Improving Revised Ranger

[TheUser]

since there is so much discussion over why the ranger isn't so great I thought I'd take my hand at a rework
(what with WotC already making an attempt as well).


Homebrewery Version:
http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HyZ2DvoJYf

PDF version:
http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/print/HyZ2DvoJYf?dialog=true

it's just a rough draft with eventual bells and whistles (pictures and formatting) to be added but I wanted to get this community's feedback on some of the changes I came up with.

[Arkhios]

Hunter's Finesse in regards to two-weapon fighting... I absolutely love the idea!

[GlenSmash!]

Overall it looks nice, but I do have one issue with it.

I dislike that Hunter's finesse only benefits Ranged and Two Weapon fighting. There are more fighting styles then that.

[TheUser]

Overall it looks nice, but I do have one issue with it.

I dislike that Hunter's finesse only benefits Ranged and Two Weapon fighting. There are more fighting styles then that.

I was thinking of adding a sword and board option like being able to perform somatic components with a shield hand.

As for melee two-handers I am a bit at a loss for ideas. Originally it was just to follow in the footsteps of previous editions but perhaps more options isn't a bad idea.

[GlenSmash!]

I was thinking of adding a sword and board option like being able to perform somatic components with a shield hand.

As for melee two-handers I am a bit at a loss for ideas. Originally it was just to follow in the footsteps of previous editions but perhaps more options isn't a bad idea.

What follows is just my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt.

I hated that previous editions gated Rangers into TWF and Archery. I mean Archery makes sense, but what about being a Wilderness expert made you suddenly better at swinging with your off hand? It should be supported of course as its a perfectly valid fighting style, just not the default.

I mean even with Archery style, what if your favored enemy has an especially thick hide that needs something larger than arrows to pierce it.

I could see a lot of Rangers have very different fighting styles based on terrain they range in or enemy they specialize in fighting. Some with Heavy weapons, some with fast weapons, some with reach weapons, some with shields, etc.

For my take I'd want a Versatile Weapon. Something I can draw and swing with while still holding my bow in my off hand, or wield in 2 hands for more control or damage. But again, that's just me and how I envision my style of Ranger.

[Easy_Lee]

I think it's too strong and is more complicated than it needs to be.

Hunter's Finesse makes the ranger a better TWF character than anyone else possibly can be, including fighters. Thats probably not a good idea. Also consider that, as written, a Gloomstalker using your ranger and TWF can apply Hunter's Mark and make six attacks at the start of each fight, dealing 1d8+6d6+6(d6 or d8)+6(Dex or Str) damage on the first round of combat from level 5. On subsequent turns, he makes five attacks (using bonus action) for 5(d6 + d8 or d6 + Dex or Str). That's over one hundred average damage in two turns for minimal resource expenditure. That might kill a hill giant. Hill giants are CR5.

Primeval Awareness and Natural Explorer on the revised ranger are both poorly written features. For one, they're too long. For another, they force the DM to give you information without you expending any resources or making any rolls, and the information given is stuff the DM might not even know. "How many orcs are within six miles of the ranger? I have no clue but I sure don't want to lowball it in case I forgot about one of the upcoming encounters. I'll just say five hundred. Oh, he's asking about demons, too..." - DM's internal monologue.

[Davrix]

The HF is way to strong and makes them to good for melee combo attacks basically doubling damage output

and not having DA on prone targets plugs one of the few weakness range has in this ed, so like NOPE

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think I see where you were going with Hunter's Finesse, but I agree that this specific wording makes it too strong. I would suggest maybe "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can also make one attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand as part of the Attack action, rather than as a bonus action. If you do, you cannot use your bonus action to make a weapon attack until the start of your next turn." That cuts out the bonus action cost without adding extra swings or enabling any other abuses.

[TheUser]

I think it's too strong and is more complicated than it needs to be.

Hunter's Finesse makes the ranger a better TWF character than anyone else possibly can be, including fighters. Thats probably not a good idea. Also consider that, as written, a Gloomstalker using your ranger and TWF can apply Hunter's Mark and make six attacks at the start of each fight, dealing 1d8+6d6+6(d6 or d8)+6(Dex or Str) damage on the first round of combat from level 5. On subsequent turns, he makes five attacks (using bonus action) for 5(d6 + d8 or d6 + Dex or Str). That's over one hundred average damage in two turns for minimal resource expenditure. That might kill a hill giant. Hill giants are CR5.

Primeval Awareness and Natural Explorer on the revised ranger are both poorly written features. For one, they're too long. For another, they force the DM to give you information without you expending any resources or making any rolls, and the information given is stuff the DM might not even know. "How many orcs are within six miles of the ranger? I have no clue but I sure don't want to lowball it in case I forgot about one of the upcoming encounters. I'll just say five hundred. Oh, he's asking about demons, too..." - DM's internal monologue.

Firstly, I am very grateful for the feedback; it's nice to see people going through rework in great detail and putting out thoughtful responses.


Your damage analysis comes apart a bit when you compare it to a crossbow expert gloomstalker with sharpshooter dealing 6d6+39 damage in each round using a hand crossbow and the exact same amount of resources and being done at range (that's an average of 120 damage).

Granted one is done at -5 to hit but it also carries less risk being done at 120ft of range.

I think that features which grant extra attacks should work with two weapon fighting (like whirlwind attack) but granting the first attack for free and a bonus action for multiple attacks might be a prudent compromise.

As for primeval awareness it's entirely possible to give a low ball number and have more that were outside the range of the ability. In that regard the DM is no longer forced to comit to anything. I see the original feature as rather useless and while this certainly can be far more useful I don't think it's game breaking by any stretch.

[Davrix]

I think my problem with this is that the UA revised ranger fixes most of what is wrong with the ranger class, brings it up to par with the rest of them from the PH, if not a bit better which is why it pairs so well with something like gloom-stalker.

If anything the revised ranger needs to be toned down ever so slightly possibly. This just seems to be offering to much power in area's and more complexity than is needed.

[Easy_Lee]

Your damage analysis comes apart a bit when you compare it to a crossbow expert gloomstalker with sharpshooter dealing 6d6+39 damage in each round using a hand crossbow and the exact same amount of resources and being done at range (that's an average of 120 damage).

Two feats invested and cumulative -3 to hit (after archery style) vs no feat investment and normal to-hit. Also, the crossbow expert can only fire two arrows the first round because he needs to setup Hunter's Mark.

The better comparison is to a Gloomstalker Ranger with a Longbow who dips into fighter for Action Surge. That also lets him make six attacks + hunter's mark on the first round of combat (action surge allows an extra attack action which triggers the Gloomstalker perk a second time). However, this Gloomstalker required an extra two levels in fighter to do that and can only pull it off once per short rest. Your Revised Ranger+ Gloomstalker + TWF would be absurd, particularly since you don't need any feat investment to make full use of it.

All of that is before we consider static bonuses from magic weapons. Imagine if this character got hold of some elemental weapons.

I'm not saying that SS, CBE, PM, and GWM are balanced - they aren't as they give huge advantages to their respective weapon types. But the solution is not to make just one particular class able to do something even more powerful with TWF.

One caveat: I would be totally okay with Hunter's finesse as a high level feature. Let's not forget that a level 18 monk can spend 4 ki to go invisible and gain resistance to all but psychic damage for one minute, basically the equivalent of raging while under the effects of Greater Invisibility. Tier 4 is the correct place for these kinds of abilities.

[Specter]

I'd be careful with Hunter's Finesse, in that the TWF part can be abused. Ranger 5/Fighter 2 can pull 8 attacks in one turn; an eventual Ranger 5/Fighter 11 could pull 12.

Also, getting it along with Extra Attack and spells make level 5 too strong.

[X3r4ph]

Ideas for a two hander finesse ideas.

You are adept in fighting in the wilds. When making a melee attack, with a heavy or two handed weapon, in a confined space, you receive no penalty.

You know every weak spot on every creature. Once per turn your melee attack with a two handed weapon, or heavy weapon, can ignore resistance of a creature. If the creature has immunity to your attack, it instead has resistance.