPTIONAL rules paragraph to expand selection. It gives very good guidance. Unfortunately, optional rules don't really work for everyone. This is a black spot on an otherwise great remake of the beast master.

[Shaofoo]

RIP Gnome Pterodactyl Rider

But really I think they did a good job.

[Finieous]

At first glance, I like it a lot. Natural Explorer makes it a very good one-level dip class, but given the MC requirements, I can't really say it's stronger than fighter, rogue, or even barbarian.

[JellyPooga]

As for myself, I don't like the always on advantage to initiative check and advantage against creatures that haven't acted yet. If it was tied to a favored terrain, it wouldn't be as OP and be a must have 1 level dip.

I'm in the same boat here; there's something that feels...not quite right about this being an "always on" kind of deal. I don't think it's unbalanced, but there's something "off" here IMO.

I like what they've done with the Beastmaster. Limiting the field of available animals, whilst increasing the utility of the beast is a nice compromise. My biggest problem is the potential for the Beast to outshine the Ranger; I'm not sure how it will play out in-game, but with proficiency in all Saves, advantage on all Saves and adding proficiency to both AC and Damage, your Beast will be...well, a bit of a beast.

Also, Flaw No.3 is inspired. Any time is indeed a good time for a belly rub! :smallbiggrin:

[DanyBallon]

RIP Gnome Pterodactyl Rider

Not definately dead, but now falls into "Ask your DM" territory. In a more primitive setting, or to some extent (if you replace gnome by hafling) it can fit DarkSun. But it prevent seeing hordes of Gnome Pterodactyl Rider swarming the Sword Coast :smallwink:

[famousringo]

So, ranger 1 looks like a pretty nice dip. Not just for initiative bonus, but skipping over rocks like Legolas. It doesn't even specify natural difficult terrain, so rangers can waltz through a wizard's control spells like they're nothing. I think they may have gone too far here.

Primeval Awareness and Favoured Enemy changes look great.

I approve of the way they handled Extra Attack, it always seemed to be holding Beastmaster back. The Beastmaster changes in general look good, but I guess I'll have to campaign now if I want to play a gnomish frog knight. Kind of sorry to see share spells go, but it's a level 15 feature anyway.

[DracoKnight]

Okay, I love this iteration of the ranger! It's about 90% better than the previous ranger, and the Beastmaster is great now, I'd actually consider playing one over a hunter :smallbiggrin:

[Specter]

Beastmaster is now good, nice. The level 1 features strike me as too much, especially the advantage thing.

[Tanarii]

First impressions, written feature by feature as I read them.

Favored Enemy / Greater Favored Enemy
Rangers didn't really need a damage boost, even against their favored enemies. OTOH +2 damage per attack against a class of enemies isn't going to blow up the game or anything.
Breaking up the creature types into two sets, some gained at low level and others at mid, is probably a good idea.
Also this feature now grants Rangers straight up unrestricted free language (each time), instead of it depending on the favored enemy.

Natural Explorer
Way overpowered. Advantage on initiative checks & advantage on attack rolls against creatures that have not already acted? No way I'd allow this to go live in a campaign.
Also, the loss of the Ranger version of Expertise (double proficiency) is a bummer. This ability was limited before, but the abilities were very useful and defined the Ranger as a skill user, not just a combat machine. No more.

Primeval Awareness
Very cool revision of this ability. I like it.

Hide in Plain Sight
Changing it from a +10 bonus to Dexterity (Stealth) to a -10 to the opponents Wisdom (Perception). Huh. What affect will this have?

Foe Slayer
No change. Hahahaha I love it. A big Dev finger to the complainers IMO.

Beast Conclave
Animal Companion
Costs money to summon a beast now. 50gp to summon, 25gp to revive. Expected wealth isn't exactly set in stone in 5e, but at 3rd you'll probably have around 280gp (assuming 3/7 expected hoards for first tier were actually found). So around 1/5 to summon, and 1/10th to revive.
Interesting and very limited list of creatures you can summon.

Companions Bond
Companions now act independently. HUGE BUFF to Ranger Beastmaster combat power.
Companions now gain 1 HD per level, and increase stats, and are proficient in all saves. Major buff to companions. A bit more fiddly for tracking numbers.
Companions get personality traits (Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw)! Very cool. I love that the Devs are committed to their personality trait system.

Coordinated Attack
Companion uses its reaction to make another attack when the Ranger uses the attack action. So now the Ranger is making 2 attacks, a bonus action attack (if TWF), and 2 Companion attacks. Every round. Totally unbalanced.

(I stopped reading this Conclave at this point. It's clearly totally unsuitable for actual play. What the hell were the Devs smoking?)

Hunter Conclave
Hunter's Prey, Defensive Tactics, and Multi-attack seem to work the same way. Am I missing anything?

Extra Attack
Oh wow. Stop the presses. Only Hunter gets Extra Attack? Okay, I may have to revise my opinion on the Beastmaster. :smallredface: That's gonna take some thinkin' on actual numbers.

Deep Stalker Conclave
Yeah, underdark rangers don't interest me. Skipping it.




Overall impressions:
1) I hate that they removed the 'skilled' Ranger, as embodied by Natural Explorer. At the least they could have come up with some kind of replacement, if people felt it was too limiting.
2) Natural Explorer's combat benefits are far too powerful. Rangers didn't need a combat buff.
3) Extra NPC at the table in the form of Animal Companions are back. Action economy concerns be damned. Despite my first reading, the lack of Extra Attack means probably only a minor one. TWF is now a viable option for Beastmaster companions, so you're looking at 1 Ranger attack, possibly 1 bonus action attack, and 1-2 Companion attacks, with the second attack costing the beast it's reaction. That's basically on par with how things were before, except for the bonus action attack. Guess I need to go back and finish reading the conclave's higher level abilities now.

[KorvinStarmast]

What I like: their attempt to improve Beast Master. I don't know if it's the final answer, but it's a step in the right direction.

What I almost like: the advantage on initiative IMO ought to be confined to settings that are outdoors/wilderness in nature. For example, in caves, or in the woods, but not necessarily in an urban environment. This one's got the potential to be seen as overpowered as written, particularly when you combine it with the attack advantage for those who have not acted. Rangers are supposed to be lethal ... in certain environments?

I think this one could probably use another tweak. (Maybe add another proficiency bump like monster double prof for initiative? Just thinking aloud here ...)

The Stalker: this has potential. THe added attack only if you miss is an interesting idea, and you need to be at a level where fighters get three attacks, so it will probably work out.

[ZX6Rob]

I like the new beast master features, but dislike that they made the animal companions so limited by RAW. I understand that there is an OPTIONAL rules paragraph to expand selection. It gives very good guidance. Unfortunately, optional rules don't really work for everyone. This is a black spot on an otherwise great remake of the beast master.

I couldn't disagree more here. I love that they limited the companions by default, because it means that they were free to allow much more autonomy for the companion without worrying about edge cases. No more pterodactyls or gigantic poisonous snakes means that they're more comfortable allowing the companion to act on its own, without the worry of granting things like flight or an extra 2d10 damage per hit to the Ranger earlier. I think it's a necessary change to sell the rest of it, and the fact that it's open for other options as listed in the sidebar means that a lenient DM (probably not me, but, you know, someone...) will still allow those options.

[Quintessence]

I actually really like how they took away extra attack from the beast master and instead gave the animal companion as a secondary PC.

[Shining Wrath]

I didn't read all the beast master stuff on my phone, but the base class stuff looks solid. I might, maybe, try to rule that Natural Explorer only kicks in when in a "natural" environment, for some carefully thought out definition of "natural". The 5e simplicity preference, though, says leave it alone.

8th level Rangers get Dash-as-a-bonus-action to replace the now-first-level "ignore difficult terrain". Since they've always had some Hide ability, the line between Ranger and Rogue is a little thinner.

Overall, I approve so far and will be allowing this UA in my campaign.

[Grubble]

I'd happily play this version of ranger.

[DracoKnight]

Coordinated Attack
Companion uses its reaction to make another attack when the Ranger uses the attack action. So now the Ranger is making 2 attacks, a bonus action attack (if TWF), and 2 Companion attacks. Every round. Totally unbalanced.

(I stopped reading this Conclave at this point. It's clearly totally unsuitable for actual play. What the hell were the Devs smoking?)

Hunter Conclave
Hunter's Prey, Defensive Tactics, and Multi-attack seem to work the same way. Am I missing anything?

Extra Attack
Oh wow. Stop the presses. Only Hunter gets Extra Attack? Okay, I may have to revise my opinion on the Beastmaster. :smallredface: That's gonna take some thinkin' on actual numbers.

Deep Stalker Conclave
Yeah, underdark rangers don't interest me. Skipping it.

Beastmasters, as you discovered don't get Extra Attack. So, with their current set up, they can take 1 Attack, 1 bonus action Attack (TWF) and have their Companion spend their reaction to get 1 more Attack. Which is a total of 3 Attacks, same as a TWF Hunter. And note, by RAW the only martial weapon they get as starting equipment now is either 2 shortswords or a longbow w/ 20 arrows. So they're roughly on par with each other damage-wise, I'm fairly sure.

Underdark Rangers also get the Extra Attack feature.

[Shining Wrath]

First impressions, written feature by feature as I read them.

... SNIP ...
Foe Slayer
No change. Hahahaha I love it. A big Dev finger to the complainers IMO.

Beast Conclave
Animal Companion
Costs money to summon a beast now. 50gp to summon, 25gp to revive. Expected wealth isn't exactly set in stone in 5e, but at 3rd you'll probably have around 280gp (assuming 3/7 expected hoards for first tier were actually found). So around 1/5 to summon, and 1/10th to revive.
Interesting and very limited list of creatures you can summon.

Companions Bond
Companions now act independently. HUGE BUFF to Ranger Beastmaster combat power.
Companions now gain 1 HD per level, and increase stats, and are proficient in all saves. Major buff to companions. A bit more fiddly for tracking numbers.
Companions get personality traits (Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw)! Very cool. I love that the Devs are committed to their personality trait system.

Coordinated Attack
Companion uses its reaction to make another attack when the Ranger uses the attack action. So now the Ranger is making 2 attacks, a bonus action attack (if TWF), and 2 Companion attacks. Every round. Totally unbalanced.

(I stopped reading this Conclave at this point. It's clearly totally unsuitable for actual play. What the hell were the Devs smoking?)

Hunter Conclave
Hunter's Prey, Defensive Tactics, and Multi-attack seem to work the same way. Am I missing anything?

Extra Attack
Oh wow. Stop the presses. Only Hunter gets Extra Attack? Okay, I may have to revise my opinion on the Beastmaster. :smallredface: That's gonna take some thinkin' on actual numbers.

Deep Stalker Conclave
Yeah, underdark rangers don't interest me. Skipping it.




Overall impressions:
1) I hate that they removed the 'skilled' Ranger, as embodied by Natural Explorer. At the least they could have come up with some kind of replacement, if people felt it was too limiting.
2) Natural Explorer's combat benefits are far too powerful. Rangers didn't need a combat buff.
3) Extra NPC at the table in the form of Animal Companions are back. Action economy concerns be damned. Despite my first reading, the lack of Extra Attack means probably only a minor one. TWF is now a viable option for Beastmaster companions, so you're looking at 1 Ranger attack, possibly 1 bonus action attack, and 1-2 Companion attacks, with the second attack costing the beast it's reaction. That's basically on par with how things were before, except for the bonus action attack. Guess I need to go back and finish reading the conclave's higher level abilities now.

Foe Slayer is improved. There's no longer any tie to a Favored Enemy. It's a once per turn +4 or +5 to an attack roll or damage roll, chosen after you roll (so on a lot of turns, +5 to your second attack's damage).

The beast master now has to be considerate of their companion's health - just like a "real" ranger would. You can't leave the independent-acting beast to cover the party's retreat without spending some coin. At higher level the cost will be trivial. Something to consider.

[Tanarii]

Beastmasters, as you discovered don't get Extra Attack. So, with their current set up, they can take 1 Attack, 1 bonus action Attack (TWF) and have their Companion spend their reaction to get 1 more Attack. Which is a total of 3 Attacks, same as a TWF Hunter. And note, by RAW the only martial weapon they get as starting equipment now is either 2 shortswords or a longbow w/ 20 arrows. So they're roughly on par with each other damage-wise, I'm fairly sure.The companion gets to make an attack. So total actions are:
Ranger 1 attack, Ranger 1 bonus action attack, Companion 1 attack, Companion 1 reaction attack. 4 attacks for a TWF Beastmaster Ranger.

Edit: The starting equipment is the same as it always was IIRC. But using that equipment as opposed to rolling for gold is a player choice, isn't it? (Ie not a variant rule to roll for gold I thought.)

Foe Slayer is improved. There's no longer any tie to a Favored Enemy. It's a once per turn +4 or +5 to an attack roll or damage roll, chosen after you roll (so on a lot of turns, +5 to your second attack's damage).

The beast master now has to be considerate of their companion's health - just like a "real" ranger would. You can't leave the independent-acting beast to cover the party's retreat without spending some coin. At higher level the cost will be trivial. Something to consider.Oh, good catch on Foe Slayer. Still Wis dependent though, but yeah that's a major upgrade.

I feel like they're gonna be less considerate. The companion has more than double it's previous HPs. And it still took 8 hours to summon one before, which IMX was the major limitation. The cost is quite a lot at low level, but not enough to be a huge limitation by late-mid levels.

[Citan]

UA_RevisedRanger.pdf (http://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf)

Some of it was already spoiled over the week-end see this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500062-Potential-Ranger-Change-(may-be-adopted-to-AL-too)).

What do you think? Do you like the changes, do you think it will "fix" the ranger?
Well, so far my opinion is that they overboard in the opposite now. XD

Just the 1st level Natural Explorer is just too much. Would have been perfect if limited to one type of terrain though.
As it is, it makes 1st Ranger dip as great as Rogue 1.
As for the rest...
I remember that people explained how the original Beast Master was not as bad as most said, but didnt play it myself. So no opinion on either the old or new one.

I feel that the features of Favored Enemy are a bit strong, but considering its intrinsic situational nature it should be fine imo. And at least it makes it feel really useful from the start.

[DanyBallon]

Beastmasters, as you discovered don't get Extra Attack. So, with their current set up, they can take 1 Attack, 1 bonus action Attack (TWF) and have their Companion spend their reaction to get 1 more Attack. Which is a total of 3 Attacks, same as a TWF Hunter.

Except that the companion acting on its own can make an attack with his attack action, hence letting a Beastmaster to effectively make up to 4 attacks.

edit: ninja'd

[Quintessence]

Except that the companion acting on its own can make an attack with his attack action, hence letting a Beastmaster to effectively make up to 4 attacks.

edit: ninja'd

But does that really matter in the grand scheme of things when the beast doesn't have magical modifiers or magical claws/teeth/etc?

[Tanarii]

On Favored Enemy:
If you select Humanoids, it works on all Humanoids. Depending on your campaign, that might be absolutely amazing.

[famousringo]

The companion gets to make an attack. So total actions are:
Ranger 1 attack, Ranger 1 bonus action attack, Companion 1 attack, Companion 1 reaction attack. 4 attacks for a TWF Beastmaster Ranger.


Sounds scary, but beast attacks generally don't benefit from feats, buffs, or magic weapons. Most notably, Hunter's Mark. A level 5 hunter with Mark up can get three attacks with a bonus 3d6 + 1d8, while the beastmaster gets four attacks and a bonus 2d6. Seems pretty close to me.

Also, a beast that uses it's reaction for an additional attack loses the stickiness and control of threatening an opportunity attack. The beastmaster is trading control for offense, and that may not be a trade worth making if you value your beast as an offtank.

[Tanarii]

Except that the companion acting on its own can make an attack with his attack action, hence letting a Beastmaster to effectively make up to 4 attacks.

edit: ninja'd

But does that really matter in the grand scheme of things when the beast doesn't have magical modifiers or magical claws/teeth/etc?It also costs the companion it's reaction. That means it can't OA. Or to look at it another way ... it gets to automatically use it's OA attack every round, instead of only when an enemy tries to get away.

The more I think about it, the less I'm concerned about the number of attacks for the Beastmaster Ranger's Animal Companion. That aspect of it doesn't seem to be a major change in balance.

[Shining Wrath]

First impressions, written feature by feature as I read them.

... SNIP ...
Foe Slayer
No change. Hahahaha I love it. A big Dev finger to the complainers IMO.

Beast Conclave
Animal Companion
Costs money to summon a beast now. 50gp to summon, 25gp to revive. Expected wealth isn't exactly set in stone in 5e, but at 3rd you'll probably have around 280gp (assuming 3/7 expected hoards for first tier were actually found). So around 1/5 to summon, and 1/10th to revive.
Interesting and very limited list of creatures you can summon.

Companions Bond
Companions now act independently. HUGE BUFF to Ranger Beastmaster combat power.
Companions now gain 1 HD per level, and increase stats, and are proficient in all saves. Major buff to companions. A bit more fiddly for tracking numbers.
Companions get personality traits (Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw)! Very cool. I love that the Devs are committed to their personality trait system.

Coordinated Attack
Companion uses its reaction to make another attack when the Ranger uses the attack action. So now the Ranger is making 2 attacks, a bonus action attack (if TWF), and 2 Companion attacks. Every round. Totally unbalanced.

(I stopped reading this Conclave at this point. It's clearly totally unsuitable for actual play. What the hell were the Devs smoking?)

Hunter Conclave
Hunter's Prey, Defensive Tactics, and Multi-attack seem to work the same way. Am I missing anything?

Extra Attack
Oh wow. Stop the presses. Only Hunter gets Extra Attack? Okay, I may have to revise my opinion on the Beastmaster. :smallredface: That's gonna take some thinkin' on actual numbers.

Deep Stalker Conclave
Yeah, underdark rangers don't interest me. Skipping it.




Overall impressions:
1) I hate that they removed the 'skilled' Ranger, as embodied by Natural Explorer. At the least they could have come up with some kind of replacement, if people felt it was too limiting.
2) Natural Explorer's combat benefits are far too powerful. Rangers didn't need a combat buff.
3) Extra NPC at the table in the form of Animal Companions are back. Action economy concerns be damned. Despite my first reading, the lack of Extra Attack means probably only a minor one. TWF is now a viable option for Beastmaster companions, so you're looking at 1 Ranger attack, possibly 1 bonus action attack, and 1-2 Companion attacks, with the second attack costing the beast it's reaction. That's basically on par with how things were before, except for the bonus action attack. Guess I need to go back and finish reading the conclave's higher level abilities now.

Foe Slayer is improved. There's no longer any tie to a Favored Enemy. It's a once per turn +4 or +5 to an attack roll or damage roll, chosen after you roll (so on a lot of turns, +5 to your second attack's damage).

The beast master now has to be considerate of their companion's health - just like a "real" ranger would. You can't leave the independent-acting beast to cover the party's retreat without spending some coin. At higher level the cost will be trivial. Something to consider.

[DracoKnight]

Except that the companion acting on its own can make an attack with his attack action, hence letting a Beastmaster to effectively make up to 4 attacks.

edit: ninja'd

I think that's made up for by the TWF Hunter getting Colossus Slayer.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Natural Explorer has a total thematic disconnect between its label and the ranger's nature theme on one hand and its mechanical effect on the other. Why does a ranger outshine a thief at navigating an urban landscape?

Is there any possibility they suck bad at editing and it should actually be restricted to natural environments?

[RickAllison]

Interestingly, they divided up the Multiattack of the Hunter so Volley behaved like it does now, but Whirlwind is making separate attacks now. So it would be totally legal with that ability to do the snaking through an army by moving to bring more enemies into your range!

[smcmike]

does a ranger outshine a thief at navigating an urban landscape?

See Crocodile Dundee II

[MrStabby]

Hmm. I could actually be tempted to play this. Not the beastmaster ranger, but the stalker one. It looks fun and pretty solid. Rerolling missed attacks could be good with things like great weapon mastery so a monk-ranger might actually be back on.

[Quintessence]

So wolf seems to be the best beast companion... Thoughts?

[Demonic Spoon]

So, ranger 1 looks like a pretty nice dip. Not just for initiative bonus, but skipping over rocks like Legolas. It doesn't even specify natural difficult terrain, so rangers can waltz through a wizard's control spells like they're nothing. I think they may have gone too far here.

It does, however, specify "when traveling for an hour or more". It could be worded better, but the intent is pretty clearly that it only applies to overland movement.

[JeenLeen]

Natural Explorer has a total thematic disconnect between its label and the ranger's nature theme on one hand and its mechanical effect on the other. Why does a ranger outshine a thief at navigating an urban landscape?

Is there any possibility they suck bad at editing and it should actually be restricted to natural environments?

This class now seems an awesome MC with rogue, though part of a level 1 dip would be redundant (but not necessarily bad for) the assassin archetype.
One thing about it including urban environments that it seems to overshadow the Urchin Background's class feature. They both operate independently of one another (rangers don't move through urban terrain any faster), but it feels like an overlap.

[Tanarii]

Underdark Scout
You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. Such creatures gain no benefit when attempting to detect you in dark and dim conditions. Additionally, when the DM determines
if you can hide from a creature, that creature gains no benefit from its darkvision.

Okay, what exactly is this even trying to say? I have no idea on how to rule the effects of this ability.

[R.Shackleford]

I'll have to read more into it but...

I like it and so far I like it and they seemed to have fixed Beast Master.

Kinda sad it took so long tho.

I

[ES Curse]

4 Elements Monk rework when

[Shining Wrath]

Underdark Scout
You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. Such creatures gain no benefit when attempting to detect you in dark and dim conditions. Additionally, when the DM determines
if you can hide from a creature, that creature gains no benefit from its darkvision.

Okay, what exactly is this even trying to say? I have no idea on how to rule the effects of this ability.

When trying to see the Underdark Scout in the darkness, creatures don't have darkvision. *Poof* elves now see you as well as humans do in the Underdark.

[ZX6Rob]

Underdark Scout
You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. Such creatures gain no benefit when attempting to detect you in dark and dim conditions. Additionally, when the DM determines
if you can hide from a creature, that creature gains no benefit from its darkvision.

Okay, what exactly is this even trying to say? I have no idea on how to rule the effects of this ability.

Treat critters with darkvision as though they had normal vision with respect to the Ranger.

Think of that iconic scene in Predator where Arnold's able to fool the titular Predator's heat-vision by covering himself with cool mud.

[Finieous]

So wolf seems to be the best beast companion... Thoughts?

I think you mean ape. Better hit points, better attack bonus, good grappler, ranged attack, climb speed, can wear a tuxedo.

Wolf's good too. Pack Tactics and knockdown attack are nice.

[Feuerphoenix]

Underdark Scout
You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. Such creatures gain no benefit when attempting to detect you in dark and dim conditions. Additionally, when the DM determines
if you can hide from a creature, that creature gains no benefit from its darkvision.

Okay, what exactly is this even trying to say? I have no idea on how to rule the effects of this ability.

Usually in Dark environment you get disadvantage to perception rolls, which you cancel out with darkvision. So this disadvantage is present again.


At 3rd level, you master the art of the ambush. On your first turn during combat, you gain a +10 bonus to your speed, and if you use the Attack action, you can make one additional attack.


This does sound wrong to me. Does it mean, you get a second attack on 3rd level!?!?!

[dejarnjc]

So it seems the beast enclave's animal companion scales in both HD and proficiency with the character's level NOT necessarily the character's Ranger levels. This might make a level 5 "dip" into Ranger very attractive.

Off the top of my head, it sounds like a battlemaster 11 / beast enclave 5 with Polearm Master would be able to have 4 regular attacks plus 2 animal companions attack every round.

With haste that would 5 regular attacks plus 2 animal attacks. With action surge that could be 9 attacks. With both combined that would be 10. Is that a new record for number of attacks in a single round? (not counting summons)

[tkuremento]

Treat critters with darkvision as though they had normal vision with respect to the Ranger.

Think of that iconic scene in Predator where Arnold's able to fool the titular Predator's heat-vision by covering himself with cool mud.

So they see everything around the person, but they don't see the Ranger, but the Ranger would still block sight right? So it'd be like a big humanoid shaped shadow to which they cannot see through. Seems like if anything it makes them more visible....

[JellyPooga]

Usually in Dark environment you get disadvantage to perception rolls, which you cancel out with darkvision. So this disadvantage is present again.

Darkvision actually lets you treat total darkness like dim light, which still imposes disadvantage on perception checks. A point that many forget, player and GM alike.

[Tanarii]

When trying to see the Underdark Scout in the darkness, creatures don't have darkvision. *Poof* elves now see you as well as humans do in the Underdark.


Treat critters with darkvision as though they had normal vision with respect to the Ranger.

Think of that iconic scene in Predator where Arnold's able to fool the titular Predator's heat-vision by covering himself with cool mud.


Usually in Dark environment you get disadvantage to perception rolls, which you cancel out with darkvision. So this disadvantage is present again.
Three different answers. One of them you don't get to use darkvision at all (which means what?), another mistaking darkvision for infravision, and a third saying you have disadvantage when you already had disadvantage.

That's what I mean ... it's totally unclear what it means and how it'll interact with existing rules on vision (and a lack thereof). Terribly written feature.

[Quintessence]

So it seems the beast enclave's animal companion scales in both HD and proficiency with the character's level NOT necessarily the character's Ranger levels. This might make a level 5 "dip" into Ranger very attractive.

Off the top of my head, it sounds like a battlemaster 11 / beast enclave 5 with Polearm Master would be able to have 4 regular attacks plus 2 animal companions attack every round.

With haste that would 5 regular attacks plus 2 animal attacks. With action surge that could be 9 attacks. With both combined that would be 10. Is that a new record for number of attacks in a single round? (not counting summons)

It is fully intended to mean ranger levels and not character levels for at least the hit dice..

[Shining Wrath]

Three different answers. One of them you don't get to use darkvision at all (which means what?), another mistaking darkvision for infravision, and a third saying you have disadvantage when you already had disadvantage.

That's what I mean ... it's totally unclear what it means and how it'll interact with existing rules on vision (and a lack thereof). Terribly written feature.

My answer and ZX6Rob are the same answer - when looking at the Underdark Ranger, creatures with darkvision are treated as though they lack it. Feuerphoenix's answer actually specifies the mechansim - disadvantage, just what a human would have in the darkness.

Those 3 answers all say an elf looking for a Underdark Ranger in the darkness makes the same Perception check as a human does; with disadvantage.

[jas61292]

So it seems the beast enclave's animal companion scales in both HD and proficiency with the character's level NOT necessarily the character's Ranger levels.

Not so fast.

"For each level you gain after 3rd, your animal companion gains an additional hit die and increases its hit points accordingly."

Not the best wording, but it seems clear to me the intent is only ranger levels count.

[ZX6Rob]

My answer and ZX6Rob are the same answer - when looking at the Underdark Ranger, creatures with darkvision are treated as though they lack it. Feuerphoenix's answer actually specifies the mechansim - disadvantage, just what a human would have in the darkness.

Those 3 answers all say an elf looking for a Underdark Ranger in the darkness makes the same Perception check as a human does; with disadvantage.

Yeah, I was just about to reply with the same thing. You just assume anything looking at the Underdark Stalker doesn't possess the Darkvision trait, and adjudicate its vision and checks accordingly. The Predator example was an imperfect analogy, I admit, but in my defense, Predator is a bad-ass movie.

[Renewal]

At 3rd level, you master the art of the ambush. On your first turn during combat, you gain a +10 bonus to your speed, and if you use the Attack action, you can make one additional attack.

This does sound wrong to me. Does it mean, you get a second attack on 3rd level!?!?!
Only for the first round. It essentially gives them one more attack for a stronger alpha strike, not exactly game breaking.

And remember, this is Unearthed Arcana. Feel perfectly free to tone it down for your own games, and let WOTC any balance issues you find so that they can take it into account.

[dejarnjc]

It is fully intended to mean ranger levels and not character levels for at least the hit dice..

Ah I missed that then if that's the case and IF it is the case then beast enclave will be much, much, much less appealing as a multi-class option. I'm sure if they ever fully release this they'll be more clear.

[Ralanr]

Someone has probably already brought this up, but has anyone noticed that it doesn't split humanoids into choosing two different types of humanoids.

It just says humanoids.

I feel this might be busted but I like it.

[BRC]

Someone has probably already brought this up, but has anyone noticed that it doesn't split humanoids into choosing two different types of humanoids.

It just says humanoids.

I feel this might be busted but I like it.

This is UA, I have a feeling that the final version would function like the current Favored Enemy treats Humanoids. Pick 2 types of Humanoid, and apply it to both.

[ZX6Rob]

Someone has probably already brought this up, but has anyone noticed that it doesn't split humanoids into choosing two different types of humanoids.

It just says humanoids.

I feel this might be busted but I like it.

I really like it, honestly. It's a great "default" choice, since you'll nearly always be fighting some manner of humanoid at some point in your game. Makes a situational ability somewhat more likely to see play.

[Ralanr]

This is UA, I have a feeling that the final version would function like the current Favored Enemy treats Humanoids. Pick 2 types of Humanoid, and apply it to both.

Aww. That severely limits the amount of humanoids you can favor.

[MadGrady]

My first thought on seeing Natural Explorer benefits were that it did seem a bit much. But after some thought, it just means that they likely go 1st in a round, and will likely hit on an attack. This doesn't actually seem like a whole lot to me. I don't think its too overpowered.

Perhaps, if it does require some tweaking, bring back Favored Terrain and grant these benefits only while in that terrain. I think that would be fine - and probably thematically more appropriate.

I really like the changes here. Having the Beastmaster NOT get extra attack, and letting the Companion take most of that benefit was a wise choice imho. All three Conclaves seem very viable and fun to play.

[Coffee_Dragon]

See Crocodile Dundee II

Genre fidelity: ACHIEVED

[MeeposFire]

Someone has probably already brought this up, but has anyone noticed that it doesn't split humanoids into choosing two different types of humanoids.

It just says humanoids.

I feel this might be busted but I like it.

That part reminds me more of a 1e ranger which had a HUGE list of enemies that it worked with (with a much higher damage bonus along with enemies with smaller HP pools). Supposedly it said "gain class" enemies but it had things like kobolds on it so giant class clearly did not mean actual giants or anything close. However busted I don't know. This question seems like how in 4e and 5e they made sneak attack so much easier to obtain and how it was effective against all enemies and initailly there was some push back from the community used to 3e sneak attack that was worried that it would be too powerful. I think it should be given some play testing time to really know. Same with the damage bonus itself.

The reaction to the level one ability is giving me flashbacks to back in 3e when the favored soul came out. When it came out so many people came out hard about how unbalanced it was and that it was too powerful. Over time the community eventually figured out that it was no worse than what any full caster with a decent spell list in 3e and was less problematic than say things like the classic wizard, druid, or cleric. I think people need to chill out on something like advantage on initiative checks and give it some time and see if it really is that big of a deal. At least on the mechanical side I can see why some might be wanting something more akin to the fluff of natural explorer though keep in mind if you make something too situational you run back into the old problem of having class abilities that are useless too often and thus making the class less desirable.

[Oramac]

Overall, I like it! I really want to play a BM with this.

I'm a little bit upset that Breaking BM (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?376418-Breaking-BM) is no longer an option with this (or rather, it's no longer a good option), because BM's extra attack is tied to the companion. But really, I'm ok with it.

It would be nice if BM had the Extra Attack feature, and could simply choose to forego their own extra attack to allow the beast to attack, but even typing that I can see problems with it. So I understand why it was written the way it was.

[some guy]

I really liked that the old version of favoured enemy didn't gave combat bonusses, I'm not really a fan of the revamp of the 1st of the ranger. Then again, level 1 ranger was about the worst first level of all classes. Natural explorer not being tied to any specific terrain also feels a bit much.

I really like that Primeval Awareness is worth something and actually gives useful information, it not costing spell slots is also nice.

Bit surprised that only deepstalkers get extra spells, standard rangers are still spell-starved.

Overall, quite happy to see these changes, but I'd like lvl 1 different.

[DracoKnight]

That part reminds me more of a 1e ranger which had a HUGE list of enemies that it worked with (with a much higher damage bonus along with enemies with smaller HP pools). Supposedly it said "gain class" enemies but it had things like kobolds on it so giant class clearly did not mean actual giants or anything close. However busted I don't know. This question seems like how in 4e and 5e they made sneak attack so much easier to obtain and how it was effective against all enemies and initailly there was some push back from the community used to 3e sneak attack that was worried that it would be too powerful. I think it should be given some play testing time to really know. Same with the damage bonus itself.

The reaction to the level one ability is giving me flashbacks to back in 3e when the favored soul came out. When it came out so many people came out hard about how unbalanced it was and that it was too powerful. Over time the community eventually figured out that it was no worse than what any full caster with a decent spell list in 3e and was less problematic than say things like the classic wizard, druid, or cleric. I think people need to chill out on something like advantage on initiative checks and give it some time and see if it really is that big of a deal. At least on the mechanical side I can see why some might be wanting something more akin to the fluff of natural explorer though keep in mind if you make something too situational you run back into the old problem of having class abilities that are useless too often and thus making the class less desirable.

I agree with Meepos 100%.

[VoxRationis]

The new ranger makes all the clerics jealous of the low-level, super-cheap resurrection. I wonder what they know that the temples don't...

Edit: Broad classes of favored enemies both rob the ranger of some of its flavor and save the ranger's player from having to metagame as much to make their character properly effective. In 3.5, a lot of making a core ranger good, in my experience, stemmed from correctly guessing what they were going to face in the campaign. Guessing well meant free damage bonuses against the vast majority of your foes; guessing poorly (even by a little, such as guessing "orcs" instead of "goblinoids") meant you lost a class feature.

[Oramac]

The new ranger makes all the clerics jealous of the low-level, super-cheap resurrection. I wonder what they know that the temples don't...

Rezzing a Wolf with a 3 Int is much easier than rezzing even a Barbarian with an 8 Int.

[famousringo]

The new ranger makes all the clerics jealous of the low-level, super-cheap resurrection. I wonder what they know that the temples don't...

Nothing. The temples already know that animal souls are cheap, and if you really want to impress the gods, you need human souls.

[Oramac]

I agree with Meepos 100%.

Me too. Advantage on initiative is already possible with a Weapon of Warning. Granted, the ranger gets it at level 1, but it's hardly game-breaking. So the Ranger goes first. Big deal.

[gfishfunk]

Some clarifications are still needed.

The Beast gains 1 hit die per level / +2 stat per ASI: is that only Ranger level / ASI?

If a new Beast companion is acquired at level 10 (or whatever), does that Beast have the corresponding level / ASI increase?

[MeeposFire]

Me too. Advantage on initiative is already possible with a Weapon of Warning. Granted, the ranger gets it at level 1, but it's hardly game-breaking. So the Ranger goes first. Big deal.

Also barbarians get it at level 7. The ranger gets it earlier but the effect is not that crazy.

[gfishfunk]

Rezzing a Wolf with a 3 Int is much easier than rezzing even a Barbarian with an 8 Int.

Well, I'm putting all ASIs into intelligence. I want a super intelligent Ape as my companion. Perferrably one that is sinister and plotting.

[JumboWheat01]

I enjoyed reading this, it made me think of how powerful this class is now. It's a proper warrior class once again, fighting hard and hitting hard. I like how to balance the pet out some, they removed multi-attack from the beast AND the Ranger, and let the other two styles have it for themselves.

In fact, I really like the pet aspect now. Will have to show this to my DM, see what he thinks of it. It's been a long while since I played anything Ranger-y, could be an interesting future character.

[Tanarii]

My answer and ZX6Rob are the same answer - when looking at the Underdark Ranger, creatures with darkvision are treated as though they lack it. Feuerphoenix's answer actually specifies the mechansim - disadvantage, just what a human would have in the darkness.

Those 3 answers all say an elf looking for a Underdark Ranger in the darkness makes the same Perception check as a human does; with disadvantage.But that's not what it means to not have Darkvision. Creatures with darkvision make their Perception check at disadvantage, because that's the penalty for Dim Light.

If it means "your target can't see you" then that's a whole slew of affects. For starters, it means you get advantage when attacking them, as well as being able to Stealth. Is this feature meant to provide advantage on attacks, or only the ability to hide against that creature? Is it effectively invisibility vs creatures with darkvision, as long as you're in the dark?

[Oramac]

Well, I'm putting all ASIs into intelligence. I want a super intelligent Ape as my companion. Perferrably one that is sinister and plotting.

So 5 total ASI's at +2 each is 10. The ape starts with a 6 Int. So at 19th level your ape is as smart as a 1st level wizard.

Go for it. :P

[Quintessence]

This is UA, I have a feeling that the final version would function like the current Favored Enemy treats Humanoids. Pick 2 types of Humanoid, and apply it to both.

I doubt it, they want the ability to feel impactful and making it work on a wider array of things helps that.

[Nicrosil]

I agree that on paper some abilities seem overpowered, but I think we should hold judgement until we can see it in actual play. In the mean time, this is definitely approved at my table. I actually want to play a ranger now!

[Regitnui]

Well, I'm intrigued. I'll hand this over to my players. See how the rules types take it. Maybe I'll get a ranger.

[Tanarii]

I agree that on paper some abilities seem overpowered,Try majorly. No way I'd allow this version of Natural Explorer as written.

Better would be eliminate the combat part of the feature completely, retain the other special benefits listed for ALL terrains (except maybe Urban), then bring back Expertise with Int/Wis checks in 2-3 selected Terrains. Or something. That'd be a nice buff to the feature from the original, while not introducing unnecessary/unbalancing and anti-thematic combat features.

[Temperjoke]

I like the buff to companions, but I wish they had more listed as RAW. I mean, I know they made the option and guidelines for DMs to allow more, but at the same time there are a lot of people who refuse to accept anything that isn't written. I also didn't like how much of the ranger's actions were either direct your beast or act yourself, and I don't know that this fixes that, but that's a personal thing.

It was mentioned in it that this would be part of a new sourcebook when finalized, I wonder if it was slip or teaser about a new book in the next year?

[VoxRationis]

Also, I can't help but notice a rather disturbing RAW/RAI gulf in several places. Example:

Additionally, when the DM determines if you can hide from a creature, that creature gains no benefit from its darkvision.
So apparently the DM simply making a ruling, any ruling at all, about your stealth means that those drow stop being able to see in the dark. It's like the Question Master when playing King's Cup:

DM: A group of drow stand before you as you leave the gates of the Temple of Insufficient Light.
You: Can I hide from the drow?
DM: No, you're standing right in front of them. (He should have said "Screw you, Question Master.")
You: The drow stop benefiting from their darkvision. They're now blind and I attack them with advantage.

[Shining Wrath]

Try majorly. No way I'd allow this version of Natural Explorer as written.

Better would be eliminate the combat part of the feature completely, retain the other special benefits listed for ALL terrains (except maybe Urban), then bring back Expertise with Int/Wis checks in 2-3 selected Terrains. Or something. That'd be a nice buff to the feature from the original, while not introducing unnecessary/unbalancing and anti-thematic combat features.

Only thing I see as overpowered is getting all Humanoids as a Favored Enemy, which is probably an oversight. Hitting fast and hard in the first round is not devastating and it's thematically appropriate.

[Beleriphon]

Underdark Scout
You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. Such creatures gain no benefit when attempting to detect you in dark and dim conditions. Additionally, when the DM determines
if you can hide from a creature, that creature gains no benefit from its darkvision.

Okay, what exactly is this even trying to say? I have no idea on how to rule the effects of this ability.

Basically creatures with dark vision don't suffer from low/dim light conditions for the most part. So when dealing with a ranger with that feature they act as if the creature has normal vision for the purposes of how light levels interact with stealth and hiding.

[Tanarii]

Only thing I see as overpowered is getting all Humanoids as a Favored Enemy, which is probably an oversight. Hitting fast and hard in the first round is not devastating and it's thematically appropriate.It's (meaning Natural Explorer's Combat benefits) completely unbalancing, since Rangers didn't need a combat buff. Even more so as a level 1 feature in an MC game.

As to thematically appropriate: Since when? What are you basing that on? It certainly doesn't come from anything Rangers have ever gotten before.

Thematically, Rangers are supposed to be better at gaining surprise and avoiding surprise, and sneaking. That's already handled by the ability to gain proficiency in Stealth and Perception. This ability, going first and getting extra damage (from advantage) is a Assassin/Rogue thematic ability, not a Ranger one. Something special in the arena of avoiding surprise wouldn't be amiss. But this ability doesn't fit at all. Where did they even get it from?

[arrowed]

I don't think the damage increases of favoured enemy and greater favoured enemy are anywhere near unreasonable. Situational damage increase has strong precedent in elemental affinity, empowered evocation, and of course sneak attack. Plus it's only as useful as the DM lets it be, while those other abilities are at least partially in the hands of the PCs.
As for natural explorer, it mitigates some of the effects of grease and similar spells, but they can still fall prone to grease and be restrained by web. It does mean they're more likely to go first and get a brief advantage from doing so, but it fits with the idea of rangers as ambushers and there are one hundred and one ways to get advantage already. I feel this ranger is good. :smallsmile:
I did for a moment think a super-lenient DM could let a player pull shenanigans and get a guard NPC as their animal companion, but the sidebar does say beast, not animal, implying that your animal companion must be of the beast type, and not just any animal. :smallamused:

[Shining Wrath]

It's (meaning Natural Explorer's Combat benefits) completely unbalancing, since Rangers didn't need a combat buff. Even more so as a level 1 feature in an MC game.

Sez you. And Rangers are difficult to MC; Dex and Wis 13 is easy for Monks, not so much for anyone else.

As to thematically appropriate: Since when? What are you basing that on? It certainly doesn't come from anything Rangers have ever gotten before.

Since Aragorn son of Arathorn.

Thematically, Rangers are supposed to be better at gaining surprise and avoiding surprise, and sneaking. That's already handled by the ability to gain proficiency in Stealth and Perception. This ability, going first and getting extra damage (from advantage) is a Assassin/Rogue thematic ability, not a Ranger one. Something special in the arena of avoiding surprise wouldn't be amiss. But this ability doesn't fit at all. Where did they even get it from?

Right, sneak and perception mean the Ranger gains and avoids surprise, but anything other than those abilities is totally not what a Ranger Should Be. Sez You.

My interpolated replies are hot pink.

[Oramac]

It's (meaning Natural Explorer's Combat benefits) completely unbalancing, since Rangers didn't need a combat buff. Even more so as a level 1 feature in an MC game.

I admit maybe it would be better at 3rd level than 1st, but seriously, how is it "completely unbalancing"?

At best, the Ranger goes first in combat, and has advantage on attacks for one round.

That's hardly imbalanced. And it's even worse for Beast Conclave, since the beast doesn't gain the combat benefits. That section specifically only gives the beast your "move stealthily" benefit.

"When using your Natural Explorer feature, you and your animal companion can both move stealthily at a normal pace."

[Tanarii]

My interpolated replies are hot pink.
Yeah okay, those hot pink replies are a whole lot of meaninglessness. So, do you have a real response, or you really got nothing?

[Shining Wrath]

Yeah okay, those hot pink replies are a whole lot of meaninglessness. So, do you have a real response, or you really got nothing?

You win. I shan't discuss this with you further. You may, if you wish, think that is because you are smart.

[jas61292]

So, as much as I love the new beastmaster, I have found one real major problem: 5e monster entries are not designed to be adjusted as this class wants them to be. They simply do not always provide enough information for you to really know what your ASIs do.

Take the Wolf for example. A wolf's bite attack is naturally at +4. Since, per what we know from published books, all the beasts available should naturally have +2 proficiency, this means that the wolf must be using its dexterity to attack, which is +2. This makes sense because its damage is 2d4+2, so you can see the dexterity added in right there. However, the DC for its trip rider effect is 11. Assuming it uses the normal formula of 8+proficiency bonus+stat modifier, this means the trip DC is likely based on strength, which is +1. But... it never actually comes out and says that. And unlike the attack roll, even if we are sure it is a bonus of +1, it could still, in theory, be based on either constitution or wisdom, which are both also +1. Now that said, strength by far makes the most sense there, but you can see what I mean.

And this gets even worse with other creatures. A panther has equivalent strength, dexterity and wisdom modifiers, so even if we could eliminate wisdom from being the stat used for its attacks and for the DC of its pounce, we still have absolutely no idea whether those things are strength or dexterity based, and we certainly have no idea if they both work off the same or different ability scores.

Or, there is the mighty mule, with its amazing +2 to attack. Is the mule using its +0 dexterity? Or is it using its +2 strength, but just not proficient with its hoofs? I personally find the latter more believable, but I have no way to confirm this.

Ultimately, without a big change to the 5e monster statblock paradigm, actually running this ranger could be a bit of a mess. DM adjudication can certainly make it easily playable, but something like this seems too messy to publish in its current form.

EDIT: On further reading, I discovered that the black bear has +3 to attack, but does 1d6+2 (or 2d4+2) damage. That would imply the attack is using a stat with a +1 modifier to attack, but a +2 modifier for damage. While the latter works for strength, the only stat the former could imply would be wisdom. Yeah....

-----

On a related, but different note, looking into this and discovering that a Wolf's attack and trip likely run off different ability scores greatly puts a damper on its ability as a combat companion as you progress in level. Its still decent, since at least its proficiency will increase, but it won't be able to increase everything with one stat, like a boar could, for example.

[Axorfett12]

Well, I'm putting all ASIs into intelligence. I want a super intelligent Ape as my companion. Perferrably one that is sinister and plotting.

Bonus points if his name is Grodd.

[BRC]

Or, there is the mighty mule, with its amazing +2 to attack. Is the mule using its +0 dexterity? Or is it using its +2 strength, but just not proficient with its hoofs? I personally find the latter more believable, but I have no way to confirm this.


Based on the +2 damage, I would say that the Mule is using strength, but isn't proficient with it's hooves, which makes sense. Hooves are primarily for running on, not kicking.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

4 Elements Monk rework when

Exactly!!!!!

[gfishfunk]

So 5 total ASI's at +2 each is 10. The ape starts with a 6 Int. So at 19th level your ape is as smart as a 1st level wizard.

Go for it. :P

My 9th level Druid buddy (we are both level 9 in my scenario) will target my Wolf, giving it a 10 intelligence. Then, I will grab ASIs from level 12, 16, and 19, giving my wolf the ability to speak and a 16 intelligence. My Ranger has an 8 int by the way (3 if I can roll for stats). The wolf will pick up knowledge: Arcana and knowledge: history. Fun times.

Alternatively, I'll throw it all into Charisma for a 16, give the Wolf Negotiate, and then awaken mind.

Or maybe I will not have my Druid buddy use Awaken Mind at all -- I'll take an Ape, give it Negotiation, and have it haggle for me (without the use of words).

"Its for sale for 50 gp!"
"<Angry Ape Noises>" Followed by Ape shrug.
"Alright! 30 gp!"

[Shining Wrath]

So, as much as I love the new beastmaster, I have found one real major problem: 5e monster entries are not designed to be adjusted as this class wants them to be. They simply do not always provide enough information for you to really know what your ASIs do.

Take the Wolf for example. A wolf's bite attack is naturally at +4. Since, per what we know from published books, all the beasts available should naturally have +2 proficiency, this means that the wolf must be using its dexterity to attack, which is +2. This makes sense because its damage is 2d4+2, so you can see the dexterity added in right there. However, the DC for its trip rider effect is 11. Assuming it uses the normal formula of 8+proficiency bonus+stat modifier, this means the trip DC is likely based on strength, which is +1. But... it never actually comes out and says that. And unlike the attack roll, even if we are sure it is a bonus of +1, it could still, in theory, be based on either constitution or wisdom, which are both also +1. Now that said, strength by far makes the most sense there, but you can see what I mean.

And this gets even worse with other creatures. A panther has equivalent strength, dexterity and wisdom modifiers, so even if we could eliminate wisdom from being the stat used for its attacks and for the DC of its pounce, we still have absolutely no idea whether those things are strength or dexterity based, and we certainly have no idea if they both work off the same or different ability scores.

Or, there is the mighty mule, with its amazing +2 to attack. Is the mule using its +0 dexterity? Or is it using its +2 strength, but just not proficient with its hoofs? I personally find the latter more believable, but I have no way to confirm this.

Ultimately, without a big change to the 5e monster statblock paradigm, actually running this ranger could be a bit of a mess. DM adjudication can certainly make it easily playable, but something like this seems too messy to publish in its current form.

-----

On a related, but different note, looking into this and discovering that a Wolf's attack and trip likely run off different ability scores greatly puts a damper on its ability as a combat companion as you progress in level. Its still decent, since at least its proficiency will increase, but it won't be able to increase everything with one stat, like a boar could, for example.

I agree that the 5e MM stat blocks for beasts should spell out which ability scores are used for which features. It's unlikely they'll redo the book, so this is going to fall in the DM's lap. A creature that is MAD but offers a broader range of capabilities (e.g., possibly, the wolf) might represent a trade-off that would add interest.

[Xetheral]

It's (meaning Natural Explorer's Combat benefits) completely unbalancing, since Rangers didn't need a combat buff. Even more so as a level 1 feature in an MC game.

In my opinion, 1st level rangers absolutely needed a combat buff. They were the only class in the game that didn't get any combat abilities at 1st level.

[Tanarii]

In my opinion, 1st level rangers absolutely needed a combat buff. They were the only class in the game that didn't get any combat abilities at 1st level.Do Paladins need a level 1 combat buff too? Because they get the exact same combat features: AC 16 Armor & optional Shield, Martial Weapons, Fighter-sized HD. Rangers even get the additional advantage of having a decent ranged attack.

Then FS at level 2, plus combat spells (especially Hunter's mark). Additional damage from sub-class at level 3. This goes on as they level up. Rangers were plenty balanced in combat previously. It wasn't where their 'problem' was.

[gfishfunk]

Do Paladins need a level 1 combat buff too? Because they get the exact same combat features: AC 16 Armor & optional Shield, Martial Weapons, Fighter-sized HD. Rangers even get the additional advantage of having a decent ranged attack.

Then FS at level 2, plus combat spells (especially Hunter's mark). Additional damage from sub-class at level 3. This goes on as they level up. Rangers were plenty balanced in combat previously. It wasn't where their 'problem' was.

Paladins had a 'combat action' of lay on hands. It was not much, but it was certainly better than Ranger at level 1. And then Paladins got Smite at level 2. Rangers were pretty weak until level 3.

[somehownotsingl]

If I were DM, I think I would allow the first part of the new natural explorer in a particular favored terrain (e.g. forest), then allow the second part in any natural setting

Primal Awareness is no longer useless fluff! It's also much more nice and rangery!

I LOVE that favored enemy actually means something now--not so much for the mechanics, but for the thematic benefits. Same with beastmaster.


The original 5e ranger felt like some dude who happened to stumble outside and find some interesting ways to cause damage. The original UA fix made gave him barbarian-level HP and made him a fighter and/or rogue (depending on how you built it) ... but why? It was still just some dude who had stumbled outside, only now he thought he was a sneaky barbarian. It made the ranger more competitive mechanically, perhaps, but it still lacked a ranger's soul, you know?

This -- this FEELS like a ranger again to me.

[Xetheral]

So, if you chose to summon a new companion rather than revive an old one, do you lose the ASIs that the previous companion got? There doesn't seem to be any provision for applying previously-gained ASIs to a new companion: they're worded as a one-time boost, not as an always-on bonus.

Even if RAI is that the new creature gets the boosts retroactively, it isn't clear whether the Ranger would have to stick with the same attributes or can pick different abilities to increase for the new companion.

The Companion's Bond rules need some editing.


Do Paladins need a level 1 combat buff too? Because they get the exact same combat features: AC 16 Armor & optional Shield, Martial Weapons, Fighter-sized HD. Rangers even get the additional advantage of having a decent ranged attack.

Then FS at level 2, plus combat spells (especially Hunter's mark). Additional damage from sub-class at level 3. This goes on as they level up. Rangers were plenty balanced in combat previously. It wasn't where their 'problem' was.

Yes, 1st level Paladins need a combat boost. They have the lackluster Lay on Hands, which already puts them in better shape than the PHB Ranger, but neither class was an attractive choice for a game starting at 1st level.

[R.Shackleford]

Exactly!!!!!

Quick PHB 2 wish list

Barbarian (Totemist)

Bard (Half Caster Style)

Cleric (Warlock style)

Druid (At-Will Wildshape 3e&4e PHB2 style)

Battlemaster Fighter (Warblade / 4e style)

4 Element Monk (4e Monk style)

Paladin (Crusader style)

Ranger (UA variant as shown)

Rogue (Thug style)

Sorcerer (at will metamagic)

Warlock ( 3e Binder Fluff and mechanics)

Wizard (split into 3 or 4 base classes that combine two or three schools... Beguiler, Warblade, Illusionist, Dread Necromancer, Incarnate... Etc).

[Tanarii]

Paladins had a 'combat action' of lay on hands. It was not much, but it was certainly better than Ranger at level 1.More typically a post-combat action, but fair enough. I'll grant they got a 'combat' heal at level 1.


And then Paladins got Smite at level 2.Hunter's Mark > Smite. By a mile.


Rangers were pretty weak until level 3.They're fairly consistent leaders in the damage pack, ranged or melee. That said, they start to lose out in melee if GWM is allowed in play, but so does every non-2H weapon option comparatively.

[BRC]

Do Paladins need a level 1 combat buff too? Because they get the exact same combat features: AC 16 Armor & optional Shield, Martial Weapons, Fighter-sized HD. Rangers even get the additional advantage of having a decent ranged attack.

Then FS at level 2, plus combat spells (especially Hunter's mark). Additional damage from sub-class at level 3. This goes on as they level up. Rangers were plenty balanced in combat previously. It wasn't where their 'problem' was.

So, where exactly was the Ranger's "Problem", as a class?

I understand the problem with Beast Master. Much like 3.5 monk, it was a matter of jumping through a lot of hoops to get a specific result (In the Ranger's case, using your animal companion to fight) with that result being about the same as just picking up a sword and hitting things with it. The end result of a Beastmaster Ranger with a Wolf companion was about the same as a 1st level ranger with 14 strength, the Duelist fighting style, and a longsword.

Personally, as cool as the Favored Enemy stuff is, I can't say I'm super fond of just slapping an extra +2 damage onto things. Situational Abilities are always going to be tricky, because they're always going to switch from Powerful to Useless, and it gets based a lot on how well you can read your DM's preferences for that given campaign.

[Tanarii]

So, where exactly was the Ranger's "Problem", as a class?Honestly, I didn't think it had much of one. But the two most common 'problems' were Beast Master's Companion using the Ranger's Action as opposed to getting it's own. And spellcasting rangers.

I understood the Companion complaint, even if it didn't bother me. What's interesting is this appears to be almost identical, while fixing some problems of the previous system, such as TWF not working. Apart from some edge cases, like (off the top of my head) twin haste on ranger and companion being more powerful now. Not sure if there's an action economy abuse/loophole to be found with the new version yet though. (Edit: even though I initially objected, on closer reading this actually looks like a very good 'fix' to that issue.)

Obviously this doesn't do anything to placate the 'Spell-less Ranger' crowd.

[ZX6Rob]

Obviously this doesn't do anything to placate the 'Spell-less Ranger' crowd.

For my money, they solved that when they introduced the Scout subclass for the Fighter in the "Kits of Old" UA. That, with the right background, is pretty much a pseudo-Ranger without spells.

[JellyPooga]

Quick PHB 2 wish list

Druid - No Wild Shape (Shaman)

Bard - No prancing (Indiana Jones)

Sorcerer - More Bloodlines (see Pathfinder)

[BRC]

Honestly, I didn't think it had much of one. But the two most common 'problems' were Beast Master's Companion using the Ranger's Action as opposed to getting it's own. And spellcasting rangers.

I understood the Companion complaint, even if it didn't bother me. What's interesting is this appears to be almost identical, while fixing some problems of the previous system, such as TWF not working. Apart from some edge cases, like (off the top of my head) twin haste on ranger and companion being more powerful now. Not sure if there's an action economy abuse/loophole to be found with the new version yet though. (Edit: even though I initially objected, on closer reading this actually looks like a very good 'fix' to that issue.)

Obviously this doesn't do anything to placate the 'Spell-less Ranger' crowd.

The new Companion version feels less artificial. The Beastmaster Ranger is for people who like the fantasy of fighting alongside their companion. Making the Companion's attack take the Ranger's action felt awkward and artificial. Rather than a loyal animal companion at your side, you had an automoton that couldn't attack unless you ordered it to, a process that took the time you could spend shooting arrows.

You gave up your Attack to get a, perhaps marginally better, attack with your Beast. Meanwhile, Basically Everybody Else got Attacks+Other Things. It's like getting a club that hits like a longsword, while somebody else gets a Longsword that is ON FIRE!.

[gfishfunk]

Hunter's Mark > Smite. By a mile.

Point. Maybe, then, it's an issue of not enough levers and options. Paladins had spells and smites. About as much but feels like less.

I think they could have moved the initiative bunko to Primeval Awareness and it would have better balance. The other benefits of Natural Explorer work just fine there.

[Shaofoo]

I do wonder how long till the good will that was given here will evaporate.

But I do find it telling that the usual people that decry the doom and gloom of 5e are silent right now.

Eh, I am sure WotC will do something to get them riled up again, can't keep a good pointless hater down after all.

[R.Shackleford]

Druid - No Wild Shape (Shaman)

Bard - No prancing (Indiana Jones)

Sorcerer - More Bloodlines (see Pathfinder)

College of Indiana actually sounds good.

I wouldnt go that way with sorcerers. Well... not exactly how PF does it. Have bloodlines tied to at-will metamagic effects.

Favored Soul Sorcerer (Aasimar blood): May convert spell damage to radiant with a bonus action. Expanded spells aND other neat features.

[Quintessence]

I don't quite understand where the "ranger is too powerful now" is coming from..?

[Xetheral]

Rangers were pretty weak until level 3.They're fairly consistent leaders in the damage pack, ranged or melee. That said, they start to lose out in melee if GWM is allowed in play, but so does every non-2H weapon option comparatively.

PHB Rangers do less (or equal) damage than every other weapon-using class at level 1. That's the opposite of being a "leader in the damage pack". At level 2 things do indeed get better, although hardly great (Hunter's Mark is 2/long rest and even then only if you're willing to forgo other spells).

[Tanarii]

PHB Rangers do less (or equal) damage than every other weapon-using class at level 1. That's the opposite of being a "leader in the damage pack". At level 2 things do indeed get better, although hardly great (Hunter's Mark is 2/long rest and even then only if you're willing to forgo other spells).In other words, at level 1 they don't lack at all, and after that they get the best non-hex damage buff spell for 2 hours per day, with increasing amounts as time goes on. That's exactly leader of the pack. (Edit: I'm exaggerating of course. The real leader of the pack is Barbarians using a 2H weapon, even without GWM. But other than that, Rangers compete well.)

Not sure why you're harping on level 1. It's kinda of a pointless comparison space, it goes by so quick in 5e.

[MrStabby]

I don't quite understand where the "ranger is too powerful now" is coming from..?

Well obviously it is base on running through a few campaigns using the class, from level 1 to 20 under different DMs. Not on an overreaction at all.

[pwykersotz]

I like the feel of this Beastmaster much better. The rest looks okay, but I'll have to see how it plays out at the table.

[Tanarii]

Well obviously it is base on running through a few campaigns using the class, from level 1 to 20 under different DMs.1 to 10 mostly. DMing lots of them too.

Edit:

Not on an overreaction at all.But also, to be completely honest, probably an overreaction too. :smallbiggrin:

[Plaguescarred]

That ranger is solid it's a bit front-loaded but i must say like how they buffed the beastmaster now! Not sure about Whirlwind Attack needed a buff that huge though, now it can possibly attack a very large number of creature with spikes of movements!

[georgie_leech]

But that's not what it means to not have Darkvision. Creatures with darkvision make their Perception check at disadvantage, because that's the penalty for Dim Light.

If it means "your target can't see you" then that's a whole slew of affects. For starters, it means you get advantage when attacking them, as well as being able to Stealth. Is this feature meant to provide advantage on attacks, or only the ability to hide against that creature? Is it effectively invisibility vs creatures with darkvision, as long as you're in the dark?

If you're standing in Dim Light, you have Concealment against creatures without Darkvision, and creatures with Darkvision see you just fine. If you're in total darkness, you have Total Concealment against creatures without Darkvision, and Concealment against those that do. The Stalker Ranger gets to bypass that. They get Total Concealment against Darkvision in total darkness, and Concealment in dim light. No idea how it interacts with Devil's sight.

Incidentally, Re: Advantage on initiative at level 1: I agree that on the Ranger chasis, likely going first isn't a huge deal. My concern is more with how good that is on an Assassin multiclass.

[tkuremento]

Bonus points if his name is Grodd.

I give you points for not going to the lowest common denominator on naming an ape. Also personally I prefer the Ultra-Humanite.

[DracoKnight]

I have converted the UA: Revised Ranger (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66RprYE6_HHLVZ3b3NPQWUwTGs/view?usp=sharing) into a PDF that I can edit. Once the initial reactions/overreactions are over, I am more than happy to edit in peoples' changes and tweaks that they have implemented after playtesting, so that the community can have a comprehensive and universally fixed Ranger class for 5e :smallsmile:

[Xetheral]

PHB Rangers do less (or equal) damage than every other weapon-using class at level 1. That's the opposite of being a "leader in the damage pack". At level 2 things do indeed get better, although hardly great (Hunter's Mark is 2/long rest and even then only if you're willing to forgo other spells).
In other words, at level 1 they don't lack at all, and after that they get the best non-hex damage buff spell for 2 hours per day, with increasing amounts as time goes on. That's exactly leader of the pack. (Edit: I'm exaggerating of course. The real leader of the pack is Barbarians using a 2H weapon, even without GWM. But other than that, Rangers compete well.)

Not sure why you're harping on level 1. It's kinda of a pointless comparison space, it goes by so quick in 5e.
How does "has zero combat features" and "tied for last" = "doesn't lack at all"?

And all the classes need to be awesome, particularly at level 1, because for many new players trying the game for the first time, a single session at level 1 is the only chance to get them to enjoy the game enough to come back.

Also, how long level 1 lasts is very campaign-dependent. Sure, in some games you'll go through it in the first session. In others, you may be there for multiple sessions before leveling up. (I'm joining a campaign this week that has been meeting weekly for more than two months and isn't quite to level 3.)

[CursedRhubarb]

Beast Master, take an ape and name him Caesar.

ASI to increase INT.

Barding to give him armor.

Teach him to use a net, club, and ride a horse...

[Xetheral]

If you're standing in Dim Light, you have Concealment against creatures without Darkvision, and creatures with Darkvision see you just fine.

In 5e, Darkvision provides no benefit in Dim Light.

[DracoKnight]

In 5e, Darkvision provides no benefit in Dim Light.

You see in Dim Light as if it were Bright Light and in Darkness as if it were Dim Light. It most certainly does provide you a benefit in Dim Light.

[Tanarii]

How does "has zero combat features" and "tied for last" = "doesn't lack at all"?They don't have zero combat features at level one, they have AC 16, 10 + Con HP, and Martial Weapons. And they aren't tied for last, they are superior to all full casters, except possibly certain Clerics. They do less damage than Rogues (due to Sneak Attack), but have way better survivability. Not having buttons to push != "has zero combat features".

(And okay fair enough if you want to limit the discussion level 1. I like to limit discussions to level 1-10 out of 20 myself, for 'it's where most play occurs' type reasons. In 5e that seems a little restrictive even to me, but if that's where you want to keep it ...)

[Tanarii]

If you're standing in Dim Light, you have Concealment against creatures without Darkvision, and creatures with Darkvision see you just fine. If you're in total darkness, you have Total Concealment against creatures without Darkvision, and Concealment against those that do. The Stalker Ranger gets to bypass that. They get Total Concealment against Darkvision in total darkness, and Concealment in dim light. No idea how it interacts with Devil's sight.Maybe if I just think of it as "invisibility vs creatures with darkvision as long as you're in darkness" it won't break my brain so much.


You see in Dim Light as if it were Bright Light and in Darkness as if it were Dim Light. It most certainly does provide you a benefit in Dim Light.Yeah I'd jumped straight to the darkness benefit of it too. So yeah, in dim light it would only be the penalty to perception checks coming back.

[georgie_leech]

In 5e, Darkvision provides no benefit in Dim Light.

Strictly speaking the general Darkvision rules don't mention anything about Dim Light, yes. It's a bit of a moot point though, as any race that gets access to Darkvision points out that you can see in Dim Light as if it were Bright Light.

[MeeposFire]

Anybody else notice the language change in whirlwind attack? It now says attacks as in plural. Was that a change to actually say it makes many attacks using one action like extra attack or just an unintended change of language.

Heck I am down with the change. Original whirlwind attack was near worthless so making it actually useful would be nice.

[Shining Wrath]

I have converted the UA: Revised Ranger (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66RprYE6_HHMDU2VzllV3FNMTA/view?usp=sharing) into a PDF that I can edit. Once the initial reactions/overreactions are over, I am more than happy to edit in peoples' changes and tweaks that they have implemented after playtesting, so that the community can have a comprehensive and universally fixed Ranger class for 5e :smallsmile:

Note to self: email Pope, nominate DracoKnight for canonization. :smallsmile:

First fix that I think will meet with near-universal acclimation: L1 Favorite Enemy "Humanoids" option is too useful compared to other categories for most campaigns, revert back to selecting some particular types of humanoids, although perhaps more than 2.

Per this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_5th_edition_monsters) there are 44 MM entries labeled "humanoid". Compare to 6 fey. There's a boatload of beasts but it's a weird campaign where beasts are a primary enemy. There's quite a few where the low levels are humanoid intensive - goblins and orcs and gnolls, oh my!

[Xetheral]

Strictly speaking the general Darkvision rules don't mention anything about Dim Light, yes. It's a bit of a moot point though, as any race that gets access to Darkvision points out that you can see in Dim Light as if it were Bright Light.

Excellent point. I'd never noticed the apparent conflict in the rules. Does the monster manual have a similar caveat, or is PC-race darkvision inherently superior to monster darkvision?

Edit: Oddly enough, the MM definition of Darkvision is different than the one in the PHB. Very strange. Must just be an oversight in the PHB.

[georgie_leech]

Edit: Oddly enough, the MM definition of Darkvision is different than the one in the PHB. Very strange. Must just be an oversight in the PHB.

Almost certainly that, yeah. Technically though, so long as the oversight exists, this is one of the few places in the rules where the spell-based version of an ability is strictly worse than the natural ability; Darkvision the spell doesn't grant the Dim Light benefit :smallwink:

EDIT: Also the Deep Stalker Ranger, apparently. Yay for rules oversights.

[DracoKnight]

Note to self: email Pope, nominate DracoKnight for canonization. :smallsmile:

First fix that I think will meet with near-universal acclimation: L1 Favorite Enemy "Humanoids" option is too useful compared to other categories for most campaigns, revert back to selecting some particular types of humanoids, although perhaps more than 2.

Per this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_5th_edition_monsters) there are 44 MM entries labeled "humanoid". Compare to 6 fey. There's a boatload of beasts but it's a weird campaign where beasts are a primary enemy. There's quite a few where the low levels are humanoid intensive - goblins and orcs and gnolls, oh my!

That will most likely be among the fixes, yes :smallsmile:

How many people would like me to do the same for other Unearthed Arcana articles that have been published? I am more than happy to do it, and that way the community can get balanced material out of the Unearthed Arana articles :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Although, I myself am in the camp who believes that the feature is fine as is.

[MeeposFire]

Note to self: email Pope, nominate DracoKnight for canonization. :smallsmile:

First fix that I think will meet with near-universal acclimation: L1 Favorite Enemy "Humanoids" option is too useful compared to other categories for most campaigns, revert back to selecting some particular types of humanoids, although perhaps more than 2.

Per this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_5th_edition_monsters) there are 44 MM entries labeled "humanoid". Compare to 6 fey. There's a boatload of beasts but it's a weird campaign where beasts are a primary enemy. There's quite a few where the low levels are humanoid intensive - goblins and orcs and gnolls, oh my!

Funny that you mention that the 1e ranger got a damage bonus to goblins, hobgoblins, gnolls, flinds, orcs, along with a bunch of giant like creatures and more with +1 damage per level so there is precedence. It is also the one time where it was actually considered a good feature rather than average or worse.

I don't know if I would want to play a character where my bonuses were that narrow and that was a problem in several other versions of rangers over the years for me.

[severalservals]

So, where exactly was the Ranger's "Problem", as a class?

I understand the problem with Beast Master. Much like 3.5 monk, it was a matter of jumping through a lot of hoops to get a specific result (In the Ranger's case, using your animal companion to fight) with that result being about the same as just picking up a sword and hitting things with it. The end result of a Beastmaster Ranger with a Wolf companion was about the same as a 1st level ranger with 14 strength, the Duelist fighting style, and a longsword.

Personally, as cool as the Favored Enemy stuff is, I can't say I'm super fond of just slapping an extra +2 damage onto things. Situational Abilities are always going to be tricky, because they're always going to switch from Powerful to Useless, and it gets based a lot on how well you can read your DM's preferences for that given campaign.

I can think of 4 problems with the original 5E Ranger. They were mostly about lack of choice and frustration in realizing the fluff of the class.

1. The core class features Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer and Hide in Plain Sight were flavorful, but so mechanically weak that they were almost forgettable. The archetypes could provide mechanical power, but having core features that were also central to the class's identity be so weak was frustrating.

2. The Hunter actually seems pretty effective, mechanically, but mostly for ranged builds. There isn't much support in the spell list for melee, and Str builds have it even worse, since they still have to pump Dex or suffer in AC. While melee builds do still get Hunter's Mark, my own experience is that concentration spells are very hard to keep up in melee, especially if you're trading off a shield to dual wield. So there's less flexibility than many classes have.

3. Beastmasters were weak, though less than a lot of people liked to claim, but I think again they were frustrating. The beast as written literally displayed less intelligence and initiative than a zombie. I get the fears regarding action economy, but a beast dumber than a zombie is just not what I'm looking for when I go to play a Beastmaster.

4. While rangers get an extra skill, their fluff is pretty skill intensive. You want Stealth, Perception, Nature and Survival, or it just doesn't feel like you're a good Ranger. Ideally Animal Handling, too, especially if you're a Beastmaster. Add in Acrobatics or Athletics (and again, who wants to play a Ranger who can't swim or climb a rope?), and you're suddenly running short. And once again, not a whole lot of choice - most Rangers that hew very close to tradition have their skill choices mostly made for them.

They did a nice job with 1 and 3. Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer now actually do something exciting. Beastmasters seem pretty great and to have exactly the flavor I'd want. They even helped with 4, since the animal communication of the revised Primeval Sense can fill in a bit for Animal Handling or for Animal Friendship/Speak With Animals, which you'd probably like, but can't afford to learn.

[JumboWheat01]

That will most likely be among the fixes, yes :smallsmile:

How many people would like me to do the same for other Unearthed Arcana articles that have been published? I am more than happy to do it, and that way the community can get balanced material out of the Unearthed Arana articles :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Although, I myself am in the camp who believes that the feature is fine as is.

I'd be game for that. Like the Favored Soul, it's obscenely strong compared to the other Sorcerer origins. While I would prefer to have it as its own separate class like it was in 3.5, I'd accept a Sorcerer version if it wasn't so blatantly strong compared to others.

[DracoKnight]

I'd be game for that. Like the Favored Soul, it's obscenely strong compared to the other Sorcerer origins. While I would prefer to have it as its own separate class like it was in 3.5, I'd accept a Sorcerer version if it wasn't so blatantly strong compared to others.

It's only a little bit stronger than the others (having both seen it in play while I DM'd, and played it myself). My fix in my games was that every origin gets an expanded spell list. That brings everything in line in terms of power, and does a lot to fix the limiting number of spells known that the sorcerer has.

Alternatively...I did build out the Favored Soul as a 1-20 level class...I still have it somewhere. :smallsmile:

[JumboWheat01]

Alternatively...I did build out the Favored Soul as a 1-20 level class...I still have it somewhere. :smallsmile:

Now THAT I would love to see. Favored Soul was my favorite Divine Class to play in Neverwinter Nights 2.

[Tanarii]

1. The core class features Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer and Hide in Plain Sight were flavorful, but so mechanically weak that they were almost forgettable. The archetypes could provide mechanical power, but having core features that were also central to the class's identity be so weak was frustrating.Expertise and advantage are not mechanically weak. They're very powerful. The abilities were limited but powerful, not weak.


3. Beastmasters were weak, though less than a lot of people liked to claim, but I think again they were frustrating. The beast as written literally displayed less intelligence and initiative than a zombie. I get the fears regarding action economy, but a beast dumber than a zombie is just not what I'm looking for when I go to play a Beastmaster. Beastmasters are fairly strong, not weak.

Some of your 'problems' are the normal trotted out issues that don't actually exist. Which is par for the course for the 5e PHB Ranger.

(I don't get the 'zombie' issue for Companions. To me it's just a rules abstraction, like HPs. To me that's just an issue with people being unable to handle rules abstraction. Just as some people can't handle that HPs aren't meat. But 'I don't like it' is a valid issue. Unlike 'it's weak' when it's not actually weak.)

[R.Shackleford]

How does "has zero combat features" and "tied for last" = "doesn't lack at all"?

And all the classes need to be awesome, particularly at level 1, because for many new players trying the game for the first time, a single session at level 1 is the only chance to get them to enjoy the game enough to come back.

Also, how long level 1 lasts is very campaign-dependent. Sure, in some games you'll go through it in the first session. In others, you may be there for multiple sessions before leveling up. (I'm joining a campaign this week that has been meeting weekly for more than two months and isn't quite to level 3.)

(I'm a rule of cool guy myself so do note that as you read the following)

I don't know who you are, or what you want but this just won every Ranger thread. Even Ranger threads that just ask for "what background should I take".

People forget that new players play at level 1. People forget that just because a class might get better to them, level 1 is all about selling the game to new players.

This is why I typically have huge fantastic plots for new players doing a 1 shot. Ones that throw them directly into the game, a flash in the pan. Got to get them hooked on the good stuff you know.

If it takes 40 hours to get intto the meat ofor a videogame and past all the tutorials... People are going to check out and play a different game (CoughffxiiiCough).

I've seen so many new players want to play a ranger (Paladin is typically option number 2) but don't want to wait for 3rd level to be "the ranger". They either go to another class or leave the game because their character was just so basic. I saw a lot of this in AL.

I really think subclasses should be given at first level.

[Belac93]

Hmm...

Giant wolf spider with boosts to charisma, proficiency in intimidation, and the flaw: I jump on creatures to tell them how much I love them. Favoured enemy: Humanoids. This, combined with a giant wolf spider's 40 foot movement speed, and the presence of a net-wielding halfling on it's back.

Psychological warfare is fun!

[Sigreid]

I actually like this UA version of the ranger. Enough to silently take back some of the uncharitable things I've said and thought about them over the past year. Not all of the uncharitable things though.

[Xetheral]

They don't have zero combat features at level one, they have AC 16, 10 + Con HP, and Martial Weapons. And they aren't tied for last, they are superior to all full casters, except possibly certain Clerics. They do less damage than Rogues (due to Sneak Attack), but have way better survivability. Not having buttons to push != "has zero combat features".

I said they were tied for last (specifically, with Paladin) for the weapon-using classes. All of the weapon-using classes get 15-17 AC (before shields), 8-10 + Con HP, and either greatsword proficiency or shortsword proficiency for melee, and at least light crossbow proficiency for ranged. So, compared to this baseline a ranger has +1 AC (with the option to trade damage potential to wield a shield), +2 HP, and, if they roll enough gold to buy a heavy crossbow, potentially +1 damage at range. PHB Rangers don't have a single class feature related to combat other than these basic proficiencies, which are unexceptional compared to their weapon-using peers.

So no, I do not believe Rangers are a damage leader at level 1, or that the 1st level Ranger "doesn't lack at all".


(And okay fair enough if you want to limit the discussion level 1. I like to limit discussions to level 1-10 out of 20 myself, for 'it's where most play occurs' type reasons. In 5e that seems a little restrictive even to me, but if that's where you want to keep it ...)

Personally I've never run a game at 1st, so I sympathize, but I'm under the impression that most tables do. And I'm not a fan of anything that might discourage someone trying out the game for the first time to be disappointed. (Also, part of the reason I wouldn't start at first is that I find it completely unacceptable that Rangers (and, to a lesser extent, Paladins) get so little at that level. Dead levels are bad enough. Dead levels at first level.... Yes, I know that if you count the Ribbons, first level PHB Ranger isn't "dead", but not everyone will count the Ribbons, and first level needs to appeal universally.)

[MagusJeran]

What do you think? Do you like the changes, do you think it will "fix" the ranger?[/QUOTE]

Regarding the Beastmaster conclave, when you get the beast at Level 3, can it attack? If yes, then that means then that amounts to the BM ranger getting an extra attack at level 3, correct? Then at level 5, the beast gets a coordinated attack as well, so 3 attacks per round at level 5. I must have misunderstood something, because that seems overpowered.

[Chaosvii7]

One of them you don't get to use darkvision at all (which means what?)

Not having darkvision means that, in areas without light, you would disadvantage on Perception checks to spot things.


another mistaking darkvision for infravision

It was an analogy. A very plainly put analogy too - he never said that it worked the same way, he said it was like it. Suspension of disbelief is important, as is acknowledging that Darkvision (mechanically) doesn't only work one way - if your DM says it works like infravision, it works like infravision. By RAW I'm pretty sure they leave how you actually perceive through darkvision ambiguous, just that it penetrates normal darkness, be it by infravision or night vision or whatever.


and a third saying you have disadvantage when you already had disadvantage.

No, he's saying that if you have Darkvision, you don't when you're trying to look at the Ranger - meaning that you would take the disadvantage to the roll when you normally wouldn't. If you don't have darkvision, then this ability isn't going to be as debilitating because you were already at a disadvantage to spotting the ranger, yes - this makes everyone equally as bad at finding the ranger in darkness.

[Sigreid]

Regarding the Beastmaster conclave, when you get the beast at Level 3, can it attack? If yes, then that means then that amounts to the BM ranger getting an extra attack at level 3, correct? Then at level 5, the beast gets a coordinated attack as well, so 3 attacks per round at level 5. I must have misunderstood something, because that seems overpowered.

Beastmaster conclave doesn't get extra attack. It balances pretty good IMO. Looking forward to trying it live.

[R.Shackleford]

What do you think? Do you like the changes, do you think it will "fix" the ranger?

Regarding the Beastmaster conclave, when you get the beast at Level 3, can it attack? If yes, then that means then that amounts to the BM ranger getting an extra attack at level 3, correct? Then at level 5, the beast gets a coordinated attack as well, so 3 attacks per round at level 5. I must have misunderstood something, because that seems overpowered.[/QUOTE]

The hunter Ranger can have 2 attacks at level 3, these two attacks get bonuses from things like Fighting style.

[MagusJeran]

Beastmaster conclave doesn't get extra attack. It balances pretty good IMO. Looking forward to trying it live.

Yes, It gets a coordinated attack at level 5, in place of the extra attack the Hunter gets. My question is can the beast attack when you get it at level 3. If yes, then that is functionally equivalent to the BM getting an extra attack at level 3. Then the coordinated attack is functionally equivalent to an extra attack at level 5. That is three attacks per round (beast 2 and ranger 1) at level 5. That seems broken, or my reading of it is broken. What do you all think?

[Xetheral]

(I'm a rule of cool guy myself so do note that as you read the following)

I don't know who you are, or what you want but this just won every Ranger thread. Even Ranger threads that just ask for "what background should I take".

People forget that new players play at level 1. People forget that just because a class might get better to them, level 1 is all about selling the game to new players.

This is why I typically have huge fantastic plots for new players doing a 1 shot. Ones that throw them directly into the game, a flash in the pan. Got to get them hooked on the good stuff you know.

If it takes 40 hours to get intto the meat ofor a videogame and past all the tutorials... People are going to check out and play a different game (CoughffxiiiCough).

I've seen so many new players want to play a ranger (Paladin is typically option number 2) but don't want to wait for 3rd level to be "the ranger". They either go to another class or leave the game because their character was just so basic. I saw a lot of this in AL.

I really think subclasses should be given at first level.

Thanks! Yes, when introducing new players I try to go out of my way to make it memorable and fun (and usually start them at level 3 or 4). If it's a new player in an ongoing game I can't always do that, but I at least try.

[Sigreid]

Yes, It gets a coordinated attack at level 5, in place of the extra attack the Hunter gets. My question is can the beast attack when you get it at level 3. If yes, then that is functionally equivalent to the BM getting an extra attack at level 3. Then the coordinated attack is functionally equivalent to an extra attack at level 5. That is three attacks per round (beast 2 and ranger 1) at level 5. That seems broken, or my reading of it is broken. What do you all think?

I think you read correctly, but since the creature doesn't get those massive bonuses from the PHB beastmaster, has no magic embedded in it's attacks, I think it's ok. At least I can live with it.

[JumboWheat01]

Yes, It gets a coordinated attack at level 5, in place of the extra attack the Hunter gets. My question is can the beast attack when you get it at level 3. If yes, then that is functionally equivalent to the BM getting an extra attack at level 3. Then the coordinated attack is functionally equivalent to an extra attack at level 5. That is three attacks per round (beast 2 and ranger 1) at level 5. That seems broken, or my reading of it is broken. What do you all think?

What's the damage of the beast compared to a weapon? Is the beast's attack magical, or ever going to be magical? It may get a moment to shine at a very low level, but eventually, it's just going to flounder, especially when it starts going up against a good ol' 4d10+20 Eldritch Blast, or perhaps an 8D6+20 (potentially doubled) barrage of greatsword swings. Or the area effect of powerful Evocation spells.

[DracoKnight]

Now THAT I would love to see. Favored Soul was my favorite Divine Class to play in Neverwinter Nights 2.

I'll put it into a tidier PDF and then see about posting it in the 5e Forum. It's not the greatest, IMO, but it's something. Personally, I would rather play the Favored Soul Sorcerer.

EDIT: Okay, looking back at it, it's not too bad, if I do say so myself :smallsmile:

[DragonSorcererX]

There is a lot of cool stuff in Unearthed Arcana (Mystic, Favored Soul, Theurge, Demon Summoning, Abyssal Tiefling, Dark and Edgy Sorcerer...) and they made another edition about hippies!

[DracoKnight]

There is a lot of cool stuff in Unearthed Arcana (Mystic, Favored Soul, Theurge, Demon Summoning, Abyssal Tiefling, Dark and Edgy Sorcerer...) and they made another edition about hippies!

But now the hippies are just as powerful as everyone else... :smallcool:

[Naanomi]

Except for cleaning up some rules for clarity and wanting an expanded 'default' beast list (owl/falcon is pretty iconic) I'm very satisfied with this incarnation

[DragonSorcererX]

But now the hippies are just as powerful as everyone else... :smallcool:

DracoKnight-senpai, I love your homebrew but... not only the Unearthed Arcana has cool stuff that they already did, there is so much more things that could come back... Gestalt, Epic Level and even that weird Incarnum stuff...

[MagusJeran]

What's the damage of the beast compared to a weapon? Is the beast's attack magical, or ever going to be magical? It may get a moment to shine at a very low level, but eventually, it's just going to flounder, especially when it starts going up against a good ol' 4d10+20 Eldritch Blast, or perhaps an 8D6+20 (potentially doubled) barrage of greatsword swings. Or the area effect of powerful Evocation spells.

The beasts damage is likely to surpass most weapons since the beast has scaling ASIs and gets to use your proficiency bonus on top of its normal damage. I agree, the beast never getting magical attacks is the Achilles heel of the class. Other than that, I really like this version of the beastmaster, it looks really fun to play.

[JumboWheat01]

But now the hippies are just as powerful as everyone else... :smallcool:

Well to be fair, the other "hippies," (Druids & Barbarians) were quite powerful with amazing capstones and flavor. So they're kinda just bringing Rangers up to the level already established by those two.

[Tanarii]

The beasts damage is likely to surpass most weapons since the beast has scaling ASIs and gets to use your proficiency bonus on top of its normal damage. I agree, the beast never getting magical attacks is the Achilles heel of the class. Other than that, I really like this version of the beastmaster, it looks really fun to play.
It also doesn't get hunters mark bonus, plus either (typically) collossus slayer or horde breaker.

I think it's (still) balanced in the animal companion front. Ish. And coming from me, that's high praise. :smallwink: otoh I always felt that two not working for beastmasters was an oversight.

[DracoKnight]

DracoKnight-senpai, I love your homebrew but... not only the Unearthed Arcana has cool stuff that they already did, there is so much more things that could come back... Gestalt, Epic Level and even that weird Incarnum stuff...

I agree that there are a lot of interesting things that they could and should put into Unearthed Arcana to update for 5e, but I am also glad that they've finally fixed the Ranger in its entirety. I'm glad that they heard everyone who said that the Beast Master needed a fix and that there were a couple base class features that were underpowered to the point of triviality.

Now in the future I want more updates/new content, but I'm glad that they took the time to fix a part of the core rules that was broken.

[Steampunkette]

The Revised Ranger is amazing and people too highly value initiative advantage.

[DracoKnight]

The Revised Ranger is amazing and people too highly value initiative advantage.

You and I are in agreement. Going higher on the initiative track actually means that you have less time to plan and be reactive that first round. It gives you some other benefits, like potentially removing an enemy from the combat. But any enemy that you removed from the combat in one turn probably wasn't a huge threat to begin with. And if removing the enemy in one turn throws a wrench in the DM's plans, he/she needs to dream up bigger plans that don't hinge on a monster that can be killed in a single round by the PCs at their currently level.

[Strill]

My biggest gripe is that there were no changes to Whirlwind to make it comparable to Volley. Whirlwind covers a much smaller area, is more difficult to position, and puts you in danger. IMO Whirlwind should affect all creatures within 10 feet of you.

A lot of the beastmaster rules are ambiguous.
There's no rules for what to do with a beast's abilities that force the target to make a saving throw. How are these abilities calculated, how do they scale with proficiency, and do they scale with an ability score?
There's no rule for what to do with beasts who have Expertise in a skill, like the Panther, which has Expertise in Stealth.
There's no tip to tell you that some animals (like the Wolf) use Finesse weapons.
There are no rules for Barding armor, and how a pet can get proficiency in it.
Pet hit dice is also confusing since some pets have 2 hit dice, and others have 3. So a beastmaster pet does not necessarily have hit dice equal to its level.

[Malifice]

Echo the sentiments re the 1st level [+ Adv to initiative and + attack rolls on turn 1] elements of natural explorer. Bit OP.

For mine, I would strip the (initiative and attack roll) buff of Natural explorer out at 1st level, and put it back in at 6th level alongside improved favored enemy (lets call it it improved natural explorer). Removes the dipping issue.

My only gripe is they missed the boat with a spell-less ranger. I'd really love it if the base Ranger was without spells, but one of the conclaves granted spellcasting (like the Eldritch Knight).

So you have:


Beastmaster (beast ranger)
Warden (spellcasting ranger)
Hunter (fighty ranger)
Stalker (sneaky ranger)

[Malifice]

There's no rules for what to do with a beast's abilities that force the target to make a saving throw. How are these abilities calculated, how do they scale with proficiency, and do they scale with an ability score?

8 + [ranger or beasts prof mod] + [ability score]


There's no rule for what to do with beasts who have Expertise in a skill, like the Panther, which has Expertise in Stealth.

Double the bonus.


There's no tip to tell you that some animals (like the Wolf) use Finesse weapons.


Eyeball.


There are no rules for Barding armor, and how a pet can get proficiency in it.


In the MM already. Its in the realm of 'ask your DM'.

If the beast wasnt trained, then it sounds like a valid use of your downtime and the animal handling skill to train it to gain proficiency for mine.


Pet hit dice is also confusing since some pets have 2 hit dice, and others have 3. So a beastmaster pet does not necessarily have hit dice equal to its level.

I dislike this too.

I'd rather the beast just restored all HP on a short rest, and the Ranger was penalised a bit more for the beast dying. Like by needing to wait till advancing a level to call and bond with another animal.

This greatly speeds up bookeeping (short rest, full heal, on with the adventure) and makes 'kamikaze pets' less of a thing.

[EvilAnagram]

I really enjoy a lot of the changes. It's going to be a lot easier to make a decent Beast Master, and Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, and Vanish are much more useful. They significantly round out some features without necessarily giving a major bonus to average damage, which would be unnecessary.

[Finieous]

Pet hit dice is also confusing since some pets have 2 hit dice, and others have 3. So a beastmaster pet does not necessarily have hit dice equal to its level.


I dislike this too.


I don't get it. The beast doesn't have levels. The beast has starting hit dice. The ranger has levels. "For each level you [the ranger] gain after 3rd, your animal companion gains an additional hit die and increases its hit points accordingly." What's confusing about that?

[Gastronomie]

I love this.

No, like, really. This is good.

I honestly don't have much to say, apart from how the Ranger in my campaign has got an amazing boost, because it's already pretty good and I can't think up stuff to add.

I don't think there are any problems with the abilities either.

[EvilAnagram]

So if I'm reading this right the beast gets a full turn during which it gets to take any action but a multiattack.

After fifth level, it gets a second attack as a reaction.

It's pretty solid, and it seems like you get to add your proficiency to save DCs, which is fantastic.

[Malifice]

I don't get it. The beast doesn't have levels. The beast has starting hit dice. The ranger has levels. "For each level you [the ranger] gain after 3rd, your animal companion gains an additional hit die and increases its hit points accordingly." What's confusing about that?

I didnt say it was confusing. I said I didnt like it.

It would be a whole lot easier in play for the beast to heal back to full HP on a short rest, and if killed, it cant be resummoned until you advance a level (or you take at least a week of time bonding with another animal).

The 'heal on a short rest' is just quicker and a ton simpler than rolling a ton of dice. Cuts down on bookeeping, math and dice rolling.

The harsher penalty for the beast dying means your Ranger will be a lot less likely to send the beast off to its death on kamizaze missions, and might actually care for it (even if out of self interest).

[MeeposFire]

My biggest gripe is that there were no changes to Whirlwind to make it comparable to Volley. Whirlwind covers a much smaller area, is more difficult to position, and puts you in danger. IMO Whirlwind should affect all creatures within 10 feet of you.

A lot of the beastmaster rules are ambiguous.
There's no rules for what to do with a beast's abilities that force the target to make a saving throw. How are these abilities calculated, how do they scale with proficiency, and do they scale with an ability score?
There's no rule for what to do with beasts who have Expertise in a skill, like the Panther, which has Expertise in Stealth.
There's no tip to tell you that some animals (like the Wolf) use Finesse weapons.
There are no rules for Barding armor, and how a pet can get proficiency in it.
Pet hit dice is also confusing since some pets have 2 hit dice, and others have 3. So a beastmaster pet does not necessarily have hit dice equal to its level.

The language to whirlwind attack did change though I am not sure that they intended to change its meaning or not. Now the ability says "attacks" as in plural which if it actually is meant to be actually considered like extra attack of one action and multiple attacks then you could move with whirlwind attack which means you could ensure enough potential targets to make the ability useful. It still won't be crazy good because one attack per target (one target could get two if you took an ability for it but that still is still not crazy) is like a weak friendly area effect that you can use at will.

You would really want mobile though to keep from dying from using it that way.

[Vorpalchicken]

So 5 total ASI's at +2 each is 10. The ape starts with a 6 Int. So at 19th level your ape is as smart as a 1st level wizard.

Go for it. :P
At 8th level your ape is smarter than half of the party.

[georgie_leech]

At 8th level your ape is smarter than half of the party.

Given our usual battle plans, I believe it :smallamused:

[SharkForce]

The Revised Ranger is amazing and people too highly value initiative advantage.


You and I are in agreement. Going higher on the initiative track actually means that you have less time to plan and be reactive that first round. It gives you some other benefits, like potentially removing an enemy from the combat. But any enemy that you removed from the combat in one turn probably wasn't a huge threat to begin with. And if removing the enemy in one turn throws a wrench in the DM's plans, he/she needs to dream up bigger plans that don't hinge on a monster that can be killed in a single round by the PCs at their currently level.

i think the concern is less about the ranger having advantage on initiative (which isn't really a big deal) and anyone else dipping ranger to gain advantage on initiative (which might be a big deal).

do i care if the ranger goes first and volleys into the grouped-up enemies? not really. i mean, the ranger going first is probably better than the ranger not going first, since it gives a chance to put something out of the fight, but the ranger doesn't really have the massive burst damage to do that, nor the CC.

do i care if the wizard with 1 level of ranger goes first 90% of the time and opens up with wall of force? yes. yes i do. do i care if the assassin rogue with 1 level of ranger goes first 90% of the time and kills off a key member of the enemy group? yes. yes i do. do i care if the fight starts with a monk (with 1 level of ranger) dropping on the enemy wizard and stunning the crap out of him every single time before that wizard gets any chance to act? yes. yes i do.

if the ability, rather than being removed, was pushed back a few levels, i think you'd hear a lot less about it. it isn't so much "this ability is broken and should not exist in any form" as it is "this ability is far too tempting for those classes that win fights by changing the course of the battle in round one to be a level one ability that can easily be dipped for".

anyways, i think the new ranger mostly looks pretty good. i wish there was a better way to handle favoured enemy that didn't involve rangers being considerably more powerful against certain specific enemies, but i got nothing better than what they have, and it isn't a huge deal. i'd rather see advantage on initiative pushed back... i have no problem with character concepts that revolve around being a ranger multiclass picking it up, but i don't really want to see people dipping a level of ranger in spite of it having almost nothing to do with their character because they want to go first. and i would like to see clearer rules on how those specific selected animal companions in the beastmaster subclass advance. but i think those are relatively minor.

[Malifice]

At 8th level your ape is smarter than half of the party.

http://static.srcdn.com/slir/w620-h320-q90-c620:320/wp-content/uploads/Planet-of-the-Apes-statue-of-liberty.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/H6gSO6N.jpg

This is how it begins.

[Strill]

In the MM already. Its in the realm of 'ask your DM'.

A player needs to have all the information to build their character listed in the class writeup and PHB. Just because the rules are in the monster manual doesn't mean it's ok to omit them.

[Pex]

I do wonder how long till the good will that was given here will evaporate.

But I do find it telling that the usual people that decry the doom and gloom of 5e are silent right now.

Eh, I am sure WotC will do something to get them riled up again, can't keep a good pointless hater down after all.

Never played nor wanted to play a ranger since I started playing with 2E so as a personal matter I don't care, but I'm interested enough in the game as a whole to lurk here and the DM of one of my 5E games had just sent an email approving the new ranger for the campaign. I can appreciate that at least finally they are listening to their customers and not just auto-believing 5E is absolutely perfect in every way how dare you question its greatness such that they are willing to change something people are complaining about in a fundamental way. Now, if they could react the same way with skills and provide defined skill DCs for those who would like them I'd be jumping for joy. Couldn't hurt to give Sorcerer a little bit more love too, but I'd be happy with a skills improvement. I'm also with those who say Four Element Monks need some loving.

[Malifice]

A player needs to have all the information to build their character listed in the class writeup and PHB.

Ask your DM.

[Osrogue]

How to make scholar animal companion:

1. Get animal companion.
2. Make history and investigation bonus skills.
3. Dump ASIs into intelligence.
4. ???
5. Profit!

I now want to play a int 8 ranger with a 10-12 int animal companion.

[tkuremento]

How to make scholar animal companion:

1. Get animal companion.
2. Make history and investigation bonus skills.
3. Dump ASIs into intelligence.
4. ???
5. Proft!

I now want to play a int 8 ranger with a 10-12 int animal companion.

Idk why but the first place my mind went was Pinky and the Brain, the companion being Brain of course

[Gastronomie]

How to make scholar animal companion:

1. Get animal companion.
2. Make history and investigation bonus skills.
3. Dump ASIs into intelligence.
4. ???
5. Profit!

I now want to play a int 8 ranger with a 10-12 int animal companion.That seems a pretty hilarious character idea.

[georgie_leech]

How to make scholar animal companion:

1. Get animal companion.
2. Make history and investigation bonus skills.
3. Dump ASIs into intelligence.
4. ???
5. Profit!

I now want to play a int 8 ranger with a 10-12 int animal companion.

Miniature Giant Whitetext of Posting

I have lost myself in your words but Boo thinks you're just ducky.

[Anderlith]

Ranger gets my vote, may house rule initiative advantage into adding your prof bonus instead

[Gwendol]

Nice! I'm glad to see the +2 damage to favored enemy is back, as the previous iteration was a little too much of a scholarly ability. I note Foe Slayer works on all enemies now, which makes it less of a ribbon, and more of a capstone. Hide in Plain Sight is interesting, and the wording could be made a little clearer. As it is now, it looks like not moving is the only requirement to hide, so that obscurement or cover isn't necessary, but I'm sure some will disagree.
Beastmasters, as many have noted, will rock. Even without multiattack the beast will be quite awesome (besides, they all get multiattack anyway at lvl 11).

I note the spellcasting is left unchanged, which leaves the ranger behind the paladin still in terms of spell flexibility, and that some class abilities are still hidden in the spell list.

Hmmmm, against favored enemies the hunter ranger can get some kind of sustained burst damage when combining hunter's mark, FE damage, colossus slayer...

[Malifice]

Hide in Plain Sight is interesting, and the wording could be made a little clearer. As it is now, it looks like not moving is the only requirement to hide, so that obscurement or cover isn't necessary, but I'm sure some will disagree.

What? Nothing in the ability suggests anything of the sort.


When you attempt to hide on your turn, you can opt to not move on that turn. If you avoid moving, creatures that attempt to detect you take a −10 penalty to their Wisdom (Perception) checks until the start of your next turn.

If you dont move on your turn, and use the Hide action, observers get -10 to any Wisdom Perception checks to locate you.

You still need all the normal preconditions for hiding (obscurement, usually total obscurement unless you're a wood elf, halfling or Skulker, and no one watching you closely enough).

If you have the right amount of obscurement, and no-one is watching you go into hiding AND you dont move on your turn, you get the benefits of the ability.


You lose this benefit if you move or fall prone, either voluntarily or because of some external effect.

If you move or fall prone for any reason, the -10 ends.


You are still automatically detected if any effect or action causes you to no longer be hidden.


If you lose cover or concealment (your opponent opens the box you're hiding in) then you are automatically detected as normal.


If you are still hidden on your next turn, you can continue to remain motionless and gain this
benefit until you are detected.

If you stay still, the status quo is maintained.

[Gwendol]

Ah, missed the third paragraph on my first read. That clears it up.

[Xetheral]

That seems a pretty hilarious character idea.

There's an entire sidebar in the old 3.0 Arms and Equipment Guide devoted to what to do when your mount is smarter than you are. It begins:

"A 5th-level paladin has Intelligence 5. Though she is brave and honorable, her warhorse is smarter than she is. How embarrassing. What will the other warhorses think?"

[Malifice]

"A 5th-level paladin has Intelligence 5. Though she is brave and honorable, her warhorse is smarter than she is. How embarrassing. What will the other warhorses think?"

"High on a rocky promontory sat an Electric Monk on a bored horse. From under its rough woven cowl the Monk gazed unblinkingly down into another valley, with which it was having a problem.

The day was hot, the sun stood in an empty hazy sky and beat down upon the gray rocks and the scrubby, parched grass. Nothing moved, not even the Monk. The horse's tail moved a little, swishing slightly to try and move a little air, but that was all. Otherwise, nothing moved.

The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe.

Unfortunately this Electric Monk had developed a fault, and had started to believe all kinds of things, more or less at random. It was even beginning to believe things they'd have difficulty believing in Salt Lake City. It had never heard of Salt Lake City, of course. Nor had it ever heard of a quingigillion, which was roughly the number of miles between this valley and the Great Salt Lake of Utah.

The problem with the valley was this. The Monk currently believed that the valley and everything in the valley and around it, including the Monk itself and the Monk's horse, was a uniform shade of pale pink. This made for a certain difficulty in distinguishing any one thing from any other thing, and therefore made doing anything or going anywhere impossible, or at least difficult and dangerous. Hence the immobility of the Monk and the boredom of the horse, which had had to put up with a lot of silly things in its time but was secretly of the opinion that this was one of the silliest.

How long did the Monk believe these things?

Well, as far as the Monk was concerned, forever. The faith which moves mountains, or at least believes them against all the available evidence to be pink, was a solid and abiding faith, a great rock against which the world could hurl whatever it would, yet it would not be shaken. In practice, the horse knew, twenty-four hours was usually about its lot.

So what of this horse, then, that actually held opinions, and was sceptical about things? Unusual behaviour for a horse, wasn't it? An unusual horse perhaps?

No. Although it was certainly a handsome and well-built example of its species, it was none the less a perfectly ordinary horse, such as convergent evolution has produced in many of the places that life is to be found. They have always understood a great deal more than they let on. It is difficult to be sat on all day, every day, by some other creature, without forming an opinion on them.

On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to sit all day, every day, on top of another creature and not have the slightest thought about them whatsoever."

http://theelectricmonk.com/ElectricMonk.html

RIP: Douglas Adams

[Zalabim]

Hunter's Mark > Smite. By a mile.

At level 2? It depends on what fighting style you're using, what enemies you're fighting, how close together your fights are, and whether you can keep your concentration through your fights. Sometimes Divine Smite is better because it doesn't take an action, doesn't take concentration, does radiant damage, does its damage faster, does extra damage to undead and fiends, and can be spent after you already know you've hit. Sometimes Hunter's Mark is better because it can last for a long time and works with Extra Attacks, Opportunity Attacks, and bonus action attacks. Then some paladins will get Hunter's Mark at level 3 anyway.


i think the concern is less about the ranger having advantage on initiative (which isn't really a big deal) and anyone else dipping ranger to gain advantage on initiative (which might be a big deal).

http://anydice.com/program/955d

I don't think the actual improvement in chance to go before an enemy is a big deal.

[NiklasWB]

So... With the new Favored Enemy, a ranger can get a free +2 damage to ALL humanoid enemies? Like, not just two specific kinds (like orcs and knoll or whatever) like before, but ALL humanoids? Human, elf, dwarf, Halfling, gnome, orc, goblin, lizardfolk, merfolk, gnoll, bugbear, mind flayer, kobold, lycanthropes.. etc. etc? That's pretty powerful. And it turns to a +4 later on? Not game-breaking, but certainly powerful, especially In a humanoid centric campaign.

[Malifice]

ALL humanoids? Human, elf, dwarf, Halfling, gnome, orc, goblin, lizardfolk, merfolk, gnoll, bugbear, mind flayer, kobold, lycanthropes.. etc. etc?

Aint they aberations?

[Shaofoo]

Never played nor wanted to play a ranger since I started playing with 2E so as a personal matter I don't care, but I'm interested enough in the game as a whole to lurk here and the DM of one of my 5E games had just sent an email approving the new ranger for the campaign. I can appreciate that at least finally they are listening to their customers and not just auto-believing 5E is absolutely perfect in every way how dare you question its greatness such that they are willing to change something people are complaining about in a fundamental way. Now, if they could react the same way with skills and provide defined skill DCs for those who would like them I'd be jumping for joy. Couldn't hurt to give Sorcerer a little bit more love too, but I'd be happy with a skills improvement. I'm also with those who say Four Element Monks need some loving.

Except they haven't, this is still UA and things can change radically.

Remember Storm Sorcerer? That changed radically when in the official implementation they nixed all Extra spells. But looks like they tried to give Sorcerers a little more love (in fact they seem to get quite a bit of love in UA except no one cares cause it is UA and there is no guarantee anything in UA will get to be official).

Also they never thought 5e is the best thing ever and absolutely perfect, since a long while they have been saying that Rangers are a big complaint with the consumers. Give a little credit where credit is due.

Rangers seems to be the only thing that they have said that the people really made a point. I doubt skills and Avatar the Last Air Bender will get some changes if there is no complaint.

Like I said, lets see how long all this goodwill will last.

[Theoboldi]

Aint they aberations?

That they be.


I dunno, this ranger seems a bit too powerful at low levels to me. It has ridiculous dipping potential due to Natural Explorer (Other classes have similar dipping potential, I know. It's not my only complaint.), a great hit die, and offering Hunter's Mark as a spell.

A beast master's companion allows 2 attacks at level 3, and 3 at level 5, two of which gets to add proficiency bonus to their damage (and maybe Favored Enemy Bonuses) and one of which gets to add Hunter's Mark (And maybe Favored Enemy Bonuses). And Primal Awareness essentially makes it impossible for your Favored Enemies to ambush you from level 3 onwards, which can be problematic depending on the campaign, especially those who rely on humanoid enemies. (Though the distance being measured in miles puts a hamper on that, now that I've reread it.)

I'm not sure about it being overpowered overall, as it seems to level out later on, but it definitely seems to strong to me at low levels, the new beastmaster in particular. Hunter and Stalker look better, though I'm still not too sure.

[Sneak Dog]

Personally, I feel like giving +4 damage and advantage on all the saves from the target is amazing. On top of that, the power budget alloted for this seems rather small.

Putting it behind a conditional barrier that mostly the DM has control over just seems unfair. Now the DM has to give you an appropriate amount of that type of enemies, but not too many nor too little, putting quite an extra burden on him.

[MrStabby]

Personally, I feel like giving +4 damage and advantage on all the saves from the target is amazing. On top of that, the power budget alloted for this seems rather small.

Putting it behind a conditional barrier that mostly the DM has control over just seems unfair. Now the DM has to give you an appropriate amount of that type of enemies, but not too many nor too little, putting quite an extra burden on him.

This kind of just seems like the paladin getting extra smite damage vs fiends or undead or the cleric getting turn undead.

Likewise if you go up against a fey theme then gnomish saves may look disproportionately good and so on...

[AmayaElls]

Personally, I feel like giving +4 damage and advantage on all the saves from the target is amazing. On top of that, the power budget alloted for this seems rather small.

Putting it behind a conditional barrier that mostly the DM has control over just seems unfair. Now the DM has to give you an appropriate amount of that type of enemies, but not too many nor too little, putting quite an extra burden on him.

I don't really see why the DM has to do any such thing. Its up to you as a player to choose your favoured enemy and you are likely to do one that fits the theme of the campaign. If I am in a campaign where dragons are invading I'll decide on dragons, if the campaign is focussed more on fey I might lean that way... If I choose something that didn't appear to be an issue in the campaign that is kinda my problem, I've chosen to be suboptimal. If the Dm then chooses to put in a small arc which suits my character that's nice, but by no means necessary.

[Naanomi]

Animals that used to be pet options but now fail their guidelines (also note that most of their own defaults fail those guidelines):

-Because they can do more than 8 damage in one attack: pteranodon, stirge (maybe), reef shark, pony, poisonous snake, giant wolf spider, giant poisonous snake, giant centipede, flying snake

-Because they have too many HP: giant frog

What it leaves, aside from many noncombat critters and 'lesser versions' of the defaults:
-scorpion (milkable poison)
-vulture (a flying mount, especially once strength is boosted)
-blood hawk (decent 'falconer' option)
-giant crab (my favorite option!)

[NiklasWB]

Aint they aberations?

Gah, I knew that didn't sound right... I'm away from book, so, anyways... But other than that, I'm reading it right, right? Ranger can get a free +2 to ALL humanoids? That's really strong. If there was one thing I didn't feel the ranger (hunter at least) needed, it was damage. In my group we have a level 5 wood elf archer with sharpshooter, colossus slayer and hunter's mark, and two attacks... he will often do like 40+ damage in a round, I wouldn't say he needs any more against EVERY humanoid.

[Shining Wrath]

I can think of 4 problems with the original 5E Ranger. They were mostly about lack of choice and frustration in realizing the fluff of the class.

1. The core class features Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer and Hide in Plain Sight were flavorful, but so mechanically weak that they were almost forgettable. The archetypes could provide mechanical power, but having core features that were also central to the class's identity be so weak was frustrating.

2. The Hunter actually seems pretty effective, mechanically, but mostly for ranged builds. There isn't much support in the spell list for melee, and Str builds have it even worse, since they still have to pump Dex or suffer in AC. While melee builds do still get Hunter's Mark, my own experience is that concentration spells are very hard to keep up in melee, especially if you're trading off a shield to dual wield. So there's less flexibility than many classes have.

3. Beastmasters were weak, though less than a lot of people liked to claim, but I think again they were frustrating. The beast as written literally displayed less intelligence and initiative than a zombie. I get the fears regarding action economy, but a beast dumber than a zombie is just not what I'm looking for when I go to play a Beastmaster.

4. While rangers get an extra skill, their fluff is pretty skill intensive. You want Stealth, Perception, Nature and Survival, or it just doesn't feel like you're a good Ranger. Ideally Animal Handling, too, especially if you're a Beastmaster. Add in Acrobatics or Athletics (and again, who wants to play a Ranger who can't swim or climb a rope?), and you're suddenly running short. And once again, not a whole lot of choice - most Rangers that hew very close to tradition have their skill choices mostly made for them.

They did a nice job with 1 and 3. Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer now actually do something exciting. Beastmasters seem pretty great and to have exactly the flavor I'd want. They even helped with 4, since the animal communication of the revised Primeval Sense can fill in a bit for Animal Handling or for Animal Friendship/Speak With Animals, which you'd probably like, but can't afford to learn.

I think the "talk to the animals" feature is my favorite thing in this UA. Powerful? No. A very fun "ribbon"? Yes. Plus, a ranger can talk to a beastform druid, which might allow for some fun roleplaying. Ranger and Giant Constrictor Snake exchange a few hisses, look at the party rogue, and smile ....

[Gwendol]

Gah, I knew that didn't sound right... I'm away from book, so, anyways... But other than that, I'm reading it right, right? Ranger can get a free +2 to ALL humanoids? That's really strong. If there was one thing I didn't feel the ranger (hunter at least) needed, it was damage. In my group we have a level 5 wood elf archer with sharpshooter, colossus slayer and hunter's mark, and two attacks... he will often do like 40+ damage in a round, I wouldn't say he needs any more against EVERY humanoid.

Archer hunter rangers are really strong, but not ahead of the curve by much, and definitely on par or below once hitting 11+ levels (compared with other ranged classes). This change will keep that particular build strong later in the game, and more importantly, will help with the less optimal choices. I'm more concerned about the favored enemy impact on the beast.

[Sigreid]

Gah, I knew that didn't sound right... I'm away from book, so, anyways... But other than that, I'm reading it right, right? Ranger can get a free +2 to ALL humanoids? That's really strong. If there was one thing I didn't feel the ranger (hunter at least) needed, it was damage. In my group we have a level 5 wood elf archer with sharpshooter, colossus slayer and hunter's mark, and two attacks... he will often do like 40+ damage in a round, I wouldn't say he needs any more against EVERY humanoid.

I believe their guidelines apply to the averages in the MM and not the maximum potential. I.E. where it says something like 1d8+2 (7) damage.

[Oramac]

I'm more concerned about the favored enemy impact on the beast.

I was just looking at this. Adding Proficiency + Favored Enemy to damage is pretty damn good. The only real limiting factor is that the beast attacks are not magical, so they're automatically doing half damage against most powerful enemies.

Still, it's a pretty strong feature.

[Finieous]

How to make scholar animal companion:

1. Get animal companion.
2. Make history and investigation bonus skills.
3. Dump ASIs into intelligence.
4. ???
5. Profit!

I now want to play a int 8 ranger with a 10-12 int animal companion.

http://i315.photobucket.com/albums/ll442/gbenage/APE.png

[Oramac]

One more thing I noticed.

Coordinated Attack is strictly worse than regular old Extra Attack. If your companion can't see you, it can't attack. And even if it can see you, it uses its reaction to attack.

So instead of just getting two attacks, you have a relatively high cost to get your second attack. Even more so since the companion has to be in melee range of something, whereas with Extra Attack you can just shoot it twice. Granted it'll probably be in melee anyway, but it's still a small hurdle to getting your second attack.

[Naanomi]

I believe their guidelines apply to the averages in the MM and not the maximum potential. I.E. where it says something like 1d8+2 (7) damage.
If so, then only the bigger poisonous creatures (and the few with too many HP) are off the table compared to before

[gfishfunk]

One more thing I noticed.

Coordinated Attack is strictly worse than regular old Extra Attack. If your companion can't see you, it can't attack. And even if it can see you, it uses its reaction to attack.

So instead of just getting two attacks, you have a relatively high cost to get your second attack. Even more so since the companion has to be in melee range of something, whereas with Extra Attack you can just shoot it twice. Granted it'll probably be in melee anyway, but it's still a small hurdle to getting your second attack.

I don't think that is a huge issue: you are already getting a large boost to numbers of attack by having the beast attack on its own turn. The reaction thing just ensures that the reaction goes off. Its actually very useful if the beast goes just after you, with only team mates in initiative order between you and it.

[Oramac]

I don't think that is a huge issue: you are already getting a large boost to numbers of attack by having the beast attack on its own turn. The reaction thing just ensures that the reaction goes off. Its actually very useful if the beast goes just after you, with only team mates in initiative order between you and it.

Hmm. Good point. So basically, Coordinated Attack is more like Extra Extra Attack. haha. I suppose in that light it's balanced fairly well.

[BDRook]

As a DM I would house-rule Natural Explorer as:

When you first gain the Natural Explorer feature you must choose either wilderness(forest, open road, etc.) or urban environment(houses, city streets, etc..) The benefits of Natural Explorer only work in the chosen area.

That way they really feel empowered in their element and it isn't completely broken at level 1. Of course it always depends on the type of game you run, but most games I play have a good mix of both environments.

[Nemenia]

A little thing I noticed, it says that the ranger controls all of the beasts actions. Their decisions, attitudes (sic). No dm control. This disappoints me alittle. It's just one person talking to themself, raw. I would rule the dm controls the companion, past the rangers orders.

[TentacleSurpris]

I'm really Ok with the Natural Explorer Feature as written here. Previously the Ranger didn't get any abilities that were useful at level 1. YOu have to look at the character from the point of view of levels 1-20, not just in terms of some 20th level optimized dip-monstrosity. Now a Ranger gets abilities he will use at 1st level and continue to use those abilities every level.

You get 3 things:
- Move across difficult terrain
- Advantage on Initiative
- Advantage on attacks against creatures who haven't acted yet

Compare this to:
Fighter gets Combat Style and self-heal

Barbarian gets Rage and unarmoured combat

Rogue gets +1d6 sneak attack and expertise.

The Ranger bonuses, keep in mind, might not actually do anything. Sometimes you'll just roll poorly on initiative and your advantage on initiative won't matter and your advantage on initial attacks won't even happen. In 5th edition combats tend to run more rounds than in 3.5, and over a longer combat, these abilities become less useful. Initiative works as a wheel; you go first but everyone still gets the same number of turns. After a few rounds it really doesn't matter who went first in round 1, because you're all getting to go. Is the highest spoke on a wheel faster than any other spoke?

If your problem is that it's too attractive of a dip for warlocks or assassins or fighters then STOP. ****ING. MINMAX. DIPPING. Just roleplay the classes as classes of people instead of modular flavour-less ability boxes. If rangers can't have nice things because of minmax dippers then you're sucking the fun out of the game. Stop doing that.

[Merellis]

Only issue with its reaction is going to be the level 15 feature that allows you to use its reaction to halve the damage it takes. From there you have three ways to use the reaction of your companion, an extra attack, a form of soft crowd control from an opportunity attack, or a defensive action with the companion lowering the damage it takes at higher levels.

From the wording, it seems that the Prof bonus won't get in the way of barding for AC. So, you could potentially get into the low to mid 20's with some good dex, studded leather barding, and such.

[Nemenia]

Also, WHY CAN NOW TWO CLASSES TALK TO ANIMALS FOR FREE AND THE DRUID STILL NEEDS A DAMN SPELL.

[Nemenia]

If your problem is that it's too attractive of a dip for warlocks or assassins or fighters then STOP. ****ING. MINMAX. DIPPING. Just roleplay the classes as classes of people instead of modular flavour-less ability boxes. If rangers can't have nice things because of minmax dippers then you're sucking the fun out of the game. Stop doing that.

PREACH brother.

[gfishfunk]

Only issue with its reaction is going to be the level 15 feature that allows you to use its reaction to halve the damage it takes. From there you have three ways to use the reaction of your companion, an extra attack, a form of soft crowd control from an opportunity attack, or a defensive action with the companion lowering the damage it takes at higher levels.

I can see this a problem, but I personally like options. I will take the versatility.

[Coffee_Dragon]

If your problem is that it's too attractive of a dip for warlocks or assassins or fighters then STOP. ****ING. MINMAX. DIPPING. Just roleplay the classes as classes of people instead of modular flavour-less ability boxes.

But saying "everyone can just agree not to take it" is not very useful input when discussing game balance. It also dismisses people who view classes as abstract building blocks to realize character concepts rather than as delineated professions.

[Merellis]

I can see this a problem, but I personally like options. I will take the versatility.

Sorry, managed to flub what I was going to actually say there. :smallredface:

Only issue with the idea that a ranger will be spamming the Coordinated Attack is the fact that the companion has two other good reactions to use, namely the one that forces an enemy to use an action to disengage or teleport, and the one that allows the companion to live longer when attacked.

Those three options around one particular action, make battles more interesting in the idea of figuring out how you want the companion to handle certain things.

[VoxRationis]

@Coffee_Dragon: Most D&D classes, with the exception of fighter, rogue, and wizard (and possibly cleric), are not nearly abstract or generic enough to be thought of in that way with any degree of intellectual honesty.

(Which incidentally is why I desire a spell-less ranger more than any other class addition; the ranger as presented does not match up with the idea of a "skilled woodsman" that it is so often presented as—if you're tossing spells around, you're more than just a skilled tracker and hunter. This makes the ranger somewhat difficult to work into a lot of settings.)

[Nemenia]

But saying "everyone can just agree not to take it" is not very useful input when discussing game balance. It also dismisses people who view classes as abstract building blocks to realize character concepts rather than as delineated professions.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I see classes the same way and frequently mix them to make interesting new characters. By his exact wording, this is for people who are like "who the **** cares about my character, I need dem BUFFS". This is absolutely a problem, not a difference of opinion.

[Coffee_Dragon]

@Coffee_Dragon: Most D&D classes, with the exception of fighter, rogue, and wizard (and possibly cleric), are not nearly abstract or generic enough to be thought of in that way with any degree of intellectual honesty.

Agree on for instance warlocks, who should all be destroyed and forgotten forever, but this ranger at level 1 is more akin to a fighter or rogue. Previously if I wanted to make a character who is peerless at navigating rooftops and alleyways and is always alert for danger, a good match would be a thief who ends up with Expertise in Athletics, Acrobatics and/or Perception, and maybe Alert. Now if you don't take one level of ranger among your first few levels of rogue you could justifiably be accused of not selecting your crunch to match your fluff. I don't think sticking to one out of several mundane classes is automatically more honest or better role-playing.


I wholeheartedly disagree. I see classes the same way and frequently mix them to make interesting new characters. By his exact wording, this is for people who are like "who the **** cares about my character, I need dem BUFFS". This is absolutely a problem, not a difference of opinion.

It might be a problem, but a way to address this through design is for instance by not frontloading. Saying "let's leave this option in but shame anyone who takes it" does not really address it.

[Shining Wrath]

A multi-class ranger requires dexterity and wisdom both of 13. If you're playing a human, a hill dwarf, or a wood elf, two of your 4 best scores just went into Wisdom and Dexterity. Anyone else, two of your best 3 - assuming standard array of 15,14,13,12,10.8.

That's fine for a Monk. For a Rogue or a Fighter or a Warlock, that represents a real cost paid to get that advantage on initiative. For a strength fighter it's probably a net loss. Compare to the Alert feat that gives +5 to initiative (usually better than advantage) and a defensive boost instead of the offensive boost.

It's not an obvious choice for anyone but a Monk.

[SharkForce]

wisdom and dexterity are not primary attributes for too many people. but they *are* good attributes to have at a decent level for everyone. both govern some high value skills and important defensive abilities. would i want my wizard to have 20 in each? well, yes, but not if i had to pay for it. do i consider it to be an unreasonable hardship to have a 13 in each? not really, no. i was probably going to have a 13+ dexterity anyways (for AC and initiative), and while i might not be intending to grab 13 wisdom by default, it isn't a huge sacrifice, since i don't really need the highest absolute possible attribute in anything except intelligence. heck, given a ranger dip also grants medium armour and shield proficiency, my need for higher than 14 dex actually just went down significantly.

now, i'm not suggesting that it is perfectly optimized, or that you should take it 100% of the time without even looking back. more wizard levels on a wizard is always a strong choice. but i do think there's a case to be made that getting to use wall of force before any enemies can even act, or opening up with a hypnotic pattern that catches all enemies off-guard and clumped up, is pretty tempting as well. and if someone actually wants to make a ranger/mage (which is actually a fairly stereotypical archetype) and grab a few ranger levels, i think that's fine. on the other hand, if someone is just making a wizard and starts thinking "well, i don't really want this character to be a ranger at all, but maybe i'll splash ranger just to go first more often", i don't think that is really desirable.

and yeah, you can argue that only munchkins will take it and that it shouldn't happen and we should all agree not to do that... but the thing is, we shouldn't need to pretend like those bad rules don't exist. if it had already happened, fine, it's not impossible to deal with it, but right now it isn't set in stone. it can be done better, so why shouldn't it be done better?

[EvilAnagram]

A little thing I noticed, it says that the ranger controls all of the beasts actions. Their decisions, attitudes (sic). No dm control. This disappoints me alittle. It's just one person talking to themself, raw. I would rule the dm controls the companion, past the rangers orders.

Allowing the DM to control the beast is a terrible idea. It opens the game up to arbitrary decisions by the DM that conflict with the Ranger's desires and orders. Allowing the DM to completely control a defining aspect of your character neuters the player.

[gfishfunk]

Allowing the DM to control the beast is a terrible idea. It opens the game up to arbitrary decisions by the DM that conflict with the Ranger's desires and orders. Allowing the DM to completely control a defining aspect of your character neuters the player.

Allowing the DM to roleplay the beast (on the other hand) should be fine if the player and the DM discuss it prior to the game.

[R.Shackleford]

As a DM I would house-rule Natural Explorer as:

When you first gain the Natural Explorer feature you must choose either wilderness(forest, open road, etc.) or urban environment(houses, city streets, etc..) The benefits of Natural Explorer only work in the chosen area.

That way they really feel empowered in their element and it isn't completely broken at level 1. Of course it always depends on the type of game you run, but most games I play have a good mix of both environments.

Eh...

Fantasy towns and cities aren't typically all that "urban" (as we know it). Plus, being able to hear or see and reacted quickly... I don't think the type of environment really matters as long as you are watching for enemies.

It's not like the street of fantasy cities are paved and clean...

[Osrogue]

A little thing I noticed, it says that the ranger controls all of the beasts actions. Their decisions, attitudes (sic). No dm control. This disappoints me alittle. It's just one person talking to themself, raw. I would rule the dm controls the companion, past the rangers orders.

In this case, the beast acts as a second character with its own personality trait and flaw, as well as a bond to its master. It doesn't have an ideal, but it does share alignment with the ranger I think.

[DracoKnight]

Also, WHY CAN NOW TWO CLASSES TALK TO ANIMALS FOR FREE AND THE DRUID STILL NEEDS A DAMN SPELL.

Rangers and...who else...?

[DracoKnight]

In this case, the beast acts as a second character with its own personality trait and flaw, as well as a bond to its master. It doesn't have an ideal, but it does share alignment with the ranger I think.

It also shares the Ranger's ideal.

[ZX6Rob]

Rangers and...who else...?

I think gnomes get to... I don't know about other classes, unless you include the Monk's Tongue of the Sun and Moon, but I don't think that counts.

[Specter]

Rangers and...who else...?

Barbarians or Warlocks, not sure.

[Oramac]

Rangers and...who else...?

Bear totem Barbarians are what I think he's referring to, though that's a Ritual for them IIRC.

[Tanarii]

At level 2?Yes. Hunter's Mark > Divine Smite at level 2. Significantly. But I'll include a caveat: Unless you lose it before you make two attacks.


Allowing the DM to roleplay the beast (on the other hand) should be fine if the player and the DM discuss it prior to the game.
Roleplaying is every decision made in character, not just talky time. So player is already roleplaying the beast, because he's the one making in-character decisions for the beast. He even has personality traits to assist in doing it, which is an awesome addition.

[R.Shackleford]

Yes. Hunter's Mark > Divine Smite at level 2. Significantly. But I'll include a caveat: Unless you lose it before you make two attacks.


Roleplaying is every decision made in character, not just talky time. So player is already roleplaying the beast, because he's the one making in-character decisions for the beast. He even has personality traits to assist in doing it, which is an awesome addition.

People say that Hunter's Mark is better than smite but they are dead wrong when it comes to making a melee type.

HM is a spell that requires concentration. The Ranger will be spending points on Str or Dex, Wisdom, Con, and Int. Con probably won't be higher than a +2 for quite a while.

Rangers aren't proficient with Con saves.

A Paladin will go Str/Cha/Con and all others be low as their skills and class features don't rely on any other ability scores. Plus at mid levels paladins get +Cha to saves.

The Ranger has a good chance of not passing Con saves as with a +2 and needing one each time they are damage? Gonna have a bad time especially when creatures start having more attacks or the damage gets higher.

What about Resilient (Con)? Well, if you need an optional rule to make your core rule useful...

So we have HM that is continual damage over long periods versus a spike damage Smite.

However... Smite is used retroactively while you have to proactively decide you are going to need or want HM and give up a slot beefore you do anything.

Smite's trigger is on a hit. No wasting of abilities. And that's what makes smite better than HM.

Rangers can lose HM. Paladins can't lose smite.

Rangers need to cast the spell before they attack. Paladins can wait until after they attack.

The actual damage is irrelevant as both (potentially) keeps up with the game, however, the trigger is what matters.

As a ranged option? Ok, HM, as Smite isn't allowed to be ranged for whatever stupid reason. But as a melee option I'll take Smite over HM any day as Smite has the superior trigger and less downside for my melee combatant.


Edit: All of HMs non damage features are redundant on a ranger (they can already track) and is meh compared to a Rogue with Perception expertise.

[TentacleSurpris]

Allowing the DM to control the beast sounds less fun for the ranger and the DM.

As a DM I don't want or need another figure on the map to control. I have 10 to control in a battle, the PCs each have one. I don't need more work.

As a Ranger, I don't want my class ability to not be controlled by me. That takes the fun out of it. At the end of the day, the ranger is giving commands to the wolf.

Sure, the DM could rule that the command is one that the wolf can't reasonably follow (Climb up the ladder to the tenth rung and wait for the man with the yellow hat and jump down and give him exactly 3 barks and 4 scratches to indicate that we have the stuff if he has the money).

[Oramac]

Allowing the DM to control the beast sounds less fun for the ranger and the DM.

As a DM I don't want or need another figure on the map to control. I have 10 to control in a battle, the PCs each have one. I don't need more work.

As a Ranger, I don't want my class ability to not be controlled by me. That takes the fun out of it. At the end of the day, the ranger is giving commands to the wolf.

Agreed 100%

[gfishfunk]

Roleplaying is every decision made in character, not just talky time. So player is already roleplaying the beast, because he's the one making in-character decisions for the beast. He even has personality traits to assist in doing it, which is an awesome addition.

I was actually referring to talky time and in-character dialogue. I know it grates against the actual term, but it is normally-accepted short hand.

Actual decision making should be done by the player - when and if an actual roleplay decision by the beast needs to be made.

[Tanarii]

People say that Hunter's Mark is better than smite but they are dead wrong when it comes to making a melee type.Basic math says you are wrong at level 5 and above when Extra Attack kicks in. Even before that all they have to do is avoid damage for a single round for it to be superior instead of on par. Given that Rangers are skirmishers not tanks, that's not unfeasible.


I was actually referring to talky time and in-character dialogue. I know it grates against the actual term, but it is normally-accepted short hand.

Actual decision making should be done by the player - when and if an actual roleplay decision by the beast needs to be made.Fair enough. But why? I mean, what's the perceived benefit of having the DM do interactions with other creatures instead of the player, as you see it?

[georgie_leech]

Fair enough. But why? I mean, what's the perceived benefit of having the DM do interactions with other creatures instead of the player, as you see it?

It can be a little hard to spend any time roleplaying any sort of connection with the animal without hogging the spotlight, if you're "acting" for both halves. Kind of like how we never actually see Elan praying to Banjo, but once Blackwing starts talking Vaarsuvias can have a conversation with him; V isn't just talking with what amounts to a hand puppet. Not that you can't have something like "while setting up camp I check Fido for burrs and thorns," or whatever, but any significant interaction is kind of one-sided from a player perspective. At least, that would be my reservation; I prefer the Player Controlled bit.

[gfishfunk]

Fair enough. But why? I mean, what's the perceived benefit of having the DM do interactions with other creatures instead of the player, as you see it?

I did not say one was preferable to the other. (DM talky talking v. player talky talking).

I see it as a way to make the Beast (or any other NPC, or a familiar) more real and tangible rather than just an auxiliary mechanical feature. If a player wants to talky talk the beast, that is totally fine. In my experience, that beast/familiar/follower disappears unless it is mechanically useful.

To restate what I already said:
1. The DM and player should talk ahead of time.
2. Allowing the DM to roleplay the Beast should be fine.
3. Actual roleplaying (decision making) should be done by the player.

[Oramac]

I did not say one was preferable to the other. (DM talky talking v. player talky talking).

I see it as a way to make the Beast (or any other NPC, or a familiar) more real and tangible rather than just an auxiliary mechanical feature. If a player wants to talky talk the beast, that is totally fine. In my experience, that beast/familiar/follower disappears unless it is mechanically useful.

To restate what I already said:
1. The DM and player should talk ahead of time.
2. Allowing the DM to roleplay the Beast should be fine.
3. Actual roleplaying (decision making) should be done by the player.

Just to add for reference: consider the relationship between Vex and Trinket on Critical Role. Matt (the DM) roleplays Trinket, and Laura Bailey roleplays Vex (obviously).

It would be boring to the point of non-inclusion if Laura were RPing both Vex and Trinket.

[Tanarii]

It can be a little hard to spend any time roleplaying any sort of connection with the animal without hogging the spotlight, if you're "acting" for both halves. Ah. I was thinking in terms of interactions with other players or NPCs.


In my experience, that beast/familiar/follower disappears unless it is mechanically useful.That can definitely be an issue too.

Both if these issues hold true with Henchmens as well. I've found that interactions between PC and henchmen are generally unnecessary to play out anyway. Unless other PCs need to observe them for some reason, they don't require 'screen time'. And that the 'disappear' thing is a benefit, not a problem, since the henchmen is supposed to disappear into the background, to a large degree.

Exceptions occur of course. Mostly during times of personality or other conflict between the PC and NPC, but the Animal Companion has a personality mostly designed to keep those to a minimum. And of course the other exception is you don't agree with me. ;)

[Shining Wrath]

The player should make all important decisions for the beast.
It doesn't have to be the DM who talks for the beast when conversation is necessary; anyone other than the ranger's player can handle that. The exact words the beast uses are pretty close to irrelevant.

[ZX6Rob]

Just to add for reference: consider the relationship between Vex and Trinket on Critical Role. Matt (the DM) roleplays Trinket, and Laura Bailey roleplays Vex (obviously).

It would be boring to the point of non-inclusion if Laura were RPing both Vex and Trinket.

Well, sure, but Critical Role is also a show meant to be watched and enjoyed by others. I feel like live-plays have different goals than other games -- you have to consider not just the players and the DM, but the unseen audience, as well. In a live game, I'd probably want to be able to control my pet, and that's how I've always played it in home games. Interactions between Ranger and pet would be less "interesting" to watch, I suppose, if that were the case, but in a home game, where no one is watching us for entertainment, that doesn't really matter. If I want to take a minute to describe my wolf and I doing something while we set up camp or forage for food, that's not really different than the bard describing how he charms the tavern-folk with an elven ballad or the rogue describing how he searches the room for easy pickings.

[R.Shackleford]

Basic math says you are wrong at level 5 and above when Extra Attack kicks in. Even before that all they have to do is avoid damage for a single round for it to be superior instead of on par. Given that Rangers are skirmishers not tanks, that's not unfeasible.

Fair enough. But why? I mean, what's the perceived benefit of having the DM do interactions with other creatures instead of the player, as you see it?

Your room has a very cute coat of white.

Playing the game tells me that straight up Hunter's Mark is worse than Smite for a melee type.

It doesn't matter how much damage HM can *potentially* do. Rangers have Con as a third (at best) ability score they will boost and would need feats or MC to make their save good.

You don't seem to understand how concentration works or that the melee Ranger will be targeted (and hit) which makes you lose concentration. Being in melee (and not having Cunning Action type features) means you will be surrounded quite easily.

"Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage."

Rangers will typically have a +2 Con save. Even with a DC 10 you will fail a good chunk of the time. As you level up, unless you have outside sources helping you, you don't get any better unless you focus on Con and not your main attack stat or secondary Wis stat (what level are you by then? 8? 12? The game is over by then).

As you level up, damage against you goes up. More attacks and more damage means HM, on a melee type, is going to fail after a round.

You can pretend like the Ranger will be able to keep concentration going for the full duration but that just doesn't happen.

To make HM better than smite you need to have Multiclassing or Feats.

Smite doesn't have the drawbacks of HM. Not only can a Paladin concentrate on a spell and smite, they can smite after they hit with a melee weapon attack. They don't need to gamble a slot away. Paladin that gets surrounded doesn't lose Smite because they will have to make a ton of saving throws.

So with real world experience, I have to say that the white room (HM > Smite, melee builds) is just wrong on so many levels. Concentration works if you have Con Saves or you stay the hell out of melee (or both).

Unless you want to change it to (HM + Feat/MC > Smite).

[Draco4472]

I like the changes. The revision makes Favored Enemy more then just "I hate this thing...and so I am better at tracking it and remembering what the hell I'm looking for" and allows rangers to put their rage to use in combat and Primeval Awareness is more then "There's a demon...within 6 miles of us".

Hunter looks typical, loved these features on the normal ranger as it was.

Beast Master looks awesome, though I suspect my companion will outshine me.

Deep Stalker is interesting. While I liked how Natural Explorer allowed one to be more adept in certain environments in the PHB, and are uncertain of choosing this archetype when building a ranger without ties to the Underdark. That said however, I loved the aspect of a ranger suited to the dark, and would choose this archetype over Hunter when building a Vampire-Hunting ranger.

Overall, I like the revisions, would allow and use them in games, but would also consider using the PHB's ranger instead. I think WotC did wonderfully, and hope this makes it into a future sourcebook.

[TheBirba]

Basic math says you are wrong at level 5 and above when Extra Attack kicks in. Even before that all they have to do is avoid damage for a single round for it to be superior instead of on par. Given that Rangers are skirmishers not tanks, that's not unfeasible.

Basic math aside (I suck at it), comparing DS and HM is wrong anyway, for obvious reasons. One is a class feature and the other is a spell. And a concentration spell at that.

HM doesn't scale at all - while DS does - and as a Ranger, I will probably stop using it at level 9 for Conjure Animals instead (way higher DPR potential) and at level 17 for Swift Quiver (to do what the Bard could 7 levels ago but that's another story). Heck I might even prefer using Ensnaring Strike from lvl 1 most of the time, depending on the situation (Crowd control > Damage).

If you wanted to compare HM to something Paladins get, you would be better off with Divine Weapon - which is probably still better.

But even then, HM is about consistent damage while DS is about spike damage, so another reason why it's a wrong comparison.

TL, DR; DS > HM.

[jaappleton]

Deep Stalker still grants you Darkvision. Humans, Dragonborn, Halfling Rangers everywhere can rejoice!

[Silavor]

I really like this new ranger. It boosts the stuff that wasn't working, while keeping the stuff that was (mainly Hunter) the same.
But speaking of Hunter, why do people in this thread keep claiming that Whirlwind Attack has changed? It always said you make a separate attack roll for each target. The wording has not changed at all. Nothing in the Hunter archetype was altered.

[Xetheral]

I really like this new ranger. It boosts the stuff that wasn't working, while keeping the stuff that was (mainly Hunter) the same.
But speaking of Hunter, why do people in this thread keep claiming that Whirlwind Attack has changed? It always said you make a separate attack roll for each target. The wording has not changed at all. Nothing in the Hunter archetype was altered.

Because the text did change:


You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target.


You can use your action to make melee attacks against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target.

(Emphasis added.) It changed from a single attack to multiple attacks, which, among other differences, means you can move between each attack as per the rules on PHB 190. Whether this lets you target more creatures with Whirlwind Attack or whether you still can only target those within 5 feet of you when you activate the ability I suspect will be hotly contested.

[MeeposFire]

I really like this new ranger. It boosts the stuff that wasn't working, while keeping the stuff that was (mainly Hunter) the same.
But speaking of Hunter, why do people in this thread keep claiming that Whirlwind Attack has changed? It always said you make a separate attack roll for each target. The wording has not changed at all. Nothing in the Hunter archetype was altered.

That is incorrect the original said

"You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

"You can use your action to make melee attacks against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

The current one has the language of attacks being plural. If you believe this was a conscious change you may recall that the whole reason whirlwind attack did not allow movement between attacks is that it was declared to be only one attack so if it was now actually multiple attacks then movement would be possible between each of the attacks. This would actually make whirlwind better and no longer a near waste of a class ability.

[Silavor]

Oh, huh. Well never mind then. I'm all for letting whirlwind rangers hit everything they can come into contact with, but if this actually is the intended use, then is there a better way to word the ability? It still sounds kind of ambiguous.

[Naanomi]

That makes Longstrider an interestingly more powerful spell for Hunters, it could mean another attack in a spread out battlefield

[Rowan Wolf]

Odd that there has been so much focus on "Hunter's Mark > Smite" yet not one mention that it is basically a bit of bad design as they made ranger a spells known caster, so illusion of choice, and that Oath of Vengeance Paladins get it as a freebie.

I am wondering are they going to update/change the Natural Explorer on the Scout archetype of Fighter?

I do like what I have seen so far, but I think the capstone of Ranger is still dull and weak, there could be room for the conclave to add something to that area.

[MeeposFire]

That makes Longstrider an interestingly more powerful spell for Hunters, it could mean another attack in a spread out battlefield

Also note that they get fleet of foot now which gives them dash as a bonus action as part of the class. This is an entirely new ability too. Would work well with this I guess though we are only guessing if they really wanted to change how that ability is used.

[Finback]

How to make scholar animal companion:

1. Get animal companion.
2. Make history and investigation bonus skills.
3. Dump ASIs into intelligence.
4. ???
5. Profit!

I now want to play a int 8 ranger with a 10-12 int animal companion.

Brendan Fraser and John Cleese, in "George of the Jungle".

So, Barbarian (sorta), dip into Ranger, and get your intelligent Ape companion! :D