Will this ranger modification work?

[Gollumstripes]

I saw the UA ranger revised, I though it's not Rangery enough. http://www.tribality.com/2016/09/12/unearthed-arcana-breakdown-the-ranger-revised/ https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf Will it be overpowered if I return the extra attack of the based ranger, then Archery becomes a free feat, then on hunter conclave volley is free. I thing rangers should be good with bow and blade by default like legolas, just wondering if it will become too op.
Party members: human lore bard, hc human ranger, dwarf champion, oath of vengeance human paladin, halfling rogue assassin

Edit:
What if I do:
Lvl 2 archery is free
Lvl 11 volley is free
No spell casting.

[Sigreid]

I think it will be OP.

1. They moved it out of the base ranger because the beast adds a lot of attacks and damage for the beastmaster.

2. They are, by default good with bow and blade. What you're talking about is making them automatically better than the fighter with them. I think this is a mistake since master of weapons and warfare is what the fighter is all about.

In essence I think you are in danger of making a one true martial to rule them all. That being said, it's your game so /shrug.

[Flashy]

I thing rangers should be good with bow and blade by default like legolas, just wondering if it will become too op.

I think the point here is that Legolas would be represented in this system as a hunter. He didn't have an animal companion, but the hunter as written seems to accurately define him. Why do you need to make these changes that primarily buff beastmaster?

[Occasional Sage]

I think it will be OP.

1. They moved it out of the base ranger because the beast adds a lot of attacks and damage for the beastmaster.

2. They are, by default good with bow and blade. What you're talking about is making them automatically better than the fighter with them. I think this is a mistake since master of weapons and warfare is what the fighter is all about.

In essence I think you are in danger of making a one true martial to rule them all. That being said, it's your game so /shrug.

Absolutely this.

Remember that in D&D terms, Legolas is high level and loaded with feats. Don't expect a 3rd level character to do his schtick.

[Gollumstripes]

I think the point here is that Legolas would be represented in this system as a hunter. He didn't have an animal companion, but the hunter as written seems to accurately define him. Why do you need to make these changes that primarily buff beastmaster?

My bad, forgot that would affect the beast master.

So how do I adjust it to make it like legolas without making it op.

[Occasional Sage]

How is the Hunter not Legolas?

[Gollumstripes]

I think it will be OP.

1. They moved it out of the base ranger because the beast adds a lot of attacks and damage for the beastmaster.

2. They are, by default good with bow and blade. What you're talking about is making them automatically better than the fighter with them. I think this is a mistake since master of weapons and warfare is what the fighter is all about.

In essence I think you are in danger of making a one true martial to rule them all. That being said, it's your game so /shrug.

I'll be playing as hunter not the beast master. I'm thinking sword and board ranger that uses bow at range and switches to melee when the enemy is close

I mean wouldn't fighter have more feats still?

[Gollumstripes]

How is the Hunter not Legolas?

Legolas can fight well in melee too.

[Occasional Sage]

I'll be playing as hunter not the beast master. I'm thinking sword and board ranger that uses bow at range and switches to melee when the enemy is close

I mean wouldn't fighter have more feats still?

Then you already have the Extra Attack, which works with both bow and sword; it's right there in the Hunter Conclave at 5th level. You've got Volley, you have the choice of either Horde Breaker or Giant Killer at 3rd (both are very Legolas and work with sword or bow), Fleet of Foot, spells, your choice of fighting styles, the full five ASIs... what more do you want to recreate a movie character?

Again, I think the problem is that you're watching a movie that would be modeled by... maybe a 15th level character, and then you're trying to be that guy right out of the gate.

[Gollumstripes]

Let's reset it, what if I only add:
Free Archery unlock at lvl 2 and
Volley at lvl 11?

Then remove spell casting
Will it still be op?

[Occasional Sage]

Tough to say, but I suspect you'll be out of whack in one way or another. Part of the problem in ansering is that I'm not 100% sure how well the UA Revised Ranger is balanced in the first place, much less after alterations. But....

If you want a spell-less sword-and-bow fighter, why not go Fighter and just in-game call yourself a ranger? Many of the Battlemaster tricks will work with both combat styles, you'll get all of the attacks ever, and the extra ASI gives you more feat access. Pick the right background and skills, and boom.

Why reinvent the wheel?

[Giant2005]

Legolas isn't even a Ranger - he is a high level Champion.

[Gollumstripes]

Tough to say, but I suspect you'll be out of whack in one way or another. Part of the problem in ansering is that I'm not 100% sure how well the UA Revised Ranger is balanced in the first place, much less after alterations. But....

If you want a spell-less sword-and-bow fighter, why not go Fighter and just in-game call yourself a ranger? Many of the Battlemaster tricks will work with both combat styles, you'll get all of the attacks ever, and the extra ASI gives you more feat access. Pick the right background and skills, and boom.

Why reinvent the wheel?

I won't be able to use the default feats of the ranger if I go fighter.

[Occasional Sage]

I won't be able to use the default feats of the ranger if I go fighter.

All feats are (assuming that the alternate feats rules are on the table) available to all classes; there are no "ranger feats".

If you mean class features, that's true.

Look, let me let you into my head for a minute to see where I'm coming from:

UA content is only roughly balanced to begin with. From that starting point, you're trying to modify without playtesting the class, when several people have told you for various reasons that it's not a good idea.

Also, none of us are your DM, who is the person you should be asking.

If I were your DM, I'd say "No; I'm not confident of the class already, and I feel like you're trying to pull a fast one on me with this."

Since I'm not your DM, I suspect that you are looking for a thread agreeing with you that you can point to so that you can pull a fast one on whomever your DM is, who probably has reservations about this and you're trying to convince.

/telepathy

Does that make sense?

[Flashy]

I won't be able to use the default feats of the ranger if I go fighter.

What about the scout fighter archetype from http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/04_UA_Classics_Revisited.pdf?

[Gollumstripes]

:( :( :( that's sad :( :( :(

[Gollumstripes]

What about the scout fighter archetype from http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/04_UA_Classics_Revisited.pdf?

Nice! I'll try that out. But the class won't be ranger :(

[Occasional Sage]

Nice! I'll try that out. But the class won't be ranger :(

PCs don't (in any game I've ever played as an adult) describe themselves as a "third level fighter fifth level rogue" or whatever. Classes are metaconstructs, completely divorced from how a character sees themselves, how their world sees them, and likely how other PCs see them.

Don't get caught up in the little stuff. Rules aren't the character.

Also, Legolas never described himself as a ranger; that'd be Aragorn.