PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next UA Ranger (Favored Enemy/Natural Explorer)



Ugganaut
2016-09-18, 07:14 PM
I think the new UA Ranger is a great step, but a little heavy handed imo. My DM agrees, so this is my proposed changes, was looking for some feedback. (Design notes down the bottom)

Favored Enemy - Proposed Change
At 1st level, you have significant experience studying, tracking, hunting, and even talking to certain types of creatures.
Choose a type of favored enemy:
Humanoid: Goblinoids, Kobolds, Gnolls and Orcs. (the common evil humanoids that aren't aquatic)
Humanoid: A single Demi-human, or Human (eg. a single PC race)
Humanoid: Aquatic Humanoid (any humanoid with a natural swim speed)
Undead
Beasts
Fey
Monstrosities
You gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with weapon attacks against creatures of the chosen type. Additionally, you have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your favored enemies, as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about them. When you gain this feature, you also learn one language of your choice, typically one spoken by your favored enemy or creatures associated with it. However, you are free to pick any language you wish to learn. At 14th level, you choose another Favored Enemy from the above list.

Greater Favored Enemy- Proposed Change
At level 6, you are ready to hunt even deadlier game. Choose a type of greater favored enemy: aberrations, celestials, constructs, dragons, elementals, fiends, or giants. You gain all the benefits against this chosen enemy that you normally gain against your favored enemy, including an additional language.
Additionally, you have advantage on saving throws against the spells and abilities used by a greater favored enemy.

Design Notes:
Favored Enemy - restricted the categories a bit, keeping them broad, but not having one the clearly superior option. Also added a another enemy at level 14 as it was originally(level 6 is covered with greater). Things like Undead and Monstrosities cover a large group as well, but if someone chooses this, they've probably spent time with a group of Undead or Monster Hunters or something. Was considering breaking Undead into Corporeal and Incorporeal. I think in most campaigns, the evil humanoids would be more common, or at least equal to those categories. Beasts are common, but the large range makes sense for a hunter. Humans should be its own category, and makes sense if there are a group you hate like the Red Wizards of Thay. You might not hate all humans(or another race), but the skills you've picked up fighting a particular group gives you benefit over the rest.
Kept the +2 damage with the more restricted categories(but removed some combat features from Natural Explorer). Considered changing the +2 damage to +1 to attacks.
Greater Favored Enemy - Basically the same, except didn't boost the damage to all favored enemies to +4. Its a big enough bonus to expand who it applies to, and Greater gives you the advantage on saves which is very handy against those categories.

Natural Explorer - Proposed Change
You are a master of navigating the natural world. You ignore difficult terrain.
In addition, you are particularly familiar with your local region and can adapt what you've learned to similar areas. You can choose all terrains suitable to your starting region(arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, underground), gaining the following benefits when traveling in those environments for 1 hour or more(DM should be generous to keep it broad):
• Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
• Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
• Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
• If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
• When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
• While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
A player can add a terrain type to his list if he's spent one month in that terrain. It could take less if the time was very intensive, eg. making regular survival checks. (DM discretion)

Design Notes:
Navigating and survival comes natural to you, so it should be broad with things you may have come in contact with, not necessarily the dominant terrain. Its kept broad with "all terrains suitable to starting area", but exclusive of things you've never seen in your life. When you do encounter those environments not on your list, you can still apply the skills of ignoring difficult terrain because that's more to do with fluid movement, balance etc. But the terrain is foreign, so you revert to your normal survival check for overland travel and foraging at least till you acclimatize. Survival should be a trained skill anyway, so you're still good at it, its just not what you are used to. For a natural explorer, the one month rule seemed appropriate. Not easy for short forays, but not hard for campaigns that move primarily into a new area. DM could rule a couple days or a week if it seems appropriate. This at least gives the feature room to grow depending on the campaign, and doesn't limit character backgrounds permanently. Changed Underdark to underground, because it has little to do with combative creatures like Favored Enemy, and more to do with small game, edible plants, and tracking. It doesn't have to be exact, the feature represents you being a natural at this stuff. Removed the Initiative stuff, I saw a lot of more intelligent people than me arguing for and against, but personally I just don't see how it fits. My view of a core Ranger was never "he goes first". He is mobile, and ignoring difficult terrain does that, progressing to bonus Dash at lvl 8. If you want to go first, take the Alert feat imo, or grab a weapon of warning.

Would love some feedback. I'm converting a Barbarian5/Ranger3 from 4th to 5th, and Ranger has been a sore point. He is a ranger without spells, but I'll make another post for that.
Thanks

Princess
2016-09-18, 10:42 PM
Mostly this seems like an alright halfway option between the PH and the 'revised' version, but why change Humanoid to either 4 npc only groups or 1 pc group? Why not revert to the 'choose any 2' option from the PH? Because if a character who could have had humans and orcs before this revision now only gets humans, they're worse off, and that is contrary to the purpose of the revision.

Also, completely ignoring difficult terrain immediately from level 1 seems over the top, considering how many higher level options do that.

Otherwise, this seems like a solid start for homebrewing a simpler revision. I was annoyed by the unnecessary convolution of the revision, myself.

Ugganaut
2016-09-19, 02:06 AM
I know everyone wanted a combat benefit, and the categories needed to be broadened to make the feature more useful(the 2 types of Humanoid is just to limiting). By doing both made it strong, and actually desirable. Categories like Fey are really weak, but you'd take them for flavor. Beasts is very broad, but makes sense for a wilderness hunting class. Undead and Monstrosities have a pile of creatures, and I can see that as an Undead Hunter or Monster Hunter type, but it doesn't need restrictions because any particular type won't come up that much except for the common stuff(eg. Zombies).
Humanoids is too broad, especially if applying the damage bonus. Humans are so common. Demi-humans are also extremely common as a type. I'd like the categories to be more balanced, although that doesn't seem to be easy. The feature covers knowledge and tracking(and +2 dmg). So basic anatomy, common habits, modes of movement, that sort of thing.
Trying to find a way to even out Humanoids it a way that makes sense. Maybe the evil humanoids in one group, and humans and demi-humans in another? I thought aquatic needed its own category, how would knowing about humans help against a kua-toa for example - different anatomy, different habits and aquatic.
One option I was thinking, was to use something similar as I did with Terrain, take Humanoids, and once you've fought and tracked them(spent X time), they get added to the list(start with 2). Requires some paperwork, and I can see they try to keep things simple, which is why I was trying for the broader category approach.

The difficult terrain feature is strong I agree, but I doubt its game breaking. Personally it makes sense, if anyone should have it straight up, a Ranger is a perfect candidate. As you said, they aren't the only ones that get it, others just get it later. I can see the ability to navigate wilderness hazards could carry over to any difficult terrain. I had more issue with the Initiative stuff, it seemed odd as a core feature, especially when Rogues don't get first strike as a core feature. Makes more sense to put that stuff in the archetypes, as certain Rangers would be that style, not all.

Thanks for the input Princess, much appreciated.