My group thinks Gloomstalker is broken and I’m allowing it in my campaign.

[Ralanr]

So my GM has banned Gloomstalker from his games as he finds it overpowered. Since I’m running a gothic horror setting, I’d figure I’d allow the subclass in to see if it’s really as broken on paper as we all believe it is.

Is there anything I should look out for?

[Tiwanoz]

Nothing really, it's good but hardly overpowered.

Umbral Sight will however allow the player to more easily gain advantage on his attack rolls. Combined with Dread Ambusher it usually allows for big damage in round one.

[Lombra]

A big first round and standard ranger things for the rest of the fight. How does one sees it as overpowered is beyond me. Nothing is overpowered in this edition.

[Mortis_Elrod]

A big first round and standard ranger things for the rest of the fight. How does one sees it as overpowered is beyond me. Nothing is overpowered in this edition.

gonna just upvote this. Nothing overpowered. You're really good that first round and also a good stealther that isnt a rogue. After that the abilties are decent

[Tetrasodium]

I'm at a loss to see what anyone could consider to be "broken" enough about it in order to make allowing it a controversial subject. It's an ok archtype at best.

[KorvinStarmast]

So my GM has banned Gloomstalker from his games as he finds it overpowered. Since I’m running a gothic horror setting, I’d figure I’d allow the subclass in to see if it’s really as broken on paper as we all believe it is.

Is there anything I should look out for? Your GM. It appears that the GM does not understand the game very well.

[Davrix]

So my GM has banned Gloomstalker from his games as he finds it overpowered. Since I’m running a gothic horror setting, I’d figure I’d allow the subclass in to see if it’s really as broken on paper as we all believe it is.

Is there anything I should look out for?


Any GM that just bans something outright is either to lazy to try and fix it or work around it on his end. Also nothing is broken at a table if the other players don't feel put off by it. If your having fun the game is doing its job. Its only when your not having fun when something might need to be looked at and either changed or tweaks if a class /a blity is making other people feel underwhelmed at the table.

[rbstr]

Yeah, just to echo, it's not even close to being broken. It's hardly even powercreep on the PHB Hunter.
Honestly, none of the XGtE rangers are truly, actually stronger than the Hunter even with their bonus spell lists.

Maybe if you're using the Revised Ranger UA on top of them. But that's a different issue.

[utopus]

The class is strong, and stronger compared to other ranger subclasses in commonly dangerous situations such as dungeon crawls. I believe that players sentiments were that the subclasses offered by the PHB were underpowered. With this in mind, Gloomstalker and Horizon Walker are both a little stronger than the other PHB subclasses, but it's by no means broken though. Good luck with your new campaign!

[Ronnocius]

Any GM that just bans something outright is either to lazy to try and fix it or work around it on his end. Also nothing is broken at a table if the other players don't feel put off by it. If your having fun the game is doing its job. Its only when your not having fun when something might need to be looked at and either changed or tweaks if a class /a blity is making other people feel underwhelmed at the table.

Um, what? A GM completely has the right to ban a certain subclass/race/class if he chooses and has no obligation to try and fix it or work around it (and it is not lazy at all if he chooses not to). If anything the player who wanted to use the banned features is the one who must work around it.

[vexedart]

You also have the right to refuse to play with control freaks also.

It's a good dip, but IMO any pure classed ranger is lacking compared to the other options available.

[Desteplo]

To answer the OP:

Play with light. Out an emphasis on the bright, dim and dark settings of the campaign.

-a general game can very easily get dumped on by super dark stealth magee

-what your job is of DM is the give him a puzzle. Nothing is always 100% dark. Use candle light so there’s pockets of darkness in a room

-your job is to make it fun and engaging... not easy. Make certain rooms bright light and allow other players bask in it. (Puzzles for them to solve) don’t make him useless in this case but remind him gloom stalker isn’t a one trick pony

-have everyone have a light source. No one is walking down a dark alley without a torch or lantern. Even a half orc is going to want some light, just because he can see black and white doesn’t mean anything. It’s Dim lighting.

[Davrix]

Um, what? A GM completely has the right to ban a certain subclass/race/class if he chooses and has no obligation to try and fix it or work around it (and it is not lazy at all if he chooses not to). If anything the player who wanted to use the banned features is the one who must work around it.

Sorry I don't buy that reasoning ever as a DM or as a player. This is a game not a dictatorship and I greatly disagree with statements that blankly give all power to the DM and while yes I agree that a Dm needs to have the power to make rulings and decide what stays or goes at a table this does not enable them to have a blank check to dictate everything they want without question . A DM is not there to wave his hand and go. Well I think this is broken or I just don't like it so the simply solution is. Poof ban you don't get to have that type of fun because I said so. Also Gloomstalker is far from broken in any sense of the term. This isn't like a Dm trying to put a cap on a high lv wizard spell that's badly written. This is a Dm that just doesn't want to deal with something that has a strong opener.

Also Don't misunderstand me. I am perfectly happy for setting reasons or rules ahead of a game that a DM wants to run his world a certain way based on lore and history. I can get fully behind that as long as its up front and everyone can agree to it. But that's not what's going on here. The Dm in question doesn't like this sub-class of ranger and has simply said, not allowing this.

You let the player choose what he wishes, you let him have his or her fantasy. If after a few games it becomes a problem, you talk to the player. maybe change something to tone it down, tweak a few numbers. But as i said above, if none of the players are feeling shafted when it comes to combat then simply tweak the monsters around the players damage or abilities.

You as the DM get to have the fun of being the overlord of the sandbox on the playground. You get to decide whats in it and how it operates. You lay down the ground rules and then let players loose and watch as they interact with all the fun toys you set up for them. You are not there to lay out those toys and then point to one single one and say that one cant be touched when someone reaches for it. That's not fun for the player and really its no fun for anyone involved.

So no the excuse that the player has to work around the DM is a statement I hate.

People are people and everyone has the same rights to have fun in their own way. The better statement is you need to treat each like adults and work out a solution you both can be happy with. Because in the end its a game and your BOTH there to have fun.

[MaxWilson]

A big first round and standard ranger things for the rest of the fight. How does one sees it as overpowered is beyond me. Nothing is overpowered in this edition.

*coughcough*HealingSpirit*coughcough*.

[Davrix]

*coughcough*HealingSpirit*coughcough*.

People really get upset over that spell. Personally its a meh in combat spell (unless cast at a higher lv) and a strong downtime spell. But is it really any different then the party just stopping every fight to take a short or long rest half the time because they used to much on the last night? Personally I think it feels more organic the cleric takes a lv 2 spell while the party takes a short rest to heal up. And they move on without STOPPING for 6 to 8 hours to take a long rest after every single fight. They just gave us a spell to accomplish what I bet most people were doing anyway. At least this way maybe a party will move on and be a little less likely to try and recharge all their spell slots in-between fights.

[Unoriginal]

Gloomstalker is only overpowered if the whole campaign is about killing deaf people in complete darkness.




Any GM that just bans something outright is either to lazy to try and fix it or work around it on his end. Also nothing is broken at a table if the other players don't feel put off by it. If your having fun the game is doing its job. Its only when your not having fun when something might need to be looked at and either changed or tweaks if a class /a blity is making other people feel underwhelmed at the table.

A DM might also just not like something and decide to ban it, nothing wrong with that.

[Ralanr]

Yeah, just to echo, it's not even close to being broken. It's hardly even powercreep on the PHB Hunter.
Honestly, none of the XGtE rangers are truly, actually stronger than the Hunter even with their bonus spell lists.

Maybe if you're using the Revised Ranger UA on top of them. But that's a different issue.

That is most likely the issue actually, as I just went over the Revised Ranger (something that another player likes playing) and I've noticed that they syngergize really well at level 3.

[Tanarii]

*coughcough*HealingSpirit*coughcough*.Yeha, that spell is good example of actually broken.


Any GM that just bans something outright is either to lazy to try and fix it or work around it on his end. Also nothing is broken at a table if the other players don't feel put off by it. If your having fun the game is doing its job. Its only when your not having fun when something might need to be looked at and either changed or tweaks if a class /a blity is making other people feel underwhelmed at the table.DMs can set the rules, including for character creation, at their table as they wish. They're under no obligation to work around a player wanting to play a class or use other optional or even non-optional rules they don't want in the game. Unless the game is official play, or it's otherwise not the DM's table to make the character creation rules at. Rotating DMs, or a group of people explicitly collaborating on game creation, are good examples of the latter. Friendly games of friends sitting down to have fun are often edge cases of it.

[Pex]

I think it's a knee jerk reaction because the class becomes invisible against those who use dark vision. As another thread shows, some people think dark vision is the bomb, so anything that thwarts it must be overpowered how dare they.

[Davrix]

DMs can set the rules, including for character creation, at their table as they wish. They're under no obligation to work around a player wanting to play a class or use other optional or even non-optional rules they don't want in the game. Unless the game is official play, or it's otherwise not the DM's table to make the character creation rules at. Rotating DMs, or a group of people explicitly collaborating on game creation, are good examples of the latter. Friendly games of friends sitting down to have fun are often edge cases of it.

And for the most part I am ok with that to a point but here we have a perfect example of why I dont like it when people say the Dm always "Should get his way" Having a world where say certain races don't exists or Multi-classing or feats are not option? that's fine. Thats part of the world building. Not having pure casters because its a low magic world? Thats cool to. Providing this is the set up for the game and its up front. I"ve been at many a table where after a few sessions the DM gets tired of Magic and suddenly bans it. Or they suddenly dont like a feat you chose and take it away or the subclass you picked isn't something he feels is good even though you went over with it him at first and explained it might be to good and that your willing to work with him on it but nope just re-roll something I don't want to deal. So perhaps I'm a bit bitter on this aspects because in my experience Dm's take the my way or the high way aspect and turn into jerks.

I'm much more open to restrictions by a DM when they are based on how the world works and the history of such tings because it shows the DM took the time to reason out why he didn't want this feature. But in this case we suddenly have a world where all forms of rangers are valid except this one and oh its fine to play the revised Ranger but this sub class gets banned? It just rankles me in the wrong way. Because its a decision based not on, oh my world doesn't work this way and rather, I don't like it so either take it or leave it. I know many will disagree with my view but its just how I see things.

[MaxWilson]

People really get upset over that spell. Personally its a meh in combat spell (unless cast at a higher lv) and a strong downtime spell. But is it really any different then the party just stopping every fight to take a short or long rest half the time because they used to much on the last night? Personally I think it feels more organic the cleric takes a lv 2 spell while the party takes a short rest to heal up. And they move on without STOPPING for 6 to 8 hours to take a long rest after every single fight. They just gave us a spell to accomplish what I bet most people were doing anyway. At least this way maybe a party will move on and be a little less likely to try and recharge all their spell slots in-between fights.

5E's difficulty metrics are all attrition-oriented; the DMG actively discourages a DM from just taking his whole encounter XP budget and putting it in one big fight. Instead, 5E's designers, rightly or wrongly, built the game under the assumption that you're usually going to have somewhere between two and perhaps ten fights on any given day when fighting is a thing, and that PCs will gradually be worn down by loss of HP, spells, and other abilities to the point where resource depletion is a source of dramatic tension.

When a 3rd level Moon Druid can not only wild shape into a giant hyena for a ton of extra HP, but he can ALSO heal 35 HP to everyone in the party with his second level spell slot--and when a 5th level druid can heal everyone in the party for 70 HP with a second-level spell slot--all in the course of sixty seconds... yes, sixty seconds to heal up is quite different from stopping the whole party for an hour (short rest) or twenty-four hours (long rest, if you just had a long rest).

Note also that you can start the spell in combat (e.g. to get someone at 0 HP back up on their feet, using just your bonus action) and just continue it after combat to top everyone off. And, as you mentioned, it can indeed be cast at a higher level for more in-combat effect.

It's the most broken spell in 5E--it is clearly incongruous with the rest of 5E's design.

[Mortis_Elrod]

That is most likely the issue actually, as I just went over the Revised Ranger (something that another player likes playing) and I've noticed that they syngergize really well at level 3.

thats more of a revised ranger issue and the gloomsalker. In any case, compared to other classes its not overpowered and compared to other subclasses, its really good that first round but hunter is more consistent, and monster slayer and horizon walker both have good uses.

and with PHB Ranger its merely good.

[Tvtyrant]

And for the most part I am ok with that to a point but here we have a perfect example of why I dont like it when people say the Dm always "Should get his way" Having a world where say certain races don't exists or Multi-classing or feats are not option? that's fine. Thats part of the world building. Not having pure casters because its a low magic world? Thats cool to. Providing this is the set up for the game and its up front. I"ve been at many a table where after a few sessions the DM gets tired of Magic and suddenly bans it. Or they suddenly dont like a feat you chose and take it away or the subclass you picked isn't something he feels is good even though you went over with it him at first and explained it might be to good and that your willing to work with him on it but nope just re-roll something I don't want to deal. So perhaps I'm a bit bitter on this aspects because in my experience Dm's take the my way or the high way aspect and turn into jerks.

I'm much more open to restrictions by a DM when they are based on how the world works and the history of such tings because it shows the DM took the time to reason out why he didn't want this feature. But in this case we suddenly have a world where all forms of rangers are valid except this one and oh its fine to play the revised Ranger but this sub class gets banned? It just rankles me in the wrong way. Because its a decision based not on, oh my world doesn't work this way and rather, I don't like it so either take it or leave it. I know many will disagree with my view but its just how I see things.

The DM does 90+% of the work, and is expected to be a judge/storyteller/game designer all at the same time. If you don't like how they do it, offer to DM yourself and do the work.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

That is most likely the issue actually, as I just went over the Revised Ranger (something that another player likes playing) and I've noticed that they syngergize really well at level 3.

Oh yes, I wouldn't use the Xanathar's Guide subclasses with the UA Revised Ranger as well, that's applying two fixes to one problem and ending up overcompensating.

[warsawwombats]

Gloomstalker is only overpowered if the whole campaign is about killing deaf people in complete darkness.



In honor of the Oscars tonight, "Hunting Helen Keller" has my nomination for the worst campaign idea ever.

[warsawwombats]

So my GM has banned Gloomstalker from his games as he finds it overpowered. Since I’m running a gothic horror setting, I’d figure I’d allow the subclass in to see if it’s really as broken on paper as we all believe it is.

Is there anything I should look out for?

I think you're going to find there's really nothing amazingly overpowered about the class. First round nova and then it's your basic ranger fighting after that.

Umbral Sight isn't that useful at most tables because DMs seem to forget or gloss over light/vision rules.

The level 7 ability is pretty sick though. WIS save proficiency is huge for a martial class.

[the secret fire]

Any GM that just bans something outright is either to lazy to try and fix it or work around it on his end. Also nothing is broken at a table if the other players don't feel put off by it. If your having fun the game is doing its job. Its only when your not having fun when something might need to be looked at and either changed or tweaks if a class /a blity is making other people feel underwhelmed at the table.

Players who don't like their GMs' aesthetic decisions can vote with their feet, same as always.

[Pex]

And for the most part I am ok with that to a point but here we have a perfect example of why I dont like it when people say the Dm always "Should get his way" Having a world where say certain races don't exists or Multi-classing or feats are not option? that's fine. Thats part of the world building. Not having pure casters because its a low magic world? Thats cool to. Providing this is the set up for the game and its up front. I"ve been at many a table where after a few sessions the DM gets tired of Magic and suddenly bans it. Or they suddenly dont like a feat you chose and take it away or the subclass you picked isn't something he feels is good even though you went over with it him at first and explained it might be to good and that your willing to work with him on it but nope just re-roll something I don't want to deal. So perhaps I'm a bit bitter on this aspects because in my experience Dm's take the my way or the high way aspect and turn into jerks.

I'm much more open to restrictions by a DM when they are based on how the world works and the history of such tings because it shows the DM took the time to reason out why he didn't want this feature. But in this case we suddenly have a world where all forms of rangers are valid except this one and oh its fine to play the revised Ranger but this sub class gets banned? It just rankles me in the wrong way. Because its a decision based not on, oh my world doesn't work this way and rather, I don't like it so either take it or leave it. I know many will disagree with my view but its just how I see things.

I agree with you. I don't mind a DM banning something. What matters to me is why the banning is happening. It makes a difference because it reflects the DM's approach to how he runs the game. It won't necessarily be a deciding factor in the hypothetical of me choosing to play or not, but it is a factor.

[Jerrykhor]

There are some people who sees nearly everything as overpowered, and there's not much you can do to convince them otherwise. The first time I saw the E6 concept, it was just so alien to me, that I could not get my head around those guy's idea of fun.

[Unoriginal]

Seriously, though, an ability that's foiled by one of the enemies having a lantern isn't OP.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Oh yes, I wouldn't use the Xanathar's Guide subclasses with the UA Revised Ranger as well, that's applying two fixes to one problem and ending up overcompensating.

After trying this out for a session (8th level UA ranger w/the Gloom Stalker archetype) I must say that I agree. It was sick.

[pcamp88]

Always find it hilarious when a GM bans an "OP" class/feature/etc without even seeing it work in actual play. It seems pretty strong on paper (and probably actually IS the most powerful Ranger archetype as stated by others in the thread) but any time someone claims something is OP about a martial character in my groups I usually just refer to some of the ridiculous things that full casters get to do. :P

[KorvinStarmast]

Always find it hilarious when a GM bans an "OP" class/feature/etc without even seeing it work in actual play. It seems pretty strong on paper (and probably actually IS the most powerful Ranger archetype as stated by others in the thread) but any time someone claims something is OP about a martial character in my groups I usually just refer to some of the ridiculous things that full casters get to do. :P Providing he survives, I'll let you know how my Gloom Stalker works out in ToA. We had a long talk about char creation in our group. We started with three people, and in order to put together a back story that explained why this guy is in Chult, this Ranger has the Criminal/Spy background (yay for thieves tools!, but my deception efforts are with a dump stat :smallcool: ) ... He's human, so for the first two levels no darkish-vision and low-level play is kinda swingy ... we'll see. We may be getting a fourth party member (schedules and RL are a thing) which will slightly boost the odds of surviving long enough to make an assessment. And we are playing with the encumbrance rules, so I went with a 14 str, 12 Wisdom, and the feat for this V Human was Medium Armor Master. I am the only sneaky type character in the group, even including the possible 4th, and with the spy background, this guy needs to be sneaky and quiet.

Optimized? Not really.

[Armored Walrus]

I think it was mentioned once already in this thread, but I'd like to highlight it. OP, you're the only one in this thread who know your DM. I presume that now you will be DMing for this person. This may or may not be the case, but you asked for what else you should be watching for... I'd watch your former DM. Depending on personality, allowing something that he or she has banned could be seen as a challenge. You may have that player going out of their way to build a "broken" gloomstalker to teach you how overpowered it is. That may or may not actually become a problem in play, but I think it's something to be aware is a possibility.

If I'm flat wrong about this person, then I'm happy for you, just giving a heads up ;)

[KorvinStarmast]

I think it was mentioned once already in this thread, but I'd like to highlight it. OP, you're the only one in this thread who know your DM. I presume that now you will be DMing for this person. This may or may not be the case, but you asked for what else you should be watching for... I'd watch your former DM. Depending on personality, allowing something that he or she has banned could be seen as a challenge. You may have that player going out of their way to build a "broken" gloomstalker to teach you how overpowered it is. That may or may not actually become a problem in play, but I think it's something to be aware is a possibility.

If I'm flat wrong about this person, then I'm happy for you, just giving a heads up ;) I am not sure that one can build a broken ranger, though in the first tier or two of play with the Sharpshooter feat and the archery fighting style, the Ranger can appear to be very powerful when ranged attacks are an available option. They'll tend to hit more often, and can sometimes get that +10 damage roll on top of, for example, colossus slayer. (Then again, one still has to hit ...)

[Lombra]

Gloom Stalker + Revised Ranger isn't even that good. It wouldn't get extra attack. And dual wielding may prove to be difficult as there are many things competing for bonus action.

[Spacehamster]

Its at the power all ranger subclasses should be at, good but not in any way spectacular or overpowered.

[PeteNutButter]

The class has the potential to be very potent even without the whole darkness thing. A strict reading of the extra attack on round one will note that it lacks a limiter clause. There is no "once on that turn" or anything of the sort, so it is potentially 3 more attacks if you take 2 levels of fighter and have the luck of someone hasting you before your turn.

Many people rule on balance that it is only one attack, regardless of how many attack actions you take.

A player in my AL group has a Gloomstalker 5/fighter 2 and he basically trivializes most encounters. At level 7 he is putting out a solid six SS attacks on round one ensuring that any BBEG is going to get at most one turn. It's not so much the feature itself is OP, but more that it synergizes so well with so many things, such as action surge or 3rd level assassin for advantage with that huge initiative bonus.

[Armored Walrus]

I am not sure that one can build a broken ranger, though in the first tier or two of play with the Sharpshooter feat and the archery fighting style, the Ranger can appear to be very powerful when ranged attacks are an available option. They'll tend to hit more often, and can sometimes get that +10 damage roll on top of, for example, colossus slayer. (Then again, one still has to hit ...)

I don't think it would matter in the situation I described, if the character was actually broken or not. I'm more warning OP of the potential for having an antagonistic player. If the character isn't actually broken, then you may end up with a player who's constantly wrangling for rulings that allow it to be broken. It wasn't mechanics advice, it was interpersonal relationship advice. Hopefully OP won't need it because both OP and the player are mature, reasonable adults, but IME, people who fit those two descriptors are rarer than you'd think.

[Zanthy1]

A DM might also just not like something and decide to ban it, nothing wrong with that.

Right! Some examples: Certain races aren't present in the world, maybe there isn't arcane magic, or there aren't any gods so no divine. The world is created by the DM, and so long as he makes it known before character creation (that ever important session 0) what is and isn't allowed, there should be no problem. As a player you can always attempt a work around with your DM, but the DM is not obligated to allow anything.

[pcamp88]

Gloom Stalker + Revised Ranger isn't even that good. It wouldn't get extra attack. And dual wielding may prove to be difficult as there are many things competing for bonus action.

Officially as of right now it does not, but I'd be willing to bet it will when the finalized version of the Revised Ranger is released. I think it doesn't have it as a subclass feature in XGtE because it was designed only for officially released content and not UA material. We'll know for sure some time soon, hopefully.

[jaappleton]

Nothing is overpowered in this edition.

Nothing officially released, anyway.

coughLOREWIZARDcough

[GlenSmash!]

After trying this out for a session (8th level UA ranger w/the Gloom Stalker archetype) I must say that I agree. It was sick.

Advantage on attacks in the first round of combat makes Gloom Stalkers 1st round bonus that much better.

I like Gloom Stalkers, and I even like Revised Ranger, but some of the RR abilities are too much for level 1.

[Davrix]

The DM does 90+% of the work, and is expected to be a judge/storyteller/game designer all at the same time. If you don't like how they do it, offer to DM yourself and do the work.

I DM a lot actually and I have never once banned something or told a player at my table that he or she could not play something. I've changed spells, tweaked numbers and offered alternatives when something has proven either to good, to weak or simply doesn't mesh well with either the setting or the other players but I always work with the players because this is just as much their fantasy trip as it is mine. The only time I play the GM card is when I have to and yes sometimes it leads to problems like when I had a bard with some very liberal and creative uses of the heath metal spell. But in the end while I was frustrated a little we all still had a good time and the bard wound up melted in dragon puke but that's another story. The point being though is I don't feel the DM should simply have the power to wave his hand for whatever reason and say banned, not allowed... NOPE on anything little thing he dislikes. Which in the end just leads to people either walking away from the table or vast arguments. A problem easily solved by better communication and people in general acting like adults rather then 12 year olds still at the gaming table.

My upcoming game for example where I do have restrictions but there are reasons for them not simply because I'm trying to take away from the players. In fact I'm going to empowering them more in the end.

Feats are not allowed because I'm going to offer them through story rewards or trainers the PC's can hire to teach them new skills because I want them to feel like their character earned them in some way via an action or story point and allow them to have their stat bonuses on top of it.
The setting in question turns the tables and Humans are a rare race while the more monstrous races are prevalent.
Multi-class is now allowed at the start but they are only lv 2 and it will be allowed after that though with heavy encouragement from me on an explanation of why your character is dipping for something. Whats the motivation, or logic behind it from IC.

This is my view and how I run a game and I realize not every DM will share it or like it but I personally feel when a DM just looks at something and waves his hand and says NOPE instead of talking to the player and saying. "I feel this might be a little to good, lets run with it but we may have to tweak something if its performing to well." If the player grumbles and doesn't like that then yes, put your foot down as the DM but show your willing to work with your players instead of against them.

[Zene]

The class has the potential to be very potent even without the whole darkness thing. A strict reading of the extra attack on round one will note that it lacks a limiter clause. There is no "once on that turn" or anything of the sort, so it is potentially 3 more attacks if you take 2 levels of fighter and have the luck of someone hasting you before your turn.

Many people rule on balance that it is only one attack, regardless of how many attack actions you take.

A player in my AL group has a Gloomstalker 5/fighter 2 and he basically trivializes most encounters. At level 7 he is putting out a solid six SS attacks on round one ensuring that any BBEG is going to get at most one turn. It's not so much the feature itself is OP, but more that it synergizes so well with so many things, such as action surge or 3rd level assassin for advantage with that huge initiative bonus.

This.

GS 5 / Fighter 2 VHuman Sharpshooter Crossbow Expert is *the* highest possible DPR that I'm aware of (not counting summoners with DM buy-in) at that level. Yeah it's only first round, but first round is all you need with that build. And then it keeps up with even the best of the other archer builds after the first round. Add another level of fighter for battlemaster and it's even better. Add Assassin 3 and it's even better.

Even without multiclassing, it's very strong. Probably the best single-class archer build until at least level 9. But nothing that can't be managed by the DM. Heck personally, I'd even allow multiclassing with it (I hate limiting players when it comes to officially published options), just have to keep in mind its strength when balancing encounters.

[Davrix]

This.

GS 5 / Fighter 2 VHuman Sharpshooter Crossbow Expert is *the* highest possible DPR that I'm aware of (not counting summoners with DM buy-in) at that level. Yeah it's only first round, but first round is all you need with that build. And then it keeps up with even the best of the other archer builds after the first round. Add another level of fighter for battlemaster and it's even better. Add Assassin 3 and it's even better.

Even without multiclassing, it's very strong. Probably the best single-class archer build until at least level 9. But nothing that can't be managed by the DM. Heck personally, I'd even allow multiclassing with it (I hate limiting players when it comes to officially published options), just have to keep in mind its strength when balancing encounters.

So if that's the problem you just add the once per turn clause and you fix probably 90 percent of the problem yes?


At the start of your first turn of each combat, your walking speed increases by 10 feet, which lasts until the end of that turn. If you take the Attack action on that turn, you can make one additional weapon attack as part of that action. If that attack hits, the target takes an extra ld8 damage of the weapon's damage type.

Also REALLY? there trying to twist the fact that it doesn't say once per turn from this?

It clearly states. Which I have now bolded above that you make ONE additional weapon attack. People forget the attack action is one action with several attacks baked in via class features. All this does is add one more attack into the attack action. So if you have Multi-attack you get 3 attacks and if you do get action surge then yes its a pretty devastating 6 attack moment if all of them hit. I mean against a single big boss? Yea sure maybe but really how is this any different from a paladin going nova with a smite and nuking something down on the first round? The only truly bad combo would be having sharpshooter and Elvan accuracy with this combo. That would be pretty harsh. However I just wouldn't let the person use the revised ranger and they would stick to the one in the PH which also helps fix this a bit. Also I think having them fight a Monk who can throw and toss these back at him would be pretty damn amusing at times.

[Flashy]

Seriously, though, an ability that's foiled by one of the enemies having a lantern isn't OP.

This is the truest comment in the whole thread.

[Malifice]

So my GM has banned Gloomstalker from his games as he finds it overpowered. Since I’m running a gothic horror setting, I’d figure I’d allow the subclass in to see if it’s really as broken on paper as we all believe it is.

Is there anything I should look out for?

Depends on how your DM runs invisibility.

If it's some kind of 'infinite stealth check' then it can be quite strong.

If its how it's supposed to work (it simply lets you take the Hide action, and grants enemies disadvantage/ and you advantage till you do so of they turn on the lights) it's not that strong.

[DracoKnight]

Nothing officially released, anyway.

coughLOREWIZARDcough

Preach it. That was a dumpster fire.

[djreynolds]

So my GM has banned Gloomstalker from his games as he finds it overpowered. Since I’m running a gothic horror setting, I’d figure I’d allow the subclass in to see if it’s really as broken on paper as we all believe it is.

Is there anything I should look out for?

What's the campaign? If it is all dark dungeons and underdark, then the gloom stalker will prove more powerful.

IMO, I would've liked to play a gloomstalker in COS or OOTA.

Remember undead force con saves often due to paralysis, a weakness your gloomstalker may have overlooked.

They do get wisdom save proficiency at 7th, powerful

There are weaknesses to every class, I like to include these to increase the fear and drama of a campaign

Otherwise, on the other hand create aspects where their unique abilities can be showcased

[Malifice]

The class can be defeated with a lantern.

So no; not OP.

[Theodoxus]

People really get upset over that spell. Personally its a meh in combat spell (unless cast at a higher lv) and a strong downtime spell. But is it really any different then the party just stopping every fight to take a short or long rest half the time because they used to much on the last night? Personally I think it feels more organic the cleric takes a lv 2 spell while the party takes a short rest to heal up. And they move on without STOPPING for 6 to 8 hours to take a long rest after every single fight. They just gave us a spell to accomplish what I bet most people were doing anyway. At least this way maybe a party will move on and be a little less likely to try and recharge all their spell slots in-between fights.

Three words: Prayer of Healing. Yeah, I get to spend 10 minutes, to grant 2d8+Wis (+4, if Life Cleric) to a group. In the meantime, the party Druid can cast 2 Healing Spirits over two minutes that heal 10d6 each, to anyone with the temerity to walk through the light. 10d6*party members if they want to use the "push me/pull you" BS tactic that technically RAW.

2 spells of equal level, but no where close to equal effect. 'nuff said. /rage rant


I am not sure that one can build a broken ranger, though in the first tier or two of play with the Sharpshooter feat and the archery fighting style, the Ranger can appear to be very powerful when ranged attacks are an available option. They'll tend to hit more often, and can sometimes get that +10 damage roll on top of, for example, colossus slayer. (Then again, one still has to hit ...)

GS 5/Ass 3 - on a drow, in the underdark, with the skulker feat. Party member of mine just hid, shot, moved a smidge, rehid, shot, repeat. It was brutal. Didn't even have SS yet - didn't need it though... It did help that I had a sunsword, and thus distracted all the things into concentrating on taking out the life cleric. But even without my lightsaber distraction, he was top DPS by a lot (outside of when the wizard decided to drop a fireball...)


What's the campaign? If it is all dark dungeons and underdark, then the gloom stalker will prove more powerful.

IMO, I would've liked to play a gloomstalker in COS or OOTA.



QFT. Probably the only time I'd play one. I still contend that hunters are hands down the best ranger archetype - they're so versatile, where all the others are very niche. Super powerful in that niche (I have a Horizon Walker in the game I'm running and I've really played up the Portal aspect in the game for him to utilize) but outside that niche, base rangers are pretty meh.

[GlenSmash!]

The class can be defeated with a lantern.

So no; not OP.

The invisibility-ish aspect can be defeated with a Lantern, but they get some other stuff first round combat goodies, Additional Save Prof, and re-roll a missed attack.

Still not even close to OP.