Alternate Class Features - JC confirms Revised Ranger not a class

[Finlam]

Going beyond subclasses, it looks like alternate class features is a thing we'll be getting and it's the chosen path for introducing the new ranger.


According to Jeremy Crawford


In the end, there will be 1 ranger: the PH ranger. It will get alternative features. The official game won't have 2 versions of a class #DnD

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/917887283512012801




Before alternative features for the ranger (and possibly other classes) become official, you'll all get a chance to provide feedback

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/917907840819347457



Thoughts?

[Mortis_Elrod]

Going beyond subclasses, it looks like alternate class features is a thing we'll be getting and it's the chosen path for introducing the new ranger.


According to Jeremy Crawford

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/917887283512012801



https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/917907840819347457



Thoughts?

This isn't a bad solution. I'd rather just a full remodel. but i guess if they give use enough material to plug the holes and replace what we don't like it works out.

Seems like a cheap way to keep a building standing, when you really want to tear it down and rebuild.

[Elric VIII]

I'm always a fan of more fiddly bits for character building. This has potential to work much better than 3.5 ACFs because the classes in 5e were built with power spikes and ability acquisition at specific levels in mind. Things will be a lot more uniform and thus easier to balance, I suspect.

[DarkKnightJin]

And my mind goes to "So.. Does this mean we can get a Ranger with 2 Attacks, and a non-sucky animal companion?"
Because that's probably a fair deal for the Beastmaster.

[TheUser]

Hate it.

It's a refusal to admit they ****ed up.

What's your "alternative version" of primeval awareness? Is it one that isn't a hot pile of garbage?

How about hide in plain sight? Did you still want rangers to spend 1 minute for a 1 time use +10 hide check? Or did you want to make an ability that isn't a piece of crap?

Sure it can give players "new options" but how about you acknowledge that your pre-existing options need fixing and just fix those so that the original features don't get shelved entirely.....

[Fredaintdead]

Just... why? Like, the Revised Ranger (as far as I'm aware) is pretty much universally accepted to be a better alternative to the PHB Ranger (especially in terms of the improvements to Beast Master). Even IF enough people preferred the options presented by the PHB Ranger, what's the problem with having 2 Rangers in D&D? Just put a sidebar that a DM should pick one or the other to be the version they're using to prevent confusion.

[Finlam]

Just... why? Like, the Revised Ranger (as far as I'm aware) is pretty much universally accepted to be a better alternative to the PHB Ranger (especially in terms of the improvements to Beast Master). Even IF enough people preferred the options presented by the PHB Ranger, what's the problem with having 2 Rangers in D&D? Just put a sidebar that a DM should pick one or the other to be the version they're using to prevent confusion.
I, too, think they should have just introduced it as a class with a slightly different name to avoid confusion. Instead of "Ranger" call it the "Roamer" or "Wanderer" or "Survivalist" or "Master Tracker" or "Rambo from that one movie" or "Gallivanter" (ty thesaurus.com (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/ranger))

Now when I hear someone say

I'm playing a Ranger
I am going to have no idea wtf that means unless they now say something like:

I'm playing a Ranger with the alternate feature for advantage on initiative and for the better animal companion and the better primeval awareness and the feature that lets me shoot arrows out of my arse
If making the game more confusing by making the base classes have little to no fixed meaning was their goal, then they will have succeeded with this design choice.

[pwykersotz]

I, too, think they should have just introduced it as a class with a slightly different name to avoid confusion. Instead of "Ranger" call it the "Roamer" or "Wanderer" or "Survivalist" or "Master Tracker" or "Rambo from that one movie" or "Gallivanter" (ty thesaurus.com (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/ranger))

Now when I hear someone say

I am going to have no idea wtf that means unless they now say something like:

If making the game more confusing by making the base classes have little to no fixed meaning was their goal, then they will have succeeded with this design choice.

Sadly, that is a bad solution as it permanenty adds a new class to the design roster. Future subclasses and features would need to be compatible with both, and it would introduce a lot of confusion with new players. They were up against a wall here. I think this is their strongest design choice, even if it sucks. Fortunately I can still allow the variant ranger in my home campaign.

[alchahest]

Can't say I love this. the revised ranger was nearly perfect. I think my table'll still be using the revised unless this unnecessary confusion of swappable parts on a bad base are somehow inherently more playable.

[Finlam]

Sadly, that is a bad solution as it permanenty adds a new class to the design roster. Future subclasses and features would need to be compatible with both, and it would introduce a lot of confusion with new players. They were up against a wall here. I think this is their strongest design choice, even if it sucks. Fortunately I can still allow the variant ranger in my home campaign.
All subclasses and features already have to be compatible with both? Or have they been rolling out new ranger subclasses with only the PHB ranger in mind?

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to say "This is the Rover class, it uses any ranger subclass"? Would it look lazy: yes. Would it be confusing at all, even for new people: no.

[Waterdeep Merch]

If the Revised Ranger hadn't been shown, this would be great news. It's still kind of good news, it just sucks that a very fun class has to be shelved in the process.

Does this mean alt kits are going to be a thing on top of subclasses? The optimizer in me is excited. The practical rationalist however is annoyed.

[Sception]

This is one bad solution out of a variety of bad solutions for a problem that has no good solution. IMO, the least bad solution would be correction & errata, and I wish they had gone with that.

[Easy_Lee]

I suspect WotC doesn't want to change people's books in the middle of games more than is necessary. Perhaps the reasoning is this: some people are okay with the base ranger, so we shouldn't get rid of it entirely. But releasing a new ranger is confusing. So instead we can release the revisions as an "alternative" set of features.

That's my optimistic take. On the other hand, WotC uses no restraint with nerfs.

[Eragon123]

That's my optimistic take. On the other hand, WotC uses no restraint with nerfs.

On the bright side their heavy hand in nerving water whip is what made me Dr. Funrule or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Homebrew.

[Saiga]

On the bright side their heavy hand in nerving water whip is what made me Dr. Funrule or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Homebrew.

How did they nerf water whip?

Anyhow, I'm a little dissappointed in this - BUT this method may open up the door for other alternate class features which could allow small fixes to classes that have minor issues, or fixes to weak subclasses

[Nu]

Well, I think that's terrible news for the ranger. I'm not certain how they solve its issues with "alternative class features". It also shows a stubborn refusal to fix mistakes--sure, they can admit they made a mistake, but it's far more important to fix it, and WotC is showing that they are unwilling to do so here.

It might be good news for fighters though. Right now I won't play any fighter archetype besides Battle Master because it has maneuvers and all others are bland in that regard (I might play Arcane Archer or Eldritch Knight if I wanted a gish, but that's not usually what I think of when I think of "fighter"). Spread out maneuvers to other fighter archetypes as "alternate features" and they become a lot more attractive to me.

[Easy_Lee]

How did they nerf water whip?

Was first published as a bonus action, which was great since the monk didn't have to give up his unarmed strikes (or other actions) in order to do it. It was a little powerful for a bonus action, and they could have reduced its power. Instead, they chose to make it just the same as every other feature.

[jas61292]

While I will need to see how exactly it is done to form a real opinion, I do like the idea. The revised ranger we have been working with is fun, but it is still very poorly balanced for games with multiclassing, and just generally still has a number of issues. And I think this will always be the case if you try and rewrite the entire class. So rather than doing that, just give alternative versions of features that will work regardless of any other changes. Makes sense to me.

[Saiga]

Was first published as a bonus action, which was great since the monk didn't have to give up his unarmed strikes (or other actions) in order to do it. It was a little powerful for a bonus action, and they could have reduced its power. Instead, they chose to make it just the same as every other feature.

When did they do that? Errata?

I'd never heard of them touching 4E Monk. Why would you nerf a weak subclass?

[Mortis_Elrod]

When did they do that? Errata?

I'd never heard of them touching 4E Monk. Why would you nerf a weak subclass?

Because they hate fun.

[Kane0]

On one hand, ACFs and the like are really good at adding customisation options while minimising power creep.
On the other hand, ACFs and the like are also really good at constraining you to previous design limitations, which severely limits the ability to fix breaks.

It's easy to argue both ways.
If you release a rewrite then the PHB ranger becomes obsolete and the splatbook containing the new version becomes a necessity. PF's unchained classes are an example.
If you release ACFs, feats or other options to correct previous oversights then the savvy will know which splats to dive into but the core problem remains, similar to 3.5's splat bloat.

I feel for the devs, they can't win either way.

[Waterdeep Merch]

When did they do that? Errata?

I'd never heard of them touching 4E Monk. Why would you nerf a weak subclass?
They're trying so hard to distance themselves from fourth edition that they made a subclass that can be abbreviated 4e just to punish it.

It's 5e's whipping boy. It's not allowed to accidentally be good.

[Lolzyking]

I like base ranger

I like revised ranger

I just want revised beast master to replace old BM, I want my pet to grow naturally with hit die and asi

I fear this will just delay ranger fixes for from becoming AL legal even longer

[Zalabim]

I've been anticipating alternate class features showing up on the horizon, but I didn't expect it to come up this soon or on the Ranger. It's basically subpaths (or parts of subpaths) for the core path of classes. So alternatives to Lay on Hands (maybe a more arcane paladin), Wild Shape (a summoning druid?), or Turn/Destroy Undead (Just because). It can work out alright on the ReRanger still, since the revised version shares a lot of core abilities, and even the names and levels of many abilities. There'd be a lot of redundant text in a full reprint, and it would still essentially replace the PHB ranger either way.

[Glorthindel]

After having gotten screwed over by buying all the 3rd ed core books on release, and seeing them obsoleted almost immediately, I am definitely pleased to see this. Replacing the class in an expansion book would have been messy, and straight up creating a 5.5 version of the PHB would have been awful. This solves the problem simply.

[DanyBallon]

I'm perfectly fine with Alternate Class Features to implement the Revised Ranger.

Overwriting the Ranger in the PHB would have required more than a single errata as the word count is not the same and it won't fit in the allowed space. We need to remember that any modification to the book layout, even adding a single page as a huge impact, as you now need to revise the editing to make sure that every page reference is still correct. That's why publishing company try to limit errata to a minimum and take very cautious steps in order that the errata still fit in the book formatting. Otherwise they plainly refrain from modifying a well known problematic. (i.e. Paizo's Pathfinder and the stealth rules. While they knew and agreed that there was an issue with stealth, they didn't produce any official errata about it because it couldn't fit in the actual space for stealth in the book.)
A way to get around this is to provide a book with alternate classes as Pathfinder did with the unchained classes, creating a whole new class, or go the way of alternate features, as WotC is considering. None of these solutions are perfect, but at least they don't force a complete overhaul of the PHB for a single option.

I believe that if a 5.5 edition ever comes around, they will gather all the major changes that they couldn't make and write them in the book from the start.

[Dudewithknives]

They can call it, "alternate class features" if they want, but that is not what it will ever be, because if given the choice between the original ranger and the new one, NOBODY will pick the original.

They just do not want to revise it because that would mean they would have to admit the first version was not good enough.

[jaappleton]

I think it'll be Variant Class Features.

That's fine.

Some people do like the PHB Ranger. I think they're masochists, but it's fine to like and enjoy the PHB Ranger.

This allows both Rangers without one eliminating the other. Rangers aren't Highlander.

[Kane0]

Other bonuses for the ACF route:

- The PHB is still the only book required to play
- Players that don't care aren't affected
- Carefully avoids the AL PHB +1 problem
- Everyone can choose which one to go with
- It opens up the gate for more ACFs, which means more options and customisation
- People playing rangers don't suddenly need to rewrite or rebuild their character

Not without it's problems of course, but it is a sensible decision. It's also been done before, and worked fairly well then (notable exception being the 3.5 Lion Totem Barbarian :smallannoyed:).

[Deleted]

Hate it.

It's a refusal to admit they ****ed up.

What's your "alternative version" of primeval awareness? Is it one that isn't a hot pile of garbage?

How about hide in plain sight? Did you still want rangers to spend 1 minute for a 1 time use +10 hide check? Or did you want to make an ability that isn't a piece of crap?

Sure it can give players "new options" but how about you acknowledge that your pre-existing options need fixing and just fix those so that the original features don't get shelved entirely.....

It won't just be "new options" it will be specifically better options that were made to be a direct upgrade to what was is still there.

Could you imagine if Overwatch, instead of patching a character, that they just sold the same character but fixed it and left the old version and new version in the game?

I'm going to remember 5e as the edition that showed us just how much abuse the fanbase will take from WotC.

[DanyBallon]

It won't just be "new options" it will be specifically better options that were made to be a direct upgrade to what was is still there.

Could you imagine if Overwatch, instead of patching a character, that they just sold the same character but fixed it and left the old version and new version in the game?

I'm going to remember 5e as the edition that showed us just how much abuse the fanbase will take from WotC.

Please, can you (and all the other that claim that WotC is trying to screw them or claim that they are refusing to acknowledge they made a mistake withe the original Ranger) explain to us how you would do it?
Because so far, most of the solutions we've seen so far don't consider anything like real life publishing constraints or not screwing players that like playing the class as is or even the +1 book AL uses.

[Easy_Lee]

It won't just be "new options" it will be specifically better options that were made to be a direct upgrade to what was is still there.

Could you imagine if Overwatch, instead of patching a character, that they just sold the same character but fixed it and left the old version and new version in the game?

I'm going to remember 5e as the edition that showed us just how much abuse the fanbase will take from WotC.

If ACFs become a thing, I'm more worried that they won't always be better.

[Deleted]

If ACFs become a thing, I'm more worried that they won't always be better.

Also yes.

But I wouldn't doubt if powercreep became a thing once different people kept working on New ACFs.

[KorvinStarmast]

Some people do like the PHB Ranger. I think they're masochists, but it's fine to like and enjoy the PHB Ranger. I understand the frustration with the Beast Master, but what's the unhappiness with the Hunter?

[Trampaige]

But, we could have had THIS version (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DX_0907_UA_RangerOptions.pdf) of the ranger!

Everybody forgets that one. God, what were they thinking.

[Easy_Lee]

I understand the frustration with the Beast Master, but what's the unhappiness with the Hunter?

It isn't the hunter, it's the ranger.

[GorogIrongut]

But, we could have had THIS version (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DX_0907_UA_RangerOptions.pdf) of the ranger!

Everybody forgets that one. God, what were they thinking.

I haven't forgotten about that one. I'm letting one of my players play that in a Dark Sun campaign (i.e. avoiding spellcasting because of the realm). He's doing it as a Gith so it'll be a blast to see.

[jaappleton]

But, we could have had THIS version (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DX_0907_UA_RangerOptions.pdf) of the ranger!

Everybody forgets that one. God, what were they thinking.

This thing actually has a decent basis for a sort of half caster Warrior Shaman class. But Ambuscade is ridiculous and never should've even seen playtest.

[Kane0]

Nice to see the maturation of the system though. That was from, what, two years ago?

Same sort of thing that happened in 3.5. The Hexblade was release as a gish class right at the beginning of its life, and much later on came the duskblade which was much more developed thanks to more time with the system.

[DanyBallon]

This thing actually has a decent basis for a sort of half caster Warrior Shaman class. But Ambuscade is ridiculous and never should've even seen playtest.

Ambuscade was definately OP, but its playtest brought us the more tone down version that is now part of the Revised Ranger Natural Explorer feature. The idea behind is still the same, but the playtest allowed the designer to see what were its flaws and they manage to come up with a better implementation. This is the perfect example of what a playtest is.

[jaappleton]

Ambuscade was definately OP, but its playtest brought us the more tone down version that is now part of the Revised Ranger Natural Explorer feature. The idea behind is still the same, but the playtest allowed the designer to see what were its flaws and they manage to come up with a better implementation. This is the perfect example of what a playtest is.

I don't entirely disagree, but the fact that they thought the full-blown Ambuscade was OK and not "WOW this is utterly broken" is what has me a bit miffed.

You're 100% correct in that learning what works and what doesn't is the core of the playtest, but I don't get how they didn't see Ambuscade as so far off the mark.

[DanyBallon]

I don't entirely disagree, but the fact that they thought the full-blown Ambuscade was OK and not "WOW this is utterly broken" is what has me a bit miffed.

You're 100% correct in that learning what works and what doesn't is the core of the playtest, but I don't get how they didn't see Ambuscade as so far off the mark.

What if they knew from the start it was utterly OP, but wanted to see if the player base was looking for more options like these? There could have been a majority of playtesters that would have prefer the kind of powercreep as Ambuscade was offering. They couldn't have known unless they asked us in a playtest like they did with this particular UA (Lore Master and other OP UA material, may fill the same purpose).

I'm not saying that they have a perfect record, and we must accept everything they throw at us. What I'm saying is that they might be reasons we don't know behind the options they present as playtest material in UA. And complaining or saying that X designer is total carp or out of his mind, is not useful at all (btw, I'm not blaming you personally, but this last comment is more geared toward the community in general that often forget that designers are human beings and that UA material is free stuff for us to try.)

[jaappleton]

What if they knew from the start it was utterly OP, but wanted to see if the player base was looking for more options like these? There could have been a majority of playtesters that would have prefer the kind of powercreep as Ambuscade was offering. They couldn't have known unless they asked us in a playtest like they did with this particular UA (Lore Master and other OP UA material, may fill the same purpose).

I asked Mearls that very question via Twitter.

Me: "When you design an archetype feature, do you tend to start on the low-end as far as power is concerned, and work your way up?"

Mearls: "On the contrary, we make them slightly more powerful and scale them back."

Full Disclosure: I asked with Arcane Archer in mind, I thought they should get more shots per short rest, though I didn't elaborate.

[Hrugner]

I prefer this method. Adding on to the game without removing things is ideal for character continuity. Chopping the old version out leaves the risk that people will be left with something they don't want, and DMs would have fewer options on what to permit in their game.

[DanyBallon]

I asked Mearls that very question via Twitter.

Me: "When you design an archetype feature, do you tend to start on the low-end as far as power is concerned, and work your way up?"

Mearls: "On the contrary, we make them slightly more powerful and scale them back."

Full Disclosure: I asked with Arcane Archer in mind, I thought they should get more shots per short rest, though I didn't elaborate.

So in regard to this very comment, Ambuscade was intentionally designed to be more OP than necessary and playtested as is in order to be refined later on, am I understanding right?

[Deleted]

I prefer this method. Adding on to the game without removing things is ideal for character continuity. Chopping the old version out leaves the risk that people will be left with something they don't want, and DMs would have fewer options on what to permit in their game.

No.

Leaving the old version in will leave people with things they don't want... An inferior option that is well known to be bad and totally isn't a trap option.

If you have outdated option A and fixed option B, option A is a trap. One that can cause many issues in a game.

[Kane0]

So what's your solution?

[DanyBallon]

No.

Leaving the old version in will leave people with things they don't want... An inferior option that is well known to be bad and isn't a trap option.

If you have outdated option A and fixed option B, option A is a trap. One that can cause many issues in a game.

How can you say that everyone would prefer the alternate vs the original? I gave access to both in my home game and I have a player that decided to use the PHB version should I tell him that he's playing wrong?

You may think that the revised ranger is better, but it's only your opinion, please stop pretending you are speaking for everyone.

The use of alternate class features to present the revised ranger only add more options to the game, they don't make things obsolete, except maybe for you!

[Deleted]

So what's your solution?

They have the SRD. When they find a fix for something they should update their SRD.

Later they can update their books, people would love a Player's Handbook II as some classes don't get enough love and other classes are gimped.


Edit: There is a difference between a fix and new material. New material can be sold and I wont bat an eye (I want new material). But patching something you messed up is on you, not on me (and my wallet).

[GlenSmash!]

I could see it working just fine.

A simple doc released for free on the web that says something like:

Ranger Ability Alternatives

Favored enemy: Replace this ability with Favored Enemy: ...

Natural Explorer: Replace the second paragraph with "...."

And so on, and son on.

Adventures in Middle Earth did this with 2 classes that were considered under powered.

[Kane0]

Y'know before that I'd like for their content to actually be available online so my options aren't limited to A) Partial free content only B) lugging around the books C) illegal pdfs or D) paying again then extra on top of that for D&D beyond.

So one thing at a time please.

[Deleted]

Y'know before that I'd like for their content to actually be avaialble online so my options aren't limited to A) Partial free content only B) lugging around the books or C) illegal pdfs.

So one thing at a time please.

Updating the SRD would be an easy way on their part to appeasing many people (all of the things you mention). They don't even have to do a lot of the work as other people will host the information for them until they they're ready to deal with it (which has been WotC's ideology for a while now).

Again this would be more about the things they fix, so if people wanted new things then they would still pay for it.

Right now many of the classes could use tweaks, especially the Ranger and Sorcerer along with a bunch of subclasses.

[Desteplo]

I liked it in 3.5 and I think it's a good idea
-not that they were usually better but gave a different idea on a certain base class
-instead of flurry monks had one giant hit,
-instead of activated rage barbarians had a rage that had damage reduction that was constantly active past 50% health,
- wizards could invest even further into their specialization instead of dropping 2 schools, they can drop an additional school and gain an extra spell slot per spell lvl of their chosen school

[Finlam]

So what's your solution?

A more elegant solution would be to do exactly what you described with Duskblade: put it out as a similar named class that just uses Ranger subclasses.

[Kane0]

Oh so like Tome of Battle or PF Unchained. Yeah that could work.

[Hrugner]

Oh so like Tome of Battle or PF Unchained. Yeah that could work.

Those ended up being much better solutions than the 2015 pathfinder updates that just removed a chunk of things from play and from their SRD making it harder to run games that were compatible with the old material. It's best to leave things as they are and continually build on it than to remove something because it isn't the best fit for one table or style of play.

[Deleted]

Those ended up being much better solutions than the 2015 pathfinder updates that just removed a chunk of things from play and from their SRD making it harder to run games that were compatible with the old material. It's best to leave things as they are and continually build on it than to remove something because it isn't the best fit for one table or style of play.

The issue here is that the ranger, and other things, are incomplete as shown in the PHB and should never have been published as they are.

So leaving them in the game isn't a service to anyone, no matter how much people want to pretend otherwise. 5e was not made perfectly and fixing it isn't some sort of horrible thought.

[jas61292]

While we obviously do not know all the details of what the new ranger stuff will end up being, if it is just the revised ranger broken up into features, than keeping the old is fantastic, because the revised ranger threw the cool terrain and exploration stuff out the window in favor of combat, combat, combat. While I am hoping that any final version will be more balanced in this regard, if it is not, than having the original options available still is good for characters who prefer that.

That said... I really do think the revised ranger features need to be overhauled though before any release. The low level abilities are far too good for when they are gotten, and should be broken up and spread around to higher levels, if they are kept at all.

[Kane0]

The issue here is that the ranger, and other things, are incomplete as shown in the PHB and should never have been published as they are.

So leaving them in the game isn't a service to anyone, no matter how much people want to pretend otherwise. 5e was not made perfectly and fixing it isn't some sort of horrible thought.

So we can say with 3 years of hindsight, plus however long the beta went for.

Yes, the ranger (and 5e as a whole) could be better. But it isn't an unplayable mess not meant to see the light of day, no matter how much some want to pretend otherwise.

No need to be so hard on those of us that don't mind having the choice of the original and the new-and-improved instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and starting over.

[PeteNutButter]

I guess we should all just get used to favored enemy being forever useless...

Like others have said if you have ACF, they need to be at least somewhat comparable or they create trap options. You can't give rogues an ACF that is just +1d6 (more) sneak attack. That's exactly what everyone hated about 3.5e: if you didn't know every possible ACF, feat, and PrC you would fall into all sorts of traps.

By that logic the designers are trapped. If they release options that improve on the original, such as adding damage to favored enemy, then they have created trap options. If they instead make ACF competitive to the original ranger, than the ACF will still suck, ergo the ranger will continue to suck.

[Kane0]

Or those ACFs could trade Exploration/Interaction pillar abilities for combat ones, like the revised ranger did (in a way).

[jas61292]

Or those ACFs could trade Exploration/Interaction pillar abilities for combat ones, like the revised ranger did (in a way).

Exactly. An ACF Favored enemy absolutely can give you combat abilities and be fine. But it can't do that and then also give languages, tracking bonuses and other such things. You should be trading away the social and/or exploration bonuses of the feature for damage. Not simply gaining it on top of them.

[Hrugner]

Or those ACFs could trade Exploration/Interaction pillar abilities for combat ones, like the revised ranger did (in a way).

I'm hoping they target the class lore abilities. There are some abilities that are just discarded in refluffing a class, so having some official swap options would be nice.

[HolyDraconus]

... why isn't this a phb2? It's not like ranger is the only class that came out the gate broken. Several classes and subclasses should of been overhauled before being released in the state we got them. By running it as a phb2 (or phb EXPANDED for those AL players) it will still signify that this basic stuff that should of made it in the original book but was either cut or omitted from errors. It would also give better clarification on some things ( invisible hide for example ) that should of had it to begin with. Hell, why not redo the players entirely and plug in the missing content and "patches"? As is it needs it, and for those AL players, you need these options anyway. Not like you can play a bugbear swashbuckler in AL. Hell, after the newness of Volo wore off I didn't see Any of those races bar one:tabaxi monks.

[Matrix_Walker]

The tweet's reference to other classes potentially having alternative class features has aroused my imagination...

"Pact of the Eldritch path" replacing Agonizing Blast might be a fun take... Or some improved sorcery options.

[Nicrosil]

The tweet's reference to other classes potentially having alternative class features has aroused my imagination...

"Pact of the Eldritch path" replacing Agonizing Blast might be a fun take... Or some improved sorcery options.

Maybe this is where Alchemical casting ends up; give up your metamagic, arcane recovery, wild shape, or channel divinity, and cast Strength based fireballs from a mile away.

[Regitnui]

So I'm reading this thread and I see people are mostly split between "oh, that's a good idea for those of us who are already playing rangers" and "It's a horrible idea, 5e is almost entirely horrible ideas, it needs to be completely rebuilt". Personally, I don't think the PHB ranger is that bad. Nobody ever on this forum said "I feel my ranger is completely useless in the party". The ranger problems were generally summarised as "Beast master feels a bit off" and "needs a little power boost". ACFs can fix that.

Let's never forget the class disparities in 3.5, which were far, FAR, FAR worse than 5e. Even the worst class in 5e is in the same tier by 3.5 standards. I never had my sorcerer player complain about being underpowered vs the warlock. Please don't scream and shout like WotC personally offended you with a class that feels a little off. (Not trying to mod or insult anyone, just pointing out that the problem isn't that bad. Apologies to mods or anyone who feels offended)

[mr-mercer]

Personally, I think this is the best way it could have gone, or at least the best way to avoid pissing me off. If they'd just brought out a version of th PHB with the revised ranger as standard, I'd be mad not because I can't play the old ranger anymore, but because it would mean my copy of the PHB is no longer good and I need to buy another one. I don't actually care about the ranger at all to begin with, but I like the fact that the PHB I have now is going to remain constant. Plus this means there'll be even more avenues for cool fighter things in the future without taking away the old stuff: I'd like to see what ideas they have for alternate full-martial class abilities, if any, but I'd probably stab someone if they changed the default rules for the champion.

[pwykersotz]

So I'm reading this thread and I see people are mostly split between "oh, that's a good idea for those of us who are already playing rangers" and "It's a horrible idea, 5e is almost entirely horrible ideas, it needs to be completely rebuilt". Personally, I don't think the PHB ranger is that bad. Nobody ever on this forum said "I feel my ranger is completely useless in the party". The ranger problems were generally summarised as "Beast master feels a bit off" and "needs a little power boost". ACFs can fix that.

Let's never forget the class disparities in 3.5, which were far, FAR. FAR worse than 5e. Even the worst class in 5e is in the same tier by 3.5 standards. I never had my sorcerer player complain about being underpowered vs the warlock. Please don't scream and shout like WotC personally offended you with a class that feels a little off. (Not trying to mod or insult anyone, just pointing out that the problem isn't that bad. Apologies to mods or anyone who feels offended)

YOU RESPOND WITH CALM REASON?!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!

:smalltongue:

[Regitnui]

YOU RESPOND WITH CALM REASON?!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!

:smalltongue:

I'm practicing Internet Zen: If there's something worth screaming and getting upset about in this world, it's not in D&D, 5e or otherwise. Everyone should try it. Every time you see someone getting unnecessarily angry on the internet, you minimize to desktop and chant "Nom" until you have a reasoned response.

[Finlam]

I'm actually not a fan of the pick and choose your class features method of ACF. Here's why:

Class R is the Ranger, it has abilities X where X is a set of abilities and elements of that set are gained at each level.

Class R* is the Revised Ranger, it has abilities Y where Y is a set of abilities and elements of that set are gained at each level.

If you can swap any element of X for any corresponding element of Y, then you end up with 2^N possibilities where N is the length of the set. In this case N would be the number of ACF. So let's say there's 7 ACFs we have 2^7 = 128 possible combinations... for a single class.

Think of it like having 2 Magic the Gathering Decks: you already know what's in each deck and you can go through each deck card by card and pick which of the cards you like best to put into a new deck. Do you think you could make a substantially more powerful deck that way? Would it take you much longer than just picking a deck to play with? Would there be some cards in one deck that you'd never pick (trap options) ? Would other people be able to anticipate your strategy or would they need to see your deck first?

128 combinations for a single class is unmanageable from a game design perspective, and that's a low-end estimate. As a GM I can no longer anticipate what a player's class can actually do until I see the full character sheet. As a player, there's now so many options we've returned to the character planning sessions of 3.5.

I like 3.5, but it's a different game and 5e shouldn't be turned into it or even a facsimile of it.


A far, far better solution would be to offer a binary choice between R and R* (or X and Y) and avoid the combinatorics problems of balance and options bloat altogether.

This would reduce the number of choices down to 2: think of it as picking one Magic the Gathering deck or the other. People who like R can play with R, people who like R* can play with R*. The game designers can manage balance easily between the two options.

With a binary choice, when someone says "I'm going to play R" it doesn't mean "I'm going to play one of the 128+ possible configurations of R" so as both a player and a GM I can have an idea of what they're playing and I can plan accordingly.


"Pick a deck" keeps the game simple, allows planning, and avoids decision bloat and trap options. "Combine the decks" slows character creation, introduces trap options, and inhibits planning by GMs and players. The choice is clear: ACFs as a full alternate set of abilities is the only way to go.

[mephnick]

I...kind of likke the PHB Ranger better. The Revised Ranger is just another boring combat class with fiddly + bonuses. Lost the expertise in terrain and other things that made the Ranger interesting to me. I think the new favoured enemy is much more binary and damaging to a campaign than the old interesting one. The only thing I like about it is the initiative bonus (though high initiative may be the most overrated thing in the history of D&D). I even like the old Beastmaster better, though they needed to fix the survivability. It's not WotC problem that 3.5 fanboys couldn't wrap their heads around sharing actions. I thought it was actually an elegant choice of mechanics...

[Hrugner]

So I'm reading this thread and I see people are mostly split between "oh, that's a good idea for those of us who are already playing rangers" and "It's a horrible idea, 5e is almost entirely horrible ideas, it needs to be completely rebuilt".

The argument is more "we should keep everything and build on it." and "Some things should be removed to make sure low investment gamers don't chose options that are strictly worse than their modern one.". While I'm in the first camp, I can understand the concerns of the second. There isn't really going to be a perfect solution as the game needs to be designed for multiple tables and types of play. Choosing any one play type risks abandoning a chunk of their player base.

[Lolzyking]

I...kind of likke the PHB Ranger better. The Revised Ranger is just another boring combat class with fiddly + bonuses. Lost the expertise in terrain and other things that made the Ranger interesting to me. I think the new favoured enemy is much more binary and damaging to a campaign than the old interesting one. The only thing I like about it is the initiative bonus (though high initiative may be the most overrated thing in the history of D&D). I even like the old Beastmaster better, though they needed to fix the survivability. It's not WotC problem that 3.5 fanboys couldn't wrap their heads around sharing actions. I thought it was actually an elegant choice of mechanics...

its elegant on paper, but in functionality it was bad.

Your pet just becomes this thing that a dm either ignored or nuked, if they ignored it, you might be lucky enough to do almost the same amount of damage as if you did not feed it actions, if nuked, well you just lost your subclass for the session.

In comparison to hunter, well you don't have this pet that doesn't benefit from hunters mark (its practically a class feature), hunter gains an ability that basically grants them an extra dice of damage once per turn somehow.



Revised Bm was fair.

it cut all pets down to one attack on their turn, you can use part of your attack action on your turn to command them to attack with your reaction, you actually get some neat teamwork moves together.
It actually organically grows with you, instead of an arbitrary health equal to 4x ranger level it becomes based on hit dice and con, like everything else ingame.

[Deleted]

I...kind of likke the PHB Ranger better. The Revised Ranger is just another boring combat class with fiddly + bonuses. Lost the expertise in terrain and other things that made the Ranger interesting to me. I think the new favoured enemy is much more binary and damaging to a campaign than the old interesting one. The only thing I like about it is the initiative bonus (though high initiative may be the most overrated thing in the history of D&D). I even like the old Beastmaster better, though they needed to fix the survivability. It's not WotC problem that 3.5 fanboys couldn't wrap their heads around sharing actions. I thought it was actually an elegant choice of mechanics...

If the things the ranger lost were, you know, good then I would agree.

All the Ranger's core "stuff" was borderline useless and took a very very nice DM to throw the ranger a bone.

A good combination of R and R+ would do nicely though for the most part the core ranger is easy to fix.

Favored Enemy: Change during a short or long rest. Also give a list of things an Int check can figure out. Make it where, versus current favored enemy, the Ranger can ignore one source of disadvantage when attacking. This isn't advantage but it can go a long way during battle. Blinded and fighting a Giant? Well, my ranger knows how Giants fight/move so my ranger can still do great work against them (not as much versus their dwarf slaves).


Natural Explorer: Change terrain with short or long rest. Magical means have disadvantage against making you lost (or you have advantage). When you foliage, you always find enough food to feed however many ppl.

Primeval Awareness: Can do for free if you take 1 minute. Can do without slots Wis mod per short or long rest.

Now you have a good core to work with and don't have to worry much about the DM holding your hand.

[Regitnui]

The argument is more "we should keep everything and build on it." and "Some things should be removed to make sure low investment gamers don't chose options that are strictly worse than their modern one.". While I'm in the first camp, I can understand the concerns of the second. There isn't really going to be a perfect solution as the game needs to be designed for multiple tables and types of play. Choosing any one play type risks abandoning a chunk of their player base.

But that's just it, there really is no worse option, with the beastmaster archetype being the only part that really needed a revision. A player choosing the hunter archetype or any other archetype can't be caught in a "strictly worse" option, and even the beast master can be solved by letting the player choose the newer features. There really is no reason to start cursing WotC with all the bile some people seem capable of flinging at WotC making the best of a bad situation.

[Hrugner]

But that's just it, there really is no worse option, with the beastmaster archetype being the only part that really needed a revision. A player choosing the hunter archetype or any other archetype can't be caught in a "strictly worse" option, and even the beast master can be solved by letting the player choose the newer features. There really is no reason to start cursing WotC with all the bile some people seem capable of flinging at WotC making the best of a bad situation.

I think you're confusing standard internet hyperbole with people's genuine level of passion on the topic.

Like I said, i'm in the first camp that wants to preserve options. Obviously there are players who feel that one option is strictly better than the other, and those players would like to ensure that their tables have a high default level of balance. For their table, it's probably best to keep only one option. I'd prefer the DM make that decision over the game designers, that's really the only difference here.

[Regitnui]

I'd prefer the DM make that decision over the game designers, that's really the only difference here.

But they can. Making the new Ranger an option doesn't stop them from telling their players that the old ranger isn't available.

[rigolgm]

If I'm reading Jeremy Crawford's original Tweet (and response) correctly, we can't draw many conclusions about what he said. For all we know, those choosable 'Alternative Features' could be an exact fit for the current Revised Ranger.

That seems like a stretch, though, as Revised Ranger is clearly a (small) upgrade to the original Ranger - so I don't know who would choose the old Features over the new ones!

I much prefer the Revised Ranger and am playing a Dwarf melee Revised Ranger at the moment. Even though it's a minor issue, I'd feel more comfortable if the D&D writers were 100% behind this version I'm using.

[Zalabim]

I'm actually not a fan of the pick and choose your class features method of ACF. Here's why:

Class R is the Ranger, it has abilities X where X is a set of abilities and elements of that set are gained at each level.

Class R* is the Revised Ranger, it has abilities Y where Y is a set of abilities and elements of that set are gained at each level.

If you can swap any element of X for any corresponding element of Y, then you end up with 2^N possibilities where N is the length of the set. In this case N would be the number of ACF. So let's say there's 7 ACFs we have 2^7 = 128 possible combinations... for a single class.

Think of it like having 2 Magic the Gathering Decks: you already know what's in each deck and you can go through each deck card by card and pick which of the cards you like best to put into a new deck. Do you think you could make a substantially more powerful deck that way? Would it take you much longer than just picking a deck to play with? Would there be some cards in one deck that you'd never pick (trap options) ? Would other people be able to anticipate your strategy or would they need to see your deck first?

128 combinations for a single class is unmanageable from a game design perspective, and that's a low-end estimate. As a GM I can no longer anticipate what a player's class can actually do until I see the full character sheet. As a player, there's now so many options we've returned to the character planning sessions of 3.5.

I like 3.5, but it's a different game and 5e shouldn't be turned into it or even a facsimile of it.


A far, far better solution would be to offer a binary choice between R and R* (or X and Y) and avoid the combinatorics problems of balance and options bloat altogether.

This would reduce the number of choices down to 2: think of it as picking one Magic the Gathering deck or the other. People who like R can play with R, people who like R* can play with R*. The game designers can manage balance easily between the two options.

With a binary choice, when someone says "I'm going to play R" it doesn't mean "I'm going to play one of the 128+ possible configurations of R" so as both a player and a GM I can have an idea of what they're playing and I can plan accordingly.


"Pick a deck" keeps the game simple, allows planning, and avoids decision bloat and trap options. "Combine the decks" slows character creation, introduces trap options, and inhibits planning by GMs and players. The choice is clear: ACFs as a full alternate set of abilities is the only way to go.

As a counterpoint, there are over 200 spells on the wizard's spell list.

[Easy_Lee]

As a counterpoint, there are over 200 spells on the wizard's spell list.

Warlock invocations are also numerous.

[Finlam]

As a counterpoint, there are over 200 spells on the wizard's spell list.
That's a good point. Same with warlock invocations. They afford their classes a lot of options which is what we've come to expect of casters, but are generally choices are built around or limited by a subclass i.e. school or pact or patron. i.e. if my wizard is an evoker of an abjurer, then in general both the DM and the other players at the table know what I'm about.

Now let's introduce comparative complexity for every class regardless of subclass: we have a lot of trap options and lot of downright weird options, none of which is restricted by subclass anymore; the interplay of each subclass with all the different possible ability combinations is not even predictable anymore because the base class could mean just about anything. When I'm playing a ranger now, no one has any idea what I'm capable of or what my character is about.

It seems to me that comparing ACF to spellcasting: the one feature of D&D that is univesally regarded as sitting at the top tier of abilities also speaks to its power-creep. It's fine when its on martials, but eventually it will come round full circle to casters as well: Jeremy Crawford was quite clear he expects it for other classes.

Now character creation, party building, and session planning are all more complicated and time consuming while also being more confusing for new players who have to navigate a minefield of trap options when building characters.

I've played that game. It was called 3.5. I loved that edition, but 5e should not be turned into it.

[Deleted]

That's a good point. Same with warlock invocations. They afford their classes a lot of options which is what we've come to expect of casters, but are generally choices are built around or limited by a subclass i.e. school or pact or patron. i.e. if my wizard is an evoker of an abjurer, then in general both the DM and the other players at the table know what I'm about.

Now let's introduce comparative complexity for every class regardless of subclass: we have a lot of trap options and lot of downright weird options, none of which is restricted by subclass anymore; the interplay of each subclass with all the different possible ability combinations is not even predictable anymore because the base class could mean just about anything. When I'm playing a ranger now, no one has any idea what I'm capable of or what my character is about.

It seems to me that comparing ACF to spellcasting: the one feature of D&D that is univesally regarded as sitting at the top tier of abilities also speaks to its power-creep. It's fine when its on martials, but eventually it will come round full circle to casters as well: Jeremy Crawford was quite clear he expects it for other classes.

Now character creation, party building, and session planning are all more complicated and time consuming while also being more confusing for new players who have to navigate a minefield of trap options when building characters.

I've played that game. It was called 3.5. I loved that edition, but 5e should not be turned into it.

Trap options are only there if you let them be there. Trap options aren't an inherent side effect of having options.

That's ridiculous.

[pwykersotz]

Trap options are only there if you let them be there. Trap options aren't an inherent side effect of having options.

That's ridiculous.

I agree, but you have to admit that the more moving parts you add to something, the more potential points of failure you introduce. That's just how options work. His fears are well grounded, even if they're not an absolute given.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Trap options are only there if you let them be there. Trap options aren't an inherent side effect of having options.

That's ridiculous.


I agree, but you have to admit that the more moving parts you add to something, the more potential points of failure you introduce. That's just how options work. His fears are well grounded, even if they're not an absolute given.

I agree with both of you, but have a somewhat different take.

One of the problems that causes balance issues is synergy--there are few blatantly overpowered (or underpowered, except True Strike :smallyuk:) individual abilities. It's when multiple abilities/spells/feats/etc combine that you start getting into crazy territory. That was 3.5's problem with polymorph and summoning--the ability to go monster-manual diving for new forms. With a fixed list of transformations/summons, neither of these is really a problem. It's the "problem" with paladin multi-classing--there are too many other CHA-focused casters that can use smite to their advantage. Few trap options were such when considered individually, but the problem arose when considering further feat/ability support and synergies.

Synergy is also the hardest thing to balance--the sheer combinatorics make it difficult to exhaustively search the combination space and new combinations can act in ways that are all out of proportion to the originals.

5e is a little better in that most abilities are atomic. They don't depend on long chains of abilities, nor do they feed into "combo"-like chains directly. You can make them, but the concentration mechanic damps a lot of the worst of this, as does the constrained action economy and the feat/ASI structure (only at certain class levels). It's still a concern, to be sure.

[Hrugner]

I agree, but you have to admit that the more moving parts you add to something, the more potential points of failure you introduce. That's just how options work. His fears are well grounded, even if they're not an absolute given.

There's also the issue of scaling expectations. With how little variance there is in performance in 5ed, we still have people using the same terms as were used in 3.5 despite the much greater variance in ability there. There are no bad choices in 5e if we use the scale from 3.5, but we still have bad choices when 5e is considered in its own context. If the poor options are removed, the scale tightens, the bad options are less bad, but they will still be viewed as the worst option even if the throughput and flexibility options are nearly identical.

So what's the ideal variance?

[Arkhios]

I think this approach is best for all parties involved; might I say, "diplomatic" even. Some people are fine with the original version (believe it or don't, you lil' munchkins!) :smalltongue:

Also, this way they can address larger base of similar issues at once, in a sourcebook (or OFFICIAL PDF like EEPC) dedicated to provide tools to fix precisely them (and maybe more), because not all features from the original class(es) are garbage, and frankly I'd say in the contrary, that, in doing so, they actually ARE admitting they made mistakes with the first releases. But this way, they don't have to put PHB into reprint just because of one class (because that would be stupid, no matter how "bad" you think the Ranger in PHB is, Wizards of the Coast have to think about the money spent to publish anything as well. Plus I doubt anyone would buy a new PHB just because ranger got changed from "bad" to something "better")

[Puh Laden]

I wonder how they'll handle it so it's not just better, but an actual choice.

For example, the only advantages PHB favored enemy has are getting three favored enemies instead of two, and the ability to pick from the entire list for all three picks. Maybe the new altered class feature will be that you have to give up advantage on checks to track and recall lore in exchange for a +2 bonus to damage, with no +4 and no picking "humanoid," but you still get three picks and the entire list.

As for natural explorer, I would let a player trade out any of the options in the base natural explorer for any of the ones added into the revised ranger. (Keeping favored terrain mechanic.)

If it weren't for the spell slot, I'd call the two choices between primeval awareness balanced. (What were they thinking making it "one minute per level of the spell slot spent"? What good is five minutes going to do over one when you're talking distance in miles?) I'd simply give the option of either using the revised primeval awareness as-is or upgrading it to one hour per slot level or something like that.

Land's Stride vs Fleet of Foot is fine enough.

Hide In Plain Sight is balanced around the fact that the PHB version actually enables you to hide in plain sight, while the revised version still requires you to find a means of hiding. The PHB version is very situational, but it's something different at least.

Beast Master: Just let people pick between PHB and revised.