Mike Mearls: Revising the Ranger III: Revenge of the Sith (also, talks about weapons)

[Unoriginal]

https://youtu.be/EeV5aZX1mqg

I'll try to list the new ideas presented in this video, for those who can't watch it:

-New fighting style, Whirling Blade: if you are wearing no or light armor, you can apply your ability modifier to your additional attack when doing two-weapon fighting AND it does not cost you your bonus action.

-Gift of the Wild's Beast Companion: Choose a Medium-or-smaller CR 1/4-or-lower animal, it becomes your companion. Your proficiency bonus is added to the companion's AC, attack rolls and damage. The companion get maximum HPs for its statblock OR 4*(Ranger level), whichever is higher (this section will probably be reworked so the companion get HDs equal to your Ranger level). The companion acts during its own turn, and acts as you wish even if you are incapacitated or absent. It cannot multiattack, however. The beast understands your language and you can transmit basic information to it.

If you are a Beast Master who already selected the Beast Companion option, you can now select CR 1/2-or-lower animals as companions. At lvl 7, at the cost of both yours and your companions' bonus actions, the companion can Dash, Disengage or Hide on its turn (may be reworded).

-Ranger subclasses that get spells can cast one spell per long rest regardless of which of the Spellcasting, Martial Exploits or Beast Companion options they chose at lvl 2.


Haven't watched the weapon section yet, but it starts around the 28 min mark.

[Trustypeaches]

It's interesting, but that partial spellcasting seems a bit complicated. Why not just make Hunter's Mark a class feature since it seems like that's what they're beating around the bush with.

[Sception]

having two different overlapping beast companion features and spellcasting or not spellcasting or maybe some spellcasting all feels clunky beyond usability. This is just too extreme a refurbishing of the base class's features to be done without also entirely rewriting the subclasses.

As for the new dual wielding style, that feels designed as a fix for dual wielding in general on top of being a fighting style. It's too much in one feature, while leaving the mechanic it seems like it's trying to address unfixed for any character that doesn't select this one feature. Just like trying to make Hexblade both a patron of it's own AND a patch for pact blade resulted in a hexblade that was overstuffed and way too front loaded, and a pact blade that still functioned poorly for any other patron.

Frankly, there's already a dual wielding combat style. If that doesn't do the job, then it should be fixed, not obsoleted with a slightly different, slightly better version.

[Twigwit]

Whirling blade sounds highly abusable on Monks. Getting +1 attack at no action cost seems way off baseline for fighting style power and just reads like its Mearls Nth attempt change the TWF rules.

[Unoriginal]

It's interesting, but that partial spellcasting seems a bit complicated. Why not just make Hunter's Mark a class feature since it seems like that's what they're beating around the bush with.

He made that an option, last video, IIRC.

[Misterwhisper]

having two different overlapping beast companion features and spellcasting or not spellcasting or maybe some spellcasting all feels clunky beyond usability. This is just too extreme a refurbishing of the base class's features to be done without also entirely rewriting the subclasses.

As for the new dual wielding style, that feels designed as a fix for dual wielding in general on top of being a fighting style. It's too much in one feature, while leaving the mechanic it seems like it's trying to address unfixed for any character that doesn't select this one feature. Just like trying to make Hexblade both a patron of it's own AND a patch for pact blade resulted in a hexblade that was overstuffed and way too front loaded, and a pact blade that still functioned poorly for any other patron.

Frankly, there's already a dual wielding combat style. If that doesn't do the job, then it should be fixed, not obsoleted with a slightly different, slightly better version.

Like the double scimitar weapon existing at all?

[stoutstien]

If we use enough overcomplicated mechanics in out ranger fix the pH version will seem good right?

[Unoriginal]

If we use enough overcomplicated mechanics in out ranger fix the pH version will seem good right?

There is nothing overcomplicated about those mechanics.

[stoutstien]

There is nothing overcomplicated about those mechanics.
It complicated in the fact it edging back to the day of way too many variant class features that never address the actual problems.

[Kane0]

I'll try to list the new ideas presented in this video, for those who can't watch it:

Much appreciated



-New fighting style, Whirling Blade: if you are wearing no or light armor, you can apply your ability modifier to your additional attack when doing two-weapon fighting AND it does not cost you your bonus action.

No, no, no and NO AGAIN. Thou shalt not introduce additional content to correct a previous mistake!



-Gift of the Wild's Beast Companion: Choose a Medium-or-smaller CR 1/4-or-lower animal, it becomes your companion. Your proficiency bonus is added to the companion's AC, attack rolls and damage. The companion get maximum HPs for its statblock OR 4*(Ranger level), whichever is higher (this section will probably be reworked so the companion get HDs equal to your Ranger level). The companion acts during its own turn, and acts as you wish even if you are incapacitated or absent. It cannot multiattack, however. The beast understands your language and you can transmit basic information to it.

If you are a Beast Master who already selected the Beast Companion option, you can now select CR 1/2-or-lower animals as companions. At lvl 7, at the cost of both yours and your companions' bonus actions, the companion can Dash, Disengage or Hide on its turn (may be reworded).

Is this in place of the BM Companion at 3rd or in place of spellcasting at 2nd? If the former, bravo. If the latter, eh.
It also muddies the water being able to choose beast master and then not beast master or vice versa.



-Ranger subclasses that get spells can cast one spell per long rest regardless of which of the Spellcasting, Martial Exploits or Beast Companion options they chose at lvl 2.

Seems clunky and counterproductive going to all the effort of making an option for spell-less rangers and then still tacking on spells after that. This is the kind of space where Alternate Class Features can make a worthwhile reappearance, not butchering the elegance of the class design by introducing multiple layers of subclass selection.

/2cp

[Belac93]

No, no, no and NO AGAIN. Thou shalt not introduce additional content to correct a previous mistake!

Honestly I don't get this mentality. I'd rather have them admit that they made a mistake and try to fix it than just leaving it and keeping the mistake in the game.

[Misterwhisper]

Honestly I don't get this mentality. I'd rather have them admit that they made a mistake and try to fix it than just leaving it and keeping the mistake in the game.

It is the same thing they did with hexblade, instead of admitting that pact of the blade was too weak and costly they just made a patron that way over compensated for it.

They will not admit the old class sucked they are just going to put out a new super subclass to bandaid it like they did with gloomstalker.

[Kane0]

Honestly I don't get this mentality. I'd rather have them admit that they made a mistake and try to fix it than just leaving it and keeping the mistake in the game.

Exactly, they could admit that TWF needs some tweaking and alter the existing TWF rules, or the existing TWF style or the existing TWF feat. Introducing a new style that is just the previous one but better is not a wise move.


It is the same thing they did with hexblade, instead of admitting that pact of the blade was too weak and costly they just made a patron that way over compensated for it.

They will not admit the old class sucked they are just going to put out a new super subclass to bandaid it like they did with gloomstalker.

It has been admitted. But that is only step 1 in the process.

[Sception]

Like the double scimitar weapon existing at all?

At all? No. I don't think there's a problem with odd, ahistorical weapons existing at all, especially where they lend flavor to a particular fantasy culture or setting, as the double scimitar does for valanaar elves, or the spiked chain would for shadar-kai, or whatever that battle shovel thing was called for dark sun, etc. Double weapons in general, while kind of silly, have a kind of charm and style to them, and I'd like to see them back more broadly, including extra silly ones like double flails, double axes, etc. A broader double weapon implementation could even allow for something like the kusari-gama to be implemented as a 1/2 sickle, 1/2 whip.

In it's current mechanical implementation, though? Yeah. The double scimitar as currently implemented does feel like it's trying to be both a uniquely flavored exotic weapon and a patch for the dual wielding rules overall, and that does fall into the problem area of over-stuffing one option to patch over an underlying system problem in a way that still leaves the underlying problem there for anyone who isn't aware of, doesn't have access to, or simply doesn't choose to use that one option.

[Sigreid]

I think ranger's spells would be better replaced with invocations. You don't learn spells, you know the deeper secrets of the wild.

[Louro]

I think ranger's spells would be better replaced with invocations. You don't learn spells, you know the deeper secrets of the wild.

That's a very good idea sir.

[Willie the Duck]

In it's current mechanical implementation, though? Yeah. The double scimitar as currently implemented does feel like it's trying to be both a uniquely flavored exotic weapon and a patch for the dual wielding rules overall, and that does fall into the problem area of over-stuffing one option to patch over an underlying system problem in a way that still leaves the underlying problem there for anyone who isn't aware of, doesn't have access to, or simply doesn't choose to use that one option.

Kind of like trying to fix 3e's no-iterative-attacks-if-you-move-more-than-5-feet with a special ability given to one variant-class Barbarian alternative class feature or bizarre uber-charger builds instead of addressing the original problematic rule?

[stoutstien]

Kind of like trying to fix 3e's no-iterative-attacks-if-you-move-more-than-5-feet with a special ability given to one variant-class Barbarian alternative class feature or bizarre uber-charger builds instead of addressing the original problematic rule?

I miss my ponce totem supercharger barbarian shock trooper.
Almost as fun as dungeon crasher wario build."itsa ah me! The bringa of the death!"

[Ganymede]

While I really like the idea of my ranger being both an aboleth hunter AND having a pet giant crab, I'll reiterate the OP's concern that they're trying to fix errors by introducing new content (a la the Hexblade).

As opposed to introducing modular mix-and-match features for the original ranger, I would rather them introduce a brand new ranger. If thet want to preserve backward compatibility, they can just leave the old ranger as an option.

[Ganymede]

I miss my ponce totem supercharger barbarian shock trooper.

Ponce totem? I am imagining a barbarian with a voluminous cravatte, a silk bathrobe, and a glass of brandy.

[Astofel]

It seems like people don't want new content introduced as a patch to old content. But when the last errata came out people complained that the changes made to the ranger were too much for an errata. What is the solution, then? Should WotC put out a new sourcebook that has an entirely new ranger in it, with a note saying 'sorry we made the PHB ranger underwhelming, just use this one instead'?

[Gryndle]

I think ranger's spells would be better replaced with invocations. You don't learn spells, you know the deeper secrets of the wild.
I could get on board with that idea.

really wish this forum just had a like button

[Sception]

It seems like people don't want new content introduced as a patch to old content. But when the last errata came out people complained that the changes made to the ranger were too much for an errata. What is the solution, then? Should WotC put out a new sourcebook that has an entirely new ranger in it, with a note saying 'sorry we made the PHB ranger underwhelming, just use this one instead'?

There is not a solution that all people will be satisfied with. You have to pick your poison. Personally, though, I'd prefer one of the 'all the way' poisons - either fix something entirely and let people complain about errata if they want to, or don't fix it at all, leaving the mechanic less than fully functional, but in a way that at least treats all characters who engage with it equally. The half way point seems to be the worst of all worlds, obsoleting old material, tainting new material, and introducing more balance problems than it fixes.

IMO "hexblade" would have been better without the hex warrior patch for blade pact. Would have given the rest of the patron room to focus on the curse/grudge/hexing aspect, with fluff focused on that particular identity. Maybe a straight raven queen patron, or a hag patron, or ghost patron, or a vestige patron, or grim reaper patron - regardless, something more clearly focused on spreading misfortune and reaping souls, tying together the other, more flavorful mechanics of the class into a coherent package. Where as the need to put a martial bent on the subclass's fluff in order to accommodate the tacked on blade pact patch pushed the fluff into a vague and jumbled shape.


And yeah, if that were the case then blade pact warlocks would still be super awkward and sub par and dependent of first level multiclass dips to have the basic proficiencies and basic combat features needed to function in melee basically at all. But at least they'd still feel free to choose whatever patron fit their character concept, and at least there wouldn't be one patron with a bunch of free proficiencies on top of their regular patron features putting them over the top even for casty warlock builds, at least you wouldn't have DMs banning the closest the warlock has to a cool shadow magic type patron because they find it unbalanced, etc.

[Kane0]

It's not that complex. Update the book, publish the changes for people with older copies, advertise the updates with their multiple mass media presences (D&D Beyond, DM Guild, include in the Adventure League information, etc). In a world of day 1 patches of games that are bigger than the game itself it is hardly a precedent nor the end of the world to publish a patch.

Yes, some people will be upset that their hard copies are now out of date. There are ways around that, and the fact that they know that it is out of date means they will also have free access to the updated material. Apart from adventure league nobody is forcing them to use the new content if they choose to stick to what they have, that stuff is visible online too!

Edit: Oh, and don't forget the other WotC editions, this wouldn't even be the first time.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by Sigreid View Post
I think ranger's spells would be better replaced with invocations. You don't learn spells, you know the deeper secrets of the wild.

I could get on board with that idea.

really wish this forum just had a like button

I'd 3rd this approach.

[Willie the Duck]

It seems like people don't want new content introduced as a patch to old content. But when the last errata came out people complained that the changes made to the ranger were too much for an errata. What is the solution, then? Should WotC put out a new sourcebook that has an entirely new ranger in it, with a note saying 'sorry we made the PHB ranger underwhelming, just use this one instead'?

Honestly speaking, if they put out a Wilderness Survival Guide-equivalent, with a bunch of stuff related to fleshing out the exploration pillar like XGtE fleshed out downtime and magic item crafting and stuff, and included 3-5 Ranger (and maybe a druid and barbarian) alternates with updated rules, I think the people that wanted a good Ranger in the first place would eat it up.

[MaxWilson]

I'd 3rd this approach.

I'd consider doing something like that for bards: instead of spell slots, give them a bunch of songs they can play, with mutually-exclusive effects, which are nothing at all like spells. E.g. Rhyme of Duotime grants a bonus action attack option to all of your allies who hear it, Traveller's Tune imposes disadvantage on all nearby enemy attacks. Somewhat like Rage, each tune ends if you ever fail to use your action to continue playing it during a given round; and you get a limited number of tunes before you need to refresh yourself (short rest + must drink something refreshing, canteen of water at minimum).

But then, I've played a lot of Bard's Tale recently, so non-spellcasting bards are very much on my mind.

[djreynolds]

I like the idea of invocations for both ranger and bard

I find so many good ranger spells are never casted because of hunter's mark, which is an awesome spell, but hail of thorns can be down right nasty

[Rp4man]

He forgot to catagorize whip

[Vogie]

I think ranger's spells would be better replaced with invocations. You don't learn spells, you know the deeper secrets of the wild.

He talked about using the Warlock Design Paradigm in two videos.

Basically you have the "normal ranger", who then gets the choice of the following at 2nd level:

an animal companion; or
spellcasting; or
mundane martial upgrades

and then you get your subclass at 3.

He decided in this video that those XGtE classes with the bonus spells would just be able to cast them once per short/long rest if they don't have the spellcasting feature.

So invocations are not that far off


Actually, to be fair, I may shop together a homebrewed revised Ranger with this concept, using a hexblade warlock as a mechanical skeleton.

[Sception]

The problem I have with that is the idea that you can make casting - not even 1/3 casting, but a half caster progression, a class feature somehow less significant than your subclass choice. If you want to redesign ranger so that casting is optional, then that kind of has to /be/ the subclass choice.

[Scuronotte]

The Whirling Blade should not be a stand alone Fighting Style. Just add it as an addendum to the existing Two-Weapon fighting style

[KOLE]

How many people really have a problem with Ranger being a half caster? I've only ever played 5th edition so I don't know what it was like in previous editions, but I personally like the idea of a nature half caster.

The easy solution to me seems to be to model the progression of the rogue and fighter: beef up the Ranger chassis, and at level 3 choose between an animal companion, buffed martial abilities, and a third caster druid type.

The only problem is swift quiver and conjure volley will have to be cut- and they're cool spells. But maybe just turn them into a once a day ability as the Spell Ranger capstone instead.

Monster Slayer and Horizon Walker will have to be completely reworked- but I don't think anyone will be too sad about that anyway.

I'm not trying to quell anybodies brain storming- Ranger Invocations certainly sounds interesting- but this seems like a much more elegant and simple solution.

But I don't really see the hullabaloo about Rangers being half casters anyway, so I may be biased. And I also have a player in my homebrew campaign running Revised Ranger- without any real issues yet, so for me, the Ranger problem is solved.

I might trim down Natural Explorer a little bit- otherwise I feel like the Revised Ranger is good to go.

[Kane0]

How many people really have a problem with Ranger being a half caster? I've only ever played 5th edition so I don't know what it was like in previous editions, but I personally like the idea of a nature half caster.

In my experience, nobody. The gripes never seemed to stem from having spellcasting, even when talking shop with my groups.

[stoutstien]

In my experience, nobody. The gripes never seemed to stem from having spellcasting, even when talking shop with my groups.

the only gripe is that they are memorized casters and not prepared.

[Chaosmancer]

the only gripe is that they are memorized casters and not prepared.

That's true, but there is also the contingent of people who argue along the lines of "Aargorn didn't use magic" and say that casting at all ruins the ranger as the "rugged everyman conquering nature"

I disagree but I acknowledge the position exists.

My bigger thing is they should be prepared and that (as time has moved on) I find high level ranger spells more and more underwhelming.

[ChildofLuthic]

It seems like people don't want new content introduced as a patch to old content. But when the last errata came out people complained that the changes made to the ranger were too much for an errata. What is the solution, then? Should WotC put out a new sourcebook that has an entirely new ranger in it, with a note saying 'sorry we made the PHB ranger underwhelming, just use this one instead'?

That's what I'd want. Or, alternatively, a new character class that fits the archetype but is good. Like, if WotC came out with a book tomorrow about a new, mechanically sound character class called "The Rangey Bois", I'd be happy.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

It seems like people don't want new content introduced as a patch to old content. But when the last errata came out people complained that the changes made to the ranger were too much for an errata. What is the solution, then? Should WotC put out a new sourcebook that has an entirely new ranger in it, with a note saying 'sorry we made the PHB ranger underwhelming, just use this one instead'?

Pretty much. Worked for Pathfinder Unchained.