By request: Workshopping another Ranger

[Kane0]

Taking off from this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?594497-Ranger-should-be-a-Rogue-or-Fighter-Subclass-Change-my-mind) around page 8 or so, we're piecing together a spell-less ranger overhaul.

This will be edited as we progress.



Level
Proficiency Bonus
Quarry Die
Class Feature


1
+2
1d4
Quarry, Trailblazer


2
+2
1d4
Fighting Style, Nature's Boon


3
+2
1d4
Clade, Keen Eye


4
+2
1d4
Ability Score Increase


5
+3
1d6
Extra Attack, Expertise


6
+3
1d6
Quarry Improvement


7
+3
1d6
Clade Feature


8
+3
1d6
Ability Score Increase


9
+4
1d8
Nature's Boon


10
+4
1d8
Clade Feature


11
+4
1d8
Quarry Improvement


12
+4
1d8
Ability Score Increase


13
+5
1d10
Feral Senses


14
+5
1d10
Clade Feature


15
+5
1d10
Unfettered Movement


16
+5
1d10
Ability Score Increase


17
+6
1d12
Nature's Boon


18
+6
1d12
Clade Feature


19
+6
1d12
Ability Score Increase


20
+6
1d12
Capstone



Hit Die: d10
Saving Throws: Strength, Dexterity
Weapons: Simple, Martial
Armor: Light, Medium, Shields
Skills: Choose three from Acrobatics, Animal Handling, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Nature, Perception, Stealth, and Survival

Quarry (1)
Once on your turn, after making an attack against a creature you can see, you may designate that creature as your Quarry. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn, or until you mark another creature as your Quarry.
When you make an attack against a marked Quarry, you deal an extra 1d4 damage of the same type as the attack. This damage increases at higher levels as shown on the Ranger table.

Starting at level 6, when a creature marked as your Quarry hits you with an attack or targets you with an effect that has you making a saving throw, you can use your reaction to either reduce the damage taken or gain a bonus to your saving throw equal to the result of your Quarry die.

Starting at level 11, once on each of your turns when you miss your marked Quarry with an attack, you can make another attack against that creature.

Trailblazer (1)
You gain your choice of either a Climb or Swim speed equal to your movement.
In addition, while travelling for an hour or more you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to any Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom ability checks or saving throws you or your allies make.

Fighting Style (2)
At 2nd level, you adopt a particular style of fighting as your specialty. Choose one of the following options.
You cannot take a Fighting Style option more than once, even if you later get to choose again.

Archery: You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons.
Defense: While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC.
Dueling: When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
Two-Weapon Fighting: When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.

Nature's Boon (2)
At level 2, and again at levels 9 and 17, choose one option from the list below:

Land's Stride: Your movement speed increases by 5 feet and you can ignore nonmagical difficult terrain. If selected a second time you gain a further 5 foot increase to your speed and can also ignore magical difficult terrain.
Camouflage: When you take the Hide action you become invisible until you move more than 5 feet, make an attack or cast a spell. If selected a second time you can remain invisible until you move more than your movement speed instead of more than 5 feet.
Healing Salves: As a part of a long rest, you can prepare a number of healing salves equal to your Wisdom modifier. Each salve restores HP equal to 1d8 + Ranger level and can be applied to a creature using an action. If selected a second time each healing salve applied a creature also provides the benefits of a Lesser Restoration spell or removes one level of exhaustion.

Keen Eye (3)
You can take the Search action as a bonus action

Extra Attack (5)
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.

Expertise (5)
Choose two of your skill or tool proficiencies. Your Proficiency Bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of the chosen proficiencies.

Feral Senses (13)
When making an attack against a creature you cannot see you do not do so at a disadvantage, and creatures that you cannot see do not gain advantage on attacks against you.

Unfettered Movement (15)
Spells and magical effects cannot reduce your speed and you gain advantage on saving throws against being Paralysed, Restrained or Stunned.

Foe Slayer (20)
When you hit your marked Quarry with an attack you can choose to deal an extra 50 damage of the same damage type as the attack. In addition, the marked quarry is either blinded or poisoned until the end of its next turn.
Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until the end of a long rest.


Animal Companion (3)
You acquire a beast companion that accompanies you on your adventures and is trained to fight alongside you. Choose a beast that is no larger than Large and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower (appendix D of the PHB presents statistics for the hawk, mastiff, and panther as examples). Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC and attack rolls, as well as to all saving throws and one skill of your choice of Athletics, Acrobatics, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth and Survivial. The beast's hit point maximum is increased by 4 for every ranger level you have. Its hit die is a d8, and it has the same number of hit dice as you do. It also gains the bonus damage from your Quarry feature when attacking a marked quarry.

The beast obeys your commands as best as it can, taking its turn on your initiative. You can use a bonus action to verbally command it to take an action, or it can use the Dodge action if not issued a command. It may use its movement and reaction freely, with or without a command. Your beast can only make one attack using its action.

If you fall unconscious your beast will attempt to move and remain within 5 feet of you, attacking enemies that approach within 10 feet of you. If the beast dies you can obtain another during a long rest.

At Ranger level 7 you can choose a beast of CR 1/2 or lower, and at Ranger level 14 you can choose a beast of CR 1 or lower.

Beast link (3)
You can cast Speak With Animals and Beast Sense spells without expending a spell slot or material components.

Beastcall (7)
By spending one minute you can call up to twelve beasts of up to CR 1/2 to you from the surrounding area, determined by the DM. Upon arrival these beasts are friendly to you and will assist with one task for up to one hour before dispersing.
Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a long rest.

Bestial Fury (10)
Your beasts attacks are considered magical for the purposes of overcoming damage resistance and immunity. In addition, your beast companion gains the following reaction:
Defensive Pounce: The beast companion imposes disadvantage on the attack roll of one creature it can see that is within its reach, provided the attack is against a creature other than the beast companion.

Beast's Defense (14)
When your beast uses its Defensive Pounce ability your beast companion also gains resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage until the start of your next turn.

Greater Beastcall (18)
You can use your Beastcall feature as an action instead of taking one minute, and call up to CR 1 beasts to assist you. In addition, you regain use of your Beastcall feature when you finish a short or long rest.



Focused Target (3)
When you mark a creature as your Quarry you can also add your Quarry die to the damage dealt from the attack. In addition, when you roll damage for an attack against a marked Quarry, you can roll the Quarry damage die twice and use either result.

Survivalist (3)
You gain proficiency in your choice of Investigation, Perception, Survival or one tool of your choice. Your Proficiency Bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses the chosen proficiency.

Terrain Adaption (7)
When you finish a long rest you gain resistance to one damage type according to the terrain you finished your rest in, which lasts until your next long rest.
Coast/Aquatic: Thunder or Lightning
Arctic: Cold or Force
Desert: Fire or Radiant
Plains/Forest: Piercing or Poison
Highland: Fire or Cold
Swamp: Acid or Poison
Underground: Necrotic or Bludgeoning
Urban: Psychic or Slashing

Multiattack (10)
As an action you can make one attack that targets all creatures you choose within reach. Alternatively if you are using a ranged weapon you can make one attack against all creatures you can see within a 10' radius and within range. When you make this attack you can mark all creatures you hit as your Quarry.

Seasoned Explorer (14)
As long as you are not incapacitated, you and up to five creatures you choose within 30 feet of you cannot be surprised.

Eternal Hunter (18)
When you designate a creature as your Quarry the creature remains marked until you choose to end the effect, which requires no action on your part. In addition, when you score a critical hit against a marked quarry that creature gains vulnerability to the damage of your attacks until the end of your next turn.




Ranger Level
Cantrips Known
1st
2nd
3rd
4th


3
2
2
-
-
-


4
2
3
-
-
-


5
2
3
-
-
-


6
2
3
-
-
-


7
2
4
2
-
-


8
2
4
2
-
-


9
2
4
2
-
-


10
3
4
3
-
-


11
3
4
3
-
-


12
3
4
3
-
-


13
3
4
3
2
-


14
3
4
3
2
-


15
3
4
3
2
-


16
3
4
3
3
-


17
3
4
3
3
-


18
3
4
3
3
-


19
3
4
3
3
1


20
3
4
3
3
1



Spellcasting and Ritual Casting (3)
You learn two cantrips of your choice from the druid spell list. You learn an additional druid cantrip of your choice at 10th level.

The table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your spells. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.

You prepare the spells that are available to you from the druid spell list. When you do so, choose a number of druid spells equal to your Wisdom modifier + half your Ranger level, rounded down (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots. You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest.

Spell save DC = 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Wisdom modifier
Spell attack modifier = your proficiency bonus + your Wisdom modifier

You can cast a druid spell as a ritual if that spell has the ritual tag and you have the spell prepared.

Wildsense (3)
As an action you can detect the presence and direction of Aberration, Monstrosity, Fey, Dragon and Undead type creatures within one mile of you for up to one minute. This can be used to track down a specific creature type or determine safe routes within the area. Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a short or long rest.

Invigorating Ley (7)
When you cast a spell you can choose one creature you can see, including yourself, to gain Temporary Hit Points equal to three per level of the spell slot expended. These temporary hit points last up to one hour.

Rapid Spell (10)
When you cast a spell with a casting time of one action and that targets only a creature you have marked as your Quarry you can choose to cast it as a bonus action instead. Using this feature ends the mark on your quarry, and this spell cannot then mark the creature as your quarry.

Primeval Ward (14)
When you use your reaction to reduce the damage taken from an attack your Quarry makes, your marked Quarry takes damage equal to that reduced by your quarry die.

Instinctive Recovery (18)
When a creature succeeds on a saving throw against a spell you cast or you miss with a spell attack from a spell you cast you can choose to regain the spell slot you expended to cast the spell.
Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a short or long rest.


Hunter's Mark is added to the Druid spell list dealing a bonus d8 of damage once per turn instead of a d6 on every hit
Ensnaring Strike is added to the Druid spell list
Hail of Thorns is added to the Druid spell list
Zephyr Strike is added to the Druid spell list
Cordon of Arrows is added to the Druid spell list and also includes bullets and darts among the ammunition usable
Conjure Barrage is added to the Druid spell list as a 2nd level spell
Lightning Arrow is added to the Druid spell list as a 2nd level spell dealing 3d8 lightning damage on the initial hit instead of 4d8
Conjure Volley is added to the Druid spell list as a 3rd level spell dealing 5d8 damage instead of 8d8
Steel Wind Strike is added to the Druid spell list as a 3rd level spell dealing 4d10 damage instead of 6d10
Swift Quiver is added to the Druid spell list as a 4th level spell with a casting time of one action instead of one bonus action.

[Galithar]

Alright, so if you read the other thread you know I'm strongly opposed to a Ranger as a full class in 5e. That being said there is a lot of potential that you have here to prove me wrong with a full rewrite of the class and I'll give my opinion on what I think the class needs. (While staying within your guidelines as much as possible. I'm trying to help after all :P )

First I think that going spell less we should look towards other fully martial classes. That's fighter, rogue and Barbarian. Each of them deals with not having spells in it's own way.

The Barbarian has a very potent core class feature in Rage.
The Rogue has a strong class feature in sneak attack and an extra ASI.
Fighters have nothing spectacular, but get two more ASI's.

I think you should look at these in figuring out the base for the class.
I personally think that a progression similar to a Rogue with a single ASI extra would be appropriate, but I also know we're trying to fit a lot into a class, so it may not be feasible.

I also have gathered (I kept reading the last thread even after my contributions were done) that we are trying to make some pretty distinct Subclasses. For this I might suggest moving the selection is Subclass earlier in the progression. Second, or maybe even first level. Though I may be wrong about this being your intention, it seems like a good idea to me.

I would put Stealth and Tracking mainly in the Hunter subclass. The Beastmaster and Warden in my mind (I'm going to proceed with the disclaimer that this is all my opinion so I can stop saying 'in my mind' or 'I think' etc) don't need these skills to be a main part of who they are, and would be sufficient with proficiency, and possibly pseudo expertise in certain situations coming from a base class feature.

Nature and Senses I think should be at the core of the base class and should have some early features dedicated to them in the base class.

I also think that they should get a good combat oriented feature early in their path. Possibly the first feature of the subclass. I would split this mobility (Beastmaster) and damage (Hunter, Warden). Nothing too crazy, but make sure it scales with their level.

For healing I think something akin to the healer feat would be appropriate for the class. Not magical ability to mend wounds through the use of nature. Maybe allowing a survival check to find the materials to create a healing salve? I honestly would be okay with it having the exact same mechanics as Healer, maybe minus the bullet point about getting a creature up to 1 HP when stabilizing?

I do think this should be a pretty subclass heavy class. That's going back to me feeling that we're trying to put a lot of identity, both narratively and mechanically, into the subclass. This means we need a lot of features coming from the subclass to bring it all together.

I'll post more as the thread gets responses to give my two copper, though I'll remain silent on the Beastmaster for the most part. I'm far too biased on that subject to contribute meaningfully I think. Though I will chime in if I think I have something useful and non confrontational :P

[Arkhios]

I feel that, considering how much variation between different approaches there is within the class as a whole, the best sub-class progression could be Fighter, but I might change the sub-class entry point to as early as 2nd-level.

In fact, I would consider making the spellcasting a sub-class feature (even if it works with multiple sub-classes).
I'm aware that being able to cast spells has been iconic for the class for years over several editions, but I think there should remain equal design space for no spellcasting as well.

[Fnissalot]

I begin with saying that I think the issues with the ranger lies in a badly designed/lack of main combat mechanic that creates a ludonarrative dissonance (hunters mark doesn't cut it for me) and a badly defined thematic structure for it's subclasses (some are about their preferred terrain (horizon walker and gloom stalker), some about what they do( beast master and Hunter), and one about what they fight(monster slayer)).

The main combat mechanic should probably be in the main class and not be split between the subclasses and choosing a spell(hunters mark). Having a stronger focus on the mechanic in the main class would strengthen the mechanical identity of the class. I am not sure what this should be but the easiest thing would be to take Colossus Slayer or horde breaker and make it into the main mechanic for the whole class. Action surge, rage, sneak attack, and smites all scale over levels in another way than hunters mark does.

I think we need to design what a ranger subclass actually would define. Moving the favoured terrain or preferred enemy to be the structure of the subclass would probably help make the class more defined. The other thread discussed that the main identity of the ranger is someone who protects the border between wilderness and society. The subclasses could then be about either what they defend or what they defend it from. Just keeping it as what they do is probably a bit to vague? I hunt or I have a pet is a bit boring to build a subclass around (but if you still want this, the four base subclasses should be traps, druidic magic, tracking(not hunting), and pets).

I would also be fine with the base class having access to some ritual casting. It would make it stand out a bit more; having ritual casting without being a full spell caster.

[Kane0]

So just as a forewarning this thread in particular is for Paladinn's benefit but by no means do I want to disregard what others have to say.

Stealth, Tracking and Healing appear to be secondary traits when brought up, so one feature for each should suffice. If you wanted to emphasise those aspects we could do so via spells, feats and/or additional subclasses.

Combat feature at level 1 and being a major factor in the class seems to be a major point also.

Subclass starting at level 2 sounds like a good idea, unless given good reason not to I think i'll use that for the first draft. If class is going to lean heavily into subclasses going this route then perhaps levels 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 would be appropriate points for features.

Speaking of subclasses, the three starting point basically mimic the fighter PHB ones. Hunters are the Ranger+, the idea isn't to add extra buttons but to improve on what you already do in a straightforward way. Beastmaster is the higher floor/ceiling option that gives extra options and a unique mechanic to the Ranger, and the Warden is the spellcasting subclass that blends into the martial starting point.

Oh, and adding in Extra Attack to the table now in its customary spot.

Now for the primary combat feature, it needs to be strong, flavorful, unique and scale with level without being a must-have dip item. For a first attempt how about: As a bonus action choose one creature you can see. The next attack you make before the end of your next turn against that creature gains a +1d4 to the attack and damage rolls.
This would increase in die size as you get more levels in ranger, an improved version in the mid levels might also gain that die to use in saving throws against that creature, subclasses could change the damage type, share that die with an ally or trade that die to raise AC or resist damage taken, just as initial ideas. Maybe at later levels free up that bonus action too.

[Fnissalot]

Now for the primary combat feature, it needs to be strong, flavorful, unique and scale with level without being a must-have dip item. For a first attempt how about: As a bonus action choose one creature you can see. The next attack you make before the end of your next turn against that creature gains a +1d4 to the attack and damage rolls.
This would increase in die size as you get more levels in ranger, an improved version in the mid levels might also gain that die to use in saving throws against that creature, subclasses could change the damage type, share that die with an ally or trade that die to raise AC or resist damage taken, just as initial ideas. Maybe at later levels free up that bonus action too.

This is not worth it for dual wield rangers. It is just better to do an offhand attack with the bonus action. That said, it is good for a ranged ranger.

[Kane0]

Yes, I had considered that. I remove that particular problem with TWF with the Dual Wielder feat myself but I can see that's beyond the scope of this thread, so in that case we could make Quarry actionless.
Doing so would mean we have to reduce its power somewhat of course. Perhaps take away the to-hit bonus, add some sort of condition to qualify for the extra damage and scale it a bit better such as by keeping pace with proficiency bonus like the Monk's Martial Arts die.

Quarry: When you attack a creature you can choose to mark it. The next time you hit a marked creature with an attack before the end of your next turn they take extra damage (1d4/1d6/1d8/1d10/1d12 at levels 1/5/9/13/17 respectively). Level 11 add that bonus die to saving throws against the marked creature or expend it to reduce their attack or damage roll against you. Not sure for a level 20 improvement.

[Fnissalot]

I did some quick statistics on the previous version. 1d4 is in most cases worse than the extra off-hand attack. At 1d6 or more, the off-hand attack is better if you got the two weapon fighting style from a damage perspective but the quarry die is better to hit high ac targets.

It isn't as black and white as I thought at first. That said, I would prefer something that doesn't take a bonus action.

Can you apply the mark on every attack?

[paladinn]

Yes, I had considered that. I remove that particular problem with TWF with the Dual Wielder feat myself but I can see that's beyond the scope of this thread, so in that case we could make Quarry actionless.
Doing so would mean we have to reduce its power somewhat of course. Perhaps take away the to-hit bonus, add some sort of condition to qualify for the extra damage and scale it a bit better such as by keeping pace with proficiency bonus like the Monk's Martial Arts die.

Quarry: When you attack a creature you can choose to mark it. The next time you hit a marked creature with an attack before the end of your next turn they take extra damage (1d4/1d6/1d8/1d10/1d12 at levels 1/5/9/13/17 respectively). Level 11 add that bonus die to saving throws against the marked creature or expend it to reduce their attack or damage roll against you. Not sure for a level 20 improvement.

I think we need to divorce the ranger from the dual-wield model. I realise that rangers have been know for TWF and/or archery since 2e; but as we're trying to be inclusive of older visions of what a ranger is, I would just leave fighting style open to any.

I'm liking where the Quarry feature is going. I had not considered limiting to a foe that you've already attacked and "marked", but this is akin to my suggestion that the feature kicks in on the second turn, after you've had a chance to "study" your target. I would still add a bonus to AC. Once you know how your for fights, you can better defend against it. How we spread that out (as well as the stealth and enhanced senses features), I'm open to suggestions.

Limited healing I would include in a wilderness survival feature, along with woodland stride and possibly favored terrain options; the base features to be embellished within the Hunter subclass. Leaving many of the mobility features to the Beastmaster subclass is an interesting possibility. You would, of course, want to keep up with your pet, and your bond could enhance your mobility and senses. I've never been a fan of animal companions, but I'm willing to be open-minded.

VERY limited wildshape could be interesting on the Warden subclass, as long as it doesn't approach the level of the druid ability. I'd be open to making it a spell, and letting the Warden have 1/3 spell progression, as long as they don't get everything the Hunter gets.

I'm curious: is there a 5e standard level where subclasses kick in? I'd thought it was level 3. I'd give the fighting style at level 2, just to be different than the fighter. ASI and extra attack at 4 and 5. Quarry would definitely start at lvl 1 as the ranger's "thing". Level 3 for first archetype features.

@Kane0: you said you started this thread for "my" benefit; but I hope you agree that this is a good start for an actually usable ranger.

One other thought: for the benefit of those stuck on the Robin Hood model of the ranger, should we include an archetype that specialized in ranged combat?

Just IMO, I don't care for bolted-on mechanics like superiority dice, etc. They make the subclass/feature in question seem like an afterthought.

[Bjarkmundur]

What are your design goals, specifically?

Are we changing Hit Dice or starting proficiencies?
I've never been a fan of the d10. I'm pretty sure it's a remnant of an older edition. Seeing how a melee ranger would have the tools to fend of attacks, and the ranged ranger is... ranged. I think a d8 is far more fitting. It gives us more design space within the more fun features of the class, and the more design space we can create the bigger the features can be.

At what levels should we place subclass features?
I never found out what method was used to determine this part. I always imagined you'd start of making one class+subclass combo in a way that makes sense, and then 'extract' the subclass out of your design.

Main Combat Thing
This really depends on the feature. It's also hard to be original IMO. We have so many different features for the other classes, this one has to be distinctly ranger. I've always been a fan of accuracy for the ranger, and hunter's quarry is a easy tool to help the ranger scale. Rerolling attack rolls is really what sells me on the ranger archetype.

-----------------------------

@Galithar - Post #2
Seeing how levels 1-3 are meant for character introduction rather than character development, where on these three levels the subclass falls doesn't really matter. The bigger the subclass, the later you should introduce it, since levels 1-3 are designed for newcomers. These levels should have a nice and escalating complexity curve, starting out dead-simple.

I agree that for most of the tracking and wilderness stuff, proficiencies and expertise will suffice, although ribbons are always cool. The player can take these tools and tailor them to his specific playstyle. Then we can of course choose the class skill list.

Regarding Senses and Nature, I agree that these are important. I would, however, rather like to see nature ribbons, but not any that take up valuable design space.

As a healing feature, healer feat seems perfect.

I agree that the ranger should have a pretty significant subclass.

I'm glad you are conscious of your shortcomings, this makes your insight all the more valuable.

@Arkhios - Post #3
The 1/3 druid subclass seems like a real possibility, as does using the fighter progression. Fighters get a lot of features from subclasses, which is exactly what the ranger needs.

@Fnissalot - Post #4
I agree that proper design goals and main feature for the class and SOME consistency between subclasses is important. I don't think the terrain part is important. Ritual casting seems like a good way to give the player more power over his character's utility contribution. Some new rituals added to the druid spell list would make this even more enticing.

@Kane0 - Post #5 and 7
I like paladinn, he deserves a class to be made for him.

Stealth, Tracking and Healing are secondary features, and could even be reduced to "choose one".

Combat Feature at level 1 seems like a good idea, but like other classes you could introduce a complementary feature at level 2 or 3.

Subclass starting at level 2 seems great. But like I said before, the subclass placement should be decided with the complexity of the class in mind.

I like the distinction between Ranger+, Beastmaster and 1/3 druid.


An improved version in the mid levels might also gain that die to use in saving throws, subclasses could change the damage type, share that die with an ally or trade that die to raise AC or resist damage taken. Maybe at later levels free up that bonus action too.

This seems perfect to me. Adding the accuracy buff is a nice touch. I don't know if this is the exact feature we want. I'm more a fan of multiple complementary features. It's rare to see a class with only one feature contributing to its main function (such as damage output). I don't know if connecting them all to one feature is the right way to go, since standalone features might be simpler and easier to change after-the-fact to fine-tune the powerlevel. I think having it trigger on an attack is much better than 'free' or bonus action. Marking on attack encourages the ranger to focus a single target, which is something that has always been the core of any ranger (no matter how people decide to dress it).

@paladinn - Post #9
Getting additional defense against your marked or focused target is very thematic, and can be added as a defensive feature at any level it is deemed appropriate.
I will re-mention the 'choose one' mechanic mentioned above, since it would allow you to prioritize which of the tracking, stealth and healing mechanic you receive first. Then you can choose another one later. This increases the 'target audience' significantly, since different people have different assumptions about the ranger.

Limited wildshaping would be cool. Add some spells to the druid spell list?

The Robin Hood archetype is the 'Ranger+' subclass, and I don't like superiority dice either.

----------------------

With all this in mind I feel like I have to summarize

Focus / Quarry / Mark mechanic that rewards you for targeting a single big threat. This would mean after you make an attack against a creature, it is marked for your next attack.
Starting Out Simple is a good goal for any class. The ranger especially. A homebrewed ranger, even more so.
Significant Subclass are needed, since we don't want the 1/3rd Druid to be an auto-pick. The other subclasses have to be designed specifically to keep up with the spell progression.
Ranger+ which just makes the ranger MORE ranger.
Beastmaster I guess would grant the ranger benefits for hitting an enemy adjacent to his companion. This creates the flavor of the animal helping, even though it's not using an action. 4e did this with the Sentinel. The animals had a "5 foot aura" that affected either allies or enemies within the aura.
1/3rd Druid is a perfect way to round out the options and is a great nod to the rangers of earlier editions. Becomes even more flavorful with a couple of new Druid spells and rituals.
1d8 Hit Dice gives us more design space, and allows us to make up for the lower HP with a cool defensive feature, like damage reduction against your focus' attacks.
Choose One: Stealth, Terrain/Tracking or Healing. You can choose one more at level x and another at level y. This would allow a player to have HIS favourite ranger mechanic come online asap without costing any additional design space.
Skills and Skill List Goes a long way to get the ranger flavor you need.
A Single Expertise. Helps the player decide whether he his the Stealth ranger, the Medicine ranger, the Athletics ranger etc etc. It's doesn't take much design space, but having one expertise really helps the player identify heavily with that specific skill. It's all about managing expectations and invoking the right feeling.
Ritual Casting might take too much design space, but it's a good idea.
Defensive Feature revolving around your Focus / Mark / Quarry is very thematic, and can be added either as a standalone feature or compensated for with the 1d8 hit dice.
Nature / Travel / Thematic Ribbons will tie everything together nicely and really cement the type of ranger you are creating. A lot of people underestimate ribbons, but don't see the value of communicating what kind of expectations the player might have from a class. You should be able to tell a lot about a class by just reading its main feature and ribbons.
Rerolling Attacks is a nice and thematic Action Surge knock-off, which allows you to scale the Quarry Damage without having to worry about bounded accuracy.
Senses is a definite pick for a class feature, especially since we there is precedent for it.

[Kane0]

Okay so for now lets lock in the actionless mark at level 1 with an improvement at level 11, we can figure specific numbermath at a later stage. Limit it to one target at a time but you can mark with every attack (which means any followup attack applies the extra damage during the same turn using Extra Attack or TWF).

TWF should certainly be a valid option, but not the default. Same goes for archery and any other weapon style for that matter.

Okay so for now lets lock in the actionless mark at level 1 with an improvement at level 11, we can figure specific numbermath at a later stage

Subclasses don't have a universal structure but they will usually start at level 3 with a feature at 6-7 and 10-11 at the minimum. There are outliers all over the place. I took the level 2 suggestion because that fits well with half-progression spellcasting in subclass form, whereas starting at level 3 would fit best with one-third progression casting ala EK and AT.

A ranged combat subclass I would leave until after we finalize the initial three, same goes for a stealth focus, traps or planewalker concepts. Lets not get too ambitious to begin with and leave ourselves some room to expand at a later date.

So in order to start molding these features and fitting them in we're going to need some idea of what is important and what isn't. I'll edit in an initial suggestion to the table and gather some feedback on it?


Edit:
@Bjarkmundur, that's some great starting ground, give me a little bit and I'll start fleshing out the table. At this point I'm swayed on 1/3 casting but we'll see how it pans out.

[Bjarkmundur]

Subclasses don't have a universal structure but they will usually start at level 3 with a feature at 6-7 and 10-11 at the minimum. There are outliers all over the place. I took the level 2 suggestion because that fits well with half-progression spellcasting in subclass form, whereas starting at level 3 would fit best with one-third progression casting ala EK and AT.

A ranged combat subclass I would leave until after we finalize the initial three, same goes for a stealth focus, traps or planewalker concepts. Lets not get too ambitious to begin with and leave ourselves some room to expand at a later date.

So in order to start molding these features and fitting them in we're going to need some idea of what is important and what isn't. I'll edit in an initial suggestion to the table and gather some feedback on it?

1. Wait what? A subclass granting 1/2 progression? Does that leave ANY design space for the rest of the class? Doesn't that put a lot of pressure on the other subclasses being just as powerful? Maybe not, I'm just worried.

2. As long as no features specify ranged or melee weapon, both should work just fine, no? I see we are not focusing on mobility, but more single-target oriented ranger. This should work fine for whatever weapon you choose, no?

3. Edited my first post. Please check out that last part <3

Edit Swayed to 1/3rd? What does that even mean? My english is not good enough to know if you're moving towards, away from or simply listening to Dean Martin :O
Edit the 2nd. 1/2 progression maybe isn't all bad, seeing how there's no Smite mechanic. I'm still not sure... It's all really dependent on subclass balance.
Edit the 3rd: I saw you added fighting styles and base proficiencies. I'm not entirely sure how much space you have to work with, but doesn't sheld and fighting style both take up design space that might be better served for making the subclasses stronger (the 1/2 progression you talked about) or some of the base features? It's not that they don't work, I'm just suggesting they be tagged as non-essential features, in case you ever have to cut something to make space for a more significant feature. The animal companion is a pretty big feature, design space wise, so I'm thinking you're need every millimeter we can get to make the iconic features feel right. I'm guessing this is meant to make the ranger more paladin like (fighter-druid instead of fighter-cleric). You didn't mention any design goals, but if this is one of the goals, a shield and a fighting style gets you a lot of the way there. It's one of those cases where you have to critique based on intentions.

[paladinn]

I would still push for D10 HD. Even if the ranger isn't a fighter subclass, s/he is still a fighter first and foremost. If s/he gets a fighting style, s/he is a fighter. Please keep the D10. Ranged combat is an option for the class, but doesn't need to be the default. A frontline class should have D10.

I'm actually liking how this is shaping up. Kane0, you may have changed my mind on the ranger being its own class! And here I was even looking to make the paladin a fighter sub (again).

I'm looking at the scout rogue class now. I personally think some of this can be folded into our new, improved ranger. The ambush master feature seems like if c/should be worked into the ranger's quarry feature. I admit, I have no qualms about "raiding" the scout for some ranger stuff: the ranger was here first!

[Kane0]

Wait what? A subclass granting 1/2 progression? Does that leave ANY design space for the rest of the class? Doesn't that put a lot of pressure on the other subclasses being just as powerful? Maybe not, I'm just worried.

Swayed to 1/3rd? What does that even mean? My english is not good enough to know if you're moving towards, away from or simply listening to Dean Martin :O

1/2 progression maybe isn't all bad, seeing how there's no Smite mechanic. I'm still not sure... It's all really dependent on subclass balance.

I saw you added fighting styles and base proficiencies. I'm not entirely sure how much space you have to work with, but doesn't shieldand fighting style both take up design space that might be better served for making the subclasses stronger (the 1/2 progression you talked about) or some of the base features?

You didn't mention any design goals, but if this is one of the goals, a shield and a fighting style gets you a lot of the way there. It's one of those cases where you have to critique based on intentions.


Sorry what I mean is that the decision between half casting and one-third casting is undecided right now. There are benefits and complications both ways.

Shield proficiency isn't a big deal but I can be cut if push comes to shove. I don't really think it will come to that though. Fighting style is

My goals in this case are primarily modeled straight from Paladinn


"What is a ranger to you?" Being an OSR grognard at heart, I'd say a ranger is a fighter, first and foremost, especially able to survive and thrive in the wild, to guide those who aren't so able, to be sort of the "bridge" between civilization and wilderness. Part of that is to be able to effectively defend against the enemies of such civilization.

"What are the mechanical and thematic elements you find important?" See above. A ranger should be the toughest cuss in any group. A "normal" fighter can only keep up by virtue of training and weapon skill. Tracking has always been a constant for rangers. I'd say animal handling as well. Stealth. Maybe natural healing.


Ok, I have a little time, so I thought I'd explain my thought processes on this. Please forgive if this ends up being a novella.

I've played and DM'ed D&D since B/X, and am familiar with every version from OD&D to 5e. The OD&D ranger (from the Strategic Review) was heavily modeled on Aragorn, and tried to replicate the kinds of things he did in LotR. Rangers were fighters, first and foremost. Fighters didn't get ASI's or feats or weapon specialization back then; they just got tougher, hit better and harder as they leveled-up. Paladins were D&D-official with the Greyhawk suppliment; they also were fighters, but had better saves, protection from evil, healing, detect evil and "dispel evil" (and No spells), and were very difficult to qualify for. Rangers had many "favored enemies" (any humanoids or giants), tracking ability, surprise ability, and the ability to use ESP/scrying items (probably due to Aragorn using a palantir). They could also cast cleric and magic-user spells (there were no druids then, and Aragorn did a little healing and was ok against the ringwraiths).

Over the years, in 1e-3x, rangers morphed a lot. They way they were envisioned seemed to vacilate between a rogue/fighter hybrid, a junior druid, a beastmaster, the default archery class or a two-weapon fighter, none of which really fit the Aragorn mold. I know that, for many, Drizzt has become the modern model for a ranger; but other than using the 2 scimitars, I'm not sure how well the class even fits the Drizzt mold.

With all that said, here are what I would think to be the essentials of a ranger class, if it is to be a "class:

1. Fighting style. This has typically leaned toward archery or 2-weapon, but Aragorn was neither. I would allow any weapon style, including Aragorn's great-weapon style.

2. Tracking. This should be a no-brainer. I would include some abilities to detect the presence of creatures in the area. Aragorn's "ear-to-the-ground" thing comes to mind.

3. Nature abilities. Survival, animal handling, woodland stride. If a "favored terrain" is used, it should grant a resistance of some sort (cold, heat, etc.)

4. Stealth. This should not be equivalent to a rogue's abilities, but greater than what a fighter would normally get. Surprise, hide, vanish, evasion, maybe dodge.

5. Enhanced senses. BECMI (the VotPA "druidic knight") gave danger sense. Some ability to fight unseen enemies.

6. Combat ability. Either let "favored enemies" include all humanoids and giants, as in OD&D/1e, or change to some version of hunter's mark. Bonus to hit and AC, and possibly to saves due to "knowing your enemy".

I would argue that all this would make a decent "main class", and wouldn't even need spells to be effective. I Don't know what archetypes would be good, other than maybe beastmaster. I would also suggest that, if these things are Not present, a ranger would do better as a fighter subclass. The extra ASI's and more extra attacks would greatly benefit a ranger. And if druid spells are wanted, make it like the EK and use the druid spell list.

More than $.02 worth, but there you have it.

D10 hit die is easy to manage, we just have to balance any defensive features around that. Example being Rogue's Uncanny Dodge, won't be able to to that extreme.

Oh no, please no Paladin subclasses, we already have the Cavalier! :smallbiggrin:

One class gettting a piece of another class' pie in subclass form is fine, just like we have bladesinger wizards, valor bards, etc. A bit of give and take to provide multiple angles at character concepts.

[Bjarkmundur]

Aww man, I was hoping that pointless 'alert when travelling' wouldn't be used >. <

We have such cool scout abilities to draw inspiration from, why use the boring one? I mean, look at what 4e managed to do.

Ranger Wilderness Knacks from 4e
You gain two of the following abilities of your choice.


Ambush Expertise (Ranger)
Whenever you make a Stealth check, each ally within 10 squares of you gains a +2 bonus to his or her next Stealth check before the end of your next turn.


Beast Empathy (Ranger)
You gain a +2 bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate checks against beasts. You can communicate simple concepts and commands to such creatures, though they are under no compulsion to obey you. With a successful Insight check (DC determined by the DM), you can read a creature’s body language and vocalizations enough to understand basic messages from it.


Mountain Guide (Ranger)
Whenever you succeed on an Athletics check to climb, you reduce the DC of that climb by 2 for your allies until the end of the encounter. Only allies who see you make the climb gain this benefit.


Watchful Rest (Ranger)
When you take an extended rest, you and any allies also taking the rest do not take the -5 penalty to Perception checks for sleeping.


Wilderness Tracker (Ranger)
During a short rest, you can make a Perception check (DC determined by the DM) to inspect the area around you. This area can be as large as 10 squares on a side. If your check succeeds, you determine the number and nature of the creatures that have moved through the area in the past 24 hours. You ascertain when and where they entered the area, as well as when and where they left.

------------------------------

Isn't that much more personal than a throwaway bonus? This makes you feel like the one guiding your friends through the untamed wilderness, by granting bonuses if you go first.

I can easily imagine additional Knacks being able to tend a wounded ally or make rests more effective.

[Kane0]

Because it’s a ribbon, and I’m starting simple at level 1 just like you said :P

Edit: on my phone right now but basically the extra move speed is the meat of that ability. The ability to retain your passive perception while doing something else during travel means you can do twice as much as any other class without actually handing out bonuses or removing challenges

[Kane0]

Fleshing more things out, checking in to see what people think

[BerzerkerUnit]

My quick fix is dump casting and get 1/2 sneak attack progression and an Expertise in Survival and choice of Stealth or Perception. It is a dirty fix but pretty satisfying.

[Fnissalot]

I would change warden to have prepared spells instead of known and the rituals to be from prepared spells instead of the the whole list.

I think quarry dice should go up to a d12 at level 19 or 20. The endgame damage of the base class is a bit low otherwise currently.

Beastmasters beast should probably add con mod to that hp. You could maybe also increase the cr from 1/4 to 1/2 or even 1 as you level up in the class.

[Kane0]

Ah yes, corrected!

[Bjarkmundur]

Can you walk us through your decision making progress regarding the Beast's Action Economy?
I've generally heard that introducing a second set of actions is a big boost. Can you command it to take any action or move using your bonus action, and then it has it's own reaction?

Do you think you need to specify that a creature doesn't become your quarry until after the first attack on your turn is resolved. If it is read as 'when you target a creature it becomes your quarry', well, then every creature is your quarry by the time you resolve the attack.

[Kane0]

Oh, well I figure its not fun to sacrifice your action to get your 'secondary character' to get their turn, but nor is it fair to just hand it over for free. If you can issue commands as a bonus action allowing it to use its action you get the most out of your action economy without the pet feeling as robotic (it can move without you using your actions, plus dodge if you don't issue a command) or playing two full characters to everyone else's one.

You are correct, however I personally struggle in reading it that way. 'When you attack' means you have to attack for it to happen, and I didn't write 'when you declare that you intend to attack'. It's the kind of wordplay I've seen argued over with the shield master feat and such, it's valid if you want to be that pedantic about it but at that point I think you're beyond the 'having a conversation around a table' usage.
Anyway I digress, i'll clean up the wording yes.

[Jaxby]

I realy feel like you guys are on to something here.

Now, I registered on the forum just to be part of this conversation, so I'm not particularly experienced in creating or balancing homebrew. Bearing that in mind, I thought I might be able to give some inputs?:

For the Nature 1 feature, how about adding the following (idea stolen from The Focused Ranger by DracoDruid)?
Guide. You can guide the travel for a group of up to six creatures. While guided by you, your group can move stealthily while traveling at a normal pace and difficult terrain doesn't slow your group's travel.

And/or maybe advantage on survival, nature & perception checks that deal with wilderness traveling. This would then work in tandem with the expertise at lvl 5, if you chose one of those skills.

Speaking of the lvl 5 expertise: I'm guessing that you would keep it at expertise in two skills? Or would you get more at an even higher lvl, like the rogue does?

For the Selectable II healing salve option (idea stolen from the Unity Ranger):
How about making it act like lesser restoration instead? That would make the wording quite simple. Or even "act like lesser restoration or remove a level of exhaustion"? Since exhaustion is a big part of wilderness traveling (in my campaign anyway).

For the lvl 20 cap, how about this feature (also stolen from The Focused Ranger):
Deadly Mark. Any attack roll you make against a target marked as your quarry is a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20 on the d20.
Killing Blow. When you hit a target market as your quarry with an attack, you can choose to let your mark vanish after the attack. If you do, the attack deals an additional 7d12 damage to the target. You can't use this feature again until you finish a long rest.

Since the Hunter subclass is missing a few features, what about this (from Hedges and Highways by Jonathan Dupree):
Ambush Expertise. You can use the Help action to give all allies within 30 feet of you advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks. You and each of friendly creature with 30 feet that can see you deals an additional 1d8 damage against any creature that is surprised. The additional damage from this feature increases by 1d8 if you have the Additional Wilderness Knacks feature.

I feel like that would be quite thematic for a hunter that stalks his prey. Though I'm unsure of how powerful it is.

For the Hunter's defensive feature, why not use one of the defensive features from the PHB (defensive tactics/superior hunter's defense)?


/cheers

[Moxxmix]

Ah, Ranger rebuilds. I made a go at one a while back, though I was only happy with some bits of it.

At first glance, I like the approach used here. Standard non-caster framework with a caster subclass. Whether or not a ranger is better as a caster or non-caster always seems to be a point of contention, so basing the casting aspect on Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster type design seems a good compromise. It just brings up issues of spell balance, if the highest casting level is 3 instead of 5.

Not yet having read the previous thread, a few things I'd look for:

Not being so heavily locked into "natural environment" approaches that an "urban ranger" is difficult to implement. One notable type of this would be the Bounty Hunter, which seems like it would fit in nicely with the Hunter subclass.

Search as a bonus action feels like something that should come early in the class, not late. It fits most of the archtypes' concepts. Ranger feels like Perception first, Stealth second; the opposite of the Rogue. Nice to see that at level 3.

Ranged attacks feel natural for all subclasses, though most would likely use bows, whereas the Bounty Hunter would more likely use crossbows (or guns, if available).


Base Abilities

Quarry: Seems good. Takes a bunch from Cavalier's Unwavering Mark and Warding Maneuver. UM and WM, however, are limited in uses per day. Might be simpler to use UM's "when you hit a creature" condition, rather than the potentially confusing, "when you attack a creature".

Another alternative could be, "Once per turn, before you make any attacks, you may designate a target as your quarry." This avoids using a bonus action to designate the target (as with Hunter's Mark) so it won't impact dual wield, while also preventing switching quarry mid-turn. It also seems much simpler than trying to mix it with attack actions, though may be abusable with Dodge + Quarry for defense (though whether that's a bad thing is debatable).

As specified in the OP, you can designate it after one attack, and it lasts til the end of the next turn, so would affect remaining attacks, plus attacks made the next turn. Defense-wise, it interacts with movement and opportunity attacks, so the initiation and duration matters.

I would probably also add a caveat for being able to see the quarry. If you're blinded, random attacks shouldn't give you Quarry bonuses.

Also, does it need to specify a weapon attack? Are magic attacks valid ways to mark a quarry? I guess Sorcerer/Ranger should work, casting Fire Bolts? It says that your weapon attacks deal extra damage, but doesn't say you need to use a weapon to mark the target.

Also, what type of damage is the extra 1d4? OP doesn't say, but I'd assume it should be of the same type as the originating attack. It designates it as being restricted to weapon attacks, so it won't give bonus damage to a Sorcerer/Ranger's Fire Bolts? How does it interact with something like Booming Blade? Would a Shadow Blade deal an extra 1d4 psychic damage?

So something like:

"Once per turn, after making a weapon attack [alt: an attack] against a creature you can see, you may designate that creature as your Quarry. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn, or until you mark a different Quarry.

When you make a weapon attack [alt: an attack] against a marked Quarry, you deal an extra 1d4 damage of the same type as your attack. This damage increases at higher levels according to the progression table."


Nature I: I like it. Very simple, but manages to do what Favored Environment failed to do with all its complexity.

Selectable I: I'm conflicted on the Invisible when using Hide bit. It only works as long as you don't move, which is great, but it's also basically Hide in Plain Sight (without the stupid complexity), which was originally level 10. How strong is invisibility when you're not moving? How does that affect perception checks against you? How much can this be abused by a rogue taking a 2-level dip in ranger?

Also, while it's implied, I'd probably be explicit in adding: "or until you take an action that would otherwise break invisibility."

Other than that, I like the healing salves, and I like the "ignore non-magical difficult terrain" options. The former is great for a support type, and the latter for a pursuit type (probably combined with the climbing speed option in Nature I).

Senses II: Takes Feral Senses and brings it down to a more reasonable level.

Nature II: Removes need for most of the Freedom of Movement spell, which in turn reduces the need for spellcasting above 3rd level.


Hunter

Hunter covers the general idea of either a monster hunter or a bounty hunter. IE: Wilderness ranger or urban ranger. I expect a focus on tracking, searching, investigating, etc, plus strong finishing moves for a fight.

Quarry Bonus: I'd probably rewrite as:

"A creature you have marked as your Quarry provokes opportunity attacks if it moves at least 5' while within your reach."

Another possible option: The ability to mark a quarry without making an attack, if the target is surprised. While I put this in the Hunter section, it could conceivably be added to the base class options.

Ribbon: I'd probably grant a bonus proficiency — one out of Investigation, Perception, or Survival — along with a tool proficiency of the player's choice. The skill is primarily for tracking (any of the three could work, depending on GM and/or character), and the tools give some flexibility in character style.

Terrain Adaption: Nice defensive utility, using the flavor of Favored Environment without the clumsiness.

Multiattack: The Quarry effect lasts one turn. Multiattack allows you to mark multiple targets as Quarries, but you're limited in how many of those creatures you can target on the next turn's action. Thus you could fire a volley at a group, and then the next turn pick off a couple specific targets as they ran away from the AOE zone. At first it felt overpowered, but it might be somewhat reasonable.


Beastmaster

Utility (7) Possible idea: You may use an action to order your companion to make two attacks against a specified target. Basically, give up your attack (which has Extra Attack by this point) to give the companion two attacks, in addition to its Bonus Action attack. This will do less damage than you likely could, but could provide unique tactical options.

Also, there should be actions the companion can take when the ranger is unconscious. Something like:

"If you fall unconscious, your companion will abandon previous orders and move to protect your body, staying within 5' of you. It will use its action to attack any enemy that approaches within attack range of its movement. (IE: It stays in the 5' radius around you, and thus attacks any enemies that come within 10' radius of you.) Any attempts to attack your unconscious body have disadvantage."

This allows the player to still "act", within a limited scope, while unconscious, and seems an appropriate bonus for having a companion that's explicitly there to watch your back.


Warden

Looks like a fine starting point. It's a bit more difficult to evaluate because of how spells integrate, but the abilities seem appropriate.

[Kane0]

Ah, lots to chew through!



For the Nature 1 feature, how about adding the following (idea stolen from The Focused Ranger by DracoDruid)?
Guide. You can guide the travel for a group of up to six creatures. While guided by you, your group can move stealthily while traveling at a normal pace and difficult terrain doesn't slow your group's travel.

And/or maybe advantage on survival, nature & perception checks that deal with wilderness traveling. This would then work in tandem with the expertise at lvl 5, if you chose one of those skills.



Nature I: I like it. Very simple, but manages to do what Favored Environment failed to do with all its complexity.

I'm loathe to add anything extra, it's already two distinct benefits at level 1. Glad that it succeeds at its intent though.



Speaking of the lvl 5 expertise: I'm guessing that you would keep it at expertise in two skills? Or would you get more at an even higher lvl, like the rogue does?

Expertise in two with no extras after that. Emphasises that you are more skilled than Fighters and Barbarians but less so than Rogues and Bards.



For the Selectable II healing salve option (idea stolen from the Unity Ranger):
How about making it act like lesser restoration instead? That would make the wording quite simple. Or even "act like lesser restoration or remove a level of exhaustion"? Since exhaustion is a big part of wilderness traveling (in my campaign anyway).

I've been of the opinion that Lesser Restoration should take away one level of exhaustion anyways, so that works.



For the lvl 20 cap, how about this feature (also stolen from The Focused Ranger):
Deadly Mark. Any attack roll you make against a target marked as your quarry is a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20 on the d20.
Killing Blow. When you hit a target market as your quarry with an attack, you can choose to let your mark vanish after the attack. If you do, the attack deals an additional 7d12 damage to the target. You can't use this feature again until you finish a long rest.

I've actually been tossing up a set amount of extra damage (say, 50) plus a condition like blinded, deafened or poisoned with no save for a turn. Crits on 19 appears elsewhere twice and both at level 1.




So something like:
"Once per turn, after making an attack against a creature you can see, you may designate that creature as your Quarry. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn, or until you mark a different Quarry.

When you make an attack against a marked Quarry, you deal an extra 1d4 damage of the same type as the attack attack. This damage increases at higher levels according to the progression table."

Ah yes, that's some clean wording. I intended for it to be usable with spell attacks to differentiate it from Sneak Attack/Divine Smite and there's the possibility of Ranger spells including attacks.



Selectable I: I'm conflicted on the Invisible when using Hide bit. It only works as long as you don't move, which is great, but it's also basically Hide in Plain Sight (without the stupid complexity), which was originally level 10. How strong is invisibility when you're not moving? How does that affect perception checks against you? How much can this be abused by a rogue taking a 2-level dip in ranger?

Also, while it's implied, I'd probably be explicit in adding: "or until you take an action that would otherwise break invisibility."

Other than that, I like the healing salves, and I like the "ignore non-magical difficult terrain" options. The former is great for a support type, and the latter for a pursuit type (probably combined with the climbing speed option in Nature I).

Invisible is a condition so you're effectively heavily obscured and attacks against you are at disadvantage.
Yes you're right i'll add in attacking or casting a spell alongside moving too fast.
A rogue dipping into ranger seems as desirable as a ranger dipping into rogue is now, so mission accomplished I suppose?
The idea was to make them as desirable as possible next to each other, so that's good that it's a hard decision.



Quarry Bonus: I'd probably rewrite as:
"A creature you have marked as your Quarry provokes opportunity attacks if it moves at least 5' while within your reach."

Again thank you for the cleaner phrasing



Ribbon: I'd probably grant a bonus proficiency — one out of Investigation, Perception, or Survival — along with a tool proficiency of the player's choice. The skill is primarily for tracking (any of the three could work, depending on GM and/or character), and the tools give some flexibility in character style.

Multiattack: The Quarry effect lasts one turn. Multiattack allows you to mark multiple targets as Quarries, but you're limited in how many of those creatures you can target on the next turn's action. Thus you could fire a volley at a group, and then the next turn pick off a couple specific targets as they ran away from the AOE zone. At first it felt overpowered, but it might be somewhat reasonable.

Excellent!
Yes, best case scenario you could mark a bundle of enemies and then get quarry bonus on them all if they're still alive next turn. 99% of the time this probably won't be better than marking and removing one at a time anyways, but the option is there and you can mix & match the melee/ranged versions as well.



Beastmaster
Utility (7) Possible idea: You may use an action to order your companion to make two attacks against a specified target. Basically, give up your attack (which has Extra Attack by this point) to give the companion two attacks, in addition to its Bonus Action attack. This will do less damage than you likely could, but could provide unique tactical options.

By 'utility' I mean not a direct offensive or defensive combat benefit. To break up the pattern and provide out of combat things plus avoid overloading it with big bonuses, like fighter subclasses at level 7.



Also, there should be actions the companion can take when the ranger is unconscious. Something like:
"If you fall unconscious, your companion will abandon previous orders and move to protect your body, staying within 5' of you. It will use its action to attack any enemy that approaches within attack range of its movement. (IE: It stays in the 5' radius around you, and thus attacks any enemies that come within 10' radius of you.) Any attempts to attack your unconscious body have disadvantage."

This allows the player to still "act", within a limited scope, while unconscious, and seems an appropriate bonus for having a companion that's explicitly there to watch your back.

Ah yes that would make sense



Warden

Looks like a fine starting point. It's a bit more difficult to evaluate because of how spells integrate, but the abilities seem appropriate.
On that note!
Conjure Barrage and Lightning Arrow reduced to 2nd level
Conjure Volley reduced to 3rd level spell dealing 4d8 damage
Steel Wind Strike reduced to 3rd level spell dealing 4d10 damage
Swift Quiver reduced to 4th level spell with a casting time of 1 action

[Bjarkmundur]

This is slowly but surely becoming my favorite ranger rework out there. It has just so much going for it! Every single time I see an unread reply I panic a little and think "Oh, no, I hope they didn't change their design direction while I was asleep!" xD

[Jaxby]

... Not being so heavily locked into "natural environment" approaches that an "urban ranger" is difficult to implement. One notable type of this would be the Bounty Hunter, which seems like it would fit in nicely with the Hunter subclass...

Ranged attacks feel natural for all subclasses, though most would likely use bows, whereas the Bounty Hunter would more likely use crossbows (or guns, if available).

Isn't the urban bounty hunter/urban hunter incapsulated quite well by the rogue?



Quarry:
Another alternative could be, "Once per turn, before you make any attacks, you may designate a target as your quarry." This avoids using a bonus action to designate the target (as with Hunter's Mark) so it won't impact dual wield, while also preventing switching quarry mid-turn. It also seems much simpler than trying to mix it with attack actions, though may be abusable with Dodge + Quarry for defense (though whether that's a bad thing is debatable).


I must say that one of the things I realy like about this rework is that it doesn't require setup. As in "bonus action, then attack". It feels much more organic to simply attack, and then go from there. The constant "I cast hunter's mark and then take my turn" feels weird to me.


With the new capstone of "50 dmg" and also with the healing of "+ranger lvl"; isn't it more fun to put some dice as the dmg/healing? Instead of a fixed amount? Also to differentiate the healing more from the paladins lay on hands, which is a fixed pool where you choose how much you heal.

[paladinn]

This is slowly but surely becoming my favorite ranger rework out there. It has just so much going for it! Every single time I see an unread reply I panic a little and think "Oh, no, I hope they didn't change their design direction while I was asleep!" xD

Glad Kane0 and I could get the ball rolling on this:) Sorry I haven't checked in an a while, but real life does intrude.

Soo.. Mr. Kane0.. what is the latest writeup of our reworked ranger?

I wonder if we can sell it to WotC. Heck, I'd be willing to do it pro-bono..lol

[Moxxmix]

Once per turn, after making an attack against a creature you can see, you may designate that creature as your Quarry. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn, or until you mark a different Quarry.
Just realized that the way I wrote this means you could change your quarry when making an opportunity attack. I don't know that there's actually enough problem with doing so to worry about it, though. Can prevent it by changing the opening to "Once on your turn", if desired.


When you make an attack against a marked Quarry, you deal an extra 1d4 damage of the same type as the attack attack. This damage increases at higher levels according to the progression table.
Typo - duplicate "attack".


[ribbon] (3)
You gain proficiency in your choice of Investigation, Perception, or Survival as well as either
Incomplete text.


Isn't the urban bounty hunter/urban hunter incapsulated quite well by the rogue?
Not really, in my mind. A rogue can do those things, but just about any class can be stretched to cover most concepts (which is part of the problem that led to the thread that just wants to make ranger a subclass). A guard could be a fighter or a wizard, however the concept of 'guard' is much more in the fighter's domain. A rogue or a barbarian could also be believable fits for that role. But you don't imagine a druid or a sorcerer or a cleric for that concept, despite scenarios where they actually work, because there are a lot more scenarios where the fighter is all that you need.

In the same way, a bounty hunter fits very well with (my impression of a) ranger. A fighter or rogue could still do it, but they're weaker concept options. For example, the rogue is conceptually very territorial (moreso than most other classes). He might take action against someone in his territory, but is unlikely to travel elsewhere for the same purpose (outside assassination, which is a different concept entirely), which makes him a much weaker fit for the bounty hunter concept. Conversely, the ranger is all about traveling and seeking out quarry. It's just an obvious fit in a way that rogue just doesn't.


If I were to pull a comparison, I'd look at the hunter characters in the TV show, Supernatural. They investigate rumors, and search out supernatural events, traveling all around the country to find them. They're monster hunters (probably Monster Slayer subclass) rather than bounty hunters, but they're acting in a largely urban environment, and are more rangers than rogues (despite regularly using fake identities). There are obvious parallels, conceptually, and the main difference is just the type of quarry.

Bounty hunters pull more imagery from old westerns, traveling town to town looking for criminals to defeat and turn in to the law. There's a similarity to the paladin (including an actual character named Paladin in Have Gun, Will Travel) because, as usual, there are no strict lines between character concepts and classes.

What's the difference between a paladin, a ranger, a rogue, and hired mercenary (fighter) as far as the bounty hunter concept goes? In some sense, not a lot, and from another perspective, a great deal. It's all about how the character class allows you to approach the concept.


The (PHB) ranger class is the only one that's been strongly locked out of one of the most significant environments of the game — the city. There's been several "urban ranger" write-ups (showing a desire for getting out of the wilderness), but most of what they do is just try to shoehorn the existing skills into urban variants (which leads to the same problems ranger already has even without considering the urban aspect).

Most classes are agnostic enough about the issue that you could easily switch where they fit in. This rewrite strips away most of the aspects that tie ranger down in that way, which gives it the freedom to be a bit more fluid in the wilderness-urban setting decision. And one of the easiest fits for an urban-focused ranger is putting his talents in hunting towards a relatively common need. There's just an obvious suitability there.

[Kane0]

With the new capstone of "50 dmg" and also with the healing of "+ranger lvl"; isn't it more fun to put some dice as the dmg/healing? Instead of a fixed amount? Also to differentiate the healing more from the paladins lay on hands, which is a fixed pool where you choose how much you heal.

It's a balancing act, a static number is reliable but rolling dice is fun. Sometimes you want the certainty that a strike will ruin someone's day rain, hail or shine. Even crits can be disappointing.


Glad Kane0 and I could get the ball rolling on this:) Sorry I haven't checked in an a while, but real life does intrude.

Soo.. Mr. Kane0.. what is the latest writeup of our reworked ranger?

I wonder if we can sell it to WotC. Heck, I'd be willing to do it pro-bono..lol
I know the feel, but i'm slowly adding items into the first post. As usual the biggest hurdle is appropriate names (any 'brewers nightmare).
Oh trust me, greater and more successful minds than mine have tried. WotC are adamant when it comes to this kind of thing, they keep that barrier between their work and 3rd parties well maintained. Probably because it would open the floodgates if they did take fan work in any way, even just credited.

[Jaxby]

=Kane0;
Nature's Boon (2)


A while back, possibly in the original "subclass thread", there was a discussion of the ranger being an experienced user of nature, where the druid "was" nature. I think this is a good distinction and improves the flavor of both classes.

I believe this is also the case with this rework, where the druid part of the rangers is basically put in the warden subclass.

Therefore I was wondering whether Nature's Boon doesn't evoke a bit too much of the "nature is on your side, helping you"? Maybe a title like "Naturalist" or "Tools if the Hunt" or some such would hit the mark more.


When it comes to the role of the ranger in an adventure group, I feel like the straight forward position is the wilderness (or urban) guide. Should there be a class trait to support that? As it is now, any class with prof in survival would do as good as the ranger (outside combat). Or am I missing something?

[Kane0]

Haha, see what i mean about coming up with good names? Taking all suggestions, getting the right subtext and implied flavor is important.

Edit: yes i remember that. Druids value it for its own sake, revering and embodying it. Rangers calue it as a useful tool use it as such.

[Bjarkmundur]

I agree, but I also have to play Devil's Advocate here. 'Wilderness' should be substituted for 'Environment'. Not that you can't have nature-themed names, just that you have to have the features general enough to be applicable to environments other than wilderness. The Warden is all in nature-themed, sure, but the other subclasses and base class should have their flavor more malleable to allow for wider range of characters.

So far you've done a great jop a this. None of the base features apply explicitly to underpopulated areas... except for 'alert' part of Natural Explorer. The Climb does speed help this feature break through, though, since it is applicable to a wide range of scenarios. As Devil's Advocate I might suggest finding a word that encompasses all prolonged activities in the exploration pillar, in order for the feature to be applied to other non-wilderness scenarios. "You remain alert even during ________ activities, such as when foraging or navigating". With that kind of phrasing the DM can easily rule that it also applies to 'montage' scenes within a city, for example.
As a personal opinion I'd suggest dropping the alert bit altogether, and replace it with a stronger guide theme. It should accomplish the same thing, but in a more narrative and thematic way. Instead of 'You are very aware of your surroundings, sometimes, reperesting your competence withing the exploration pillar of the gameplay.' it becomes "When you succeed at something within the exploration pillar, your allies gain advantage on attempting the same thing". This could be climbing, swimming, keeping watch or any number of things within the exploration pillar of game-play. You go first and show them how its done, and with your success you give them some pointers during their attempt.

Scenario
You're group has just set camp, and you're on first watch. After a few uneventful hours your friend comes to relieve you. You stand together in silence for a moment before you take your leave. As you turn back you see your friend peering away from you into the distance, and you say.
"No, my friend, face this way. Your eyes are better used there. The wind is blowing north, so if anything nasty were to approach us from there, the wind will carry its scent and sound to us. An enemy approaching from this side won't give us the same luxury, so remain vigilant."


Man that's a satisfying scenario! You're playing the self-reliant ranger not for yourself, but to benefit your group.

I think the guide aspect of the ranger is a strong one. Not due to how pronounced it is within the class, but because no other class fulfills that fantasy. It doesn't matter how good YOU are at travelling, since you are travelling with a group 110% of the time. Often we see this represented by ways to avoid interesting aspects of the exploration pillar, which is a shame. The ranger is the embodiment of self-reliance within that pillar, sure, but for the benefit of the party. Since the ranger archetype is so... personal... the best way to achieve this feeling is allow the player to choose his own skills and expertise, then create a mechanic that says "Hey, you are really good at some things! Use this mechanic to showcase to your group how good you are at those things, since it is a big part of your character being good at those things. This will help you find meaningful uses for the things you are good at, and use the things your so good at for helping your party be good at them too! You're not just stroking your ego and fulfilling a personal fantasy, you are also roleplaying your character and benefiting your allies. Man it's good being good at those things."

Maybe the guide theme doesn't fit your Ranger, and maybe I am just projecting. I hope I'll at least see my trusty guide as a subclass one day.


----------------------------

I'm not sold on Defensive Tactics, but I'm not sure why.

[Jaxby]

I very much agree with Bjarkmundur's thoughts on the selfreliant ranger as a team player.

However I don't think there is a problem with referencing wilderness in the class descriptions. Firstly, it plays into the majority of ranger characters' lore/theme in a broad manner. I will be so bold as to assume that the urban hunter is quite a specific character. Secondly, it makes it clear which mechanic in the game the feature is supposed to apply to, without being overly game-language-y as I think "the exploration pillar of the game" is.

Edit: it would seem I mixed things up a bit. Bjarkmundur was talking about "environment" when referring to the wording, and exploration pillar in the second paragraph. My mistake.

I still think that an urban ranger is better suited for the rogue, as a character that is stealthy, good at percieving & moves through difficult terrain of the environment (ie. Traps and locks in the city). But I am not strongly opposed to an inclusive ranger wording, as long as it doesn't take away flavour and becomes generic.

[paladinn]

I very much agree with Bjarkmundur's thoughts on the selfreliant ranger as a team player.

However I don't think there is a problem with referencing wilderness in the class descriptions. Firstly, it plays into the majority of ranger characters' lore/theme in a broad manner. I will be so bold as to assume that the urban hunter is quite a specific character. Secondly, it makes it clear which mechanic in the game the feature is supposed to apply to, without being overly game-language-y as I think "the exploration pillar of the game" is.

Edit: it would seem I mixed things up a bit. Bjarkmundur was talking about "environment" when referring to the wording, and exploration pillar in the second paragraph. My mistake.

I still think that an urban ranger is better suited for the rogue, as a character that is stealthy, good at percieving & moves through difficult terrain of the environment (ie. Traps and locks in the city). But I am not strongly opposed to an inclusive ranger wording, as long as it doesn't take away flavour and becomes generic.

The whole "wilderness/environment" thing is one of my main issues with the ranger class. If being a nature boy is the ranger's "main thing", that's not enough to justify it being a class of its own. You can have a wilderness-flavored fighter; that would be less situational (and more useful) than having the class built around on being a nature boy. At least some of the core abilities need to be useful outside of a wilderness setting. Thus the "favored enemy/studied target/hinters mark/quarry" concept.

I disagree about rogue being a better urban ranger. A ranger, even if it's a class of its own, is a fighter at heart. Always has been, always should be. When I think "urban ranger", I think Batman. Yes, he's stealthy and all; but he is oe of the best melee fighters above all. And if he's a ranger, he's also good to have around even outside of his environment (a city, especially Gotham).

[Bjarkmundur]

When I think "urban ranger", I think Batman. Yes, he's stealthy and all; but he is oe of the best melee fighters above all. And if he's a ranger, he's also good to have around even outside of his environment (a city, especially Gotham).

Holy smokes, you're right! I never thought of Batman as a ranger, mostly due to the watered-down nature-boy theme. Batman has the combination of melee brawn and knowledge needed to face any challenge! I remember that scene from Hush where they are running from Ivy-Controlled Superman. He jumps into the bay and goes into the sewers where he has an edge against Supes. That's 100% ranger. Not only using his knowledge of his foe to stand a chance against The Man of Steel, he also uses his knowledge of the environment. Although none of these are intended as class feature, these are the things that put a Ranger above the Rogue as the go-to urban vigilante. Catwoman can claim the title of Rogue, but Batman is definitely a Ranger.

...Still gonna push that using-his-knowledge-to-benefit-his-allies mechanic, since swimming to the sewers doesn't really add up to much if my Paladin and Fighter both drown trying to get there. :/

It's the only way I can see to represent the self-reliance of the ranger in a meaningful way in a team-oriented game.

I'm still gonna 100% respect the opinions of the designers of this class, so this is the last time I mention this. Thanks for hearing me out guys ^^

[Jaxby]

All right, all right, you got me there; Batman is pretty cool.

[Jaxby]

For the guiding ability, could it be something like: When you attempt to do an x check, you can choose to guide any ally who can see and hear you within y feet. Allies who attempt an x check within the next minute, can add your wisdom modifier to their roll.

For the Hunter's improved Quarry feature at lvl 3, does this also apply to within ranged "reach" or would that be too powerful? Otherwise, the hunter would seem to be more melee oriented.

If it doesn't apply to ranged reach, maybe you could make a clause for enemies moving away from you provoke ranged attacks of opportunity to emulate chasing a prey. Or make the move within ranged reach a later upgrade of the ability.

For the mini-cap for Beastmaster, could it be an upgrade to monster CR? Like giving them CR 2 companions? Or is that a bit boring?

I was thinking about Wardens defence feat, and I thought something along the lines of absorb elements, would be thematic. Seeing as Wardens can already get that as a spell, how about making it Primeval Ward once per long rest or some such instead. It's a 6th lvl spell, which the Warden wont normally have available, so it wont be a double feature, but might be OP?

Alternatively you can give them a choice of 1 of the Investiture spells to cast per long rest. Or doing that as a minicap, though that might narrow the thematic scope of the Warden a bit.

Edit: Maybe a "get x levels of spell slots back on a short rest" like the druid's Natural Recovery for a cap stone. This would make it thematically widely applicable due to the options in spells chosen.

[Fnissalot]

For the mini-cap for Beastmaster, could it be an upgrade to monster CR? Like giving them CR 2 companions? Or is that a bit boring?


The CR on beasts mostly rise due to a small increase in damage and an increase in HP, and since the class overrides the HP, a CR 2 beast will mostly be for flavour. It doesn't add that much. Giant elks are intelligent but huge, and it is first at CR 3 that the damage starts spiking.

I would almost be ok to give them a CR up to 4 huge beast as a ribbon next to a mini-cap if you want it to go bonkers. The differences between killer whales and ankylosauruses and elephants are rather limited. (huge cr 3 and 4)

[Moxxmix]

Beast of large size or smaller and CR 1/4 or lower. Becomes CR 1/2 at level 7 and CR 1 at level 14
I'd glossed over this the first time, but this by itself is a great improvement over the PHB. It fits better to let players get something closer to what they imagine for their character. Obvious examples would be a bear (a la Grizzly Adams), where you can get a medium-sized black bear at level 7, now, or a large brown bear at level 14. Another fitting example would be the Lone Ranger's horse, Silver. (Though the Lone Ranger kinda just bleeds through into Beastmaster for the steed/companion, rather than represent this subclass.)


Beastmaster: [utility] (7)
One thing I was recently reminded of, with respect to animal companions, is when a wolf companion (for example) howls, and summons all the wolves nearby to aid you. I wouldn't necessarily make this a combat ability (but perhaps could be expanded to that at level 18), but perhaps something like:

"Your animal companion may summon any nearby animals of its own type to your location, as long as no combat is taking place. Summoned creatures will behave neutrally towards you and your allies. Your companion's support gives you advantage when negotiating favors or aid from other beasts."

I'm not sure I really worded that properly, but it's the idea that you can summon all the nearby wolf packs together, and negotiate some sort of deal with them. Perhaps they'll protect an important location for you, or avoid attacking a nearby village, or help you track down an enemy. Whatever it is, it's a deal, not a demand, so you'd have to offer something in exchange, but your companion's support gives you advantage on your Persuasion/Insight/Intimidation/etc rolls.

Note that the last sentence is not strictly tied to the summoning. Your companion helps you with any negotiations with beasts of any sort, whether summoned or randomly encountered, though circumstances may negate that.

This fits many instances of how animal companions aid a character in stories, and would be a cool moment for the player. It fits the Aquaman ranger (as counterpart to the Batman ranger).

~~~~

I agree that the "guide" archtype is needed, but I'm not sure yet how to fit it in. I don't know whether it needs its own subclass (and if there's enough to support an entire subclass based on it), or that there should be base class features that facilitate it.

~~~~

It's definitely interesting to see more and more examples of rangers from popular media pop up in the discussions. Most don't match the stereotype wilderness ranger that the PHB tries to correspond to, but they're almost certainly a character "type" that people are likely to try to create a character based on.

Batman — A surprising match, but definitely spot on for the urban "Hunter" type.
Aquaman — The aquatic Beastmaster.
Grizzly Adams — The only "traditional" ranger type, a Beastmaster living in the wilds.
Lone Ranger — Hunter/Bounty Hunter, with a spot of Beastmaster. Many other westerns have a similar character type. Can possibly stretch to spaghetti western stereotypes.
Sam & Dean from Supernatural — Hunters/Monster Slayers.
Aragorn — Melee theme, and survival focus.
Legolas — Archery theme, and guide.
Drizzt — Mishmash of ranger subclasses.

The more examples that come up, the easier it is to get a feel for the types of tools that should be available to the class.

[Kane0]

I'm not sold on Defensive Tactics, but I'm not sure why.

Probably because I took it straight from the PHB ranger, wasn't super inspired. Taking suggestions as always!



For the guiding ability, could it be something like: When you attempt to do an x check, you can choose to guide any ally who can see and hear you within y feet. Allies who attempt an x check within the next minute, can add your wisdom modifier to their roll.

When you use the help action, they get super-advantage?
Where would this fit in? Replacing some other feature?



For the Hunter's improved Quarry feature at lvl 3, does this also apply to within ranged "reach" or would that be too powerful? Otherwise, the hunter would seem to be more melee oriented.

If it doesn't apply to ranged reach, maybe you could make a clause for enemies moving away from you provoke ranged attacks of opportunity to emulate chasing a prey. Or make the move within ranged reach a later upgrade of the ability.

As written at the moment reach is for melee only yes. I'd absolutely look at an alternative that doesn't restrict between melee and ranged.



I was thinking about Wardens defence feat, and I thought something along the lines of absorb elements, would be thematic. Seeing as Wardens can already get that as a spell, how about making it Primeval Ward once per long rest or some such instead. It's a 6th lvl spell, which the Warden wont normally have available, so it wont be a double feature, but might be OP?

Alternatively you can give them a choice of 1 of the Investiture spells to cast per long rest. Or doing that as a minicap, though that might narrow the thematic scope of the Warden a bit.

Edit: Maybe a "get x levels of spell slots back on a short rest" like the druid's Natural Recovery for a cap stone. This would make it thematically widely applicable due to the options in spells chosen.

Hmm, how about throwing together some parts of the Investiture spells for an effect like the Paladin capstones? Don't want to make it too much like the 4e Monk though.

Spell recovery would be decent but earlier on, perhaps tied to some other resource like Hit Die so it's not just copying the Druid/Wizard.



One thing I was recently reminded of, with respect to animal companions, is when a wolf companion (for example) howls, and summons all the wolves nearby to aid you. I wouldn't necessarily make this a combat ability (but perhaps could be expanded to that at level 18), but perhaps something like:

"Your animal companion may summon any nearby animals of its own type to your location, as long as no combat is taking place. Summoned creatures will behave neutrally towards you and your allies. Your companion's support gives you advantage when negotiating favors or aid from other beasts."

Once per long rest by spending one minute you can call forth (2d4? 2d6?) beasts of CR 1 or lower from the surrounding area if they are available. These beasts are neutral to you and your allies.

[Moxxmix]

For the guiding ability, could it be something like: When you attempt to do an x check, you can choose to guide any ally who can see and hear you within y feet. Allies who attempt an x check within the next minute, can add your wisdom modifier to their roll. When you use the help action, they get super-advantage?
Where would this fit in? Replacing some other feature?
Reviewing the intent, it seems to be a push to fit in the important and non-broken bits from Natural Explorer.

Alternate version:

If you spend 1 minute preparing the way, you can grant advantage (as the Help action) on skill checks involving Athletics, Stealth, or Survival to all party members that follow you.
I think the condition that they have to see you isn't the best. Also isn't really appropriate in combat, and adding time for prep seems appropriate and an easy way to make that explicit. And it only applies to certain types of skills. Maybe Acrobatics? (What circumstances it applies to is always debatable.) Survival is questionable, as I can't think of skill checks that would be using that skill to get past an obstacle; still including it.

Other things that might be related...


When a ranger is actively guiding a group, the speed of the group at Slow, Normal, and Fast travel paces is increased by one step. (IE: To 300, 400, and 500 feet per minute; 3, 4, and 5 miles per hour; and 24, 30, and 36 miles per day.)
So, a ranger leading the group allows them to travel at Normal speed with stealth, Fast speed without the Perception penalty, and one step above the Fast speed while taking the Perception penalty.

Basically, make travel faster, allow it for the entire group (vs originally only applying to the ranger if alone), don't ignore difficult terrain (the faster general speed allows you to get past it faster without removing it as a difficulty entirely), and ignore the bits about not becoming lost, or tracking creatures (tracking isn't part of exploring, and getting lost is part of exploring).


So, resummarizing it:


Natural Explorer
When you acquire Natural Explorer, gain either a climbing or swimming speed (your choice) equal to your walking speed. In addition, you gain the following benefits:

While traveling, you remain alert to danger even when foraging, navigating or tracking.
When you are actively guiding a group, its speed is increased by one step (+100 feet per minute, +1 mile per hour, or +6 miles per day) for a given travel pace. (See chart on p.182 of the PHB.)
If you prepare the way, and succeed on your own skill check, you can grant advantage (as the Help action) on skill checks involving Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth, or Survival to all party members that follow you past an obstacle.



Edit: Got rid of the time requirement for prepping the way, as it doesn't fit with something that might take a long time, such as climbing a mountain, and it's easier to adjudicate that it might be appropriate in a faster-paced, not-quite-combat scenario.

[Bjarkmundur]

Alright, let's get some replies in, now that Kane0 has given us his blessing.

@Jaxby
Wisdom modifier bonus to specific skill checks is a very clean way to represent the guide aspect! I think your version is the cleanest and most thematically representation of the guide ability.

@Kane0
I'm not a fan of superadvantage.
There has always been a problem that many different people have many different expectations from the ranger. To accommodate for this you have the selectable 'Nature Boon' feature. If the guide is one of these expectations, you can just add it there. I'm just unsure how to trigger or limit this feature. I also want to suggest 'Ranger Specialty' or 'Survival Knacks' as alternative names for Nature's Boon.

[Jaxby]

When you use the help action, they get super-advantage? Where would this fit in? Replacing some other feature?

Well optimally, I would think it has to come early, to be relevant in exploration. Giving it too late and the casters in the group will circumvent many of the problems facing a traveling group. Like scrying for information, using the "you find the path" spells, flying, teleporting etc. And also because class identity should come early.

So I think you would have to replace some of the low lvl features. It can't replace quarry, it can't replace subclass feature and it can't replace ability score increase. That leaves Natural Explorer, Nature's Boon and Keen Eye. Keen Eye, we also said, should come early. So that leaves Nature's Boon and Natural Explorer. I think Nature's Boon is pretty cool as it is, so I would probably put it in Natural Explorer, possibly removing the "remain alert" feat, if it gets too much.

Alternatively you could make it based on Charisma modifier (minimum of 1), if you want to make it more of a ribbon. Using the Charisma modifier could be fluffed as the ranger's ability to lead a group.


Hmm, how about throwing together some parts of the Investiture spells for an effect like the Paladin capstones? Don't want to make it too much like the 4e Monk though.

Yes, I also noticed, that it would become a bit too much like an elemental warrior after I wrote it, hence my edit. But I guess you could do something like what the paladin has and make it more ranger-y. Like;
"you melt into the foilage/sand-dunes/mob-of-people/terrain making your enemies think they are outnumbered and ambushed.
As a bonus action, you cast Mirror Image spell on yourself. As long as you have at least 1 duplicate, you can teleport to an unoccupied space within sight (or x feet) as a bonus action on each of your turns.

Some version of this could both capture the idea of the Tolkien ranger/mumakil ambush and, for more high magic settings, a ranger that becomes one with the sands and swirls about. It steps a bit on the toes of the Horizon Walker, but since that's not a subclass for this version yet, I guess its all right.


Spell recovery would be decent but earlier on, perhaps tied to some other resource like Hit Die so it's not just copying the Druid/Wizard.

Sure, you could change the mechanic of it. Like instead of using a hit die to heal during a short rest, you can spend x hit dice to recover spells slots with a combined level of x/2.

But I was just thinking, that since its a 1/3-caster, more spells is quite powerful. It's also not something the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster gets, making it somewhat unique.


One thing I was recently reminded of, with respect to animal companions, is when a wolf companion (for example) howls, and summons all the wolves nearby to aid you.

Once per long rest by spending one minute you can call forth (2d4? 2d6?) beasts of CR 1 or lower from the surrounding area if they are available. These beasts are neutral to you and your allies.

This would be quite cool. You could also make it a combat feature where you summon x allied beasts depending on the CR of your companion. That way you could maybe have 2 bears for a short duration, but a several giant badgers and swarms of bats/crows.
Thus summoning your batswarm as batman. Not sure how to make this sudden appearance of friendly badgers seem unmagical though (if we are trying to let the magic stay within the warden subclass).

[Kane0]

Right so it seems Natural Explorer as a name has too many bad connotations attached to it thanks to the PHB ranger, I think i'll rename that.
But second to that the second bullet point could be improved, and the guide aspect seems to have gotten plenty of traction so lets do some chopping and changing

Trailblazer:
- Climb or Swim speed equal to your movement
- While travelling, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom ability checks and saving throws you or your allies make.
So in practice this could stack with the Help action but won't typically work with Guidance or Resistance due to their casting time/durations.


I've also added in Beastmaster and Warden features based on ideas provided.

[paladinn]

Right so it seems Natural Explorer as a name has too many bad connotations attached to it thanks to the PHB ranger, I think i'll rename that.
But second to that the second bullet point could be improved, and the guide aspect seems to have gotten plenty of traction so lets do some chopping and changing

Trailblazer:
- Climb or Swim speed equal to your movement
- While travelling, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom ability checks and saving throws you or your allies make.
So in practice this could stack with the Help action but won't typically work with Guidance or Resistance due to their casting time/durations.


I've also added in Beastmaster and Warden features based on ideas provided.

I haven't been able to keep up with everything the last few days. Where/is our current ranger build posted?

I like the Trailblazer label for the wilderness features. Is this going to include the survival-type abilities? I know a lot of them are ribbons, but still flavorful.

If we're seriously considering expanding our ranger class to include other genres besides wilderness (like the "urban ranger"), Trailblazer might not be a bad label for the "nature boy" build. Many genres can "hunt". Trailblazer definitely invokes the wilderness theme, leading more civilized folk into the wild.

I can totally see Aquaman as an aquatic beastmaster. I hope that doesn't make Antman an insect beastmaster :P

I ws looking over the original OD&D/1e ranger. So many of the class features were front-loaded. I think doing the level progression is where I fall short, being such a grognard at heart.

So we have a nature boy subclass, a beastmaster and a Warden/"junior druid" sub. Do we need an archery-based sub as well? If Robin Hood is considered a prototype ranger, I'm not sure he fits that well into our 3 current subclasses. Little John might've been more of a nature guy than Robin!

[Bjarkmundur]

. Do we need an archery-based sub as well? If Robin Hood is considered a prototype ranger, I'm not sure he fits that well into our 3 current subclasses.

Let's not get crazy here. Isn't Hunter the weapon subclass? I mean, you get a terrain themed ability, but it's a resistance, so it's doesn't exactly scream 'I love camping'.

Robin Hood is a rogue btw. That famous arrow-through-an-arrow is his ability to hit a single, precise, monster-killing blow = sneak attack.

... Well, then there's this (https://images.app.goo.gl/BoWuUsMPERguypYb7)

For a more 'many different ways to use a bow' I'm hoping to get a separate dedicated class, more akin to the 4e Ranger. Maybe Grod's Tome of Battle gets the ball rolling for that kind of stuff. Volley, twin strike etc.

[paladinn]

Let's not get crazy here. Isn't Hunter the weapon subclass? I mean, you get a terrain themed ability, but it's a resistance, so it's doesn't exactly scream 'I love camping'.

Robin Hood is a rogue btw. That famous arrow-through-an-arrow is his ability to hit a single, precise, monster-killing blow = sneak attack.

... Well, then there's this (https://images.app.goo.gl/BoWuUsMPERguypYb7)

For a more 'many different ways to use a bow' I'm hoping to get a separate dedicated class, more akin to the 4e Ranger. Maybe Grod's Tome of Battle gets the ball rolling for that kind of stuff. Volley, twin strike etc.

I'm sorry, Robin Hood was totally a fighter. He was a soldier in the Crusades before returning and taking refuge in Sherwood. The question is, was he more a ranger or a fighter with archery style?

And since when does splitting an arrow equate to a sneak attack??

[Kane0]

I haven't been able to keep up with everything the last few days. Where/is our current ranger build posted?

I like the Trailblazer label for the wilderness features. Is this going to include the survival-type abilities? I know a lot of them are ribbons, but still flavorful.

If we're seriously considering expanding our ranger class to include other genres besides wilderness (like the "urban ranger"), Trailblazer might not be a bad label for the "nature boy" build. Many genres can "hunt". Trailblazer definitely invokes the wilderness theme, leading more civilized folk into the wild.

Do we need an archery-based sub as well?

First post on page 1, I've been editing everything in.

With how... contentious... exploration abilities are that is still in flux. I'm trying to do essentially the opposite of Natural Explorer (which is to say *not* take away from the exploration pillar and make the player and DM *want* to engage in it). So far it's two broad bullets instead of four specific ones, if it goes down well i'll be editing it in shortly.

The hunter is modeled as the Ranger+ like the Champion is the Fighter+, there is deliberately less flavor added as it's supposed to be just more of the same. The Beastmaster and Warden add additional flavor to match the additional mechanics they incorporate.
Once we're done with those three i'll be starting on another two for a total of five. For one of them i'm thinking Stalker which focuses on stealth and ambush, not sure what the last one could be but something based on mobility and archery (ala 'keeping your distance') is an option, using something like the battlemaster or Arcane archer trick shots.

[Kane0]

'Instinctive Guidance'
'Exemplary explorer'
'Intuitive scout'

Names are hard.

[Moxxmix]

So we have a nature boy subclass, a beastmaster and a Warden/"junior druid" sub. Do we need an archery-based sub as well? If Robin Hood is considered a prototype ranger, I'm not sure he fits that well into our 3 current subclasses. Little John might've been more of a nature guy than Robin!

Hunter is a hunter, not a nature boy, per sé. It's abstract enough to be usable with either a natural or urban focus, though it has the flexibility to gain a bit of benefit from different environments.

As for Robin Hood... He is an odd mix of rogue (thief), fighter/paladin (crusader, leader), and ranger (ensuring fairness, leader, stereotypical bow). And while he is known for his skill with the bow, I recall parts of the stories where he beat Little John with the quarterstaff, so he was definitely no slouch with other weapons. Which in turn suggests that the bow part of it is just memorable, not intrinsic. Regardless, it's really hard to pin down.

Aside:

The way I imagine differentiating a rogue from a ranger is from a slight difference in how they'd express a certain sentiment. A rogue would say, "You can't have this; it's mine." A ranger would say, "You can't have this; it's not yours." That is, a rogue is territorial and possessive, whereas a ranger is less interested in making a personal claim than in preventing someone else from making an unfair claim. This is basically how I see a typical nature ranger views others with respect to others intruding on nature; not quite druid level of rejection, but not said with the presumption that the ranger is the "owner". This evolved from my attempts to distinguish the classes with respect to the urban ranger.


Anyway...

The Horizon Walker is still fine as a subclass concept. It takes the "traveler" aspect to the extreme. Gloom Stalker focuses on ambushes. Monster Slayer is a specialized version of Hunter, fitting in the Sam & Dean mold.

There's really nothing in the workshop subclasses or the Xanathar subclasses that really define a weapon for ranger — whether melee or ranged — although there is the one Quarry bonus which involves reach, which implies a preference for melee. It might be nice to provide a ranged counterpart of some type, but even that would just be keeping things balanced, rather than giving ranged a serious focus.

The only archetype example with a major focus on bows right now is the fighter's Arcane Archer. That grabs hold of pretty much all the major trick shot ideas I can think of, which in turn makes it difficult to come up with an entirely new idea. It'll be a bit tricky to pitch an idea for a ranger version that doesn't feel too redundant.

Even my list of ranger characters doesn't have any that feel like they're trying to seriously focus on the bow (even the Lone Ranger, using a gun instead, wasn't dominated by his weapon usage). Though if you branch out into more westerns, you might get more trick shot types. But, again, Arcane Archer.

[Kane0]

I'm not sold on Horizon Walker as a full archetype, it falls into same problem as the urban ranger. It's just a ranger in a different environment to the 'default', and as such I don't think it should have a subclass all to itself just like ranger-in-space shouldn't. Mechanically speaking, the Horizon Walker is all about mobility. I think that concept can be rolled into the Stalker or Slayer.

Also, the Stalker and Slayer would be a great place to provide distinct melee/ranged subclasses past the original three which would be more generic.

Edit: On the topic of subclasses, Beastmaster and Warden are filled in but still have to complete the Hunter. The level 3 feature needs to be weapon-neutral and missing later level features.

[Fnissalot]

I think the limited amount of ranger only spells, excluding hunter mark, could be added to the wardens selection of spells. Conjure barrage, cordon of arrows, ensnaring strike, hail of thorns, lightning arrow, and zephyr strike are all ok rangers spells to me. Swift quiver and conjure volley could be made into fourth level spells so that they still could use it.

Also, I as both a GM and player would prefer if the beastmaster's beastcall conjured an amount of beasts with a combined CR of 2 and greater beastcall with a combined CR of 4 instead of up to 12 beast each with a CR up to 1/2 or 1. Primarily because I hate conjuring large amounts of things because it slows down the game. This lets you conjure one big thing. Secondarily because I will mostly never feel as cheated out of it by my dm. For example, 1 rat will be dissappointing compared to 12 giant crabs. By summoning a combined CR you will get more consistent results across different tables.

[Bjarkmundur]

The level 11 Quarry feature. It feels off taking the mark of the creature. You reaction is already your resource for damage mitigation and saving throw, I think the opportunity cost of using your reaction to reroll the attack might work. What are your thoughts on this?

'At level 11, when you miss a marked enemy with an attack, you can forgo your Quarry damage and use your reaction to reroll the attack roll.'

Can I get a clear design goal for the Trailblazer feature. It still doesn't sit right with me, and I think it's because I'm not fully understanding the designer's intentions for the feature. Sorry I'm being such a hardass

Camouflage: Remove 'also'
Healing Salves: As a part of a long rest, you can prepare a number of healing salves equal to your Wisdom modifier...

Feral Senses: When making an attack against a creature you cannot see you do not do so at a disadvantage, and....

Foe Slayer: When you hit a creature you have marked as your Quarry, resolve the attack as it were a critical hit?

Animal Companion: Did you do some damage calculations on this? If you already triggered your Quarry damage this round, can the beast trigger it a second time?

Quarry Bonus: If the rogue is the flanking striker, can we make ranger the opposite? If a creature has no other creatures (allies?) within 5 feet of it, it triggers your quarry damage as if it were marked by your Quarry feature? The phrasing is sloppy, but it might give the player a cool feeling for targeting singled out creatures. It's not a strict damage boost, but more of a quality of life feature, like many of the rogue's sneak attack subclass features.

Can we swap Primal Awareness for

As a part of a short rest, you can inspect the area around you to determine the number and nature of the creatures that have moved through the area in the past 24 hours. You ascertain when and where they entered the area, as well as when and where they left. Once you use this feature....


I'm having a hard time articulating why this is so much more fun to use during a session than the 1-mile version, but it is.

Primal Assault: We have a pretty cool theme going with this Quarry thing. Do you like better what you have already or "When you target only your Quarry with a spell, you can forgo your Quarry damage bonus to gain advantage on the spell's attack roll or give the target a disadvantage on the spell's saving throw"

Instinctive Recovery: How about Natural Recovery? As a part of a short rest you meditate on your surroundings, drawing upon its natural power to restore your magic. Works similar to arcane recovery and really pushes the nature-as-a-power-source? 1/LR?

[Kane0]

I think the limited amount of ranger only spells, excluding hunter mark, could be added to the wardens selection of spells. Conjure barrage, cordon of arrows, ensnaring strike, hail of thorns, lightning arrow, and zephyr strike are all ok rangers spells to me. Swift quiver and conjure volley could be made into fourth level spells so that they still could use it.

Also, I as both a GM and player would prefer if the beastmaster's beastcall conjured an amount of beasts with a combined CR of 2 and greater beastcall with a combined CR of 4 instead of up to 12 beast each with a CR up to 1/2 or 1. Primarily because I hate conjuring large amounts of things because it slows down the game. This lets you conjure one big thing. Secondarily because I will mostly never feel as cheated out of it by my dm. For example, 1 rat will be dissappointing compared to 12 giant crabs. By summoning a combined CR you will get more consistent results across different tables.
I'm currently doing the lazy thing and adjusting the ranger spells then putting them on the druid list.



The level 11 Quarry feature. It feels off taking the mark of the creature. You reaction is already your resource for damage mitigation and saving throw, I think the opportunity cost of using your reaction to reroll the attack might work. What are your thoughts on this?

'At level 11, when you miss a marked enemy with an attack, you can forgo your Quarry damage and use your reaction to reroll the attack roll.'

As a rule of thumb it's considered good practice to avoid features that use reactions during your turn.



Can I get a clear design goal for the Trailblazer feature. It still doesn't sit right with me, and I think it's because I'm not fully understanding the designer's intentions for the feature. Sorry I'm being such a hardass

In short, it's a good version of Natural explorer. It's a secondary feature for the level (after Quarry) that is supposed to enhance the ranger in the exploration pillar. It is also to cement the flavor of the ranger early on.
Sorry if that's a bit ambiguous, but that's sort of the problem.



Animal Companion: Did you do some damage calculations on this? If you already triggered your Quarry damage this round, can the beast trigger it a second time?

Not at all. The intent is that the beast can benefit from your quarry damage just like you, so you set it up and the both of you get the bonus damage



Quarry Bonus: If the rogue is the flanking striker, can we make ranger the opposite? If a creature has no other creatures (allies?) within 5 feet of it, it triggers your quarry damage as if it were marked by your Quarry feature? The phrasing is sloppy, but it might give the player a cool feeling for targeting singled out creatures. It's not a strict damage boost, but more of a quality of life feature, like many of the rogue's sneak attack subclass features.

That is a solid concept, I'll see what I can whip up!



Can we swap Primal Awareness for

As a part of a short rest, you can inspect the area around you to determine the number and nature of the creatures that have moved through the area in the past 24 hours. You ascertain when and where they entered the area, as well as when and where they left. Once you use this feature....


That seems like something survival could conceivably cover already, especially since you could be adding double proficiency AND double wisdom.



Instinctive Recovery: How about Natural Recovery? As a part of a short rest you meditate on your surroundings, drawing upon its natural power to restore your magic. Works similar to arcane recovery and really pushes the nature-as-a-power-source? 1/LR?

I specifically wanted to avoid that because Wizards and Druids are fullcasters that get that before 2nd level spells, you would be getting it faaaar later and that just feels bad. Just like the PHB ranger getting watered-down cunning action way too late.

[Jaxby]

I'm trying to do essentially the opposite of Natural Explorer (which is to say *not* take away from the exploration pillar and make the player and DM *want* to engage in it).

I agree whole heartedly with this assumption.


The hunter is modeled as the Ranger+ like the Champion is the Fighter+, there is deliberately less flavor added as it's supposed to be just more of the same. The Beastmaster and Warden add additional flavor to match the additional mechanics they incorporate.

I also think this is a good design choice.


Edit: On the topic of subclasses, Beastmaster and Warden are filled in but still have to complete the Hunter.

Some great new additions! I particularly like your Instinctive Recovery. It's new, it's fresh, and it takes the edge off of those moments where you feel like you wasted resources for nothing.
I think the Beastcall features are realy cool, but I also have never played a beastmaster (not realy my thing), nor have I ever played at a table with a summoner-type player. So I have never experienced a situation where lots of minions slow everything to a crawl.


Quarry Bonus: If the rogue is the flanking striker, can we make ranger the opposite? If a creature has no other creatures (allies?) within 5 feet of it, it triggers your quarry damage as if it were marked by your Quarry feature?

Seeing as Quarry rewards a player for attacking the same target several times, wont this go against that, by rewarding attacks on new, "un-quarry'ed" targets? Though it would of course give you the quarry dmg bonus on the first strike, at which point you can mark them, and you can carry on as usual.

You could maybe just add to the current one, that if you are wielding a ranged weapon, and your quarry moves more than 30 feet away from you, you can attack it once as a reaction.

Alternatively you could make the feature be "if your quarry moves less than 5 feet during its turn (stand still), you can use your reaction to attack it once". Emulating how modern day hunters often wait until their target stands still, so you are more certain of a clean shot.


Can we swap Primal Awareness for ...

I'm having a hard time articulating why this is so much more fun to use during a session than the 1-mile version, but it is.

I can see what you are getting at. The latter version seems more like actively searching and being a ranger, rather than just going Ping like a sonar. But I also think Kane0 is right in saying, that the "what has passed here in the last 24 hours" would be pretty well covered by a good survival roll.

Speaking of: Is it not a bit too strong, that the Ranger also benefits from his own guiding? As you mentioned, Kane0, the Ranger can potentially get double wisdom mod and double prof to a survival check. Potentially a whopping +22 on the roll.
Though guiding a wise rogue could lead to the same thing of course, I would think it less likely for a rogue to have 20 wisdom.


I'm currently doing the lazy thing and adjusting the ranger spells then putting them on the druid list.

Maybe some of the druid spells should be removed from the final list? Just to avoid the ranger getting access to a wider selection of spells than the full casting druid.


Hunter's Terrain Adaptation:
I know, that tying a specific damage type to a whole terrain type will to some degree always be a stretch. But I was looking at the current ones, and the Forest: Acid kind of sticks out to me.
What is it about forests that make you resistant to acid? With that in mind, I thought I'd give my thoughts on them:

Arctic: Cold - pretty straight forward
Desert: Fire - possibly radiant for the scorching sun. but fire is the go to desert resistance in dnd
Coast: Lightning - or thunder, but lightning is more iconic
Forest: Piercing - thorns n' stuff. Or bludgeoning/force - falling branches n' stuff
Grassland: Thunder, lightning or fire - for being caught in the open during storms and also wildfires
Swamp: Poison - The iconic go-to.
Underground: Necrotic - acid might work here, but necrotic is also fine
Urban: Psychic - Makes sense.

Edit: spelling

[Connington]

Trailblazer:
- Climb or Swim speed equal to your movement
- While travelling, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom ability checks and saving throws you or your allies make.
So in practice this could stack with the Help action but won't typically work with Guidance or Resistance due to their casting time/durations.

This is great, but why make players choose between a climb speed and a swim speed? Reasons:

1. Power: Neither is a gamebreaker, even at Level 1. WoTC came this close to giving them both out essentially for free as the Mariner fighting style. A climbing speed is still way less flexible than Spider Climb, and a swimming speed isn't that great without a source of oxygen.
2. Parity: I'd expect most players to pick a climbing speed unless they had a backstory that seemed to "require" a swim speed. Lopsided choices like that are bad.
3. Flexibility: A permanent choice like this at first level carries a "Favored Terrain" risk. If you pick swimming speed and the DM never includes fording a river as a challenge, you feel like you've missed out.

I'd say just give Rangers both. And edit the table entry to also read Trailblazer.

I really like the 2nd benefit. It's super-generic in a way that plays well with all kinds of travel rules, and actually plays into their mechanics instead of skipping over them. Everyone's going to notice when they get +3 to their con saves against the freezing rain, or similar. I would consider keeping the "traveling for more than an hour" clause, just to clarify that it doesn't apply to action scenes.

[Kane0]

Is it not a bit too strong, that the Ranger also benefits from his own guiding? As you mentioned, Kane0, the Ranger can potentially get double wisdom mod and double prof to a survival check. Potentially a whopping +22 on the roll.
Though guiding a wise rogue could lead to the same thing of course, I would think it less likely for a rogue to have 20 wisdom.

Potentially, but you'd need to be in Tier 4 plus have a 20 in your secondary/tertiary stat in order to do so. That's the kind of stage I believe you should be able to make DC 30 checks without much trouble. Also, travelling is a party activity so you're really looking at the lower numbers than the higher ones in many cases, the human fighter with 12 Wis is really going to need every bonus you can provide.



Maybe some of the druid spells should be removed from the final list? Just to avoid the ranger getting access to a wider selection of spells than the full casting druid.

Eh. EK/AT uses the Wizard list and I see no problem with them ignoring the school restrictions. I've argued in thread about that in the past.



Hunter's Terrain Adaptation:
I know, that tying a specific damage type to a whole terrain type will to some degree always be a stretch. But I was looking at the current ones, and the Forest: Acid kind of sticks out to me.

I could swap Swamp and Forest to match the dragons you'd typically encounter there.



This is great, but why make players choose between a climb speed and a swim speed? Reasons:

1. Power: Neither is a gamebreaker, even at Level 1. WoTC came this close to giving them both out essentially for free as the Mariner fighting style. A climbing speed is still way less flexible than Spider Climb, and a swimming speed isn't that great without a source of oxygen.
2. Parity: I'd expect most players to pick a climbing speed unless they had a backstory that seemed to "require" a swim speed. Lopsided choices like that are bad.
3. Flexibility: A permanent choice like this at first level carries a "Favored Terrain" risk. If you pick swimming speed and the DM never includes fording a river as a challenge, you feel like you've missed out.

1: It is indeed not a gamebreaker (races can fly from lvl 1) but this is the secondary feature of the level so I don't want to just hand out things all over the place, and I think Mariner didn't reach print for a couple reasons.
2: I've actually experienced the opposite in some cases, grapples + rope is a great substitute for climbing in many cases where the same couldn't be done for swimming. I'd say both are intended to be equally useful in the grand scheme, but that varies from game to game and table to table.
3: Same risk as picking a race or class or subclass or ASI. RPGs are sort of built on decisionmaking, the kid gloves have to be taken off at some point. Besides it's not a huge deal as you say, and lenient DMs can (not to mention explicitly in the case of AL) allow you to change that if you've made a mistake
4: There are many character concepts that just don't make sense having both. I personally found it pretty jarring that Rey could swim out of that blowhole without difficulty.

[Moxxmix]

Also, I as both a GM and player would prefer if the beastmaster's beastcall conjured an amount of beasts with a combined CR of 2 and greater beastcall with a combined CR of 4 instead of up to 12 beast each with a CR up to 1/2 or 1. Primarily because I hate conjuring large amounts of things because it slows down the game. This lets you conjure one big thing. Secondarily because I will mostly never feel as cheated out of it by my dm. For example, 1 rat will be dissappointing compared to 12 giant crabs. By summoning a combined CR you will get more consistent results across different tables.
I don't think that that's quite as necessary, because the base feature of Beastcall isn't meant for combat. It's summoning beasts, and then having a dozen wolves walk out of the forest all around you, or a swarm of rats spring up on every available surface. Its primary purpose is social and exploration. It's possible for it to lead to combat assistance (eg: a pack of wolves descending on your enemies, seemingly coming out of nowhere, because they owe you a favor, or maybe the pack leader allowing a couple of the hunter wolves to join you in a fight), but such assistance is separate from the direct use of this feature.

Basically, I'd actually go the other direction and get rid of specific numbers. Whether you have 3 wolves or 30 wolves or 3000 rats, that's just a matter of decorating the scene. Any discussions will be with a single entity that speaks for the group (eg: pack leader), and the consequence of a favor is again purely narrative. (EG: How many rats do you need to chew through the ropes tying up the horses in the enemy camp? It doesn't really matter.)

Greater Beastcall, on the other hand, would be where you'd call up to CR[X] of a creature, as that's more amenable to being used as a combat maneuver.


Hunter's Terrain Adaptation:
I know, that tying a specific damage type to a whole terrain type will to some degree always be a stretch. But I was looking at the current ones, and the Forest: Acid kind of sticks out to me.
What is it about forests that make you resistant to acid? With that in mind, I thought I'd give my thoughts on them:

Arctic: Cold - pretty straight forward
Desert: Fire - possibly radiant for the scorching sun. but fire is the go to desert resistance in dnd
Coast: Lightning - or thunder, but lightning is more iconic
Forest: Piercing - thorns n' stuff. Or bludgeoning/force - falling branches n' stuff
Grassland: Thunder, lightning or fire - for being caught in the open during storms and also wildfires
Swamp: Poison - The iconic go-to.
Underground: Necrotic - acid might work here, but necrotic is also fine
Urban: Psychic - Makes sense.

Maybe allow the flexibility explicitly? Give a couple options per environment, and let you pick one? It may be too much complication on the the subclass that is intended to be less complicated, but perhaps something like:



Environment
Resistance Option 1
Resistance Option 2


Arctic
Cold
Force


Coast (Sea)
Lightning
Bludgeoning


Desert
Fire
Radiant


Forest
Piercing
Poison


Grassland
Thunder
Fire


Swamp
Poison
Acid


Underground
Necrotic
Psychic


Urban
Psychic
Slashing



Notes:
Urban - There ought to be a useful resistance for urban, and while it is an appropriate place to put psychic resistance, psychic damage is a bit on the rare side, and may make the urban resistance feel like a waste. Slashing (ie: swords) feels appropriate enough to fit into the urban setting while not giving overall physical resistance.

Likewise piercing fits the forest. I'd avoid bludgeoning, though, as having two physical resistance options sounds like a bad idea.

Is "Coast" an appropriate environment on its own? And "Sea" is missing. Lightning and the crashing waves (bludgeoning) feel like they'd be a good fit if the environment is the sea, which can go all the way up the coast. Coast comes from the PHB. There's also "Undersea", which is definitely a more unusual environment, but isn't too hard to mesh with sea/coast.

Not sure on grasslands. I'd want something relevant to tornados, but that's just bludgeoning, and I'd prefer something magical as the primary. Force, maybe? Eh, Thunder works.

I put Force as the secondary in Arctic, in remembrance of Land of the Lustrous, with Phos being crushed in the ice flows.

Really not sure what to put as the second option for Forest. It should be a magic damage type, but none of them seem to fit. Overall... probably poison. That's not uncommon.


And then there's the question of when environments overlap. What about a city on the coast (eg: Waterdeep)? What about elven tree cities? Are they urban or forest? Dwarven cities carved out of the mountains? Are they underground?

Despite the obvious desire for an urban environment type, it gets rather complicated to see how to rule on what counts as urban. Waterdeep might certainly count for urban, but would a little farming village with a handful of houses? Or is that still just grassland/farmland? It's probably not too hard to come up with a threshold (eg: An urban environment is a permanent settlement where most of the people who reside there do not provide their own living resources, such as food.), but there's still issues of overlap.

I suppose the easiest way to deal with it is just to say that urban overrides any other environment that the city may be built in/around. May also give the ranger motivation to stay in the nearby wilderness, if that wilderness gives him resistances that he'd prefer.

Also, if I were to add extra complications to the rules, I'd probably make it so that after your first long rest you could choose the primary resistance of the environment, and after a second long rest (or more) in the same environment you could choose from either resistance column. That's likely going overboard, though.

[Bjarkmundur]

I could swap Swamp and Forest to match the dragons you'd typically encounter there.

It would actually be a nice bit of consistency to just have the entire feature to be based on the terrain's iconic dragon. I think it's a nice bit of trivia, and makes sure that when the biggest, baddest thing in a region attacks you, you have the appropriate resistance up.

I'm actually kinda in love with the idea, honestly.

.. Like, really in love with the idea.

"Aww man, but the terrain resistances feel weird. I mean, how does that even work?"
"Ah you see, it's designed so the Hunter always has resistance to that terrain's dragon type. The hunter is aware of who's on top of the food chain, and has no intention of becoming the prey"

That's the most metal reasoning behind a class feature I've heard, and I designed a barbarian subclass that can use a hit dice to give a Greataxe the thrown property, so I've seen my fair share of badass class features.

[Moxxmix]

It would actually be a nice bit of consistency to just have the entire feature to be based on the terrain's iconic dragon. I think it's a nice bit of trivia, and makes sure that when the biggest, baddest thing in a region attacks you, you have the appropriate resistance up.

I'm actually kinda in love with the idea, honestly.

.. Like, really in love with the idea.

"Aww man, but the terrain resistances feel weird. I mean, how does that even work?"
"Ah you see, it's designed so the Hunter always has resistance to that terrain's dragon type. The hunter is aware of who's on top of the food chain, and has no intention of becoming the prey"

That's the most metal reasoning behind a class feature I've heard, and I designed a barbarian subclass that can use a hit dice to give a Greataxe the thrown property, so I've seen my fair share of badass class features.

Hmmm...



Dragon
Environment
Damage Type


Black
Swamp
Acid


Blue
Barren - Desert/Steppe/Badlands/Coast
Lightning


Green
Forest
Poison


Red
Mountains/Underground
Fire


White
Arctic/Mountaintop
Cold


Brass
Desert
Fire


Bronze
Coast
Lightning


Copper
Grasslands
Acid


Gold
Lakes/Rivers
Fire


Silver
Mountaintop
Cold



Then translating to the other table...



Environment
Resistance Option 1
Resistance Option 2
Dragon Resistance


Arctic
Cold
Force
Cold


Coast (Sea)
Lightning
Bludgeoning
Lightning


Desert
Fire
Radiant
Fire


Forest
Poison
Piercing
Poison


Swamp
Acid
Poison
Acid


Grassland
Thunder
Fire
Acid


Underground
Necrotic
Psychic
Fire


Urban
Psychic
Slashing
N/A



There's a decent, though not complete matchup. Grassland and Underground diverge (and duplicate other environment elements), and there's no corresponding value for Urban.

Aside: The first resistance option is the best match for the dragon, and the second resistance option is more derived from the environment itself. Though, again, not quite matching up in the last three environments.

[Kane0]

Okay so I've updated Terrain Adaption as suggested. The only thing that might catch a Ranger out is the odd rogue Copper dragon living in mountainous terrain.

Edit: Also the only double-ups of damage types are Fire, Cold and Poison, makes sense as those are the three most common types outside of the physical three.

[Moxxmix]

Okay so I've updated Terrain Adaption as suggested. The only thing that might catch a Ranger out is the odd rogue Copper dragon living in mountainous terrain.

Edit: Also the only double-ups of damage types are Fire, Cold and Poison, makes sense as those are the three most common types outside of the physical three.

I notice you combined Grasslands and Forest into Plains/Forest, and also added "Highland", which I assume means areas that are vaguely to very mountainous. While this diverges from the PHB officially recognized environments, it feels more appropriate, and I think is a reasonable choice.

[paladinn]

I'm currently doing the lazy thing and adjusting the ranger spells then putting them on the druid list.


Hello sir.. At the risk of being a downer, I have to say that I wouldn't be in favor of something like this. There are some spells on the current ranger list that should Not be druid spells, if they are spells at all. Cordon of Arrows, Lightning Arrow, Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley and Swift Quiver all build on a ranger's presumably taking the Archery fighting style, which is not an option for a druid.

I think one of the issues I have with 5e classes in general, especially those that have come after the PHB, is the tendency to cram as much "stuff" into a class as possible. In some cases, more isn't always more.

Just my $.02

[Kane0]

Hello sir.. At the risk of being a downer, I have to say that I wouldn't be in favor of something like this. There are some spells on the current ranger list that should Not be druid spells, if they are spells at all. Cordon of Arrows, Lightning Arrow, Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley and Swift Quiver all build on a ranger's presumably taking the Archery fighting style, which is not an option for a druid.

I think one of the issues I have with 5e classes in general, especially those that have come after the PHB, is the tendency to cram as much "stuff" into a class as possible. In some cases, more isn't always more.

Just my $.02

Because druids don't get proficiencies with bows I think it's something of a self-correcting problem. Gives some incentive to be an elven druid at least, and the entire point of the Warden is to add in spellcasting, blend it into the features the base class already has and not much else. I don't see how a druid shouldn't have those spells, there is precedent with what they already have.
A handful of unique spells I don't think justifies a whole new list, no other 1/3 caster gets their own list even the half casters lists are just stripped down versions of another with those handful sprinkled in.

However, I am guilty of just taking the easiest route on this one. I actually really like PF2s themed spell lists approach, it really streamlines things.

[paladinn]

Because druids don't get proficiencies with bows I think it's something of a self-correcting problem. Gives some incentive to be an elven druid at least, and the entire point of the Warden is to add in spellcasting, blend it into the features the base class already has and not much else. I don't see how a druid shouldn't have those spells, there is precedent with what they already have.
A handful of unique spells I don't think justifies a whole new list, no other 1/3 caster gets their own list even the half casters lists are just stripped down versions of another with those handful sprinkled in.

However, I am guilty of just taking the easiest route on this one. I actually really like PF2s themed spell lists approach, it really streamlines things.

I remember in 1e and BECMI, paladins just used the cleric list, and rangers used the druid (and MU) list. The lists were limited when 2e rolled around.

Part of me still prefers rangers and paladins to be spell-less. But then a lot of class features can be handled via spells. That was the BECMI route.

I guess outside of Hunter's Mark, which you're replacing with the Quarry feature, I don't find most of the ranger spells to be spell-worthy.

[Bjarkmundur]

I guess outside of Hunter's Mark, which you're replacing with the Quarry feature, I don't find most of the ranger spells to be spell-worthy.

I mostly agree. Keep it simple, just use the druid list as is, at least for the forum version of this rework.

[Jaxby]

Eh. EK/AT uses the Wizard list and I see no problem with them ignoring the school restrictions. I've argued in thread about that in the past.


I mostly agree. Keep it simple, just use the druid list as is, at least for the forum version of this rework.

I'm not saying, that I'm against using the druid list per ce. I think it's a nice way of doing it. I do want to add the ranger spells though. Zephyr Strike, Flame Arrows etc., in the reduced power lvl form that was previously described. I think those spells are realy cool for the ranger. I hadn't understood, that you would simply add them to the druid spell list. Seeing as the druid and ranger then share the same pool, I have no qualms with that solution.


Is "Coast" an appropriate environment on its own? And "Sea" is missing. .... Coast comes from the PHB. There's also "Undersea", which is definitely a more unusual environment, but isn't too hard to mesh with sea/coast.

I always figured, that coast covered all the marine environments. I think they just called it coast since most societies associated with the ocean lives at the coast and not actually in the sea.


And then there's the question of when environments overlap. What about a city on the coast (eg: Waterdeep)? What about elven tree cities? Are they urban or forest? Dwarven cities carved out of the mountains? Are they underground? .... Despite the obvious desire for an urban environment type, it gets rather complicated to see how to rule on what counts as urban.

I don't see this as becoming a big problem as long as the DM and the ranger are reasonable. The DM should just decide what makes sense to him. And then be clear about which bonus the ranger will get if resting in a certain area. After all, the DM decides which monsters (and which damage types the monsters have) the players are going to encounter. So if you have urban-like encounters planned, tell the ranger, that this counts as an urban area.


Maybe allow the flexibility explicitly? Give a couple options per environment, and let you pick one? It may be too much complication on the the subclass that is intended to be less complicated, but perhaps something like: ....

I started out thinking that all these charts with several damage types were getting complicated, but after reading the current feature it actually looks pretty cool. It stays thematic due to change on long rest/environment, but also gives the players some choices.

[Bjarkmundur]

Since you can only, have kné quarry at a time you could have the hunter mini cap include

Your Quarry duration is increased to 24 hours or until you mark another creature, whichever comes first. In addition, you always have means of discerning the route which your quarry has taken since being marked. If your quarry is on another plane you instead know which plane it has relocated to.

Something something

[Moxxmix]

Minor note, but I realized that you'd put Extra Attack and Expertise in your table, but not in the list of skills below. Since I was mainly only reviewing the features as described, and not the table, I was thinking you hadn't given ranger Extra Attack. Can you make sure to include all features in the prose section as well as on the table?

[Bjarkmundur]

I was thinking you hadn't given ranger Extra Attack.

Also, do you want to give the base class Extra Attack, or do you want to use the design space to instead have the subclasses grant a big thematic combat feature. It would effectively have the same power level as extra attack, but would allow you to make it more in line with the subclass. Just a thought.

Hunter: Extra Attack
Beastmaster: Combined Attack

If the design guideline is 'something that changes your attack action and is in line with extra attack's power level' the warden could nature-augment his attack.

[Kane0]

Since you can only, have kné quarry at a time you could have the hunter mini cap include

Your Quarry duration is increased to 24 hours or until you mark another creature, whichever comes first. In addition, you always have means of discerning the route which your quarry has taken since being marked. If your quarry is on another plane you instead know which plane it has relocated to.

Multi-mark is also another idea, for example having up to three Quarries each one lasting one hour.


Minor note, but I realized that you'd put Extra Attack and Expertise in your table, but not in the list of skills below. Since I was mainly only reviewing the features as described, and not the table, I was thinking you hadn't given ranger Extra Attack. Can you make sure to include all features in the prose section as well as on the table?

Also, do you want to give the base class Extra Attack, or do you want to use the design space to instead have the subclasses grant a big thematic combat feature. It would effectively have the same power level as extra attack, but would allow you to make it more in line with the subclass. Just a thought.

Ah yes, added those in.
I could but I think you lose the simplicity (look at Artificer's version of Extra Attack, to me it just feels wrong). If we need to curb beast power we can do it the same way shoves work (by replacing one of your attacks). Syncs with TWF and other things that trigger on the attack action better too IMO.

Edit: Things are looking really good now! I've cleaned up some items including the wording of Nature's Boon, we just need the level 14 Hunter defensive ability and I think we can hit the polish and playtesting stage!

[Moxxmix]

Doing a review of how the class scales by tier.

Tier 1: Quarry, Trailblazer, Nature's Boon, Keen Eye, and subclass. You get a bit of extra damage in Quarry, movement and guide aspects in Trailblazer, Search as a bonus action with Keen Eye, and the basic feature of the subclass.

It does not feel front-loaded. You get a decent breadth of features for both combat and exploration, which are the primary pillars for the ranger. It's broad enough to allow an easy start for most concepts, without the guessing games of Favored Terrain/Enemies.

Tier 2: Extra Attack, Expertise, Quarry defense, Nature's Boon improvement, and two subclass features (first utility, then combat). You get your standard boost to combat at the start of the tier, with Extra Attack, and another boost at the end of the tier, where you might want the boost for the endgame of the tier. The other features are a mix of utility, defense, and exploration, making sure the ranger retains relevance throughout.

Feels decently balanced.

Tier 3: Quarry reroll, Feral Senses, Unfettered Movement, subclass defense feature. Basically, lots of defense tools, to make it easier to survive as the game difficulty likely starts ramping up. Not much in the way of flash. Also gets two ASIs in this tier, at the beginning and the end, which can provide the more flashy options if desired, since stats have likely been solidified.

Tier 4: Opens with a boost to utility (Greater Nature's Boon), then adds subclass capstone (primarily offense) and class capstone (heavy offense), plus the usual ASI. Overall, this is the big final push. Defense needs were all solidified in tier 3, so this is primarily offense with a bit of utility. Seems appropriate for the tier.

~~~~

Since Quarry is supposed to work with spellcasting, trying to imagine, say, a Sorcerer 6/ Ranger 7 build. Level 3 spells and sorcerer 6 subclass feature, along with ranger's Extra Attack and level 7 subclass feature.

Looking at various multiclass combos at level 13 (because it's a convenient combo of level 7 subclass feature for ranger and level 6 subclass feature for other classes).

Warden 7 / Divine Soul 6 - More support focused
Gloomstalker 7 / Shadow Sorcerer 6 - All the ambushes
Hunter 7 / Shadow Sorcerer 6 - I am the night!
Hunter 7 / Vengeance Paladin 6 - Basic Batman
Beastmaster 7 / Storm Sorcerer 6 - NPC only, probably, but fun on the seas.

What happens with Ranger/Druid?

Hunter|Beastmaster 7 / Moon Circle 6 - CR2 Wild Shape, not including flyers. Likely improved speed. Beast form attacks are magical. Extra Attack applies? Gives up some ranger features for a ton of temp HP, plus easy climb/swim movement options.


Aside: Interesting to note that Land druids get a Mountain terrain option. So the designers knew the terrain type, but didn't include it in all places. Coast terrain for druid also grants Water Breathing as a bonus spell, supporting the idea that Coast includes sea/underwater.


Not seeing anything that feels broken with multiclassing. There's some interesting combos, but subject to the usual multiclassing problems of leveling up to critical points.

[Kane0]

One that jumps to mind is MCing out of Warden Ranger 10 to get essentially two attacks and a free quickened spell with damage bonus, like a straight up better version of EK's War Magic tactic.

[Moxxmix]

Edit: Things are looking really good now! I've cleaned up some items including the wording of Nature's Boon, we just need the level 14 Hunter defensive ability and I think we can hit the polish and playtesting stage!
Well, looking at what Hunter has:

Quarry (6) - Reduce damage taken, or increase saving throw against attack by quarry target.
Terrain Adaptation (7) - Resistance against one damage type.

Notably, both Beastmaster and Warden's level 7 ability is pure utility — either ritual casting or summoning beasts. Hunter takes the utility spot at level 7 and uses it for defense, though it's a more general form, and not for specific events.

Plundered options at level 14:
Evasion (half damage instead of full damage, or no damage instead of half damage, for dex saves)
Uncanny Dodge: Half damage on a single attack

The question is, how does a Hunter's defense work? What would a Hunter do to protect himself in a fight? What would a Lone Ranger or Batman do that hasn't already been accounted for (eg: armor, cover, ambush/hide, etc)?

Base class provides counters to invisible attackers and movement reduction at levels 13 and 15. Beastmaster and Warden use reactions to gain resistance to the attack (essentially Uncanny Dodge variants). My first instinct is something tied to Quarry (because the Hunter is more target-focused than the others), but that already has the level 6 feature that is similar. +1d10 to a saving throw is better than advantage, and -1d10 is a pretty good chunk of damage removed, even if it might not be half of higher-damage attacks.

Perhaps a party support defense? Harry the quarry with attacks to prevent it from being able to focus on other targets?


Your quarry has disadvantage on attacks made against creatures other than you.

That may be overpowered on boss fights, though. Bear Totem barbarian has a similar feature, but it's limited to within 5', and the creature needs to see or hear you, and not be immune to fear. Battlemaster fighter has the Goading Attack maneuver which does the same thing, but is not limited by weapon type. Instead, it requires a saving throw, and only lasts one turn. Ancestral Guardian barbarian gets the feature at level 3. It requires hitting the target with an attack, but notably does not limit it to melee attacks. It's difficult to combine with the barbarian's preferred two-handed weapons and extra attacks without being in melee, though.

So, the option is certainly there, and I could see a Hunter using this tactic to maintain the quarry's attention. It comes in a bit late, but I think it fits in well with the other tier 3 defense options. Since the Quarry effect only lasts one turn at a time, and has to be renewed each turn...

Maybe something like:


When you mark a creature as your quarry, you may force that creature to have disadvantage on attacks made against creatures other than you, until the end of your next turn. You can use this feature up to a number of times equal to your Wis modifier (minimum 1), and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.

This leaves it as the somewhat more powerful version, but limited in uses per day.

[Kane0]

Notably, both Beastmaster and Warden's level 7 ability is pure utility — either ritual casting or summoning beasts. Hunter takes the utility spot at level 7 and uses it for defense, though it's a more general form, and not for specific events.


Oh that's actually a good point, we could probably put a utility feature in there if level 7 took defense. Also makes sense because levels 13 and 15 both have combat features.

Hmm. Level 14 is definitely past the stage where parties will be roughing it in the woods and rolling survival to track things, perhaps something to keep it relevant around the casters with access to 7th level spells.

[Bjarkmundur]

Things are looking really good now! I've cleaned up some items

Wow, that last clean-up was huge!
Ca we split the Quarry, Quarry Improvement and Improved Quarry text box into three different entries? I think it reads better; seeing the abilities the base class gains chronologically. It's a nit pick, for sure xD

[Jaxby]

Multi-mark is also another idea, for example having up to three Quarries each one lasting one hour.

I think it makes sense to improve in the quarry feature in some way as a capstone, since the hunter is Ranger+. However, making it "you can mark 3 creatures as one" doesn't feel like a big bonus for the ranger. Firstly, he has to attack each creature to mark them, going against the "stay on one target" philosophy. Then, I'm not sure the ranger would want to spread his attack out over 3 targets, even if they were all marked. Thirdly, the lvl 10 feature (the area attack) already marks several targets, should you wish to do that. Which means, that grouped enemies will get marked and then hit with the aoe attack again next turn.

So I think increased duration makes sense, but since that alone is a bit weak for a capstone, maybe there should be an additional effect.


When it comes to the utility feature, I was thinking, that since the ranger at that time is already good at traveling, and traveling is made a bit superfluous by the casters, maybe focus on the "arrival" instead. As in; your group flies/teleports you in and you have now arrived. What gives the ranger an edge here?! Does he emmidiately know something about the location based on his experience with previous travels? Does he have a bad feeling about this, giving him some kind of advantage?

[paladinn]

When we began this thread, many on the forum were saying the the ranger lacked focus. No one knew what the ranger's "thing" was. I suggested that, if the class doesn't have a "thing", it could be folded into the fighter class as a subclass. Since 3x, and maybe since 2e, the ranger has seemed to have 3 "foci": the stealthy fighter/rogue hybrid, the junior druid, and the animal guy. We have separated those foci into ranger subclasses with the hunter, the warden and the beastmaster. Thishas been all well and good; but I still come back to my question: What is the ranger's "thing"?

A lot of great thought and work have gone into this effort. To my mind, the greatest development has been the Quarry feature to replace the sad Favored Enemy. But I still don't think it's sufficient to be the ranger's "thing".

I would like to propose cloning the fighter Eldritch Knight subclass and modifying as follows:

1. Use the same fighter progression and spell progression, using the Druid spell list (of course)

2. Natural Explorer just becomes a given, since much of it is ribbons anyway

3. At level 3, instead of "Weapon Bond", have a choice between Beast Bond or Land Bond. Allow whatever Beastmaster or Primeval Awareness features (and Land's Stride) would work. Let the features develop as one levels up.

4. Have Quarry kick in at level 7 instead of War Magic. Allow a Quarry improvement at 10.

5. At 15, instead of Arcane Charge, have a combination of Hide in Plain Sight and Vanish, and maybe Feral Senses.

6. At 18, use whatever replacement for Foe Slayer you come up with.

That gets you most if not all of the distinguishing features of rangers, while also giving more attacks and ASI's. And we're not trying to invent more features to justify a class' existence.

Peace!

[Bjarkmundur]

Have Quarry kick in at level 7?
Are you suggesting a complete rewrite?
If so, make the current version available somewhere as Mark 1, so I can use it for my game!

What is a ranger's thing?
Well he is a competent fighter that harries his foe with a relentless barrage, until there is only one left standing. If the ranger knows who you are, he will find a way to defeat you. With each minute spent fighting you, he is learning how to defeat you. The ranger is the epitome of the self-sufficient survivor. When outmatched, he becomes invisible, indistinguishable from his surroundings. When the fight draw long he has healing to help him survive. Whether it is a glorious battle in the mountain tops or against a terryfing Kraken in the middle of the sea; the Ranger does not slow down. He commands his weapon, he commands the animals, and he commands nature itself, as the subclasses serve as a sliding scale between the Martial and Nature domains.

The Fighter is strong. The Barbarian is strong. The Ranger isn't strong, he's good. To the Ranger, every match up is a favorable matchup. The Fighter has to hack, and the Barbarian conjures all his might. To the Ranger, the same creature appears weak. Same goes for the elements. The Barbarian can tread water for hours, but the Ranger instead opts to have the sea's current bring him back to shore on their own.

Now, what is Batman's thing?

[paladinn]

Have Quarry kick in at level 7?
Are you suggesting a complete rewrite?
If so, make the current version available somewhere as Mark 1, so I can use it for my game!

What is a ranger's thing?
Well he is a competent fighter that harries his foe with a relentless barrage, until there is only one left standing. If the ranger knows who you are, he will find a way to defeat you. With each minute spent fighting you, he is learning how to defeat you. The ranger is the epitome of the self-sufficient survivor. When outmatched, he becomes invisible, indistinguishable from his surroundings. When the fight draw long he has healing to help him survive. Whether it is a glorious battle in the mountain tops or against a terryfing Kraken in the middle of the sea; the Ranger does not slow down. He commands his weapon, he commands the animals, and he commands nature itself, as the subclasses serve as a sliding scale between the Martial and Nature domains.

The Fighter is strong. The Barbarian is strong. The Ranger isn't strong, he's good. To the Ranger, every match up is a favorable matchup. The Fighter has to hack, and the Barbarian conjures all his might. To the Ranger, the same creature appears weak. Same goes for the elements. The Barbarian can tread water for hours, but the Ranger instead opts to have the sea's current bring him back to shore on their own.

Now, what is Batman's thing?

I'm not doing anything to affect what Kane0 and y'all have done. Just thinking "out loud". Sorry to alarm you.

I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm not doing anything to affect what Kane0 and y'all have done. Just thinking "out loud". Sorry to alarm you.

I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

Sorry about the freak-out xD.
This is your class :D

[paladinn]

Sorry about the freak-out xD.
This is your class :D

Not anymore.. I'm out

[Jaxby]

When we began this thread, many on the forum were saying the the ranger lacked focus. No one knew what the ranger's "thing" was. I suggested that, if the class doesn't have a "thing", it could be folded into the fighter class as a subclass. Since 3x, and maybe since 2e, the ranger has seemed to have 3 "foci": the stealthy fighter/rogue hybrid, the junior druid, and the animal guy. We have separated those foci into ranger subclasses with the hunter, the warden and the beastmaster. Thishas been all well and good; but I still come back to my question: What is the ranger's "thing"?

Do you mean mechanically/combat role or do you mean fluff-wise? Beacuse I feel like all those have been answered in many different ways, many overlapping, in the thread that spawned this one. And I realy think we have a pretty good class going here, both mechanically and considering the fluff-choices behind those mechanics.

As has also been mentioned before, all classes can be distilled into fewer, if you generalize the features you are looking for more. Or spread out into many classes, if you want to get more specific about the features.
A 1 class system could be; "the class needs to be an adventurer", and many classes if its something like; "an asian flavoured martial artist, that can also use weapons, but is based on his fists, and has a deep connection with an internal energy". Personally I quite like the amount of classes we have now.

As the Hunter is the Ranger+, I think it is fair to say, that this is the essence of the Ranger as written here. The Experienced Hunter. The other two subclasses build on "the hunt" by having a hunting dog or having spells to help with the hunt.
The hunter is a very distinct figure in almost all mythologies and cultures, which is why I don't think it is unfair that it gets its own primary class.

There are also so many different ways of hunting that it lends itself well to the dnd subclass system. There are the inuit hunters tracking through the icy wastes of the polar reaches. There are the stone age mammoth hunters relying on pitfalls and strategy. There are the native american forest hunters prowling through the undergrowth. And then there are the more modern big game hunters in Africa and the English Aristocracy in their finest clothes, releasing the hounds. And that's just from real life. Then you got your batmen, your witchers, your Drizzies.

Basically, if you go back 10.000 years, there was only one of the current classes around in real life, and that was the ranger. Not that we should compare a high fantasy medieval setting to the actual stone age :)

[paladinn]

You guys have fun. I'm not into group-think

[Moxxmix]

Mechanically we think of ranger/monk/barbarian as derived from fighter, however thematically/historically it's probably more accurate to say that ranger and barbarian were the prototypes, and fighter and monk were the refinements (with the fighter being more military, and the monk being more philosophical).

Barbarian and ranger are raw and primal. The barbarian gets mad and hits stuff; the ranger hunts down the animals needed for food. They are not derived from the fighter; rather, the fighter is derived from them, while incorporating more organization and formalized training. The fighter is a class that evolves only in a post-governmental world. A Cavalier, or a Battlemaster, or a Samurai, requires the hierarchical structure that comes from government, rulers, military, and armies. The monk takes it a step further, in that it requires personal enlightenment rather than just following the orders for regimented training.

Barbarians and rangers don't exist within those regimes; they come from a time before that, when society was just barely forming into something coherent. The barbarian unleashes strength and resilience in a time where armor didn't exist (or was, at best, leather coverings), and it was an effort to compete with the physical power of most threats. The ranger is the one who hunts for food, tracks down threats to the tribe, and enforces punishment of those who break the tribe's taboos (thinking that simply running away will let them escape such punishment). They represent the two of the three basic ways of dealing with threats in a primal world — strength, or cunning. (The third being magic.)

Ranger is often associated with the wilderness, but I don't believe it's because ranger is the "nature boy"; rather, it's because the ranger archetype hails from a time before civilization and cities. The ranger is a hunter; he doesn't fit inside the structures that the fighter is defined by.

It's like saying that cleric and sorcerer and warlock and druid are all just reflavored wizards, and we should put them all into a single class. Even without the mechanical differences (which are not intrinsic; they are added after the fact), those variations on magic users are just conceptually very different things. The studious magician vs the pious magician vs the natural magician vs the magician that made a Faustian deal vs the magician that inherited his power — the mechanics are just the fluff that allows you to express your character in ways that are different, but the classes are there to allow you to express entire categories of ideas.

Just as the physical classes evolve as barbarian/ranger > fighter > monk, the magical classes evolve as shaman > cleric/druid > warlock > wizard. Certain classes spring up for other reasons than direct evolution, such as the sorcerer coming into existance by mixing bloodlines with magical creatures (likely first originating in the time of the shamans). But once again, mechanical subsetting works in the opposite direction to conceptual evolution.

I will admit that the lack of strongly unique mechanics is a problem. Like with the magician examples, you want each class to work differently enough that the actions you perform are relatively unique at the table. In that sense, I agree with paladinn. However I disagree with the apparant sentiment that the mechanics are the prerequisite for a class; the mechanics are merely the implementation of a class. The class itself is defined by a more fundamental identity.

A class is both "a place to collect unique mechanics" and "a place to collect broad categories of character concepts". The two classes which fail hardest are ranger and sorcerer. In both cases it's because, while the classes definitely provide space for character concepts, the mechanics often feel inadequate to support those concepts. The sorcerer mechanics do not feel related to the character concepts the class is supposedly tuned for, and the ranger mechanics short-circuit much of the ability to actually realize many character concepts.

So paladinn's criticism is legitimate, though I strongly disagree with his proposal to fold ranger into fighter. That has issues with balance, design space, watered down concepts, and the irony that the fighter itself has no "thing" with which to distinguish itself any more than ranger does.

To get a better view of class separation, I put together a table to look at concepts and mechanics.




Class
Concept
Mechanic
Examples


Barbarian
Primal Warrior
Rage
Conan


Bard
Entertainer
Inspiration
minstrels


Cleric
Priest
Holy magic, Channel Divinity
clergy


Druid
One With Nature
Shapeshifting



Fighter
Combatant
~
soldiers


Monk
Enlightened Warrior
Martial Arts
Bruce Lee


Paladin
Holy Warrior
Smite
Lancelot


Ranger
Primal Hunter
~
Aragorn, Batman


Rogue
Cunning Thief
Sneak Attack
Grey Mouser


Sorcerer
Innate Magic
Metamagic



Warlock
Faustian Deal
Pacts
Dr. Strange


Wizard
Magic Scholar
Spellbook
Harry Potter


Extra





Artificer
Magical Crafter
Construct
Girl Genius


Psion
Psionics
Psionics
Jedi


Shaman
Primal Magician
~
Voodoo, Witchcraft, Shamanism



Primals: Barbarian, Ranger, Druid, Shaman
Power of Gods: Cleric, Paladin, Warlock
Power of Man: Bard, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Artificer
Internalized: Monk, Sorcerer, Psion


Now, fighter doesn't really have a "thing". Bard's "thing" (Inspiration) is also kind of weak on its own, but it's used in a lot of unique ways in its subclasses. Rogue's Sneak Attack is similar, except instead of it being a generic thing that subclasses can repurpose, it's more about letting subclasses give new ways of making use of it. If you want to solidify Quarry as the primary "thing" for ranger, it should probably be expanded on as a more generic tool that can be used in interesting ways per subclass.

[Galithar]

Do you mean mechanically/combat role or do you mean fluff-wise? Beacuse I feel like all those have been answered in many different ways, many overlapping, in the thread that spawned this one. And I realy think we have a pretty good class going here, both mechanically and considering the fluff-choices behind those mechanics.

As has also been mentioned before, all classes can be distilled into fewer, if you generalize the features you are looking for more. Or spread out into many classes, if you want to get more specific about the features.
A 1 class system could be; "the class needs to be an adventurer", and many classes if its something like; "an asian flavoured martial artist, that can also use weapons, but is based on his fists, and has a deep connection with an internal energy". Personally I quite like the amount of classes we have now.

As the Hunter is the Ranger+, I think it is fair to say, that this is the essence of the Ranger as written here. The Experienced Hunter. The other two subclasses build on "the hunt" by having a hunting dog or having spells to help with the hunt.
The hunter is a very distinct figure in almost all mythologies and cultures, which is why I don't think it is unfair that it gets its own primary class.

There are also so many different ways of hunting that it lends itself well to the dnd subclass system. There are the inuit hunters tracking through the icy wastes of the polar reaches. There are the stone age mammoth hunters relying on pitfalls and strategy. There are the native american forest hunters prowling through the undergrowth. And then there are the more modern big game hunters in Africa and the English Aristocracy in their finest clothes, releasing the hounds. And that's just from real life. Then you got your batmen, your witchers, your Drizzies.

Basically, if you go back 10.000 years, there was only one of the current classes around in real life, and that was the ranger. Not that we should compare a high fantasy medieval setting to the actual stone age :)

I agree with most of this. And being the one that created the previous thread I can tell you that there was never any agreement on what a Ranger was.

But this right here, your post, describes perfectly what THIS Ranger is. It is the epitome of a Hunter. Something that has never come through from the PHB or any WotC rewrite is an identity that actually brings the class together. Many people SAID that the Ranger was a lot of the things you described in this post, but the truth was that the class didn't actually match what they were saying. And this does. This is my favorite rewrite that I've seen for the Ranger and I have to give props to those that helped create it.

Because of this I will firmly and confidently admit that (with a rewrite like this) the Ranger can actually stand on it's own in a 5e game.

Kane0 and those that helped him with this have created a class that has an identity in both the mechanics and the narrative. Something that (at least without play testing) is balanced and full of good features from level 1 to level 20.

My appreciation goes out to you and I will certainly be using this (or maybe a slightly modified version to make it to my preference a bit more) as a choice for my players in my next campaign.

[paladinn]

I agree with most of this. And being the one that created the previous thread I can tell you that there was never any agreement on what a Ranger was.

But this right here, your post, describes perfectly what THIS Ranger is. It is the epitome of a Hunter. Something that has never come through from the PHB or any WotC rewrite is an identity that actually brings the class together. Many people SAID that the Ranger was a lot of the things you described in this post, but the truth was that the class didn't actually match what they were saying. And this does. This is my favorite rewrite that I've seen for the Ranger and I have to give props to those that helped create it.

Because of this I will firmly and confidently admit that (with a rewrite like this) the Ranger can actually stand on it's own in a 5e game.

Kane0 and those that helped him with this have created a class that has an identity in both the mechanics and the narrative. Something that (at least without play testing) is balanced and full of good features from level 1 to level 20.

My appreciation goes out to you and I will certainly be using this (or maybe a slightly modified version to make it to my preference a bit more) as a choice for my players in my next campaign.

As one of those who helped Kane0 in the early days of this thread, I agree that it is way better than what's in the PHB (or even XGtE). I think that, as I've gone over the development process, it just strikes me as an example of what I take issue with in 5e as a whole. Every level has to give something new and shiny, and we need to cram as much into the class as possible. I guess that comes with living in the video game age. A grognard like me appreciates something simpler at times.

That said, kudos to Kane0 and all. I do look forward to reading how the playtesting goes.

[Kane0]

Thanks guys, I do believe this has been a very fruitful project and it would not have been done without your input.

I've touched up the final parts of the Hunter, I think that's everything filled in and ready for playtesting feedback!
I will also be putting a copy in my houserules/homebrew thread for recordkeeping.

[paladinn]

Thanks guys, I do believe this has been a very fruitful project and it would not have been done without your input.

I've touched up the final parts of the Hunter, I think that's everything filled in and ready for playtesting feedback!
I will also be putting a copy in my houserules/homebrew thread for recordkeeping.

Glad I could help inspire. Maybe I should be a bard :)

[Fnissalot]

Hmmm, what an option for setting traps in nature's boon?

Maybe something like:
You can set up traps when you finish a short or long rest, each requires 2 pieces of ammunition and uses whatever materials you have around you. The number of traps you can set up is equal to your wisdom modifier (minimum one). For each trap, designate a 5ft. square. When a creature enter that area, they must succeed on a dexterity saving throw or take 2d4 damage. The DC for avoiding it, noticing it, and disabling it is equal to 8 + your survival skill.

If you pick this again, a creature that is damaged by this is restrained until the start of it's next turn.

[Jaxby]

Not anymore.. I'm out

Since Paladinn is no longer with us in the thread, I think we should carry on with the last few mechanics for the Ranger. Though to address his point about video game shiny levels: the phb ranger has both a fluff and mechanical problem. On top, we are making it less magical. To properly catch the thematic feel, fun/unique playstyle and make it relevant next to high level casters, we have to invent some features. Since the main issue is, that the current phb ranger features don't live up to those criteria.


Seasoned Explorer (14)
As long as you are not incapacitated, you and up to five creatures you choose within 30 feet of you cannot be surprised.

I think this is a straight forward feature, though I would also classify this as a combat feature and not utility. I'm having trouble coming up with ideas for a utility option myself though.

About putting a trap option (placing traps, not describing the option :) ) suggested by Fnissalot, I think this would do better as a subclass. Making an actual Trapper subclass later on with a range of different traps and set-ups.

[Bjarkmundur]

You can set up traps when you finish a short or long rest, each requires 2 pieces of ammunition and uses whatever materials you have around you. The number of traps you can set up is equal to your wisdom modifier (minimum one). For each trap, designate a 5ft. square. When a creature enter that area, they must succeed on a dexterity saving throw or take 2d4 damage. The DC for avoiding it, noticing it, and disabling it is equal to 8 + your survival skill.

That is actually not bad as a selectable, albeit a bit clunky. I think this would be a nice addition when we publish the Kane0's Magnificent Emporium expanson around christmas season, but not a good idea right now. We don't want to bloat the poor class.

We can also include a trapmaker's kit in the same book
.

Trapmaker’s Kit

As a part of a short rest you can create a rudimentary trap. You can either create a Hunting Trap, or a simple mechanism using a trip-wire or pressure plate which can exert up to 10 pounds of force to an object within 15 feet of the trigger. This can be used to close a self-locking door, sound an alarm, trigger a crossbow to fire, or empty a strategically placed container of Oil or (more commonly) poisonous snakes

----------------------

I was looking at how this class builds on its base feature. Looks good to everyone?

Base Class Quarry Uses
- Bonus to damage rolls
- Damage Reduction
- Reroll attack rolls

Beastmaster
- Bonus to beast damage

Hunter
- Reroll Quarry damage
- Eternal Hunter

Warden
- Spell as a bonus action

[Fnissalot]

That is actually not bad as a selectable, albeit a bit clunky. I think this would be a nice addition when we publish the Kane0's Magnificent Emporium expanson around christmas season, but not a good idea right now. We don't want to bloat the poor class.

We can also include a trapmaker's kit in the same book
.

Trapmaker’s Kit

As a part of a short rest you can create a rudimentary trap. You can either create a Hunting Trap, or a simple mechanism using a trip-wire or pressure plate which can exert up to 10 pounds of force to an object within 15 feet of the trigger. This can be used to close a self-locking door, sound an alarm, trigger a crossbow to fire, or empty a strategically placed container of Oil or (more commonly) poisonous snakes

----------------------

I was looking at how this class builds on its base feature. Looks good to everyone?

Base Class Quarry Uses
- Bonus to damage rolls
- Damage Reduction
- Reroll attack rolls

Beastmaster
- Bonus to beast damage

Hunter
- Reroll Quarry damage
- Eternal Hunter

Warden
- Spell as a bonus action

Ohh, that kit is nice and such a clean way to do it!

-----

I think the quarry use looks better than I expected it to!

[Kane0]

I think this is a straight forward feature, though I would also classify this as a combat feature and not utility. I'm having trouble coming up with ideas for a utility option myself though.

I was starting to draw blanks but I think it fits for now, at least until someone comes up with a better idea.

As for traps, I think it could be fine as either a subclass feature or option under Nature's Boon, right alongside poisons. Personally I think a subclass feature or two would do more justice to the concept but i'm leaving it open to debate.

Now I don't want to jump the gun but I have a rough concept for the two expanded subclasses:

Stalker
- Trade quarry damage for bonus to the attack roll instead
- Selection of traps and poisons with varying effects
- Darkvision, Ambush and Shadow-dodge features derived from Gloom Stalker

Slayer
- Add riders to attacks against marked quarry ala Battlemaster/Arcane Archer
- Favored enemy (all WIS and INT checks, can change it to a quarry's type when you drop one to 0 HP)
- Teleporting movement derived from Horizon Walker
- Marking a quarry tells you their resistances/immunities/vulnerabilities
- Limited phasing abilities to see or move through solid objects

To be refined of course

[Bjarkmundur]

Now I don't want to jump the gun
Good. Let's not ;)

At least, let's not clutter the OP with more stuff. It's supposed to be a clean and concise ranger base.

I don't have anything against making a new thread, however, with some additional content :D

There we could go a bit more 'out there' since the design goals would be to expand and experiment rather than just making a clean ranger rework.

Ohh, that kit is nice and such a clean way to do it!
Thanks! I did it for the Kobold thread.
Having a playable Kobold and not give him the ability to create traps is just completely insane to me.

[Jaxby]

I tried writing a clean piece of text for the beastmaster companion, as it is the only feature where the text is still in note-form. I basically just took the PHB text and modified it to fit the homebrew options:

You gain a beast companion that accompanies you on your adventures and is trained to fight alongside you. Choose a beast that is no larger than Large and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower (appendix D of the PHB presents statistics for the hawk, mastiff, and panther as examples). Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in. It also deals the bonus damage from your Quarry feature when attacking a target marked as such.
Its hit point maximum equals 4 + its Constitution modifier, for every level of ranger you have. It has the same maximum number of Hit Dice as you do.

The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative, and you can use a bonus action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you do not command the beast to take any action, the beast can take the Dodge action and/or move up to its movement speed (no action require by you).

If you fall unconscious, your beast will attempt to move and stay within 5 feet of you, and defend you from enemies.

If the beast dies, you can obtain another beast companion by spending a long rest calling and bonding with another beast.

I don't know how to precisely say (4+con mod)*lvl in text form without ending up with the possibility of understanding it as 4 + (con mod *lvl), but I tried.

I also added a "will try and stay within 5 feet" of your cold dead body, but I don't know if that will lead to situation where the beast has to choose between staying within 5 feet of you and then defending you against a monster with reach.

[Moxxmix]

The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative, and you can use a bonus action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you do not command the beast to take any action, the beast can take the Dodge action and/or move up to its movement speed (no action require by you).
This seems to imply that the beast cannot move if you give it a command (aside from Dash). Is this desired? I would expect you to be able to command the beast companion to move and attack all at once, including things like standing up if it got knocked prone.

If it should be able to move regardless of the command, I would write it as:
The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. You can use a bonus action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action, or allow it to take the Dodge action if you do not explicitly command it. It may use its movement freely, with or without a direct command from you.


I also added a "will try and stay within 5 feet" of your cold dead body, but I don't know if that will lead to situation where the beast has to choose between staying within 5 feet of you and then defending you against a monster with reach.
Defending doesn't necessarily mean attacking. It may provide cover from any attacks made against your body. Can it Ready an action to interfere with an attack? What reactions does it have available? Might it have something like the Protection fighting style? That would seem appropriate.


When a creature you can see attacks a creature other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll.

Dropped the bit about needing a shield. But yeah, this is more of what I was imagining. The companion is dedicating everything towards protecting your body, so having this ability in that circumstance seems right.

The companion should certainly stay within 5' of you, since obviously the above wouldn't work if it moved away. On the other hand, most of the time having reach means the attacker can be 10' away from the target, but that still leaves the attacker within 5' of where the companion can roam (ie: within 5' of the ranger's body), so it doesn't really have to move away from the body anyway.

Do you think it's worth it as a general ability? That the ranger can command the beast to protect himself (or others)? Would restrict the companion's movement, and only works against one attack per round (using the reaction)...

I would probably give it this ability automatically if the ranger falls unconscious. Should it be in the default list of commands, or only be acquired after a certain level? It uses the companion's action, so it wouldn't be able to attack as well as protect, but it could be a very nice feature; sort of a mini-Dodge for a specified person. ... After some thought, I don't think putting a level restriction on it is appropriate. It feels like something that should be part of the class flavor from the start.

Example:
Ranger: "Protect the healer!"
Healer: <Attempting to heal the downed Fighter in the middle of a fight>
Wolf: Moves to stand guard around the healer, growling at anyone who approaches, and able to use its reaction to impose disadvantage on one attack against the healer.

I really like this, actually. It perfectly fits in with what I would expect an animal companion to do in a fight, and is a good counterpart to Help.

It would end up something like:


You acquire a beast companion that accompanies you on your adventures and is trained to fight alongside you. Choose a beast that is no larger than Large and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower (appendix D of the PHB presents statistics for the hawk, mastiff, and panther as examples). Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saving throws and skills it is proficient in. It also deals the bonus damage from your Quarry feature when attacking a target marked as such.

Its hit point maximum equals 4 + its Constitution modifier, for every level of ranger you have. It has the same maximum number of Hit Dice as you do.

The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. You can use a bonus action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Protect, or Help action, or allow it to take the Dodge action if you do not explicitly command it. It may use its movement freely, with or without a direct command from you.

If you fall unconscious, your beast will attempt to move and stay within 5 feet of you, and defend you from enemies, acting as if it had been commanded to take the Protect action.

If the beast dies, you can obtain another beast companion by spending a long rest calling and bonding with another beast.


Protect action: When a creature you can see (or otherwise detect using a Keen sense) attacks a designated creature other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll.

Not sure the "can see" part is always appropriate with all animal companions, so added a little rider in there.

Edit: Added "designated creature" instead of just any creature, because a Protect action should have a specific focus (which is a bit more limited than the more generalized fighting style).

[Kane0]

That sounds like an excellent start, i'll edit it in

On another note, how does this sound for an ability:
Favored Enemy: [When you get this feature] choose one creature type. You can add your Quarry die as a bonus to Intelligence and Wisdom checks regarding this creature type. When you reduce a marked quarry to 0 Hit Points you can choose to change your Favored Enemy type to match that of the creature you felled.

Could even replace the Hunter 3 proficiency/expertise.

[Moxxmix]

That sounds like an excellent start, i'll edit it in

On another note, how does this sound for an ability:
Favored Enemy: [When you get this feature] choose one creature type. You can add your Quarry die as a bonus to Intelligence and Wisdom checks regarding this creature type. When you reduce a marked quarry to 0 Hit Points you can choose to change your Favored Enemy type to match that of the creature you felled.

Could even replace the Hunter 3 proficiency/expertise.

Oh, I do like that as a replacement for Hunter 3. Mechanically it's not too terribly different, but flavor-wise it fits well. It brings back the Favored Enemy concept without binding it to a single race. Also doesn't allow you to cheat; can't get the bonus for dragons if you've never killed a dragon, for example.

Only really works because of the Quarry feature, which helps support Quarry as a strong core feature. And it feels more suited to the Hunter than the other subclasses, so making it a subclass feature instead of a class feature is fine.

[Bjarkmundur]

I love the beast change, it makes it feel much more alive!

I kinda like the Favored Enemy, although I would like a different name. Why Wisdom checks though? Isn't this just a 'studied mark' where the hunter gains info on his target as he gains experience from defeating it?

[Moxxmix]

Looking at what command options the Beastmaster has, with the addition of the Protect action I would guess that the three most common commands would be:

1) Attack [that target]
2) Help me attack [this target]
3) Protect [that person]

One of the main problems with animal companions is that they're very easy to kill. If their primary use is [attack that target], then that target is obviously going to retaliate, and make your animal companion more likely to die. The Help command is less likely to have that happen, since a player is the principal opponent, there. Other actions, like Dash, Disengage, and Dodge, are mostly the animal companion not doing anything, and thus not being a useful class feature. I suspect most players will always want their animal companion to do something, and that the limits on what they can do without quickly dying are pretty limited.

Protect, on the other hand, introduces an entirely new dynamic. The animal companion is being actively useful to someone other than itself, so the player feels like having the companion actually matters, while at the same time being slightly less of an active target. Yes, an enemy could attack the wolf protecting the healer, but all that does it take time away from its real goal: killing the healer. It's a way to gain time for someone else, and maybe take a hit if the enemy wants to get the animal out of the way, while not being the most direct target. And if the enemy does switch focus, you can change the order to Dodge just to buy more time.

It adds a defensive element that is sorely lacking in 5E. It's not terribly useful for players because it uses up an action, and killing an enemy to keep it from attacking is almost always better than just trying to disadvantage one of its attacks. It also has minimal effect on dice rolling, so it has less time cost than making the animal companion attack. One of the major issues with minions is slowing down combat; this allows you to avoid that downside while still being actively useful.

And of course one of the problems with balancing a Beastmaster ranger was making sure it didn't get too powerful because of the extra damage from the animal companion. If the class leans more towards a protective/defensive playstyle, though, that balance issue is reduced. It also suggests uses for the companion that are already possible, but don't spring to mind as much because of the mechanical design. For example, the companion using its Attack action to grapple or knock down an enemy.

Thus the overall feel for this subclass drifts away from pure damage, leaving that to the Hunter. Instead, the Beastmaster has an incredibly versatile assistant, allowing him to protect others, subdue targets, summon help, etc, without necessarily raising the damage threshold very much.

I might even suggest changing the Quarry die effect for the animal companion. Rather than have it add damage to the companion's attack, make it a bonus to skill or attack checks which target the current quarry. Examples: Tracking a fleeing target. Grappling the quarry to keep it from running. Knocking the quarry down with a pounce/shove.

May need to look into how this interacts with what (if any) skills animals have. Almost no animals are granted skills other than Perception and Stealth, so currently trying to do a shove attack, which requires an Athletics check, is rather pointless. The Quarry die is, on average, roughly equal to proficiency, and at best matches expertise. Tracking or grappling with the current quarry would be much more viable if using the Quarry die as a bonus.

I'd been considering the issue of power balance due to how much the Quarry die interacts with the ranger's damage output. Taking that damage away from the animal companion I think will help keep it from getting too overpowered in that sense, while still allowing it to be powerful in a more utility sense.

[Bjarkmundur]

Check out 4e's sentinel,, their beasts had auras that passively helped nearby allies. Its a good inspiration for increasing the beasts versatility laterally, instead of trying to make it less or more powerful.

[Fnissalot]

Looking at what command options the Beastmaster has, with the addition of the Protect action I would guess that the three most common commands would be:

1) Attack [that target]
2) Help me attack [this target]
3) Protect [that person]

One of the main problems with animal companions is that they're very easy to kill. If their primary use is [attack that target], then that target is obviously going to retaliate, and make your animal companion more likely to die. The Help command is less likely to have that happen, since a player is the principal opponent, there. Other actions, like Dash, Disengage, and Dodge, are mostly the animal companion not doing anything, and thus not being a useful class feature. I suspect most players will always want their animal companion to do something, and that the limits on what they can do without quickly dying are pretty limited.

Protect, on the other hand, introduces an entirely new dynamic. The animal companion is being actively useful to someone other than itself, so the player feels like having the companion actually matters, while at the same time being slightly less of an active target. Yes, an enemy could attack the wolf protecting the healer, but all that does it take time away from its real goal: killing the healer. It's a way to gain time for someone else, and maybe take a hit if the enemy wants to get the animal out of the way, while not being the most direct target. And if the enemy does switch focus, you can change the order to Dodge just to buy more time.

It adds a defensive element that is sorely lacking in 5E. It's not terribly useful for players because it uses up an action, and killing an enemy to keep it from attacking is almost always better than just trying to disadvantage one of its attacks. It also has minimal effect on dice rolling, so it has less time cost than making the animal companion attack. One of the major issues with minions is slowing down combat; this allows you to avoid that downside while still being actively useful.

And of course one of the problems with balancing a Beastmaster ranger was making sure it didn't get too powerful because of the extra damage from the animal companion. If the class leans more towards a protective/defensive playstyle, though, that balance issue is reduced. It also suggests uses for the companion that are already possible, but don't spring to mind as much because of the mechanical design. For example, the companion using its Attack action to grapple or knock down an enemy.

Thus the overall feel for this subclass drifts away from pure damage, leaving that to the Hunter. Instead, the Beastmaster has an incredibly versatile assistant, allowing him to protect others, subdue targets, summon help, etc, without necessarily raising the damage threshold very much.

I might even suggest changing the Quarry die effect for the animal companion. Rather than have it add damage to the companion's attack, make it a bonus to skill or attack checks which target the current quarry. Examples: Tracking a fleeing target. Grappling the quarry to keep it from running. Knocking the quarry down with a pounce/shove.

May need to look into how this interacts with what (if any) skills animals have. Almost no animals are granted skills other than Perception and Stealth, so currently trying to do a shove attack, which requires an Athletics check, is rather pointless. The Quarry die is, on average, roughly equal to proficiency, and at best matches expertise. Tracking or grappling with the current quarry would be much more viable if using the Quarry die as a bonus.

I'd been considering the issue of power balance due to how much the Quarry die interacts with the ranger's damage output. Taking that damage away from the animal companion I think will help keep it from getting too overpowered in that sense, while still allowing it to be powerful in a more utility sense.

The ranger can always get that extra die with TWF anyway so it won't be that big difference?

Adding a range of command words that you teach your companion as you level up is an interesting prospect. Something similar to battle masters special attacks. Most of the commands should be bonus actions to try to balance out the strength of the companion. I would also be tempted to give the companion proficiencies in a skill and Dex saves around tier 2 to make them more useful and less easy to kill?

Some commands could be including what you said:
Attack
Distract (help action or give disadvantage or try to break concentration?)
Grab (grapple)
Pounce (shove)
Protect (defend someone, either add a quarry die to AC or disadvantage on attacking them?)
Fetch (return object, ammo or thrown weapon)
Guard (extra opportunity attacks/reactions for one turn)
Frighten (howling or barking to cause fear for 1 turn)
Heels (attacks their feats to slow them?)
Puppy eyes (try to charm them into thinking you are a good boy! (Yes you are!))
Catch (reaction to stop ranged weapon attack?)
Stop (reaction to opportunity attack, 0 movement speed until your turn?)

[Jaxby]

This seems to imply that the beast cannot move if you give it a command (aside from Dash). Is this desired? I would expect you to be able to command the beast companion to move and attack all at once, including things like standing up if it got knocked prone.

Yes, you are quite right. It was not intended that the beast cannot move without an action command. Your description is much better.

With the protection option text, should it maybe say "the beast" instead of "you", to prevent confusion with the player character?

Favoured Enemy: I have only played 5e, so I don't have any nostalgia or knowledge of how the feature worked in previous editions. Only that it is wonky and annoying in 5e. Therefore I am apprehensive about bringing it back into this rework.

Though I think the reworked FE captures the feel of the PHB one pretty well, while being less restrictive, I prefer the expertise option. It is always applicable, and you won't have the issue of going against a dragon, wanting to track it/gain info, but only having your feature available after you have killed it.

This is of course an extreme example, as you might kill several orcs after the first one, in which case you would gain the benefit.

[Kane0]

Currently I have the companion as a bonus action to issue an action on its part, with the protect function being a reaction as part of the level 7 feature. I'm not super keen on adding tricks you teach it will probably run into the battlemaster problem of picking the ones you want and then having just the ones you dont after that, or wanting more than you can get and feeling like you are missing half your pet.

Doing some quick numbermath a bonus action for one beast attack appears appropriate, I might need to specify they don't get multiattack if that becomes an issue.

[Moxxmix]

The ranger can always get that extra die with TWF anyway so it won't be that big difference?

Adding a range of command words that you teach your companion as you level up is an interesting prospect. Something similar to battle masters special attacks. Most of the commands should be bonus actions to try to balance out the strength of the companion. I would also be tempted to give the companion proficiencies in a skill and Dex saves around tier 2 to make them more useful and less easy to kill?

Some commands could be including what you said:
Attack
Distract (help action or give disadvantage or try to break concentration?)
Grab (grapple)
Pounce (shove)
Protect (defend someone, either add a quarry die to AC or disadvantage on attacking them?)
Fetch (return object, ammo or thrown weapon)
Guard (extra opportunity attacks/reactions for one turn)
Frighten (howling or barking to cause fear for 1 turn)
Heels (attacks their feats to slow them?)
Puppy eyes (try to charm them into thinking you are a good boy! (Yes you are!))
Catch (reaction to stop ranged weapon attack?)
Stop (reaction to opportunity attack, 0 movement speed until your turn?)

Hmm.

Attack: Includes normal attack, shove, and grapple, assuming the companion's attack works the same as a player's attack. It's also sufficient to trigger concentration checks on casters, just like any attack. So Grab/Pounce/Distract/Heels aren't needed as explicit mechanics.

Protect: If using the Protection fighting style as a base, it would give disadvantage as a reaction, but it could also use the Cavalier's Warding Maneuver as a template, and add the Quarry die to the guarded target's AC. Need to give it some thought for balance and flavor.

Fetch: Amusing, but I'm not sure it needs a strict mechanic, given Object Interaction is a thing. Might need to be explicit in that the companion can perform object interactions as part of its turn, though, in the same auto-allow as movement, reactions, etc. It makes sense to allow the animal to pick things up, push open doors, knock over tables, etc.

Guard: I'm not sure whether or not this is needed. On the one hand, you could tell the companion to stay in one spot and attack anyone that comes near. On the other hand, the Attack command doesn't quite work that way. Aside from seemingly assuming an explicit target, you need to give it the command every turn to get it to attack, and Guard feels like a set-and-forget kind of command. Not as useful in combat, but more of, "Guard this doorway; don't let anyone through." kinda thing. I think I would be OK with it, but it needs a deeper evaluation.

Catch: I'd say no on this one. It starts breaking suspension of disbelief.

Frighten/Puppy Eyes: I love the idea of it for flavor. Just not sure how to work with it mechanically. Would start with allowing the animal companion to use arbitrary skills. The main problem is that it doesn't feel like it would work right if it requires the verbal command, but that starts creating exceptions to the verbal requirements for giving commands (which allows Silence to interfere with commands). Puppy Eyes feels like pure non-combat, so more of a roleplaying thing than a mechanical thing. I don't think I'm quite comfortable allowing a frighten effect from a command in combat. I would most likely consider it a flavoring of having the animal companion Help you on an Intimidate check. In fact, considering these as manifestations of the Help action fits pretty well both in and out of combat.

Stop: Not sure I really understand this one.


Favoured Enemy: I have only played 5e, so I don't have any nostalgia or knowledge of how the feature worked in previous editions. Only that it is wonky and annoying in 5e. Therefore I am apprehensive about bringing it back into this rework.

Though I think the reworked FE captures the feel of the PHB one pretty well, while being less restrictive, I prefer the expertise option. It is always applicable, and you won't have the issue of going against a dragon, wanting to track it/gain info, but only having your feature available after you have killed it.

This is of course an extreme example, as you might kill several orcs after the first one, in which case you would gain the benefit.
Thinking on it more, I think I'm leaning back away from it, and back towards the proficiencies. It does have a cool flavor to it at first blush, but the mechanics of how it would play out does feel like it would start to become irritating over time.

[Moxxmix]

Check out 4e's sentinel,, their beasts had auras that passively helped nearby allies. Its a good inspiration for increasing the beasts versatility laterally, instead of trying to make it less or more powerful.

At this point I think we're just playing around with ideas of how the beast can be used with the existing mechanics. I'd be against adding auras, as that seems to be getting overly-complicated. If we're just fishing for more ideas of what the beast could do, I don't think we really need to go much further.


Primary actions:

Attack: Normal attack, grapple (nullify movement), shove, knock prone; these are all things that can be done with the Attack action, and gives plenty of concept space to work with the flavor of how your companion acts in combat. The only thing I'd add is an assumed proficiency in Athletics for the animal companion — though probably only for non-flyers.

Help: At base, it only applies allowing the companion to give you advantage on an attack. However Help is also valid for skill checks, and being creative can give lots of flavor, such as the intimidating growl or puppy dog eyes when trying to intimidate or charm someone.

Object Interaction: Need to add this as a default thing that can be done, just like movement and reactions. This alone has tons of flavorful uses, as well as occasional tactical ones. (EG: Your hawk swoops down and snatches the ritual dagger from its stand, stymieing the cultist about to perform a dark ceremony!) Rather than adding an extra command for this, though, it may be easier to just treat it as a way that the animal companion can perform the Help action. (EG: "Help slow him down!" <Wolf knocks over furniture in the way, creating difficult terrain.>)

Protect: As described earlier.

It may be easier to rewrite how the companion's turn works, than keep fiddling with what it's "allowed" to do outside the commands. Something like:


The beast has a full standard turn, which it takes on your initiative. You can use a bonus action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Protect, or Help action, which the beast obeys as best as it can. If you do not give it a command, it may use its action to Dodge.

"Full standard turn" would then imply the beast can move, take reactions, and make object interactions, in addition to the standard action which is determined by the ranger's command (or Dodge, if no command is given). I'm pretty sure this wouldn't need any extra details tacked on for anything else.

If Help is not sufficient for the handling of object interaction, then perhaps:


The beast has a full standard turn, which it takes on your initiative. You can use a bonus action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Protect, or Help action, or a general command involving Object Interaction, which the beast obeys as best as it can. If you do not give it a command, it may use its action to Dodge.



With the protection option text, should it maybe say "the beast" instead of "you", to prevent confusion with the player character?
I just wrote it as a generic action, and thus available to anyone, and then applied it to the animal companion. I wasn't trying to Battlemaster it, as a special companion skill, although if you want to limit it in that way that's fine.

[Jaxby]

Currently I have the companion as a bonus action to issue an action on its part, with the protect function being a reaction as part of the level 7 feature. I'm not super keen on adding tricks you teach it will probably run into the battlemaster problem of picking the ones you want and then having just the ones you dont after that, or wanting more than you can get and feeling like you are missing half your pet.

Yes, when I said action, I meant the beast's action and therefore the player's bonus action.
I was under the impression though, that the protection thing should be issued as a bonus action command by the player, and the beast then using its action to assume the "protection stance" giving disadvantage on attacks made by a creature towards a designated target. But I guess reaction also makes sense.

Shouldn't "the beast moves within 5 feet of your unconscious body etc" feature be part of the first, main beast companion feature? Otherwise, what does the beast do when you fall unconscious at lvl 3?

Different beast action types: I think we should try and keep the description of the companion mechanic as short and simple as possible. I would say that picking up a sword and minor stuff like that is covered by the move "action" which the beast can do for free. And if it gets more complicated then that, its either a DM call or a case of; maybe a beast shouldn't be able to do overly complicated item interactions.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm not super keen on adding tricks you teach it.

Yeah I think these are all thoughts that are more appriopriate post-playtesting. Specifying the multi-attack bit is probably a good idea though.

Edit:: Won't be able to test this quite yet, but when the opportunity presents itself, I'm ready (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/B1blm4tMIH)

How did you calculate when to increase the Quarry dice size? Did you account for Quarry not applying to the first attack? Just looking at this I feel like Quarry should be 1d6 at level 3, but I don't know if the math supports this.

Shouldn't healing salve read "Applying a healing salves requires two free hands and an action"


Does beastcall beasts aid in combat, or are the more disney princess-esque?

Player: I summon rats to make me a dress!
DM: You what?

[Kane0]

Ah right okay, I've made some small adjustments to Beastmaster. It's now limited to one attack and focuses a little more on supporting others with the defending function moved back to level 3.

@Bjarkmundur
I sort of worked backwards for quarry dice, moving from smallest to largest die size evenly over 20 levels. Which coincidentally happens to match prof bonus in DMG proficiency dice terms.
Healing salves logically would need two hands, but there's all sorts of that kind of thing handwaved in the books already so I tried not to start down the rabbit hole. Got a boo-boo, slap some balm on it. Just like the pally kissing it better.
Beastcall by design would allow beasts to help you however animals would typically be able to help you. It's between you and your DM what that might entail in-game (Awakened beasts are a thing). Much like divine intervention.

[Bjarkmundur]

I like how the Beastmaster is looking, although a bit confused about the protection fighting style. But, after some clean-up I think it'll make much more sense.

Usually the Ranger will want to trigger his Quarry damage with Two-Weapon fighting on the same turn as he applies it, since it applies to every attack. This has some implications:

- The Hunter is really bad at using a Bow.
- The beastmaster does a lot of damage with his bonus action, since the beast adds ability modifier, proficiency bonus AND quarry to the damage roll.

I'm not so much worried about the ranger's balance with other class as I am with the balance between subclasses.

You CAN bump the hunter up to the beastmaster's level by removing the reroll feature and instead say "You gain a second Quarry dice of the same size. When you trigger your quarry damage, roll both dice and add the results to your attack's damage", ​ but that's assuming the beastmaster's damage is OK.

If you really want to compare classes, it still doesn't look good. I do think it's the right decision on keeping the Ranger's damage below the damage of the rogue, but maybe just by a few points?
Remember feats and multiclasses should not affect class balance, since those are variant rules and make everything 100 times more convoluted.

This assumes no fighting style, since I think you removed it. With a fighting style, things look a little better (+6 with melee, but very little difference with a bow), but not much better.

Over two turns, assuming everything hits:
The hunter: 2d8+6+1d4 up to level 5 with a longbow
The rogue: 2d8+6+4d6 up to level 5 with a longbow

The hunter obviously does better with two weapons
Hunter: 2d6+6+2d6+3d4 up to level 5 with a light weapon
Rogue: 2d6+6+2d6+4d6 up to level 5 with a light weapon


I am by no means a DPR expert, I'm just making observations. I have no idea if what I'm saying means anything, or if I'm even right. But on the off chance I am, I decided to write a reply.

[Kane0]

That is a good point, the Warden has access to Hunter's Mark which also puts it ahead of the Hunter. I'll make some changes.

[Bjarkmundur]

Did you remove the fighting styles? I think that's a good choice, to create design space elsewhere.

You might need some special features on the base class, since using a bow is just down right awful because the quarry damage isn't triggered until next turn. You might even have to make a new selectable :S

Bull's Strength: Ignore light requirement for two-weapon fighting.
Eagle's Eyes: Quarry as a bonus action

Maybe those two are enough, but maybe you can add a third option to give the beastmaster more freedom on how he uses is beast:

Wolf's Pack v1: Advantage on attack rolls against creatures within 5 feet of your beast.
Wolf's Pack v2: Your beast triggers quarry damage.
Wolf's Pack v3: Your beast has the Protection Fighting Style.

I think its okay that melee does more damage than the archer, since it creates a risk/reward scenario.

[Kane0]

Derp, forgot to write in the Fighting Styles. Same ones as the PHB plus some extras.

Edit: Also Quarry triggers on any hit after the first so extra attack, bonus action attack and opportunity attack can all get it. Yes archers generally don't get those (crossbow mastery excluded) but they do get other nice things like not being in claw range and one of the better fighting styles.

[Bjarkmundur]

Derp, forgot to write in the Fighting Styles. Same ones as the PHB plus some extras.

I don't think you should, since it only makes the problem worse...

AND

if you're gonna use them, use them as written. We are doing this for the masses, so using our personal homebrewed fighting styles is in poor taste.

Just make a completely new feature called Way of The Hunt or something, instead of creating a discrepancy between this and official mechanics.

[Kittymeow]

I have to agree I don't think the fighting styles make sense at this point...

[Moxxmix]

Taking another pass at reviewing the current text. This time, beast companion hit points.


Its hit point maximum equals 4 + its Constitution modifier, for every level of ranger you have. It has the same maximum number of Hit Dice (which are d8s) as you do.
It's nice that you specified the type of hit dice the animal companion has, however this now feels like it's slightly skewed in implementation. The default "average" HP that you gain with a d8 hit die is 5 points, but you specify the animal gaining 4 HP instead (which is the default average for a d6 hit die).

Is there a reason for those specific selections? What is the metric used for determining how much HP the beast should have?

Example Con bonuses: Wolf +1, Raven -1, Panther +0, Mastiff +1, Lion +1, Hawk -1, Black Bear +2, Brown Bear +3.

It looks like you'll be restricted to between 0 and +1 prior to level 7 (CR 1/4), unless you take a CR 0 creature like a hawk or bat, in which case you're likely getting Con -1. At CR 1/2 (level 7), Con bonuses range from +0 to +2. At CR 1 (level 14), Con bonuses range from +1 to +3. There may be other animals that fall outside this range, but this feels fairly representative of what I see in a quick scan.

So, picking some levels at random, with average and high Con bonuses, and using the base 4 HP value:

Level 5: Panther: 20 HP; Wolf: 25 HP
Level 10: Giant Goat: 50 HP; Black Bear: 60 HP
Level 15: Dire Wolf: 90 HP; Brown Bear: 105 HP

Using a 5 HP value, you'd have:

Level 5: Panther: 25 HP; Wolf: 30 HP
Level 10: Giant Goat: 60 HP; Black Bear: 70 HP
Level 15: Dire Wolf: 105 HP; Brown Bear: 120 HP

Compared with the ranger himself, with an expected 14 Con:

Level 5: 44 HP
Level 10: 84 HP
Level 15: 124 HP

The only HP value of note that I'd consider particularly significant would be at level 5. Average Fireball damage is 28. If the animal companion fails the saving throw, the 4 HP per level wolf will probably die, while the 5 HP wolf has a chance to survive (though likely with only 1 or 2 HP left). The wolf also has the highest HP that a companion is likely to have, with the +1 Con bonus. A panther would be at 20-25 HP, and would almost certainly die from a fireball.

Given that deaths from AOEs are a notable concern for beastmasters, this makes me lean towards the 5 HP per level setup. In fact, it may be easier to use standard HP growth mechanics. IE:


The beast's level is equal to your ranger level, and it has a d8 hit die. It is granted 8 HP + Constitution modifier for 1st level, and gains 5 HP + Constitution modifier for each level above that.

Using this scaling, we'd end up with:

Level 5: Panther: 28 HP; Wolf: 33 HP
Level 10: Giant Goat: 63 HP; Black Bear: 73 HP
Level 15: Dire Wolf: 108 HP; Brown Bear: 123 HP

The wolf should survive a Fireball, while the panther is borderline. Cone of Cold at 10th level isn't a real risk (average of 36 damage). Sunburst at 15th level is also a non-risk (averaging 42 damage), although Meteor Swarm at 17th level averages 140. Probably shouldn't balance for Meteor Swarm.

So, are those higher level beast HPs appropriate? The feeling I get is that the companion needs a boost at low levels to survive early AOEs (Fireball being the prime offender), but doesn't need to scale a huge amount at higher levels.

If Fireball wasn't so overtuned for its level, this wouldn't be such an issue. Tidal Wave averages 18 damage, and Erupting Earth averages 19.5 damage, and both of those are 3rd level AOEs (from Xanathar's). 25 HP for the animal companion would be fine for surviving one of those attacks, and even 20 HP (Con +0) is doable.

For a panther using the current scaling to be more likely than not to survive a Fireball, it would need to be level 8 (32 total HP at 4 HP per level). That makes it very hard to utilize most beasts in early post-Fireball levels, since you'll want to use Dodge to get advantage on the Dex save. If you're not facing off against Fireball-wielding mages, that's fine, but it's likely to be a rare GM that attacks you with Tidal Wave instead of Fireball.

Since levels 5-8 are probably some of the most-played levels of the game, we don't want to make using the beastmaster a downer in that time period. I'm inclined to support the boosted HP scaling, even if it makes the animal companion a bit over-buff in later levels.

One alternative is some sort of resistance or damage reduction, but I can't think of a way to introduce that that feels balanced, when it's really only compensating for two spells (Fireball and Lightning Bolt).

Another alternative is a stronger starting boost for HP. Something like 10 HP + (4 HP + Con) per level. That helps get over the Fireball hump without overbuffing the companion at higher levels. You'd have a range of 25 (Hawk) to 30 (Panther) to 35 (Wolf) HP at level 5, which I would find acceptable. As long as you get over 45 HP by level 10 (which is basically guaranteed), you should be mostly fine from then on.

~~~~

tl;dr

Suggested revision:


The beast's hit point maximum is equal to (4 + its Constitution modifier) HP for each level of ranger you have, plus 10. Its hit die is a d8, and it has the same number of hit dice as you do.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm glad we have someone so thorough going over the beast mechanics. Cheers.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Both the long and short is appreciated, i'll edit that in.

As for Fighting style, shall I remove and move Keen Eye to level 2?

[Bjarkmundur]

We have had very clear and decisive design goals for every minute derail of this build. Every single letter has been added with clear intent and purpose.

What's the design goal of including fighting styles? What do the fighting styles add that no other feature could?

If what they bring to the class is the feeling of specialisation and build versatility, I'm pretty sure we can make a better feature that more accurately takes into account the synergies and nuisances of how the class plays as a whole. Something specifically designed with this class in mind, that accounts for all its varius features strengths and shortcomings.

Adding this feature so late in the class' design gives us a unique opportunity to tweak different aspects of the class to ensure it works as intended, without having to rewriter features that otherwise work perfectly.

We can take this chance to identify problems and use this design space to address them specifically, instead of arbitrarily adding a feature from another class.

The position of Keen Eye on the class table feels trivial in comparison.

Sidenot: Since extra attack is an indirect scaling of Hunter's quarry, the 1d4 is not needed. the Quarry dice should be 1d6 from levels 1-8.

[Kane0]

It was one of Paladinn's touchstones earmarking the Ranger as a warrior type class, same as the d10 hit die. It also leans into the archery, TWF, etc styles that it has picked up over the editions.

I like Fighting Styles, I find them an elegant way of providing choice and distinction. No need to reinvent the wheel when this does the job and is used in multiple other places.

That said, Barbarians don't have FS so there is precedent both ways.

Edit: Minor note though, it's always been there in the class table like Extra Attack/ASIs, just not written explicitly underneath since it was unchanged from the PHB.

[Bjarkmundur]

Then at least use them as written in the PHB.

---------------------------

I'm still, worried how much they increase the gap between melee and range, discouraging players even more from using a bow on a Ranger.

That last part kinda hurt to write. Discouraging the ranger from using a weapon that has been used for hunting since before recorded human history feels all sorts of wrong, but maybe I am yet again just falling prey to a "my ranger" mindset.

----------------------------

Edit! I figured out what was troubling me with the fighting styles!

The ranger is not a Strength class!

The fighting styles would feel much more at home here if this were designed as a Strength class. But since it is not, the fighting styles which serve the Fighter and the paladin so well just aren't going to feel natural here.

For a class relying on TWF and medium armor, the fighting styles are always going to fall short compared any other feature we design unique for the class' traits.

Medium Armor and Quarry just don't benefit from fighting styles like Heavy Armor and Smite/Surge does. At best it's a small nod to th rangers heritage (was was debunked a few posts ago), at worst it doesn't synergies with the ranger's features at all.

We need a feature that gives unique benefits to each loadout, similar to the design goal of fighting styles, yes. I can agree to that. But this cannot be done by copying and pasting a feature that is not designed to work with this class main features.

-----------------------------

Hunting Styles
You adopt a particular style of hunting your prey as your specialty. Choose one of the following options. You can’t take a Hunting Style option more than once, even if you later get to choose again.
- You can mark a creature as your Quarry as a bonus action.
- You can use non light weapons when two-weapon fighting
- Your Animal Companion benefits from your Quarry damage bonus.
- When a creature your Animal Companion can see attacks a target other than it that is within 5 feet of it, it can use its reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll.
- While wearing a green hat with a single feather, you gain +1 AC.


The first bullets encourages using shields or two handed weapons equally, and fixes most of the classes weapon versatility problems.
The second bullet is thematic, without making TWF too strong when compared to shield or 2H (yeah, rangers can use shields, remember. Now they can do so without feeling ridiculous).
The other two represent the different bonds between the ranger and his companion, and adds an opportunity cost for having such a powerful animal companion. These are all problems with the class, and it's a miracle they can be solved so cleanly.
The last bullet is hilarious and non-negotiable xP

You can even give thrown weapon some love and bring back Throw and Stab for earlier editions, although it is pretty unorthodox

- If you throw a weapon using the Thrown property to engage in two-weapon fighting and make a melee attack with your secondary attack, you have advange on the melee attack roll.

[Kane0]

I'm still, worried how much they increase the gap between melee and range, discouraging players even more from using a bow on a Ranger.

----------------------------

Edit! I figured out what was troubling me with the fighting styles!
The ranger is not a Strength class!

-----------------------------

Hunting Styles
You adopt a particular style of hunting your prey as your specialty. Choose one of the following options. You can’t take a Hunting Style option more than once, even if you later get to choose again.
- You can mark a creature as your Quarry as a bonus action.
- You can use non light weapons when two-weapon fighting
- Your Animal Companion benefits from your Quarry damage bonus.
- When a creature your Animal Companion can see attacks a target other than it that is within 5 feet of it, it can use its reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll.
- While wearing a green hat with a single feather, you gain +1 AC.



Ranged weapons aren't given any bonuses or penalties over other weapon styles within the class, what am I missing that gives melee preference?

Neither is Swords Bard, and besides heavy armor proficiency there isn't anything making Pally str based over dex.

Point one is covered with the TWF feat (flawed as it is), point two see below, point three that's already part of the beastmaster as a defensive feature.


Eyeballing things as they are now, I think I'm being a bit too generous with the damage output. Can someone do some quick numbers compared to some of the other classes? If it indeed turns out overtuned I'm thinking take away the damage boosts at level 3 (Hunter second Quarry die, Beastmaster quarry die, Warden Hunter's Mark)

[Moxxmix]

Interlude on damage potential.

Here's a link to the Google Docs spreadsheet (https://drive.google.com/file/d/19GkFjbhfVV4QyJlvBByWktxMsHIj_LQj/view?usp=sharing) that I built. (This is just a copy of the one I'm editing locally.)

Basic assumptions:
+1 weapon gained at level 7
+2 weapon gained at level 14
Dual-wielding uses d6 weapons; otherwise use d8 weapons
Level 11 Quarry reroll accounted for. Subclass features not accounted for.
Examining average damage against AC 12, 15, 18, and 20.
Crits were not accounted for because I forgot. They shouldn't be significant enough to affect the first pass review.


The shift in average damage output when you add Dueling or Archery fighting styles is minimal. Archery fighting style is kinda pointless on average, since when it's beneficial, the average damage is still about the same as the Dueling style, but Dueling has higher potential once your attack potential raises above the to-hit cap. The main use for the Archery style would be to combine it with the Sharpshooter feat.

Dueling has about a 25% boost at level 2, gradually fading down to about a 12% boost at level 20, across all ACs.

Archery ranges from a 15% to 33% boost at level 2 (the higher the target AC, the higher the boost), fading to 0% to 10% by level 20. You start hitting to-hit caps against low-AC creatures about level 10.

Notice that I've left out dual wielding so far. That's because dual wielding horribly skews the balance. Dual wielding starts off basically doubling your damage (once you get the fighting style at level 2; at level 1 it's only +70%), and gradually fades to a mere +40% to +50% by level 20.

This is partially due to just having an extra attack per round, but is largely carried by the Quarry bonus damage. The Dueling fighting style only grants +2 damage per hit, whereas the Quarry damage scales with level, averaging +6.5 damage per hit at level 20. Dual wielding gives you an extra attack at the cost of reducing the weapon damage die, so you get 3d6 instead of 2d8, which, on its own, is a 1.5 damage increase. The Two-weapon fighting style allows you to add your attack stat to the damage, which is another +3 to +5 damage. And then Quarry stacks on top of that for another +2.5 to +6.5 damage.

A single attack round at level 10 with Quarry in full effect (to make the comparison simpler), 18 Dex (finesse weapon), and +1 weapons allows for:
Base ranger = 28 damage
Archery ranger = 28 damage
Dueling ranger = 32 damage
TWF ranger = 39 damage

TWF is 30% above baseline and 20% above Dueling. (It gains a bit more once you factor in the initial hit to mark a Quarry.)

If you get rid of the attack stat damage (ie: remove the fighting style bonus), it drops to 35 damage. If you drop the Quarry damage, it drops further to 30.5, which is more in line with the other styles, and only slightly above baseline.

As things currently stand, we need to at least remove Quarry damage from bonus attacks, to keep dual wielding from completely overshadowing other combat styles. There are other rules in the game that only allow adding damage once per turn (eg: Sneak Attack), likely to help minimize this type of disparity. If we do go that route on the phrasing, I'd probably allow Hunter to gain the Quarry damage up to twice per turn. Beastmaster already gets the chance at two per turn, using the beast to attack. Warden gets Hunter's Mark as extra bonus damage, which would seem to balance out in a similar way.

[Kane0]

Interesting. If it's easy for you to calculate, how does TWF Quarry stack up against other forms of BA attack like the Beastmaster and PAM fighter/barb/pally?

[Fnissalot]

A bunch of small things/comments.

For most other classes two-weapon fighting tends to have low damage in tier 4. Not counting to hit, you should on average do more damage a turn. Barbarians get this through crit damage increases and rage bonuses. Paladins through smites. Rogues through sneak attack. Fighters through their many attacks. If non-twf hunters are that low on damage. That damage is too low, and you shouldn't try to decrease the twf damage. Hunter needs something to boost their ranged damage. Either give hunters some kind of bonus action increase to damage or make the first attack on each turn do a lot more damage if it hits.

Edit version 1:
Aimed takedown:
Hunters level 3 feature
As an bonus action, the first time you hit this turn adds 2 bonus quarry dice to the damage.

Edit version 2:
Aimed takedown
Hunters level 3 feature
The first attack on your turn adds two bonus quarry dice to the damage if the attacks hits.

Hunters mark and swift quiver makes this not an issue for wardens and the beast solves it for beastmasters.

The reason for 4hp per hit die is that monsters/NPCs rounds down on rolling and doesn't get a full die as their first. I am not saying that we should do it, but I assume that was the logic for the way it was written.

Also, I think it should have generic fighting styles as it is a normal martial class still. The class can benefit from enough of them that it is worth it.

[Moxxmix]

Spent some time fixing and tweaking the spreadsheet model. Made sure crits were accounted for, and fixed some errors.

For TWF:

At level 2, it's +100% damage without offhand Quarry damage, and +135% damage with offhand Quarry.

At level 5, it drops to +60% with offhand Quarry damage, and +40% without offhand Quarry. It remains at this level until level 20.


For Beastmaster:

Pet: Wolf and Black Bear are basically the same. Using 2d4 for weapon damage, and +2 for stat (Dex for wolf, Str for bear). It uses ranger proficiency. It does not get Quarry re-roll. Did not try to figure in advantage from Pack Tactics.

The pet's attack is basically a direct replacement for a duel wielding attack, though the ranger maintains the d8 weapon instead of using d6 weapons.

At level 3, it's +110% without pet Quarry damage, +150% with pet Quarry damage.

At level 5 without pet Quarry damage, it drops to +40%, and declines to +25%-+30% by level 20.

At level 5 with pet Quarry damage, it drops to +50%, and declines to +40% by level 20.

However, that's only if you keep the wolf the entire way through. If you switch up to something like a brown bear at higher levels, it pushes the pet build back up to where dual wielding sits.

Overall, the two options are on par with each other.



For the PAM comparison, I just took a Champion fighter with Great Weapon Fighting fighting style.

Note: I did not attempt to use Action Surge for this comparison, so that would give a small boost to fighter's potential output.

Without PAM, it works out to very close to the baseline ranger output, varying within about 10% of the ranger baseline either way. Champion starts out a small bit ahead, then drops behind after level 5, then pulls ahead again at level 11. It stays about 5% to 10% ahead, until level 20 where it gets a major boost from quad-attack, putting it 40% ahead of baseline ranger.

With PAM, starting either at level 1 or 4, the fighter is +100% over the baseline ranger. This drops to +20% at level 5, increases to about +40% at level 11, and then stays there til level 20.


I'm not going to try to model paladin or barbarian right now.


Anyway, TWF and Beastmaster pet are pretty comparable, and they're not too different from PAM (with PAM being a little weaker).

Turning off Quarry damage on offhand and pet damage helps keep things a little more in line, damage-wise.

Beastmaster has the option to shoot ahead again if it takes Archery plus the Sharpshooter feat, since it's already gaining roughly the benefit of TWF from its pet. This could be an issue.

~~~~

Overall, I'm still inclined to say that Quarry damage shouldn't apply to bonus action attacks (including pet attacks). Especially if Hunter gets to use two Quarry dice per attack; that starts getting crazy when dual wielding, and perhaps picking up Magic Initiate for Hunter's Mark on top of that. It feels like the ranger is a bit overpowered at this point.

It definitely feels like we need to scale back damage a bit. Probably find other unique ways to make use of the Quarry dice, per subclass.

[Bjarkmundur]

Did you account for not getting quarry damage on your first attack, and then reduce the damage on the second attack in the cases where the first attack didn't hit?

But I agree, the damage needs to be adjusted pretty much separately from everything else. Good thing we got the theme pretty well established; we can simply work around it :D

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm doing my own analysis, in a wordier way (DMs kinda make probability math weird, and not completely reliable).

I started out using Fighting Styles, but TWF quickly became ridiculous. So I though 'OK, I'll just use no styles' but then Shield and Longbow styles just become worse and TWF was still ridiculous. Then I tried using my Hunting Styles. The results were much better! I had done it! Balance was achieved!

...Then came Extra Attack, and everything fell apart. I'm still working on this, I'll report back when I'm done.

What beasts should I be using as a reference for each of the CRs?

-----------------------
These are the changes I've made while figuring these out. Each of these changes were made reactively after looking at each level individually. Nothing was changed unless it was deemed absolutely necessary. Like before, ever single letter was carefully placed, trying to keep the class as true to itself as possible. Brick by brick, level by level.

Base Class
Extra Attack moved to level 11.
Quarry doesn't scale beyond 1d6 (yet)
No Fighting Styles
Use Hunting Styles instead



Quick-Mark: You can mark a creature as your Quarry as a bonus action.
Savage Attacker: Your animal companion can trigger your Quarry damage bonus.
Protection: Animal Companion has Defensive Fighting style. Whenever your beast uses its reaction to give an enemy disadvantage on an attack roll, your next attack against the target deals an additional Quarry dice of damage.
Defensive: While wearing a green hat with a single feather, you gain +1 AC.


Beastmaster
No proficiency bonus to damage rolls.
Can only have beast trigger Quarry by using the appropriate Hunting Style
Animal Companion starts at 1/8 CR
Animal Companion goes to 1/4 CR at level 7?

Hunter
Can deal double quarry damage once per turn.
Hunter can reroll quarry at level 7

Warden
Needs to be half-caster
Needs to have ranger spells.
---------------------

Design Goal:
- Damage per turn (on hit) should be a little less than the rogue's.
- There should be no trap options, and no "one best way" to build the Ranger.
- Keep Quarry as a damage bonus, and not some 1/turn psuedo sneak attack.

Initial Analysis: (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J-95Y9dQtzBdLOOJOhxXTCKXVyvT4POasXBkCyKBz7Q/edit?usp=sharing) LINK

Conclusion:
I've done an okay job at balancing the class up to level 7. I still need a good reference for beast damage to make sure.

The following have become absoloutely clear:

The Animal Companion CR will have to be redone from scratch
The Warden needs to have the Offical Ranger's spellcasting progression and spell list, as written.
The Hunter needs the Quarry reroll at level 7
No-one can have Extra Attack until level 11, if the beast CR is carefully plotted out.


----------------------


Extra Attack:
Without limiting Quarry to 1/turn, this had to be done. Hopefully we find a place for it later. It's also very hard to give the Beastmaster Extra Attack since he already has it with his animal companion. It's tempting to give Extra Attack only to the Hunter and the Warden.

1d6 Quarry
The Quarry damage is the source of the TWF problem. Increasing the dice size only adds to the problem.

No Fighting Styles
The TWF problem only got worse with the addition of fighting styles.

Quick Mark
Allows single-handed rangers to compete with TWF

Savage Attacker and Protection
Having both of these tacked on to the beast proved too strong. The protection bit is just so thematic I had to find a way to include it.

Defensive Hunting Style
Because why not

No Proficiency bonus to Companion damage rolls
We only have space for one beast-damage booster, and the Quarry felt more thematic than a flat bonus.

Animal Companion starts at 1/8 CR
Since the companions HP is based on the ranger, the only thing we need from a companion is a balanced attack. The attacks of 1/4 CR beasts proved to strong early on. The alternative is to replace any damage the beast's attacks do with a predetermined damage roll.

Double Quarry Damage - Hunter
The extra damage was needed to keep up with the beastmaster and rogue, but had to be limited to 1/turn to keep TWF in check.

[Jaxby]

Bjarkmundur: you keep writing features that lets you choose to use quarry as a bonus action. Why would you want to use a free action ability as a bonus action? Or are you assuming that marking a target as your quarry should be an action for the base class?


I quite like fighting styles, and since it was in the progression table, I assumed we were just using the standard ranger ones.

I think we have been pretty good at avoiding making a class that assumes a certain ranger type. Including mêlée/ranged and str/dex. Of course the different styles should be roughly the same in terms of power, but bear in mind that duelling and archery should do less dmg than the other mêlée options, as they can be used with shield or at range.

If there are problems with the Warden getting Hunters Mark, we could simply not add it to the Druid spell list. That way, their increase in dmg would have to come from other spells such as zephyr strike, flame arrows etc.

Edit:

Beast's Defense (14)
When your beast uses its Protection fighting style it also grants resistance against the damage of the attack if it hits.

I think you have to explain the protection fighting style in the feature, since the original requires a shield. And maybe also, that it is the player that gets resistance, and not the beast itself.

[Bjarkmundur]

Your first attack against a creature doesn't deal quarry damage, since it represents learning how a creature fights as you fight it. This leads to single weaponed rangers both having their BA free an unable to trigger their quarry damage in a single turn. I thought giving the option of using your BA to study the target it was fitting, although it was an idea we moved away from early in the class' design.

I made sure there were differences between the style, I just thought doing half damage compared to other builds was setting us up for the same problem the original beast master had: being so bad it was almost unplayable, was presented as a trap option and didn't fulfill its promised fantasy.

The whole reason were doing this is to fulfill the ranger fantasy. If we are failing to balance all builds except TWF, I don't think we succeeded in our original design goal. As enjoyable as the class is as a whole, falling too behind in damage does get in the way of the overall experience of playing a fun class.

Just take three builds as an example. Set them up at level 7 and compare then in terms of how you would experience playing them in a session. Take a Beastmaster with a wolf, a TWF Hunter and a Longbow Hunter. You'll see the gap between these builds is too big to be negligible.

Keep in mind the Rogue at level 7 is 25

Beastmaster
Shield and Sword, duelist style.
Attack, apply mark = 1d8 + 6
Extra Attack, trigger mark = 1d8 + 6 + 1d6
Bonus Action, Wolf attack, proficiency bonus, trigger mark = 2d4+2+3+1d6
= 38 damage

Hunter
TWF, TWF style
Attack, apply mark = 1d6 + 4
Extra Attack, trigger mark = 1d6 + 4 + 1d6
Bonus Action Attack, trigger mark = 1d6 + 4 + 1d6
Double all quarry damage = 3d6
= 40 damage

Longbow Hunter
Longbow,
Attack, apply mark = 1d8 + 4
Extra Attack, trigger mark = 1d8 + 4 + 1d6
Double all quarry damage = 2d6
= 27 damage

I understand there being a dice or two between weapon choices, bur right the beastmaster is 11 points a head. That's not counting for the +2 AC and pack tactics.

[Jaxby]

Ah okay, that makes sense, if you want to add it to the first hit.

I have to confess I skimmed the first few damage calculation examples, as calculating damage is not my strong suit. Seeing the example in your last post, I will agree 100% with you, that the TWF hunter and beast master seem too strong.

The design of them is just so elegant though :)

Would removing the quarry bonus from the beast be an idea? Or the prof bonus to damage?

And removing double quarry dice for the hunter? Or making the extra die a once per turn only, thereby only nerfing several attacks following the first?

Edit: spelling

[Fnissalot]

Your first attack against a creature doesn't deal quarry damage, since it represents learning how a creature fights as you fight it. This leads to single weaponed rangers both having their BA free an unable to trigger their quarry damage in a single turn. I thought giving the option of using your BA to study the target it was fitting, although it was an idea we moved away from early in the class' design.

I made sure there were differences between the style, I just thought doing half damage compared to other builds was setting us up for the same problem the original beast master had: being so bad it was almost unplayable, was presented as a trap option and didn't fulfill its promised fantasy.

The whole reason were doing this is to fulfill the ranger fantasy. If we are failing to balance all builds except TWF, I don't think we succeeded in our original design goal. As enjoyable as the class is as a whole, falling too behind in damage does get in the way of the overall experience of playing a fun class.

Just take three builds as an example. Set them up at level 7 and compare then in terms of how you would experience playing them in a session. Take a Beastmaster with a wolf, a TWF Hunter and a Longbow Hunter. You'll see the gap between these builds is too big to be negligible.

Keep in mind the Rogue at level 7 is 25

Beastmaster
Shield and Sword, duelist style.
Attack, apply mark = 1d8 + 6
Extra Attack, trigger mark = 1d8 + 6 + 1d6
Bonus Action, Wolf attack, proficiency bonus, trigger mark = 2d4+2+3+1d6
= 38 damage

Hunter
TWF, TWF style
Attack, apply mark = 1d6 + 4
Extra Attack, trigger mark = 1d6 + 4 + 1d6
Bonus Action Attack, trigger mark = 1d6 + 4 + 1d6
Double all quarry damage = 3d6
= 40 damage

Longbow Hunter
Longbow,
Attack, apply mark = 1d8 + 4
Extra Attack, trigger mark = 1d8 + 4 + 1d6
Double all quarry damage = 2d6
= 27 damage

I understand there being a dice or two between weapon choices, bur right the beastmaster is 11 points a head. That's not counting for the +2 AC and pack tactics.

That is a rather biased take on it as you ignore the to hit modifiers and crits.

I started putting a sheet together. The damage is average per turn damage of 3 turns of combat. You can modify B1 to set which AC to compare to.
For now, I ignore magical items and feats since they will complicate it a lot more. Adding sharpshooter will improve the damage of ranged combat a lot at certain AC.

Include basic rogue, champion fighter, old hunter, and this hunter so far where it makes sense so no sword and board rogue. Will add warden and beastmaster tomorrow.
Sword + Board uses a d8 weapon.
Twf uses 2 d6 weapons.
Ranger and fighter uses a heavy crossbow until lvl 5 and then switches to a longbow, rogue uses a light crossbow straight through.
Old ranger uses huntersmark until swift quiver is available at range.
I have not included multiattack or similar for the rangers. But, it seems like the new non-twf hunters need to get 1 more attack through it on every turn to be on par with the other classes.

The main interesting things that you miss is for example:

a TWF rogue surpases this twf hunter at higher levels versus enemies with 19 or more in AC. TWF new hunter deals a lot more damage vs low AC in the mid levels.
Both the old sword+board and the old archery hunters outdamage this hunter with the same fighting styles from level 2 and forward. Both rangers are pretty on par with sword and board fighters but the new ranged hunter is slightly behind at t3 and t4. More so vs low AC monsters since their to hit has capped out.



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PD8xTFTUJXIpVs6shksqoF5ei2Abd31WEtqUtN5r8HQ/edit?usp=sharing

edit: fixed errors with archery and s+b new ranger.

[Kane0]

Some lovely back and forth, it's good to see. Also good to see my eyeballing is still working.

Good catch on the beast protection, will clear that up.

Considering the responses I'm planning to leave Fighting Styles as they are, at least for now. Do people want the Defense option added back in or are happy with what's there?

I'm also going to reduce raw damage output, but not by making Quarry once per turn.
Hunters will go back to roll-twice-take-best. Not all the options should have heavy bonus action use.
Beast companion will not get either proficiency bonus or Quarry die to damage. Taking preferences on which to cut
Hunter's Mark i'm not so sure about. I don't want to just scrap it (as it is still an Ancients pally spell) but perhaps reduce its damage to once per turn or something.

[Rukelnikov]

Quarry should be changed to "weapon attack" to prevent Lock2/RgrX (or MI(Lock)) Hex + Agoblast, which would do extremely high damage for minimum expenditure, and seems contrary to the "idea" of ranger I assume you are going for.

I'm not a fan of the "add 50 damage" ulti, it seems very unelegant to me, but w/e.

I haven't read the class in detail yet, but it looks good in general, and has a nice rangery vibe.

Btw rangers should have some way to get increased move speed, maybe not the base class but one of the subs.

[Kane0]

Quarry should be changed to "weapon attack" to prevent Lock2/RgrX (or MI(Lock)) Hex + Agoblast, which would do extremely high damage for minimum expenditure, and seems contrary to the "idea" of ranger I assume you are going for.

I'm not a fan of the "add 50 damage" ulti, it seems very unelegant to me, but w/e.

I haven't read the class in detail yet, but it looks good in general, and has a nice rangery vibe.

Btw rangers should have some way to get increased move speed, maybe not the base class but one of the subs.

Well, there's a bit to unpack there. Quarry is deliberately built to work with spell attacks (magic stone, primal savagery, produce flame, thorn whip, ice knife, flame blade, steel wind strike) and its something that sets it apart from things like rage, divine smite and sneak attack. Eblast itself isn't much of a problem, it's more the small opportunity cost in spell slots/warlock levels that is the issue and you'd probably be a bit MAD if you wanted to do that. Still totally doable and worthwhile (which is good!), but how superior is it compared to other MCs you could take as a warlock or feats you could take as a ranger? Something like a Feylock/Warden ranger sounds pretty fun and interesting actually!

Oh yeah, still taking suggestions for a better capstone. Extra damage and condition is functional but not what i'd consider phenomenal.

Rangers get plenty of mobility enhancing items without a straight improvement to speed however there are ways to do it (mobility feat, warden spells, MCing, etc). If we get to the 'expanded subclasses' stage there will be two more and one of them will definitely focus on movement.

And thankyou! It would never have turned out so well without the feedback in this thread.

[Moxxmix]

Did you account for not getting quarry damage on your first attack, and then reduce the damage on the second attack in the cases where the first attack didn't hit?

But I agree, the damage needs to be adjusted pretty much separately from everything else. Good thing we got the theme pretty well established; we can simply work around it :D

Yes, the first attack doesn't get the quarry bonus in my spreadsheet. The second attack isn't affected because you can set Quarry after an attack, regardless of hit or miss.


Beastmaster
Shield and Sword, duelist style.
Attack, apply mark = 1d8 + 6
Extra Attack, trigger mark = 1d8 + 6 + 1d6
Bonus Action, Wolf attack, proficiency bonus, trigger mark = 2d4+2+3+1d6
= 38 damage
Note: The wolf doesn't add the proficiency bonus to its damage. This should be 35 damage.


Hunter
TWF, TWF style
Attack, apply mark = 1d6 + 4
Extra Attack, trigger mark = 1d6 + 4 + 1d6
Bonus Action Attack, trigger mark = 1d6 + 4 + 1d6
Double all quarry damage = 3d6
= 40 damage
Note: TWF Hunter is at 29.5 damage without the doubled Quarry damage.



Longbow Hunter
Longbow,
Attack, apply mark = 1d8 + 4
Extra Attack, trigger mark = 1d8 + 4 + 1d6
Double all quarry damage = 2d6
= 27 damage
Note: Longbow hunter is at 20 damage without the doubled quarry damage.


Given the rogue is at 25 damage, the longbow is low and the beastmaster is high. The TWF Hunter is within reasonable range if double damage is removed. The Beastmaster is still a bit high even if we remove the beast's Quarry damage (32.5).

I added the rogue to my spreadsheet to compare. Its set using TWF, and a 75% chance to achieve Sneak Attack each round. During levels 1-4, it's about double the baseline ranger, similar to the TWF ranger and Beastmaster after level 3. Basically, TWF dominates at levels 1-4, regardless of class. At level 5, the difference drops to marginally ahead of baseline ranger, but increases as levels go up, til it gets to around 30% above baseline ranger.

Given that the rogue is more intended to use stealth, and thus get advantage on attack (which my spreadsheet doesn't account for), and that the rogue subclasses don't add much in the way of combat benefits, I get the feeling that reaching about 40% over baseline is a decent position for a ranger subclass.

The Dueling and Archery fighting styles add something like 10%-15% to the baseline class, which leaves room for extra combat features in the subclasses. TWF is where things get icky.

Beastmaster with Dueling fighting style ends up close to 40% over baseline, as long as the pet doesn't do Quarry damage. As long as the pets don't get more than a +3 in their attack stat, everything looks good. The only CR1 creature that breaks that is the brown bear, which gets +4 Str. Since there's a wide variety of other beasts to choose from that are +3 in their attack stat, I'm OK with not being too concerned about the bear.

Also, even the basic wolf is a solid choice all the way up to level 20. Given the likelihood of becoming attached to their animal companion, the fact that they're still viable at later levels also helps mitigate the issue of getting overpowered with later beasts. The options to encourage more utility and defense use should also work to mitigate overpowered-ness.


For level 7, vs AC18, and covering 3 rounds, I'm currently getting average damage values of:

Baseline ranger: 43
Dueling ranger: 50
Archery ranger: 51
TWF ranger (no offhand Quarry): 60
TWF ranger (offhand Quarry): 66
Beastmaster (no fighting style, no pet Quarry): 57
Beastmaster, Dueling (no pet Quarry): 63
Beastmaster, Dueling (pet Quarry): 68
PAM Champion: 52
Rogue TWF: 49 (no advantage)

Edit: There are errors in the above numbers; don't use them. See corrected values in post below.

I haven't put together a spreadsheet page for the original Hunter, but a quick calculation using Hunter's Mark, Colossus Slayer, and Duelist gives:

(1d8 (weapon) + 1d6 (HM) + 4 (stat) + 1 (+1 weapon)) * 2 (attacks) + crits + 1d8 (CS) = 35.525 * 3 rounds * 55% accuracy (+8 att vs 18 AC) = 58.61625 ~= 59

So we're actually not too far off in terms of damage output. Hitting something around a 60 should be acceptable. Also, 40% over baseline ranger is 60.2, so that supports that estimate.

[Kane0]

Note: The wolf doesn't add the proficiency bonus to its damage. This should be 35 damage.

Note: TWF Hunter is at 29.5 damage without the doubled Quarry damage.

Note: Longbow hunter is at 20 damage without the doubled quarry damage.


In all fairness, those calculations were done before my edits (see post #135)

[Bjarkmundur]

We coooouuuuld limit quarry to the attack action?

Moxxmix, your effort and skill are commendable. I think with you leading the charge, the damage output of this class is in good hands. I just still hope the universally accepted design goal is 'no trap options, but with room for optimizing'

Since the fighting styles are starting to make more sense, I still think you should use the fighter ones as written. Each DM is free to add his own houseruled fighting styles at his own table, they should not come bundled with the class IMO.

For playtesting purposes, I'd love to get some general guidelines on how to do it effectively. What ranger build should I use, and what other class should I use in the party for comparison? I'm thinking about having two rangers and two baseline classes, to get the most amount of playtesting done in each session.

TWF Hunter and a TWF Rogue is an obvious choice, but I'm unsure what the baseline should be for the Warden and Beastmaster.

SnB Ranger and SnB Paladin, perhaps? But what subclass of paladin?

Longbow Hunter and Longbow Fighter. But what subclass of fighter?

[Moxxmix]

OK, more damage analysis.

First: MISTAKES!

I had rewritten the spreadsheet pages to streamline how they worked, so it would be easier to make changes and toggle switches. When I was copying worksheets, however, I forgot to reset the TWF's page's weapon damage die. So the numbers I provided above were using 1d8 for the weapon instead of 1d6. Fixing this helps a lot in bringing things back into line.

I also found an error in the Beastmaster's pet damage that was increasing damage. Fixed that.

Second: I put in handling of the Hunter's feature to take the best of two die rolls for Quarry damage. This provides a nice boost for the sample (level 7 vs AC 18). That helps bring things in line with the target damage value of 60.

Putting both of those in, these are the revised numbers:

Baseline ranger: 43
Dueling Hunter: 53
Archery Hunter: 54
TWF Hunter (no BA Quarry): 58
TWF ranger (with BA Quarry): 65
Beastmaster, Dueling (no pet Quarry): 59
Beastmaster, Dueling (pet Quarry): 64
PAM Champion: 52
Rogue TWF: 49 (75% SA) to 58 (100% SA)
Old Hunter (manual): 59

The two instances of higher-than-desired damage come from getting Quarry damage from bonus actions (either offhand attack or pet attack). If we remove those, then the damage mostly lines up pretty well, at close to 60 (ranging from 53 to 59).

Since TWF on Hunter comes in near the target of 60, I'm less inclined to try to further hinder it. I had been considering whether it would be useful to add a bonus action to Hunter to steer away from TWF, but I don't think it's necessary now. It's still an option if an interesting idea comes up, though I suspect most new ideas will be routed to new subclasses.

Also, I added alternate values for rogue, considering I believe it was said by Mike Mearls that they balanced rogue on the assumption that they'd almost always get SA each round. If we allow for that, then it puts the rogue close to the 60 mark that the others are reaching.

With the fix to Beastmaster damage, it's also now falling in the same range as the others, at 59 without Quarry damage, and 64 with Quarry damage.


~~~~

Overall, I'm pretty happy now with where things fall. Turning off Quarry damage on bonus actions puts all the damage in the range of 53 to 59, which I feel is acceptable. Dueling is on the low end, but it comes with the bonus of extra AC from the shield, so it's a fair tradeoff.

[Kane0]

For playtesting purposes, I'd love to get some general guidelines on how to do it effectively. What ranger build should I use, and what other class should I use in the party for comparison? I'm thinking about having two rangers and two baseline classes, to get the most amount of playtesting done in each session.

TWF Hunter and a TWF Rogue is an obvious choice, but I'm unsure what the baseline should be for the Warden and Beastmaster.

SnB Ranger and SnB Paladin, perhaps? But what subclass of paladin?

Longbow Hunter and Longbow Fighter. But what subclass of fighter?

Playtesting is always 'whatever I can get' in my experience, but if you have the opportunity to plan it out i'd do something like:

Run the same adventure multiple times if you can, like something from TftYP as an example. Have a rounded party of 4-5
Pair the playtest ranger with another class of rough equivalent. The three PHB fighters are good counterparts but there is also the barb, paladin and rogue. Don't run old and new rangers together and try not to run two new rangers together unless you're specifically testing subclasses.
Raw numbers are only part of the picture, feedback on more subjective things like 'how much I contributed' and 'X wasn't as fun as Y' are also valuable.
Don't optimize out the gate, take 'reasonable' builds then we work on breaking everything at the second stage.


-Damage-
Excellent! I'm OK with beastmaster having some slightly above-curve damage since the beast carries its own drawbacks (like being killed), TWF is always a tough one to tangle with. As long as it's just a few points above average that doesn't sound gamebreaking (well, any more gamebreaking than pre-extra attack TWF already is anyways).

[Moxxmix]

Since the fighting styles are starting to make more sense, I still think you should use the fighter ones as written. Each DM is free to add his own houseruled fighting styles at his own table, they should not come bundled with the class IMO.
Regarding the fighting styles, I think it's fine to use the ones provided in the PHB ranger (dueling, archery, TWF, and defense). Fighter's Great Weapon Fighting doesn't feel appropriate for ranger, and Protection has been handed off to the Beastmaster's pet.

[Fnissalot]

Yes, the first attack doesn't get the quarry bonus in my spreadsheet. The second attack isn't affected because you can set Quarry after an attack, regardless of hit or miss.


Note: The wolf doesn't add the proficiency bonus to its damage. This should be 35 damage.


Note: TWF Hunter is at 29.5 damage without the doubled Quarry damage.


Note: Longbow hunter is at 20 damage without the doubled quarry damage.


Given the rogue is at 25 damage, the longbow is low and the beastmaster is high. The TWF Hunter is within reasonable range if double damage is removed. The Beastmaster is still a bit high even if we remove the beast's Quarry damage (32.5).

I added the rogue to my spreadsheet to compare. Its set using TWF, and a 75% chance to achieve Sneak Attack each round. During levels 1-4, it's about double the baseline ranger, similar to the TWF ranger and Beastmaster after level 3. Basically, TWF dominates at levels 1-4, regardless of class. At level 5, the difference drops to marginally ahead of baseline ranger, but increases as levels go up, til it gets to around 30% above baseline ranger.

Given that the rogue is more intended to use stealth, and thus get advantage on attack (which my spreadsheet doesn't account for), and that the rogue subclasses don't add much in the way of combat benefits, I get the feeling that reaching about 40% over baseline is a decent position for a ranger subclass.

The Dueling and Archery fighting styles add something like 10%-15% to the baseline class, which leaves room for extra combat features in the subclasses. TWF is where things get icky.

Beastmaster with Dueling fighting style ends up close to 40% over baseline, as long as the pet doesn't do Quarry damage. As long as the pets don't get more than a +3 in their attack stat, everything looks good. The only CR1 creature that breaks that is the brown bear, which gets +4 Str. Since there's a wide variety of other beasts to choose from that are +3 in their attack stat, I'm OK with not being too concerned about the bear.

Also, even the basic wolf is a solid choice all the way up to level 20. Given the likelihood of becoming attached to their animal companion, the fact that they're still viable at later levels also helps mitigate the issue of getting overpowered with later beasts. The options to encourage more utility and defense use should also work to mitigate overpowered-ness.


For level 7, vs AC18, and covering 3 rounds, I'm currently getting average damage values of:

Baseline ranger: 43
Dueling ranger: 50
Archery ranger: 51
TWF ranger (no offhand Quarry): 60
TWF ranger (offhand Quarry): 66
Beastmaster (no fighting style, no pet Quarry): 57
Beastmaster, Dueling (no pet Quarry): 63
Beastmaster, Dueling (pet Quarry): 68
PAM Champion: 52
Rogue TWF: 49 (no advantage)

Edit: There are errors in the above numbers; don't use them. See corrected values in post below.

I haven't put together a spreadsheet page for the original Hunter, but a quick calculation using Hunter's Mark, Colossus Slayer, and Duelist gives:

(1d8 (weapon) + 1d6 (HM) + 4 (stat) + 1 (+1 weapon)) * 2 (attacks) + crits + 1d8 (CS) = 35.525 * 3 rounds * 55% accuracy (+8 att vs 18 AC) = 58.61625 ~= 59

So we're actually not too far off in terms of damage output. Hitting something around a 60 should be acceptable. Also, 40% over baseline ranger is 60.2, so that supports that estimate.

Since you can take large creatures, the drafthorse and the warhorse are quite better than the wolf if the wolf does not get advantage. That said, most beasts at these levels are way worse than wolfs and horses so I am not sure which is best to compare it to? If you take one of the worst beasts (crab for example) you are left far below every other style. If you instead take a more average beast (like axe beaks and crocodiles) and it doesn't get quarry, the damage seems to be just above the other styles and subclasses.

Also, how many magic weapons are you assuming? I guess it would be fair to delay the magic weapon for the off hand a bit? Especially since that will further improve TWF while not being an as fair assessment?
---

Added beastmaster to my sheet. Made the hunter have "advantage" on quarry dice instead of double it, and made it possible to include and exclude quarry on beast/dualwield. It might still not look as good as Moxxmix's sheet but anyway.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PD8xTFTUJXIpVs6shksqoF5ei2Abd31WEtqUtN5r8HQ/edit?usp=sharing

[Moxxmix]

Since you can take large creatures, the drafthorse and the warhorse are quite better than the wolf if the wolf does not get advantage. That said, most beasts at these levels are way worse than wolfs and horses so I am not sure which is best to compare it to? If you take one of the worst beasts (crab for example) you are left far below every other style. If you instead take a more average beast (like axe beaks and crocodiles) and it doesn't get quarry, the damage seems to be just above the other styles and subclasses.

Also, how many magic weapons are you assuming? I guess it would be fair to delay the magic weapon for the off hand a bit? Especially since that will further improve TWF while not being an as fair assessment?


For magic weapons, all weapons are considered to be the same, so yes, the offhand was also assumed to be a +1. A non-magical offhand would weaken the results, but that gets into the issue of when you might get magical weapons, and what types (eg: dagger would drop the damage die to 1d4), and so forth, which is far too much to try to integrate into an evaluation. Since I want the estimates to be comparable, everyone got "equal" gear.


As for companion options, I'll just scan through the CR 1/8-1/4 stuff for the starter.

Wolf (what I used): 2d4 (5) damage for the dice portion of the attack; +2 attack stat; Pack Tactics (not included in evaluation); 59 damage

Axe Beak: 1d8 (4.5) dice; +2 attack stat; 58 damage
Blood Hawk [CR 1/8]: 1d4 (2.5) dice; +2 attack stat; Pack Tactics; flight; 56 damage
Boar: 1d6 (3.5) dice; +1 attack stat; 55 damage
Camel [CR 1/8]: 1d4 dice; +3 stat; 58 damage
Constrictor Snake: 1d6/1d8 dice; +2 stat; Constriction; 57/58 damage
Draft Horse: 2d4 dice; +4 stat; 64 damage (ouch)
Elk: 1d6/2d4 dice; +3 stat; 59/61 damage
Flying Snake [CR 1/8]: 1 + 3d4 damage; +4 to hit; flight, swim; 64 damage (nasty little bugger)
Giant Badger: 2d4 dice; +1 stat; 57 damage
Giant Crab [CR 1/8]: 1d6 dice; +1 stat; 55 damage
Giant Weasel: 1d4 dice; +3 stat; 58 damage

... And it keeps going on like that. Basically, there's not enough variance that I would consider any of them bad, even the CR 1/8 options (which can be surprisingly powerful in their own way).

Note that the low end of these (something like the giant crab, or boar) is still about on par with the archery Hunter option (not counting Sharpshooter). I would not consider any of them trap options, and there's lots of reasons I can think of to pick quite a few of the options. You're kind of spoiled for choice, here. I want a spitting camel, or an angry blood hawk, or a giant weasel, or a flying snake!

Now, the Warhorse is definitely powerful —

Warhorse [CR 1/2]: 2d6 dice; +4 stat; 67 damage

— and there's a notable lack of other good CR 1/2 options, so I can see that being a concern. I'd almost be OK with just keeping the companion limited to CR 1/4, if not for losing the bear option, and all the fun stuff that shows up at CR 1 (lions and tigers and bears!).

Still, despite the two horse options being ahead of the game in raw damage, I'm pretty sure most people don't pick Beastmaster to have a pet horse. And even if not optimal, just about every option looks good, in flavor and extra abilities like flight or Pack Tactics or special attacks.

As for the bit about Quarry, remember that all my estimates assume that we remove Quarry damage from the beast companions. That overpowers Beastmaster too much. As such, the above numbers aren't restricted to only fighting the ranger's primary target.

[Kane0]

As for the bit about Quarry, remember that all my estimates assume that we remove Quarry damage from the beast companions. That overpowers Beastmaster too much. As such, the above numbers aren't restricted to only fighting the ranger's primary target.

How about taking away +prof to damage instead? Same average damage, requires the same target.

[Jaxby]

Considering the responses I'm planning to leave Fighting Styles as they are, at least for now. Do people want the Defense option added back in or are happy with what's there?
----snip----
Beast companion will not get either proficiency bonus or Quarry die to damage. Taking preferences on which to cut
----snip----
Hunter's Mark i'm not so sure about. I don't want to just scrap it (as it is still an Ancients pally spell) but perhaps reduce its damage to once per turn or something.

I think you should let the ranger have the defensive one. Its nice with the option, and it means that rangers eho take it will have slightly lower dmg, which is okay judging by the balancing math.

It looks like both quarry dmg and prof dmg have to go, if I'm reading the numbers right. If we only remove one, I would say keep the quarry die, as it is more specific to the ranger.

Hunter's Mark: paladins can still have hunter's mark. I'm not saying remove the spell, just don't add it to the expanded druid spell list with the other ranger spells. That way it's not on the "new ranger spell list". If we are still going Warden spell list = druid spell list.

[Fnissalot]

How about taking away +prof to damage instead? Same average damage, requires the same target.

It currently only adds prof to hit, not to damage.


For magic weapons, all weapons are considered to be the same, so yes, the offhand was also assumed to be a +1. A non-magical offhand would weaken the results, but that gets into the issue of when you might get magical weapons, and what types (eg: dagger would drop the damage die to 1d4), and so forth, which is far too much to try to integrate into an evaluation. Since I want the estimates to be comparable, everyone got "equal" gear.


As for companion options, I'll just scan through the CR 1/8-1/4 stuff for the starter.

Wolf (what I used): 2d4 (5) damage for the dice portion of the attack; +2 attack stat; Pack Tactics (not included in evaluation); 59 damage

Axe Beak: 1d8 (4.5) dice; +2 attack stat; 58 damage
Blood Hawk [CR 1/8]: 1d4 (2.5) dice; +2 attack stat; Pack Tactics; flight; 56 damage
Boar: 1d6 (3.5) dice; +1 attack stat; 55 damage
Camel [CR 1/8]: 1d4 dice; +3 stat; 58 damage
Constrictor Snake: 1d6/1d8 dice; +2 stat; Constriction; 57/58 damage
Draft Horse: 2d4 dice; +4 stat; 64 damage (ouch)
Elk: 1d6/2d4 dice; +3 stat; 59/61 damage
Flying Snake [CR 1/8]: 1 + 3d4 damage; +4 to hit; flight, swim; 64 damage (nasty little bugger)
Giant Badger: 2d4 dice; +1 stat; 57 damage
Giant Crab [CR 1/8]: 1d6 dice; +1 stat; 55 damage
Giant Weasel: 1d4 dice; +3 stat; 58 damage

... And it keeps going on like that. Basically, there's not enough variance that I would consider any of them bad, even the CR 1/8 options (which can be surprisingly powerful in their own way).

Note that the low end of these (something like the giant crab, or boar) is still about on par with the archery Hunter option (not counting Sharpshooter). I would not consider any of them trap options, and there's lots of reasons I can think of to pick quite a few of the options. You're kind of spoiled for choice, here. I want a spitting camel, or an angry blood hawk, or a giant weasel, or a flying snake!

Now, the Warhorse is definitely powerful —

Warhorse [CR 1/2]: 2d6 dice; +4 stat; 67 damage

— and there's a notable lack of other good CR 1/2 options, so I can see that being a concern. I'd almost be OK with just keeping the companion limited to CR 1/4, if not for losing the bear option, and all the fun stuff that shows up at CR 1 (lions and tigers and bears!).

Still, despite the two horse options being ahead of the game in raw damage, I'm pretty sure most people don't pick Beastmaster to have a pet horse. And even if not optimal, just about every option looks good, in flavor and extra abilities like flight or Pack Tactics or special attacks.

As for the bit about Quarry, remember that all my estimates assume that we remove Quarry damage from the beast companions. That overpowers Beastmaster too much. As such, the above numbers aren't restricted to only fighting the ranger's primary target.
Part on magic weapons are true even if I would ignore them completely for the same reason. =S

Nice analysis, what if we add quarry damage instead of giving proficiency to hit?
Edit: some quick checks on this. It seems about equal if we give +prof on beast attacks to hit to +quarry on damage. Quarry is slighty DPS vs Average AC. Prof to hit is better vs high AC. I am tempted to say that it would be more fun to give the beast the quarry to damage than the prof to hit. That should also make the poison dealing beasts slightly worse.

[Bjarkmundur]

Quick Strike
When you take the Attack action you can choose to not add your ability modifier to your damage rolls. If you do so you can use your bonus action to make a secondary attack with the same weapon. You do not add your ability modifier to the secondary attack.

So you can have a Longsword and get "two weapon fighting" or a longbow and get "two weapon fighting". Now the playing field is completely level, every one has a bonus action.

Throw the numbers into anydice.com, I think you'll like what you see ^^

If you use this I vote for quarry on hit, so each Ranger has a way to trigger quarry damage with a bonus action, although you might have to reduce the CR of the beast by one step to compensate.

[Jaxby]

I feel like it is starting to get messy, if we have to redesign TWF and the other styles completely just for the ranger class. I think I'm getting lost in the math here, so bear with me, but here are my proposals:

If the BM beast deals too much damage, just remove the extra beast damage.

If the TWF ranger deals too much damage, maybe make quarry only apply to one hit per turn (though I personally quite like it applying to every attack, for simplicity), or reduce the size of the die. Or as someone proposed, make it work only with the attack action, and not with bonus actions.

If the archer version deals too little damage, maybe give the hunter a feature where he can use several quarry dice if he only attacks with a 2 handed/ranged weapon.

If the warden does too little damage, give it hunter's mark, if it deals too much, take HM away.

Beasts having varying hit modifiers (quarry die to hit):
I'm aware that some spells and features give you a die extra to hit, like a d4 or something, but I don't think there is any precedent in the game for making a basic attack use a rolled modifier to hit.

Edit: rolling for proficiency is actually described as an optional rule in the DMG, so I guess that's a thing.

[Bjarkmundur]

From a DM standpoint, to-hit and damage doesn't matter all that much. There are so many variables within any given party composition, it's impossible to have some sort of standard. This is partly why I think charop is silly. If all my players are using GWM and PAM, I'll simply start giving all my monsters +50% HP, since I know they won't enjoy themselves if that battles aren't challenging. If I had two groups running, one with optimisers and one with non-optimisiers, the combat encounters would be just as challenging between the two. The only difference between the groups is that one group can use any and all of the character options presented, while the other is stuck to playing an optimised build. The only reason I want damage to be normalized between builds is that I want the player to have complete freedom in choosing how he builds his ranger, without having to be told by other players he's playing 'the worst build'. This is something the original ranger failed at doing, making the player feel like he actually had options. I'm not 100%, but usually I just see Gloomstalker rangers and people laughing at players that picked Beastmaster. I'd rather not have history repeat itself and help create a class that has a laughable option and only one or two viable ones.

This is why I want the builds to have clear strengths and weaknesses. I don't want to present the players with options that don't work. Why include a shield proficiency if the class doesn't work as intended when using a shield? Why does playing a ranger with a longbow make you feel you are not playing the class as intended? Most of this boils down to weapon choices and bonus actions:

Beastmaster
The Beastmaster can use his bonus action to make the beast attack.
Works well with 2-handed.
Works well with shield.
Doesn't work with TWF.


Using TWF leaves your beast idle and useless. If you give the beast protection fighting style at level 3, the problem is solved. If you do that, now the other styles are too strong since they can utilize the beasts bonus action AND reaction. This is the only possible solution I can see is a selectable feature.

Starting at 3rd level, you can choose your beastmastery style:


1. Beast Triggers Quarry
2. Beast gains Protection Fighting Style.



Hunter
The hunter doesn't have a bonus action that can trigger his Quarry damage.
Works with TWF
Doesn't work with 2-handed
Doesn't work with Shield


This means you need a way to use your bonus action to trigger your Quarry damage. The only way I can see to fix this is to give the Hunter Quick Strike, so he can get that 2d4 Quarry damage using his bonus action.
1. Can use Quick Strike

Warden
Doesn't have a a bonus action, limited to Druid spells, has very few spell slots.
Works with TWF
Doesn't work with 2-handed
Doesn't work with Shield.


Again we need to give the Warden some way to utilize his bonus action. I see three options on how to give the Warden similar offensive uses with his bonus action as the Beastmaster and TWF Hunter currently have.

1. Make the Warden a half-caster with the Ranger Spell list, but can learn rituals from the Druid list.


This has multiple beneficial side effects, such as more more spell slots, without affecting the theme of the subclass. This is possibly a no-brainer, but I'll leave it up the the lead designers.

2. Use Quick Strike
3. Can use bonus action to mark his quarry.

When you look at the options I've presented, It seems easy to balance the builds with just small additions to each subclass.

Beastmaster gains a selectable feature
Hunter gains quick strike
Warden gains the original ranger spellcasting progression, and possibly the ability to mark as a bonus action.


With this step-by-step approach we've found the simplest possible solution to the discrepancies between the subclass, but whether this is used is pretty much up to Kane0.
These are design fixes. They don't calcluate damage, they just ensure that whatever the player picks he will feel good playing our class. When the character options have been ironed out, you can start looking at damage calculations again. No matter what the damage calculations are now, it is obvious that the Ranger only has two options: Go TWF or use Beast.

This is all done in order to keep the current Quarry damage, since it is SO perfect for what it is supposed to represent. I wouldn't dream about changing the Quarry feature.


I feel like it is starting to get messy, if we have to redesign TWF and the other styles completely just for the ranger class.
Agreed. Who would've thought that after everything going so well creating a great thematic ranger, it would be the weapons and damage that proved difficult.

If the TWF ranger deals too much damage, maybe make quarry only apply to one hit per turn (though I personally quite like it applying to every attack, for simplicity), or reduce the size of the die. Or as someone proposed, make it work only with the attack action, and not with bonus actions.
I'd personally want to keep the Quarry mechanic as written. I think our options are:


Hold off on the fighting styles until we've identified the damage outliers.
Fix the problem with there only being two good ranger builds (TWF and Beastmaster)
Find the damage outliers.
Once the damage outliers have been analysed we try to fix them using the simplest method possible.

There are so many moving pieces to this puzzle that we are likely to come up with multiple different solutions, each requiring its own set of tweaks to the already established class design. I've backed up our current version, in case we go down a path that we later find out doesn't work. That way we can reset to this date and try a different method of normalizing the damage.

If the BM beast deals too much damage, just remove the extra beast damage.
To adjust the Beast damage we have a few options:


Have some of the ranger's statistics modify the damage (wisdom, proficiency bonus), or not.
Have the beast trigger or not trigger Quarry
Adjust the starting CR of the Beast down to 1/8 or not

[Fnissalot]

From a DM standpoint, to-hit and damage doesn't matter all that much. There are so many variables within any given party composition, it's impossible to have some sort of standard. This is partly why I think charop is silly. If all my players are using GWM and PAM, I'll simply start giving all my monsters +50% HP, since I know they won't enjoy themselves if that battles aren't challenging. If I had two groups running, one with optimisers and one with non-optimisiers, the combat encounters would be just as challenging between the two. The only difference between the groups is that one group can use any and all of the character options presented, while the other is stuck to playing an optimised build. The only reason I want damage to be normalized between builds is that I want the player to have complete freedom in choosing how he builds his ranger, without having to be told by other players he's playing 'the worst build'. This is something the original ranger failed at doing, making the player feel like he actually had options. I'm not 100%, but usually I just see Gloomstalker rangers and people laughing at players that picked Beastmaster. I'd rather not have history repeat itself and help create a class that has a laughable option and only one or two viable ones.

This is why I want the builds to have clear strengths and weaknesses. I don't want to present the players with options that don't work. Why include a shield proficiency if the class doesn't work as intended when using a shield? Why does playing a ranger with a longbow make you feel you are not playing the class as intended? Most of this boils down to weapon choices and bonus actions:

Beastmaster
The Beastmaster can use his bonus action to make the beast attack.
Works well with 2-handed.
Works well with shield.
Doesn't work with TWF.


Using TWF leaves your beast idle and useless. If you give the beast protection fighting style at level 3, the problem is solved. If you do that, now the other styles are too strong since they can utilize the beasts bonus action AND reaction. This is the only possible solution I can see is a selectable feature.

Starting at 3rd level, you can choose your beastmastery style:


1. Beast Triggers Quarry
2. Beast gains Protection Fighting Style.



Hunter
The hunter doesn't have a bonus action that can trigger his Quarry damage.
Works with TWF
Doesn't work with 2-handed
Doesn't work with Shield


This means you need a way to use your bonus action to trigger your Quarry damage. The only way I can see to fix this is to give the Hunter Quick Strike, so he can get that 2d4 Quarry damage using his bonus action.
1. Can use Quick Strike

Warden
Doesn't have a a bonus action, limited to Druid spells, has very few spell slots.
Works with TWF
Doesn't work with 2-handed
Doesn't work with Shield.


Again we need to give the Warden some way to utilize his bonus action. I see three options on how to give the Warden similar offensive uses with his bonus action as the Beastmaster and TWF Hunter currently have.

1. Make the Warden a half-caster with the Ranger Spell list, but can learn rituals from the Druid list.


This has multiple beneficial side effects, such as more more spell slots, without affecting the theme of the subclass. This is possibly a no-brainer, but I'll leave it up the the lead designers.

2. Use Quick Strike
3. Can use bonus action to mark his quarry.

When you look at the options I've presented, It seems easy to balance the builds with just small additions to each subclass.

Beastmaster gains a selectable feature
Hunter gains quick strike
Warden gains the original ranger spellcasting progression, and possibly the ability to mark as a bonus action.


With this step-by-step approach we've found the simplest possible solution to the discrepancies between the subclass, but whether this is used is pretty much up to Kane0.
These are design fixes. They don't calcluate damage, they just ensure that whatever the player picks he will feel good playing our class. When the character options have been ironed out, you can start looking at damage calculations again. No matter what the damage calculations are now, it is obvious that the Ranger only has two options: Go TWF or use Beast.

This is all done in order to keep the current Quarry damage, since it is SO perfect for what it is supposed to represent. I wouldn't dream about changing the Quarry feature.


Agreed. Who would've thought that after everything going so well creating a great thematic ranger, it would be the weapons and damage that proved difficult.

I'd personally want to keep the Quarry mechanic as written. I think our options are:


Hold off on the fighting styles until we've identified the damage outliers.
Fix the problem with there only being two good ranger builds (TWF and Beastmaster)
Find the damage outliers.
Once the damage outliers have been analysed we try to fix them using the simplest method possible.

There are so many moving pieces to this puzzle that we are likely to come up with multiple different solutions, each requiring its own set of tweaks to the already established class design. I've backed up our current version, in case we go down a path that we later find out doesn't work. That way we can reset to this date and try a different method of normalizing the damage.

To adjust the Beast damage we have a few options:


Have some of the ranger's statistics modify the damage (wisdom, proficiency bonus), or not.
Have the beast trigger or not trigger Quarry
Adjust the starting CR of the Beast down to 1/8 or not

While I agree to the general premises of this, I don't agree to your fixes for it nor that two options are that much better than everything else. There should not be any big trap options, and nothing should be experienced like one (even if it is statistically equal). I do not think that these suggestions you give would solve that. Statistics will solve the mathematical traps and play-testing will solve the experiential ones.

Limiting so that quarry does not trigger on TWF solves pretty much all issues with it dealing too much damage.

If beastmaster have only either +proficiency to hit or quarry to damage it is slightly above the curve but since the beast can still rather easily die and be crowd controlled, it is not as safe and should be fine. Lowering the CR to 1/8 lowers the beasts survivability more than the damage so I would avoid that if possible. And I am fine with not having a TWF beastmaster.

Warden should have enough spells that trigger on bonus actions that it should not need to have something else on the bonus action without it feeling bad. They also get primal assault on level 10. Warden is possibly an issue as it will deal likely too much damage later. They won't need a buff and I think it will play better with sword and board or archery than TWF. They will work as archer as they currently will get swift quiver which is one of the strongest spells in the game. Give me a half hour and I will have the analysis of it up and running.

Fighting styles should help sword and board and archery more than two weapon fighting at higher levels. Removing them will hurt these styles more than TWF.

If you want to add more stuff as bonus action, make it so you can do disengages as a bonus action. That will benefit ranged rangers a lot more than the melee ones. And we have search as a bonus action already. I also think it is fine that sword and board rangers do less damage since they have +2 to ac.

One option to push the hunters sword and board and ranged damage a bit up would be to change the level 3 ability to:
Once per turn, when you deal damage to your quarry, you can deal 1 additional quarry die to it.

[Moxxmix]

How about taking away +prof to damage instead? Same average damage, requires the same target.

Sorry, I'd already done that as I hadn't realized it had ever been there. And then it got removed, so it didn't matter. As currently modeled, the beast companion's damage is just its attack die plus its damage stat. It's essentially the same as the offhand weapon for TWF, but with variable dice and stat.

I will grant that leaving the Quarry damage on the pet is probably not as bad as implied by the spreadsheet model, since you have the option to get the pet to do a lot of things other than attack your current quarry. Even something as simple as having the pet focus on a separate target while the ranger is on the quarry brings it back into estimated damage range.

However I would guess that that would be undesirable because you're losing a potentially significant amount of damage if you don't keep the pet attacking the quarry target, which would encourage the player to only focus on making the pet do that one thing, which is not desirable in a broader sense. If the only way to be 'effective' is to keep the pet attacking the quarry target, that undermines all the other things the pet could be doing. On the other hand, if the pet is just an offhand weapon (more or less), then it's less constrained in the actions that can be taken. It's easier to redirect it to attack a different creature, and it's easier to take non-damage options if it doesn't feel like such an opportunity cost to do so.

As for proficiency added to damage, it's not necessary for the numbers, and I think it would be unneeded extra complication and/or confusion for the player, since it means the pet's damage is calculated differently from the player's damage. People might think that it's implying that you're supposed to add your proficiency bonus to damage in all cases (which is wrong), or miss that it's supposed to be added at all.


Nice analysis, what if we add quarry damage instead of giving proficiency to hit?
Edit: some quick checks on this. It seems about equal if we give +prof on beast attacks to hit to +quarry on damage. Quarry is slighty DPS vs Average AC. Prof to hit is better vs high AC. I am tempted to say that it would be more fun to give the beast the quarry to damage than the prof to hit. That should also make the poison dealing beasts slightly worse.
On average it's probably similar (in the same way that Archery and Duelist are similar), but my gut instinct is that making the companion so much less likely to hit would make it a lot less fun. If you only have a +1 to +3 to hit (from the attack stat), anything with AC higher than "pathetic" is mostly going to be a frustrating experience. (Moreso at higher levels than lower levels. Losing +2 at level 3 isn't a gamebreaker, but losing a +4 at level 9 is much more substantial.)

So, they may be comparable mathematically, but I would be against that change from the perspective of how it plays.


Quick Strike
That's way too complicated for the base class and starter subclasses.

~~~~

-review-
A lot of good points, but some things I want to comment on.

Beastmaster: It's not that it doesn't work with TWF, it's that it discourages it. It's a bit like the conflict between TWF and Cunning Action for the rogue — you have to make a choice as to what's important for you to use this turn. A Beastmaster can find ways to make TWF viable, but there are definitely constraints. And that's fine. But since mechanically both the offhand weapon and the beast companion are "extra damage", giving the Beastmaster both at the same time is clearly unbalanced, and reduces the desirability of all other builds.


Using TWF leaves your beast idle and useless. If you give the beast protection fighting style at level 3, the problem is solved. If you do that, now the other styles are too strong since they can utilize the beasts bonus action AND reaction. This is the only possible solution I can see is a selectable feature.
This is a bit disjointed, and I don't quite understand what you're saying here. It sounds like you're solving the problem and making it worse at the same time. Can you please explain a bit more clearly?

Hunter: It works fine with shield; that's what the Duelist fighting style can do. It just doesn't use the shield as a primary component of its fighting style. Which makes sense, given that the subclass is "Hunter", not "Protector".

On the other hand, I could see the Protection fighting style being more reasonable for non-Hunter subclasses, so having it as an option is not a bad thing, per se.

As for two-handed weapons, Hunter works fine with them. It's only that there's no appropriate fighting style to go with them available. This is not a problem with the Hunter; it's an issue of whether we want to allow two-handed weapons to be a part of the ranger design theme at all.

Personally, I'm against it. It doesn't feel like it fits the broader theme that is being designed for. Remember, as you yourself have noted, we need to keep focused on what we're creating. We don't want to dilute the design by throwing everything and the kitchen sink in here. Having (some) limits is good, because it helps define the design space, and weapon limits are common throughout the martial classes. The only class that's not particularly limited is the fighter, and that's because it's the catch-all for any concepts that aren't more specifically handled by others.

Caveat: Unless by two-handed you're referring to things like bows, which are two-handed. In that case, your wording is confusing. Also, the review becomes noticeably odd, now that I realize you haven't considered archery at all in your overview.


This means you need a way to use your bonus action to trigger your Quarry damage. The only way I can see to fix this is to give the Hunter Quick Strike, so he can get that 2d4 Quarry damage using his bonus action.
The conclusion is not valid. Hunter is already reasonably balanced as is, without needing Quarry damage on the bonus action. It is not something the subclass "needs". What it has instead is stronger Quarry damage in general.

Also, the Hunter wouldn't get 2d4 Quarry damage. The previous iteration, where it doubled the Quarry damage dice, was deemed too strong. It's back to using advantage Quarry dice (take the higher of two rolls).

Warden: You say that the Warden has no bonus actions, however there are a number of ranger spells that are cast as bonus actions. Thus I don't know that this is a valid critique.

~~~


No matter what the damage calculations are now, it is obvious that the Ranger only has two options: Go TWF or use Beast.
I strongly disagree with this. The damage difference between TWF and Dueling or Archery is on the order of 10% or less, which is barely noticeable, and both of those other options offer defensive benefits that TWF lacks. I do not feel that there is any strong design bias towards one or the other of the weapon fighting styles. Choosing TWF for higher damage is a microoptimization, and irrelevant to the broader audience this is intended for.

As for "only two options"...

Hunter:

Archery: Works well
Sword/Shield: Works well (slightly lower damage, but higher defense)
Two-weapon: Works well (higher damage)

Beastmaster:

Archery: Works well
Sword/Shield: Works well
Two-weapon: Conflicts with pet; usable, but discouraged; not a loss, because Pet

Warden:

Archery: Works well (synergizes with bonus action spells)
Sword/Shield: Works well
Two-weapon: Acceptable if not using bonus action spells

[Jaxby]

Of course I agree that there shouldn't be any decidedly bad options. Though I don't think they should all have exactly the same average damage either. Also, I don't know if I like forcing every ranger variant to be bonus action dependent.

That is one if the reasons I am advocating removing hunters mark from the warden, as that would free up your casting for something other than the go-to bonus action hunter's mark damage. I feel like a bonus action should be something you can choose to use, instead of it being mandatory.

1/2 caster warden: having built the base class as spell-less, will it not be too much to give a sub-class half-casting?

Speaking of; the spells also offer utility that the hunter does not have. So a slight decrease in damage is fair for the warden, though not so much it gets useless ofc. This goes back to my first paragraph of not having equal damage, if the subclass has other strengths.

You are right though, we are very close to a good final product:)

Edit: was aimed at Bjarkmundur's post, but seems like two posts hit the board before I was done writing :)

[Fnissalot]

Added warden to my spreadsheet.

Current implementation of hunters mark deals less damage than beastmaster but slightly more than hunter. Taking the damage down to 1d4 instead of 1d8 seems to make it more balanced.

Swift quiver pushes the warden ahead but it spends their lvl4 slot so that should be fine.

Hunter probably needs a little push in damage as the current lvl3 ability does not put hunters between wardens and beastmasters on the damage front. Eternal hunter and multiattack will probably negate the need for this at higher levels. Changing it to once per turn, deal double your quarry die on 1 attack is IMO the right amount of increase? Started adding a version of hunter with this but am too tired right now. will finish tomorrow.

[Bjarkmundur]

Read you comments, you guys are amazing. Thanks for taking part in this <3

[Moxxmix]

OK, I screwed up some of my understanding/expectation of the beastmaster's pet. Essentially, I failed to heed Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour advice: "Always check the actual rules; never assume your memory is correct." Starting from the top, I want to review my thoughts on them. This includes taking Bjarkmunder's advice, and focusing on theme first, damage second.

1) Proficiency Bonus

Both the PHB and the Revised Ranger assert that your Proficiency Bonus is added to:


Skills (RR allows you to select two of your own choice)
Saving Throws (RR gives the beast proficiency in all saves; PHB doesn't specify)
Attack Rolls
Armor Class
Damage Rolls


I managed to screw up what I remembered about the original rules, and mixing up whether or not proficiency was added to damage rolls as things progressed in the thread.

RR grants proficiency in all saving throws, which is a vast improvement over the undefined state from the PHB (which, based on monster stat blocks, would seem to imply that most beasts are not proficient in any saving throws). Using the RR rule seems the better choice.

RR grants two custom selected skill proficiencies. This is a great help in making the beast more helpful in non-combat situations, since by default almost all beasts are limited to just Perception and Stealth as available skills. I see no reason not to include that.

Attack rolls are expected, and armor class helps make the beast more survivable (same as with saving throws). No complaints there.

Damage rolls are where things get tricky. This becomes a competition between damage potential and action economy.

PHB: The beast's attack effectively replaces one of your attacks. Does not combine with two-weapon fighting, because you only get the bonus action attack if you take the Attack action, which you aren't using; you're using a Command action on the pet. Granting bonus proficiency damage to the beast nudges your overall damage up a bit, partially replacing the potential offhand attack.

Attacks each round would be: [ranger or beast], [ranger extra], [ranger offhand (optional)]

RR: The beast acts as an entirely separate entity. As far as I can tell, it uses none of your action economy. The ranger himself does not get Extra Attack, but the beast can use its reaction to make an attack alongside your attack. So the ranger always gets 1 attack, plus possibly an offhand if TWF, plus the beast's reaction attack; meanwhile the beast gets its own single attack, separately.

Attacks each round would be: [ranger], [ranger offhand (optional)], [beast], [beast reaction]

So going from PHB to RR, [ranger or beast] becomes [ranger and beast], and the ranger's extra attack becomes the beast's normal attack. Essentially, you get one more attack per round by using up the beast's reaction.


WSR (Workshop Ranger): The beast's action is predicated on the ranger's bonus action command. This moves back towards the PHB's command economy, rather than the RR's independent pet. This limits TWF because it uses the bonus action.

The independent pet was allowed because the ranger's damage was restricted. If the ranger gets Extra Attack, the pet's damage needs to be restricted in some way.


So, how is this thematically working?

RR is essentially saying that the ranger is always able to command the pet without an explicit action, but is implicitly using up the time that he might otherwise use for Extra Attack in order to do so.

The PHB uses the ranger's main action, and the WSR is using the ranger's bonus action, in order to command the pet. This allows the ranger to keep using Extra Attack.

We know that the PHB version is clumsy and unliked. We don't want to use the primary action. Using the bonus action interferes with TWF, which is a definite downside, as Bjarkmunder points out. I don't think it's truly bad, but it does introduce issues in how we can apply things like the Quarry die.

The RR version simplifies matters a great deal. By removing Extra Attack, we don't need to use an action to command the pet. We also can put more damage bonuses back on the pet, because we're giving up ranger bonuses. That makes proficiency damage and the Quarry die much more tenable.


I would normally move into math now, but I'd rather just ask the simple questions:

How should the pet be commanded? Action command, Bonus Action command, or Free command? What makes it easiest to play with? What hinders playability the least? What's least likely to cause balance issues?

Would you be willing to give up Extra Attack for easier use of the pet? If your pet is not available, would this be too crippling?

How much do you expect the pet to mirror the ranger abilities? Namely, how important is it that the pet get the Quarry bonus? Would it feel too weak without it? Would it undermine the player likelihood to use the pet in other ways?

On the proficiency damage bonus, it's purely mechanical. It just tilts the damage scale, and I see no reason to consider it from a thematic standpoint.

[Kane0]

The others have already covered it well but I'll say my piece anyways



From a DM standpoint, to-hit and damage doesn't matter all that much.

The only reason I want damage to be normalized between builds is that I want the player to have complete freedom in choosing how he builds his ranger, without having to be told by other players he's playing 'the worst build'.

This is why I want the builds to have clear strengths and weaknesses. I don't want to present the players with options that don't work. Why include a shield proficiency if the class doesn't work as intended when using a shield? Why does playing a ranger with a longbow make you feel you are not playing the class as intended? Most of this boils down to weapon choices and bonus actions:

In the grand scheme of things, yes. Finer points of balance are still a good aim but you are right, it's overall a minor problem easily compensated for as long as things aren't skewed by an order of magnitude.

The options are all perfectly viable, there are no traps (that we've spotted so far).



Beastmaster
The Beastmaster can use his bonus action to make the beast attack.
Works well with 2-handed.
Works well with shield.
Doesn't work with TWF.

Using TWF leaves your beast idle and useless.

Beastmaster does work with TWF, you just can't use both bonus actions at the same time. Even if you choose to TWF attack over Beast attack, both of which have situations where they would be better, without a command your beast can still dodge, move and react including acting as a mount.



Hunter
The hunter doesn't have a bonus action that can trigger his Quarry damage.
Works with TWF
Doesn't work with 2-handed
Doesn't work with Shield

This means you need a way to use your bonus action to trigger your Quarry damage. The only way I can see to fix this is to give the Hunter Quick Strike, so he can get that 2d4 Quarry damage using his bonus action.

Not having the fighting style doesn't disable your use of that weapon type. Lacking the FS does not stop a Barbarian from being amazing with a great weapon.
Similarly, not having your bonus action explicitly taken up to do something isn't a design failure. There are many other classes, feats, spells and even magic items that can and will compete for that bonus action, we shouldn't set out to try and block these off as that actually cuts into freedom of builds far worse.



Warden
Doesn't have a a bonus action, limited to Druid spells, has very few spell slots.
Works with TWF
Doesn't work with 2-handed
Doesn't work with Shield.

Again we need to give the Warden some way to utilize his bonus action. I see three options on how to give the Warden similar offensive uses with his bonus action as the Beastmaster and TWF Hunter currently have.[INDENT]

Warden has access to bonus action spells, and at level 10 doubly so.
Same as above, not having an explicit feature does not stop you from using that option, either by other means or just 'less effectively'. Our job is to make that 'less effectively' still worthwhile if not optimal.

There aren't only two possible paths to take (TWF or BM), those just happen to be the optimizer's priority when looking purely at damage numbers. And it's not the ranger doing the heavy lifting, it's the bonus action attack. The same issue is present anywhere you boost your number of attacks by 50%

[Moxxmix]

Back to the math side.

I want to try to keep as few reasonable options to consider as possible. The intent is to not have one configuration that vastly overperforms or underperforms. What I think are reasonable approaches:

1) Revised Ranger (RR) method. Command is free. Beastmaster does not get Extra Attack, but does get Combined Attack.

Pet gets Quarry and Prof damage:

Dueling = 59
Archery = 59
Two-wpn = 68

Pet gets Quarry:

Dueling = 52
Archery = 52
Two-wpn = 61

Pet does not get Quarry or Prof damage:

Dueling = 42
Archery = 42
Two-wpn = 52

In this case, TWF always leads by a pretty sizable margin. Quarry is acceptable. Prof damage works for Dueling and Archery, but is overboard for TWF.


2) Workshop Ranger (WSR) method. Command is a bonus action. Beastmaster gets extra attack.

Pet gets Quarry and Prof damage:

Dueling = 67
Archery = 68
Two-wpn = 57

Pet gets Quarry:

Dueling = 64
Archery = 65
Two-wpn = 53

Pet does not get Quarry or Prof damage:

Dueling = 59
Archery = 60
Two-wpn = 49

Pet is idle:

Dueling = 50
Archery = 51
Two-wpn = 54

In this case, TWF is interfered with, and falls well behind the other options, although it can pull ahead when the pet is idle. Any bonus to pet damage is a bit beyond the limits we wanted, although the boosts per damage type are smaller than in the RR method. WSR jumps 3-5 points per damage boost, while the RR method jumps 8-10 points per damage boost.

The RR approach depends more heavily on the pet in order to do damage. This means the loss of the pet is far more crippling. It also means TWF is far more significant for raising damage overall.

The WSR approach puts more of the power in the hands of the ranger, so loss of a pet isn't as crippling for overall damage. It also suppresses the use of TWF, for the most part, which makes it easier to balance against the other combat styles.

Quarry damage on the offhand attack would be acceptable for Beastmaster to the same degree that it's acceptable for the pet. Offhand damage only because a problem when looking at the Hunter subclass, because there's nothing else competing for that bonus action slot.


All things considered, I think I'd rather leave most of the active combat power in the hands of the ranger, and leave the pet more focused on utility. This does mean we lose a little headroom on the damage side. Thematically, I wouldn't mind the pet getting Quarry damage. The problem is that that pushes the player into a certain type of behavior — they really want the pet attacking the quarry — which I think I would prefer to avoid.

Just like we don't want trap options in the class itself, we don't want trap behaviors. The player should be comfortable sending the pet to attack any target, or collect items, or defend people, or whatever else. Putting the Quarry die on the pet's damage is a big neon sign saying that the designers really want the players to use the pet in a particular way, particularly when it's also forcing the ranger's behavior due to the mechanics of how it's applied. That's a step too far, in my view.

That said, giving the pet the extra Proficiency damage is a little bit better. Proficiency damage will always be a half point less than average Quarry die damage, so it reduces the sample damage by about a point (3 rounds of 0.5, then adjusted for accuracy).

Another possibility is half proficiency. And in fact, the bonus damage barbarian gets for Rage is 1 + half proficiency (rounded down). So that's another option to consider. I kind of like it, as it doesn't shift the damage output too much, but it's an extra bonus to add in to make the pet seem stronger.

Edit:

WSR Pet gets Half+1 prof damage:

Dueling = 61
Archery = 62
Two-wpn = 51

[Kane0]

I'm obviously biased but I agree with Moxxmix, I prefer the bonus action method.

I think I prefer the beast getting Quarry bonus but not proficiency bonus. I know this puts it ahead on the charts but I think that its unique drawbacks are a good balancing factor here.
As far as behaviour, it's subjective and thus hard to tell but I think a combination of the quarry and protection gives incentive to being in the thick of combat more often (as it should be), soaking and/or dealing damage. Works for me.

I also prefer the Hunter without a default use for their bonus action. This leaves an opening to MC, feats, magic items, etc much more freely than the other two. Their damage benefits are in the form of consistency rather than raw increase, and that benefits from TWF as well.

TWF is a bit of a problem in and of itself, it's really strong in the early levels but tapers off sharply at later levels as you get more and more competition for your bonus actions. I have addressed this elsewhere but think it's beyond the scope of this thread.

[Moxxmix]

OK, I wanted another datapoint for comparing damage. I'll stay at level 7 vs AC 18, but using Totem barbarian.

1d10 weapon, no feat, no Rage, no Reckless: 36
1d10 weapon, no feat, Rage, no Reckless: 43
1d10 weapon, no feat, no Rage, Reckless: 53
1d10 weapon, no feat, Rage, Reckless: 63

1d12 weapon, no feat, no Rage, no Reckless: 40
1d12 weapon, no feat, Rage, no Reckless: 47
1d12 weapon, no feat, no Rage, Reckless: 59
1d12 weapon, no feat, Rage, Reckless: 68

1d10 weapon, PAM, no Rage, no Reckless: 49
1d10 weapon, PAM, Rage, no Reckless: 59
1d10 weapon, PAM, no Rage, Reckless: 72
1d10 weapon, PAM, Rage, Reckless: 86

1d12 weapon, GWM, no Rage, no Reckless: 41
1d12 weapon, GWM, Rage, no Reckless: 44
1d12 weapon, GWM, no Rage, Reckless: 70
1d12 weapon, GWM, Rage, Reckless: 76

Aside from the interesting points about how the feats influence the results, we see that the non-feat barbarian can hit damage ratings of 63-68 when using all the class features. Given that the barbarian is primarily about max damage, this gives an idea of how much headroom we have to work with in ranger. Also note that rogue was about 59 when using Sneak Attack 100% of the time.

There's also the point that the barbarian that's not using Reckless Attack is actually kinda weak, statistically. Notably weaker than even the TWF Beastmaster ranger. All things considered, this means that even the limited TWF on the Beastmaster is still within acceptable bounds, and shouldn't be considered a flaw that we "must" correct.

Anyway, we probably want ranger to fall in between rogue and barbarian, so we're largely looking at the area between 60 and 65. Probably want the Beastmaster at the lower end, and the Hunter at the higher end. Current proposed settings (no Quarry pet damage, no Proficiency pet damage) meet the criteria for Beastmaster. I need to go back and look at Hunter, and particularly the impact of TWF, to see if we're OK on that end.


Aside: For the record, PAM+GWM+Rage+Reckless clocks in at 103.

[Moxxmix]

Going back to Hunter, with all the fresh spreadsheet revisions and fixes.


Dueling: 53
Archery: 54
TWF, no Quarry: 57
TWF, Quarry: 65

This is using a d8 weapon for Dueling and Archery, and d6 weapons for TWF. Here we have two separate issues:

1) With no offhand Quarry damage, the three fighting styles are pretty close together, and nothing feels like it overwhelms the others. However with offhand Quarry damage, TWF significantly outperforms the other options.

2) All three options are now significantly behind Beastmaster. The exception is TWF with offhand Quarry damage, but that just makes the other options even worse.


If we assume no offhand Quarry damage, then adding 1-2 damage to all weapon attacks is sufficient to scale things up to the acceptable range.

+1
Dueling: 56
Archery: 58
TWF: 62

+2
Dueling: 59
Archery: 62
TWF: 67

I'd probably choose +1 for balance, given that the barbarian gets closer to the +2 while using a depletable resource, and the ranger isn't expending anything in particular. The Beastmaster has a slightly higher threshold since the pet could be killed, or could be used for actions other than attacking.

But in general, the spread of damage when adding +1 looks like it would work fine. The problem is, how do you give just +1 weapon damage?

Well, let's look back at double Quarry damage dice (instead of best of 2 rolls).

2x Quarry dice
Dueling: 60
Archery: 63
TWF: 65

That actually narrows the gap between the fighting style options while also putting the damage values in the target range. It still puts them in the range of the +2 damage version, which still makes me uncomfortable compared to the barbarian, but it's not a huge deal, and is probably fine for the pre-playtest values.

Beastmaster sample:
wo/pet Quarry: 59
w/pet Quarry: 64


Overall, this ranger feels like it might be overperforming a bit, but at the same time the design is simple and elegant, and it didn't reach this point by trying to pick overpowered options. I'm still concerned we shouldn't be going above 60 damage, as that feels like the ranger is getting into the barbarian damage range without a limited booster like Rage, but I'm fine with letting things stand as they are now for the playtest stage.

Taking another look at scaling per class, as a percentage of baseline (no fighting style, no pet, simple Quarry die, single 1d8 weapon) over 3 rounds.

Duelist Hunter: +40%-45% pretty much across all levels and ACs.
Archery Hunter: +45%-50% against high ACs, and +30%-40% against low ACs, across all levels.
TWF Hunter: +80% during levels 2-4, then +50%-60% for all remaining levels.
Duelist Beastmaster w/pet Quarry damage: +100% for levels 3-4, then +35%-50% for all remaining levels, declining as levels rise.
Duelist Beastmaster wo/pet Quarry damage: +90% for levels 3-4, then +25%-40% for all remaining levels, declining as levels rise.


Currently:
Pets do not get Proficiency damage
Pets get Quarry damage
Hunter gets 2x Quarry dice damage
Quarry only applies to attacks in the Attack action, not to bonus action attacks.

[Fnissalot]

Going back to Hunter, with all the fresh spreadsheet revisions and fixes.


Dueling: 53
Archery: 54
TWF, no Quarry: 57
TWF, Quarry: 65

This is using a d8 weapon for Dueling and Archery, and d6 weapons for TWF. Here we have two separate issues:

1) With no offhand Quarry damage, the three fighting styles are pretty close together, and nothing feels like it overwhelms the others. However with offhand Quarry damage, TWF significantly outperforms the other options.

2) All three options are now significantly behind Beastmaster. The exception is TWF with offhand Quarry damage, but that just makes the other options even worse.


If we assume no offhand Quarry damage, then adding 1-2 damage to all weapon attacks is sufficient to scale things up to the acceptable range.

+1
Dueling: 56
Archery: 58
TWF: 62

+2
Dueling: 59
Archery: 62
TWF: 67

I'd probably choose +1 for balance, given that the barbarian gets closer to the +2 while using a depletable resource, and the ranger isn't expending anything in particular. The Beastmaster has a slightly higher threshold since the pet could be killed, or could be used for actions other than attacking.

But in general, the spread of damage when adding +1 looks like it would work fine. The problem is, how do you give just +1 weapon damage?

Well, let's look back at double Quarry damage dice (instead of best of 2 rolls).

2x Quarry dice
Dueling: 60
Archery: 63
TWF: 65

That actually narrows the gap between the fighting style options while also putting the damage values in the target range. It still puts them in the range of the +2 damage version, which still makes me uncomfortable compared to the barbarian, but it's not a huge deal, and is probably fine for the pre-playtest values.

Beastmaster sample:
wo/pet Quarry: 59
w/pet Quarry: 64


Overall, this ranger feels like it might be overperforming a bit, but at the same time the design is simple and elegant, and it didn't reach this point by trying to pick overpowered options. I'm still concerned we shouldn't be going above 60 damage, as that feels like the ranger is getting into the barbarian damage range without a limited booster like Rage, but I'm fine with letting things stand as they are now for the playtest stage.

Taking another look at scaling per class, as a percentage of baseline (no fighting style, no pet, simple Quarry die, single 1d8 weapon) over 3 rounds.

Duelist Hunter: +40%-45% pretty much across all levels and ACs.
Archery Hunter: +45%-50% against high ACs, and +30%-40% against low ACs, across all levels.
TWF Hunter: +80% during levels 2-4, then +50%-60% for all remaining levels.
Duelist Beastmaster w/pet Quarry damage: +100% for levels 3-4, then +35%-50% for all remaining levels, declining as levels rise.
Duelist Beastmaster wo/pet Quarry damage: +90% for levels 3-4, then +25%-40% for all remaining levels, declining as levels rise.


Currently:
Pets do not get Proficiency damage
Pets get Quarry damage
Hunter gets 2x Quarry dice damage
Quarry only applies to attacks in the Attack action, not to bonus action attacks.

Nice! That looks rather good comparably between the subclasses.

Compared to does numbers wardens would be fine with having hunters mark be either 1d4 or 1d6 a turn. It will then still outperform hunter at level 3-4 but it will be behind after that. Having it as 1d8 per turn, leaves them equal to or above the hunter up to level 8-12 depending on the AC.

Edit:
With double quarry damage, ranged hunters out-damages the current version of swiftquiver if the combat is 3 or less turns long. The swift quiver warden passes the hunter's damage at turn 4. But the damage increase is relatively small since you miss the quarry damage on the turn you activate it and the bonus attacks does not add it.

[Kane0]

1d12 weapon, no feat, no Rage, no Reckless: 40
1d12 weapon, no feat, Rage, no Reckless: 47
1d12 weapon, no feat, no Rage, Reckless: 59
1d12 weapon, no feat, Rage, Reckless: 68

1d12 weapon, GWM, no Rage, no Reckless: 41
1d12 weapon, GWM, Rage, no Reckless: 44
1d12 weapon, GWM, no Rage, Reckless: 70
1d12 weapon, GWM, Rage, Reckless: 76

PAM+GWM+Rage+Reckless clocks in at 103.

Wow, that puts thing in perspective. Less than 15 points variance between the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ options doesnt seem nearly so bad.

[Moxxmix]

Issues with scaling.

Was looking at the barbarian again, and particularly its scaling relative to baseline ranger, and noticed a disturbing trend. Essentially, it was trending towards only about 10% over baseline ranger, even with Rage and Reckless active (though without feats). It gets a bump at level 20 from the +4 Str, but that's not really a fix.

Using a new comparison point: Level 17, target AC 18, +2 weapon. At this point the max Rage damage and the last Brutal Critical are online, so it's near the peak of what barbarian can do.

Baseline Ranger: 94
Duelist Hunter: 137
Archer Hunter: 134
TWF Hunter: 155
Beastmaster (lion): 132

Baseline barbarian (1d10): 67
Rage+Reckless barbarian (1d10): 108
+PAM: 150
+GWM: 140
+PAM+GWM: 199


Basically, a ranger without feats is curbstomping a Raging barbarian without feats (never mind a baseline barbarian), and is competitive with a single powerful feat.

On the issue of scaling, the ranger subclasses are maintaining a pretty level boost over baseline across all levels, generally in the vicinity of +30% to +50%. Barbarian, on the other hand, is not scaling with level. It goes from +50% over ranger baseline at level 5 to +15% at level 19. It's losing about 2.5% per level, relatively speaking. Or ranger is growing 2.5% per level faster than barbarian.

This suggests there's some underlying issue that we need to address. Or maybe that barbarian has a problem.

Let's look at rogue. At level 17, with 100% SA, it's getting a value of 135. That's on par with the ranger. On scaling, it's varying between +25% and +50% over the levels, wobbling up and down as Sneak Attack damage varies. So over all levels, it's roughly on par with the ranger subclasses. That's a relief.

The Champion fighter without any feats is at 99. It's basically on par with baseline ranger at all levels (+/- 10%). It only catches up at level 20, where the 4th attack puts it at +30% to +50%. It improves a bit if I change the weapon from 1d10 to 1d12 (was using 1d10 since it was supposed to be for a PAM comparison), but is still quite weak.

Also, the Champion is just a weak subclass overall. If you consider the Battlemaster instead, it gets 6 d12 Superiority Dice to add to damage every short rest. Even without the rider effects, the Superiority Dice could bring the Battlemaster up to the ranger/rogue range of around 135 (rough estimate) over three rounds.


So in the end:
Fighter: ~135
Rogue: ~135
Ranger: ~135, or 155 with TWF
Barbarian: 108

It's just the barbarian that's broken. Oh, and TWF rears its head again, with the Hunter.

It's honestly rather surprising. Maybe it's balanced against the Berserker? With bonus action attacks and Retaliation, it would be a substantially higher-damage subclass than the Totem. I just hadn't wanted to model it when factoring in exhaustion and enemy attacks.

Fine, let's add Frenzy and Retaliation as options. No feats included, and the damage is over 3 rounds. Retaliation is assumed to occur once per round. Won't consider PAM since the bonus attack conflicts with Frenzy, so also changing over to a 1d12 weapon. Looking at the level 7 and level 17 targets.

Baseline: 68 @7 and 116 @17
Frenzy: 103 @7 and 174 @17
Retaliation: N/A and 174 @17
Frenzy + Retaliation: 103 @7 and 232 @17
Add GWM: 114 @7 and 294 @17

OK, well, there it is. Berserker is where damage has been balanced for the barbarian. And it is massively ahead of the other classes when you use its abilities. That makes me happier, because it means we're no longer banging against barbarian damage with the ranger, which gives us a lot more breathing room.

I am no longer worried about microoptimizations for ranger damage. Although TWF still irritates me.

[Kane0]

I am no longer worried about microoptimizations for ranger damage. Although TWF still irritates me.


And after all that i’m happy to hear it!

I’m still on the lookout for a more engaging capstone, are there any other odds and ends that could be improved?

[Bjarkmundur]

Are there any other odds and ends that could be improved?

Minor phrasing issues.

Once on your turn, after making an attack against a creature you can see, you may designate that creature as your Quarry for your next attack. This effect ends and the end of your next turn, or when you mark another creature as your quarry.

Starting at 6th level, when a creature marked as your Quarry hits you with an attack or targets you with an effect that has you making a saving throw, you can use your reaction to either reduce the damage taken or gain a bonus to your saving throw equal to the result of your Quarry die.

[Moxxmix]

I can manage the editing pass. I'm writing up the details in a Word doc, and can export that to PDF, looking fairly similar to the Revised Ranger version. Just focus on making sure the details are what we want them to be.

[Jaxby]

Doing a quick look through the class as it stands now I noticed the following:



Nature's Boon (2)
At level 2 and again at levels 9 and 17 Choose one from the options below:

Originally the feature let you choose an option and upgrade it at lvl 17, whereas now, you only pick one option at lvl 17. Apart from the clean feature description, is this on purpose? Giving you 3 options in total instead of a total of 4?



Bestial Fury (10)
Your beasts attacks are considered magical for the purposes of overcoming damage resistance and immunity. In addition, your beast companion gains the following ability:
Defensive Pounce: The beast companion imposes disadvantage on the attack roll of one creature it can see that is within its reach, provided the attack is against a creature other than the beast companion.

Beast's Defense (14)
When your beast uses its Defensive Pounce ability your beast companion also gains resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage until the start of your next turn.

So we landed on the "aura" for the companion? Or is it an action to defensively pounce? If it's an aura, is the resistance to damage always on? If it's an action, what is the use of the resistance, since the beast is not getting targeted?



Primal Awareness (3)

Primal Assault (10)

Primeval Ward (14)

Maybe we should find another name for one or two of the features. So it's not all "primal". Also, we still need a name for Nature's Boon.

[Kane0]

Originally the feature let you choose an option and upgrade it at lvl 17, whereas now, you only pick one option at lvl 17. Apart from the clean feature description, is this on purpose? Giving you 3 options in total instead of a total of 4?

That was intentional, I figured it was being too generous. This way you end up with either all the basic abilities with one improvement or two improved abilities and miss out on the third.



So we landed on the "aura" for the companion? Or is it an action to defensively pounce? If it's an aura, is the resistance to damage always on? If it's an action, what is the use of the resistance, since the beast is not getting targeted?

That wording of Defensive pounce was lifted straight out of the UA Artificer's Iron Defender with '5 feet' swapped for 'reach', it uses the beast's reaction.
The resistance is applied to the beast in this way for three reasons:
1: Putting it on the creature it's defending would be less useful because of the disadvantage imposed (we want the feature to actually feel good)
2: Once the beast uses its reaction to protect someone, thus annoying the attacker, they increase the chances they will get hit, and they are on average more fragile than a PC (we want the beast to last long enough to do its job)
3: Because the resistance can last up to a whole round it incentivises the beast to use the protection on someone else as early as possible in order to protect itself as well (behavioural reinforcement!)



Maybe we should find another name for one or two of the features. So it's not all "primal". Also, we still need a name for Nature's Boon.
I don't mind Nature's Boon as a name but as i've said, names are actually one of the hardest parts of homebrewing. Taking all suggestions!


Minor phrasing issues.

Ah yes, will fix that up. Quarry is supposed to last for more than one hit though.

[Moxxmix]

I thought of "Call of the Wild" as an alternative to Beastcall (as a nod to Jack London's novel), but then I'm not sure what to use for "Greater Beastcall". Maybe wrap it up as a level modifier in the original feature, rather than have two features? (Sort of like how Nature's Boon got collapsed.) It sort of hides the 18th level feature, but meh.

Regarding beast companions: Do we want to use the RR features that assume the beast has proficiency in all saving throws, and grant two skill proficiencies of the player's choice? At present, almost no beasts have any saving throw proficiencies, and almost none have skills outside of Perception and Stealth.

I've written this ranger up in a Word doc, but I'm severely lacking in the descriptive fluff. Anyone want to take a stab at writing a long description of the class as a whole, or short descriptions of each subclass? I'll poke around and see what I can do myself, but the more voices the better, here. (For reference, here's how it currently looks (https://drive.google.com/file/d/13bVHMErfTWDhRcZVFGanAX66QuMGKmMv/view?usp=sharing).)

I've used "Conclaves" (from the RR text) rather than the generic "Archetypes" (from the PHB when they didn't have anything more creative) for the subclasses. If anyone has an issue with this, let me know.

Misc thoughts:

Nature's Boon: Healing Salves and Camouflage are both very strong choices. Land's Stride feels... weak. It's potentially useful as a tactical choice, but it's one of those things that's easy to lose if the GM doesn't make use of it. On the other hand, invisibility and healing are useful no matter what, and the tier 2 versions are even better. I'd probably want to add a bit to the Land's Stride to make it more of a tempting choice. Perhaps +10' movement speed? Feather Fall like monk? (Where can I get my Batman-approved grappling hook? >.> ) ... Oohhhh.. Level 2 can give you temp flight speed, like the level 14 Eagle Totem on barbarian (grappling hooks, vines, chandeliers, etc). Lots of options, now that I think of it.


Feral Senses: What was the motivation for changing how this worked, compared to the PHB? Removing the ability to gain advantage on the ranger negates a large chunk of rogue Sneak Attack, which feels like a stronger bonus than the PHB version, particularly as there's no range limit. The PHB version seemed like it should have worked fine.


Defensive Pounce: The OP doesn't specify whether this is an action or a reaction. You said you pulled it from the alchemist UA, and in there it's a reaction. I'll designate it as a reaction for now, but let me know if it's not. -- Edit: Realized the above post noted it as a reaction, so that's settled.

[Jaxby]

That was intentional, I figured it was being too generous. This way you end up with either all the basic abilities with one improvement or two improved abilities and miss out on the third.


If you get to choose an option 3 times, you cannot end up with all the basic abilities and one improvement. Or two abilities fully improved. You can get all the basic options, or two options, with one improvement. Just checking that this is what you intend.


Nature's Boon: Healing Salves and Camouflage are both very strong choices. Land's Stride feels... weak. It's potentially useful as a tactical choice, but it's one of those things that's easy to lose if the GM doesn't make use of it.

I guess you are right that it is somewhat DM dependent, but I also feel free movement is quite a powerful feature. At my table, there have been many fights in difficult terrain, and often the monsters ignore it, because it's their home turf (broadly speaking). Here it is maybe better to ignore difficult terrain than to bonus hide. Which also is somewhat DM dependent, as there needs to be things to hide behind/in.

I also think that the ranger's movement buffs should mostly free him of restrictions, whereas extra movement might be the monks niche.

Speaking of monks; there's a good batman class.

[Bjarkmundur]

5ft movement speed seems fair, or advantage to escaping (non-magical?) grapples and restraints.

[Fnissalot]

I guess you are right that it is somewhat DM dependent, but I also feel free movement is quite a powerful feature. At my table, there have been many fights in difficult terrain, and often the monsters ignore it, because it's their home turf (broadly speaking). Here it is maybe better to ignore difficult terrain than to bonus hide. Which also is somewhat DM dependent, as there needs to be things to hide behind/in.

I also think that the ranger's movement buffs should mostly free him of restrictions, whereas extra movement might be the monks niche.

Speaking of monks; there's a good batman class.

I like the grappling hook idea!

Upgraded Land's stride could also give
As a bonus action, you fly up to 10 feet without provoking opportunity attacks; you fall if you end your turn in the air and nothing else is holding you aloft.

[Kane0]

You can get all the basic options, or two options, with one improvement. Just checking that this is what you intend.

Erm yes, a little embarrassing considering I wrote it lol. Pulled a Misremembering Mearls there.
Though I will of course gather feedback and change it if it's deemed too weak. Might also be worth considering changing back if we introduce more at a later date.


5ft movement speed seems fair.
If people are for it yes, 5' for regular and another 5' for improved. Votes for and against?



Regarding beast companions: Do we want to use the RR features that assume the beast has proficiency in all saving throws, and grant two skill proficiencies of the player's choice? At present, almost no beasts have any saving throw proficiencies, and almost none have skills outside of Perception and Stealth.

I've used "Conclaves" (from the RR text) rather than the generic "Archetypes" (from the PHB when they didn't have anything more creative) for the subclasses. If anyone has an issue with this, let me know.

Feral Senses: What was the motivation for changing how this worked, compared to the PHB? Removing the ability to gain advantage on the ranger negates a large chunk of rogue Sneak Attack, which feels like a stronger bonus than the PHB version, particularly as there's no range limit. The PHB version seemed like it should have worked fine.

Ah yes, will add in a bit about beast saves and skills.

I like the sound of Clade actually, sounds more about classification and less about gatherings.

I wanted Feral Senses to compete with the Rogue's Blindsense. If it does turn out to be too strong then we can scale it back again. Rogues cant still get sneak attack off via a friend, just not using advantage.

[Jaxby]

If people are for it yes, 5' for regular and another 5' for improved. Votes for and against?
----snip----
I wanted Feral Senses to compete with the Rogue's Blindsense. If it does turn out to be too strong then we can scale it back again. Rogues cant still get sneak attack off via a friend, just not using advantage.

I guess the +5/+5 is fine. A wood elf monk/ranger multi class would start getting pretty fast. I don't see how you would explain flying movement fluff-wise though, so I don't think we should add that to the bonus. You can jump pretty much the same distance anyway.

With the new Feral Sense, you can still get advantage on the ranger, just not from being unseen.

Edit: Naming suggestions for the Warden features:

Primal Awareness (3)
I picture this as the ranger sensing slight tremors in the earth from the movement of monsters or herds of cattle. So how about calling it "tremors of the world roots" or "Earth tremors" or some such? Though it should probably have a word to do with sensing in there. Not tremor-sense...

Primal Assault (10)
Seeing as it is a quickening of a spell, and the ranger is about landscapes, what about "Ley Flow" or "Ley Alignment"? This is ofc a nod towards Ley Lines, drawing upon mysticism, landscape and ancient times.

Primeval Ward (14)
I think this is nice, as it resembles the inspirational source, primordial ward, but is not called quite the same, hence not doing quite the same.

[Moxxmix]

If people are for it yes, 5' for regular and another 5' for improved. Votes for and against?
Hmm. Sounds reasonable. I wouldn't mind something flashier, but it works as a solid, no-fuss, always-on benefit, even if difficult terrain never comes up.


Ah yes, will add in a bit about beast saves and skills.
Doing a review of beasts, I see that there are a fair number that have no skills at all, or only one skill.

You've updated it to say:

Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s AC and attack rolls, as well as to all saving throws and any skills it is proficient in. If the beast is not proficient in any skills it gains proficiency in two of Athletics, Acrobatics, Perception, Stealth and Survivial.
I kinda want to suggest Performance (dancing bear!), but that would be a bit silly. Intimidation might be legitimate, though. Almost all animals have a -2 (sometimes -3) Cha, though, so it starts to fall into the usual problem of using the Intimidation skill (such as the 20 Str barbarian with Cha as a dump stat). I think I'd still allow it, though. A crocodile that can't intimidate (-3 Cha) feels silly.

Anyway, on the actual skills granted, as currently stated, beasts without any skills get 2, but beasts with 1 skill stay at 1, and beasts with 2 skills keep what they have. I'd be inclined to suggest instead that all beasts get one additional skill of the player's choice. 0 goes to 1, 1 goes to 2, and 2 goes to 3. Must be selected out of that set you provided, and perhaps Intimidation as well.


I like the sound of Clade actually, sounds more about classification and less about gatherings.
Works well enough for me. Updated to that.


I wanted Feral Senses to compete with the Rogue's Blindsense. If it does turn out to be too strong then we can scale it back again. Rogues cant still get sneak attack off via a friend, just not using advantage.
Hmm. Not sure I see how it's competing with Blindsense, but can leave it for now.

[Fnissalot]

Doing a review of beasts, I see that there are a fair number that have no skills at all, or only one skill.

You've updated it to say:

I kinda want to suggest Performance (dancing bear!), but that would be a bit silly. Intimidation might be legitimate, though. Almost all animals have a -2 (sometimes -3) Cha, though, so it starts to fall into the usual problem of using the Intimidation skill (such as the 20 Str barbarian with Cha as a dump stat). I think I'd still allow it, though. A crocodile that can't intimidate (-3 Cha) feels silly.

Anyway, on the actual skills granted, as currently stated, beasts without any skills get 2, but beasts with 1 skill stay at 1, and beasts with 2 skills keep what they have. I'd be inclined to suggest instead that all beasts get one additional skill of the player's choice. 0 goes to 1, 1 goes to 2, and 2 goes to 3. Must be selected out of that set you provided, and perhaps Intimidation as well.


I would add insight and intimidation to the list. Having a pet that can smell when someone is lying would be neat!

To give them one additional skill proficiency seems like the best way to do it? Would it be too much to give them a save at a later point as well?

[Moxxmix]

I would add insight and intimidation to the list. Having a pet that can smell when someone is lying would be neat!
Lying cat! (https://sagacomic.fandom.com/wiki/Lying_Cat)


To give them one additional skill proficiency seems like the best way to do it? Would it be too much to give them a save at a later point as well?
You mean give them a second? I'm not sure. It would be a reasonable progress expectation, but at the same time the ranger can technically change the pet's skill any time they call a new beast (such as at 7 and 14, plus any deaths). I suppose it depends on how that interacts.

[Kane0]

Alrighty then. I've updated some names, the stride boon and the beast's skill wording

[Moxxmix]

Here's an attempt at the intro section. I copied the first few example paragraphs, and then started adding new stuff. Part of the goal was to get rid of the purely nature-focused elements of the description, and allow a slightly more inclusive conceptualization.


Ranger

Rough and wild looking, a human stalks alone through the shadows of trees, hunting the orcs he knows are planning a raid on a nearby farm. Clutching a shortsword in each hand, he becomes a whirlwind of steel, cutting down one enemy after another.

After tumbling away from a cone of freezing air, an elf finds her feet and draws back her bow to loose an arrow at the white dragon. Shrugging off the wave of fear that emanates from the dragon like the cold of its breath, she sends one arrow after another to find the gaps between the dragon's thick scales.

Holding his hand high, a half-elf whistles to the hawk that circles high above him, calling the bird back to his side. Whispering instructions in Elvish, he points to the owlbear he's been tracking and sends the hawk to distract the creature while he readies his bow.

Grizzled beard leading the way, and wearing the dirt of leagues of road travel, the dwarf finally catches sight of the man he's been hunting for the last month. Adjusting his cap and unslinging his crossbow, he begins stalking towards the inevitable confrontation.

Primal and Independent

A wanderer and explorer, the ranger sits on the border between the wild world and the tamed. A ranger is both hunter and defender, protecting civilization in ways that ordered structure cannot. Outsiders often see them as primal, making use of the tools of nature to defend against it, but rangers are just as much a part of the civilized world that birthed them as any other, compelled to protect that world from the darkness that lurks beyond the comforting fire.

Rangers often work independently, as there are few who would join them on that thin border, and the strictures of organization do more to hinder than help when in pursuit of the dangers that are under no obligation to follow the rules of polite society. But some find companionship with adventurers willing to aid them in defeating monsters both grim and familiar.

It pretty much exactly fills the first page, wrapping around the overall class table. I didn't want to expand it much further, though the document still needs the "Creating a Ranger" section filled in, which covers a bit more of ideas for "Why are you a ranger?"


Comments, alterations, additional text, etc, all welcome.

[Fnissalot]

Lying cat! (https://sagacomic.fandom.com/wiki/Lying_Cat)


You mean give them a second? I'm not sure. It would be a reasonable progress expectation, but at the same time the ranger can technically change the pet's skill any time they call a new beast (such as at 7 and 14, plus any deaths). I suppose it depends on how that interacts.

I meant that I agree with you, giving all beasts a proficiency, even if they have one or two already?

Also, the current wording of BM only gives proficiency to the skill of your choice, not to the skills the beast already has. Is that intentional?

[Jaxby]

Here's an attempt at the intro section.
----snip----

I have also tried looking into a ranger description, and I find it quite hard to write an invocative text that has to be so generic, it can encompass "all the rangers". Namely a description that invokes fantasy images of your Robin Hood-style green clad archer, but also fits an urban bounty hunter and batman..
Also, how much did we want to include the "borderlands protector" theme?

Because we could just take the PHB description, and make some adjustments. Like keeping the intro description, the "Independent Adventurers" and "Creating a Ranger" and then changing the "Deadly Hunters" to something like:



Deadly Hunters
Warriors of the wild, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization—humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and deadly dragons. They learn to track their quarry as a predator does, moving stealthily through the wilds and hiding themselves in brush and rubble.

Observing the natural circle of predator and prey first hand, rangers have an almost instinctual knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of their game. Rangers familiarize themselves with their surroundings to allow them to move silently and unhindered, as the tiniest snap of a twig or a minutes hesitation could mean the difference between preying and becoming prey.

Some rangers channel the spirit of the crashing lightning, the whispering willows, or the rain-slick cobblestone street, and gain the ability to cast spells, much as a druid does. Their spells, like their combat abilities, emphasize speed, stealth, and the hunt.
A ranger’s talents and abilities are honed with deadly focus on the grim task of protecting the borderlands.

Oh, and I might describe your dwarf bounty hunter something like:
With a satisfied grunt, a grizzled dwarf, wearing the dirt of many leagues of travel in his beard, finally catches sight of the man he’s been stalking for weeks. Adjusting his cap and rubbing some warmth into his good arm, he unslings his crossbow and loads his favorite bolt: The Penny-Dropper, or Penny for short.

[cajbaj]

I was working on a Ranger rework that's very similar to this one, but this one is just a bit better.

So if I were to finish a personal rework and used a lot of this one that you guys have been working on as a baseline, who would I credit? This thread? Notable people in the thread?

[Moxxmix]

With a satisfied grunt, a grizzled dwarf, wearing the dirt of many leagues of travel in his beard, finally catches sight of the man he’s been stalking for weeks. Adjusting his cap and rubbing some warmth into his good arm, he unslings his crossbow and loads his favorite bolt: The Penny-Dropper, or Penny for short.
I like it. Updating.

I have also tried looking into a ranger description, and I find it quite hard to write an invocative text that has to be so generic, it can encompass "all the rangers". Namely a description that invokes fantasy images of your Robin Hood-style green clad archer, but also fits an urban bounty hunter and batman..
Yeah, that describes the problem pretty well. What I ended up doing was focusing on what seemed to be a common point of intersection among the various themes: being on the border between civilization and absolute wilderness. The ranger in the PHB is described mostly from the perspective of being in the wilderness, but their goals are really about defending civilization from the wilds (and in the Batman case, the "wilds" is the unbound madness of the criminal underbelly). They straddle the edge between pure primal (such as barbarians and druids) and the civil (where you shift into ordinary fighters).

So I tried to evoke that element, of trying to protect the civilized world from the uncivilized world, but needing to make use of the uncivilized world's tools because the civilized world's tools are designed to deal with the civilized world's problems.


Because we could just take the PHB description, and make some adjustments.
I'll admit that part of my motivation was keeping the text short enough to fit on one page, so I sort of merged the Independent Adventurers and Deadly Hunters sections. I wouldn't mind expanding on things if we can get a truly solid narrative to establish the point of having a ranger class.


Deadly Hunters
Warriors of the wild, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization—humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and deadly dragons. They learn to track their quarry as a predator does, moving stealthily through the wilds and hiding themselves in brush and rubble.

Observing the natural circle of predator and prey first hand, rangers have an almost instinctual knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of their game. Rangers familiarize themselves with their surroundings to allow them to move silently and unhindered, as the tiniest snap of a twig or a minutes hesitation could mean the difference between preying and becoming prey.

Some rangers channel the spirit of the crashing lightning, the whispering willows, or the rain-slick cobblestone street, and gain the ability to cast spells, much as a druid does. Their spells, like their combat abilities, emphasize speed, stealth, and the hunt.
A ranger’s talents and abilities are honed with deadly focus on the grim task of protecting the borderlands.
This is pretty solid. I'll go ahead and paste it in. Will go back later to see if it needs editing to keep the overall flow.

For reference, here's v2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/190q5FqpzoVelYLLJO7PGc0VePsc95019/view?usp=sharing). Lots of "Lorem ipsum" text as placeholders in spots. Here's v3 after adding your text (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R2TcFQiQJyjLKWZMV9qKF4E9V2fMDyWV/view?usp=sharing).

[Moxxmix]

I was working on a Ranger rework that's very similar to this one, but this one is just a bit better.

So if I were to finish a personal rework and used a lot of this one that you guys have been working on as a baseline, who would I credit? This thread? Notable people in the thread?

Ah, useful reminder. I've added a credits section to the end of the document (updated v3). It includes a link to the thread and all the people who have posted in the thread. That should give you a workable credits list.

[Moxxmix]

A couple little side trips in the design challenge.

1) We've done a lot to build this ranger class. However we now need to look back and ask, "If I were to design a ranger based on concept X, would this class be able to fulfill that concept in a satisfying way?"

2) We've got our three basic subclasses, but we need to be sure that the class design space allows us to create additional subclasses. Can we at least think of general ideas that are sufficiently distinct enough to warrant their own subclass, and do they feel like they'd fit with the base class design?


My responses:

1.

So far, I like the Beastmaster for builds that focus that direction. The Hunter is solid, but doesn't match the stealthy skirmisher/guide concept, and the Warden doesn't really pick up the slack (although it maybe could, depending on spells.)

So while we've made it so that it doesn't need the sneaky wilderness aspect, it's lacking if you want to go in that direction.

While we've put a lot of thought in the Hunter and Beastmaster, I don't know that we've put enough thought into the Warden. What is it that it brings to the table, aside from spellcasting?


2.

Our starting classes include the 1/3 caster (which has sufficient precedent in EK and AT that we don't need to dig too much into it right now), the Hunter (ie: Ranger+), and the Beastmaster.

The Hunter's focus is on extra skills, adaptation to the environment, and multiattack. He also defends against surprise attacks, and gains the Eternal Hunter feature. Essentially, this subclass focuses on the hunt, gaining expertise in a tracking-focused skill. (So the rogue doesn't automatically outperform the ranger at basic tracking tasks.) It is offense-oriented. Its defense is primarily only in the pursuit of offense (eg: the resistances are in part related to the dragons of each environment). It takes the Quarry idea, and pursues it to the limit. Think "The Terminator".

What it does not do is address a set of very common associations with the ranger: skirmishing, and scouting. The skirmisher is not a single-minded Terminator. This concept is built on stealth, ambush, traps, and caution in general. The skirmisher assumes the enemy is stronger than the ranger, but that the ranger's knowledge and tools can overcome that. He's less interested in direct combat than the Hunter. This subclass should get lots of options for traps and tactical movement.

[Memo: Add Quarry damage to all creatures that fall into a skirmisher's trap, as long as no other creature is currently marked.]

The Beastmaster leverages an animal companion for greater power. And not just an animal companion, but all the animal companions, using Call of the Wild. Rather than the traps that a skirmisher might use, the Beastmaster uses living, thinking weapons to overcome the enemy.

Another aspect of the ranger concept is travel and exploration. The Guide. Is there space to design a character that handles the "survival" aspect of exploration without breaking things? Handle the issues of getting lost, finding food, etc, without simply skipping them the way Favored Environment does? This would be more of a support character. Might scrounge aspects of the Horizon Walker?


Xanathar's subclasses:

General note: How do we want to handle the possibility of bonus spells, such as the Xanathar subclasses get?

Gloom Stalker: A Hunter/Skirmisher cross, with a bit of shadow magic.

Horizon Walker: Uses something akin to Quarry as its basic damage feature. Employs movement magic. Presents itself as a planar traveler, but really isn't, mechanically. It just uses that idea as a theme to allow features that are fluffed to look like they're based on planar movement.

Monster Slayer: Slayer's Prey is again very close to the Quarry feature. Adds ability to counterspell the quarry. Combines well with the Mage Slayer feat.

Rogue/Scout: A wilderness-focused rogue, which is just as reasonable as an urban-focused ranger. Survivalist is similar to the Hunter's, except different skill options outside of Survival. The Hunter is focused on tracking, so has the option of Investigation and Perception. The Scout is just gaining info about Nature in general. While the Scout's feature names overlap with what we'd want to do with the more wilderness-focused ranger, the abilities are still very much in the realm of the rogue, so I don't think we need to worry about it.

[Kane0]

On the fluff text:
I admit I've never really done more than glance over any class description. I'm definitely not a good person to ask on the topic.

On design-to-mechanic:
Speaking from a personal note, I prefer my rangers with spellcasting built in but that's not what this thread is about. I think everything comes together very well and will cover most concepts with minimal effort. If we make changes based on edge-cases that would probably be at a detriment to what is currently covered.

The Stealth/Skirmisher focus will definitely be covered in our 'Xanathars'

The guide aspect is the most challenging to design for, mechanically speaking. It constantly has to contend with the Favored Terrain problem, where the exploration rules just aren't all that fleshed out and may or may not be a big deal in any particular campaign. It's like building a rogue subclass based around being a crime lord. I think the best way to do it with the tools we have in this edition is to build around it, offering ribbons and benefits that also happen to apply to exploration rather than a full subclass or multiple features that primarily work for exploration and not much else. At least until we get a big splatbook that expands on exploration that we can work with.

[Moxxmix]

So, an idea bounced around my head for another subclass, for the skirmisher type. Was just going to note down a couple ideas for it, but it kept growing, so....


Skirmisher

Focus: Stealth and traps.

Meta:

- This character will probably pick the Land's Stride option from Nature's Boon, for extra movement speed and ignoring difficult terrain. Very difficult to catch if stealth fails. Second choice would be the Camouflage option, for invisibility on hiding, which, at 9th level, is a good follow-on to Hide as a bonus action at 7th.

- Works extra well against surprised targets. Prep requirements means setting up ambushes, which means scouting requirements. Bonus to stealthy movement supports that.

- Can add difficult terrain, which, in conjunction with prone or restrained status traps, helps in containing targets. (A proned target can't get out of a small trap area in one turn.)

- Primary stat is Wisdom, rather that direct combat stats.

- Didn't add double proficiency for level 3 skills because the base class gets Expertise at level 5.



Skilled (3): Gain proficiency in stealth and two sets of tools.
Dabbler (3): You may use half your proficiency score on any skill check using tools for which you are not proficient. (Can cobble together traps using cooking utensils or painter supplies or masonry tools or whatever. Home Alone/Jackie Chan traps.)

Trapper (3): You may spend one minute to build a small trap that can target up to 3 creatures within an area of either a 10' radius or up to 12 adjacent squares, or spend one hour to build a large trap that can target up to 30 creatures within up an area of either a 30' radius or up to 120 adjacent squares. Make a Wisdom (Tool) check appropriate for the type of trap being created. [Determine DC? DC determined by status effect rider?] If successful, you may then maintain Concentration (like with a spell) to keep the trap ready until you activate it with an action.

The Save DC for the trap is 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Wisdom modifier. If more creatures are in the trap's area than its capacity, select as many creatures to be affected as the trap's capacity. The targets must make either a Dex or Con save, as appropriate to the trap and determined by the DM. The trap does [1d10 + quarry die? scaling?] damage, plus one status effect [choice list?] against each creature that fails its save. A successful save does half damage and no status effect. The status effect lasts until the end of the creature's next non-surprised turn.


(7) utility: You may Hide as a bonus action.
(7) utility: You may move stealthily while traveling at a normal pace.
(7) utility: Your traps may create difficult terrain in the area affected if the status effect they generate is either Prone or Restrained.

(10) offense: Surprise! You may activate a surprise small-sized trap within 30' of you as an action. You may not use this feature again until you finish a short or long rest.

(14) defense: Bunker. You activate a trap that displaces a large amount of material — a secretly dug pit, a collapsing wall, or other such distraction. You and any allies within 30' of you may hide in this location without being discovered for up to an hour. Leaving the location makes you discoverable again.
(14) utility: Home Protection. You may create one trap that does not require concentration to maintain, and that will remain active for up to seven days. You may dismantle this trap at any time if you wish to build a different one.

(18) minicap: Surprise, Mother****er! You may activate a surprise large-sized trap within 120' of you as an action. You may not use this feature again until you finish a long rest.


(Yes, the minicap will need a name change.)


Status effects for traps might include:
Poisoned
Blinded
Deafened
Prone
Restrained
Frightened
Sleep (special: may not do damage with the trap; requires alchemist or herbalism tools and proficiency)

Other statuses feel overboard for this.


Needs specifics for damage, scaling, save DCs, etc, and it's hard to judge if it might be overpowered in some ways, or unworkable in others. But there are tons of little ways I could see this being used, and it feels like it would be fun.

[Fnissalot]

I am trying to go through hunters and rangers in media. Aragorn could be a hunter or a warden, Legolas a hunter, Van Helsing or blade would likely be a hunter with a few cleric or paladin levels, goblinslayer would probably just be a hunter, Minsc and Boo could either be a beastmaster or hunter depending on the focus.

The stalker/stealth class would be more along the lines of gloom stalker to me. First turn bonuses, more damage to creatures who haven't noticed you, better at hiding; an assassin lite. The same way warden is related to druids, this could be a step towards a more roguish subclass.

We are missing the ranger that hunts the intelligent monsters. Geralt in the Witcher series, Dr. Who, and John Constantine are all some kind of semi-rangers that don't directly hunt. They often barter with the monsters and try to solve the conflicts in other ways than killing. Learn a bunch of monsters' languages is the easy part. All three of these have weirdly big toolboxes of how to deal with odd situations at a personal level (Sonic screwdriver, religious know-how and sacred artifacts, the music box in bloodborne, or weapon oils, concoctions, and sign magic).

I also think we are missing a Colossus/giant/Titan Slayer subclass. You fight big things and have perks from it. Climbing skills and/or grappling hooks, avoiding big smashes, and dealing more damage depending on the size of the target? It should fit between Jack and the beanstalk, Legolas climbing mumakils, attack on Titan, David and goliath, (this could possibly work for Batman as well?). Is it well written enough, it could also apply to those who hunts other big things like dragons or such.

On the topic of traps.
These are just my opinions but I would prefer a list of trap types that works in different ways over 1 very generic trap that is hard to get nuanced enough. I think we easily could make a list of traps similar to the battlemaster, arcane archers, or four element monks lists of options. A rolling log trap should mechanically be different that a spike pit, a snare, or a poison dart trap by more than just giving different conditions. Further, I think a trapper/trapsmith could be a strong enough archetype to have it's own subclass without the stealth. I would also like if it had a ribbon/utility feature that you set up traps around your camp while you take a rest.

[Kane0]

New Boon: Traps
Can have up to Wis mod traps laid at any given time, which are an action to place within reach and take up a 5' radius. A creature that moves into the space or starts its turn there makes a save or is inflicted with one condition (Blinded, Deafened, Poisoned, Prone) until the start of their next turn.
If selected a second time, a trap can be deployed up to 30 feet away as a bonus action and takes up a 10' radius area.

Stalker (assumed boons Stealth and Traps):
Level 3: When you roll initiative, on your first turn you gain an extra action (one attack only)
Level 3: As a bonus action you can mark a creature that is unaware of you as your quarry.
Level 7: Bonus action Hide, and your Hide action also works against Darkvision, Blindsight and Tremorsense
Level 10: When attacking a quarry that is surprised or has not yet taken a turn in combat your Quarry die is treated as the maximum result.
Level 14: Double quarry roll using the level 6 reaction when obscured or in shadow
Level 18: Not sure yet

Marauder (assumed boons stride and something else):
Level 3: Superiority Dice & Manoeuvres (colossus slayer, skirmish, disrupt concentration, block teleportation, stop healing, teleport before attack, create difficult terrain, etc)
Level 3: Your movement doesn't provoke Opp attacks from your Quarry
Level 7: Learn creature resistances/immunities/vulnerabilities
Level 10: When you take the attack action you can teleport up to 10' before each attack
Level 14: When you roll initiative with no superiority dice you gain 1
Level 18: Not sure yet

Edit: On traps
They are hard to do right. In D&D the party is usually the aggressor, and usually constantly moving (either through plot or through the dungeon). Traps are the opposite of an offensive, mobile style of play. Making an entire subclass (or even a feat!) around them is incredibly challenging to get right so that they aren't either nigh useless because of the constraints around their use or far too strong and causing the ranger to constantly stop progress in order to make use of them. Funnily enough you see the same issue play out in similar places like shooter games.

[Moxxmix]

We are missing the ranger that hunts the intelligent monsters. Geralt in the Witcher series, Dr. Who, and John Constantine are all some kind of semi-rangers that don't directly hunt. They often barter with the monsters and try to solve the conflicts in other ways than killing.
I kinda see that as a Hunter that took Investigation as the skill pick. Bargaining isn't really a class feature in the game, and I don't think it should be. An Int/Cha focused Hunter would be perfectly viable.


I also think we are missing a Colossus/giant/Titan Slayer subclass.
If we rebuild the Monster Slayer subclass from Xanathar's, I'd put it in there. The rest of the stuff you describe, I'd think of as more generic ranger-y stuff than subclass-specific.


... And come back to see Kane0's post. Nice stuff. Good options to work with, and making traps part of the Nature's Boon section is an interesting alternative, though it might start getting a bit dense compared to how many picks are available.

[Fnissalot]

The current monster slayer is more of a mage-hunter than a Colossus Slayer. Kane0's marauder is a better fit for this to me. Add some climbing or vertical movement to it and I would be ok with it. Edit: the teleportation could just be re-fluffed to fit that. Edit again: the marauder looks like a more interesting take on the horizon walker the more that I look at it! Well done!

I would be fine with having more boons. In the worst case, you could have a sub-class that got to pick 2 additional level of boons.

Add a boon that is something like this and an investigation hunter would work for me to do the social monster confrontations.
New boon: Monsterspeaker
You can communicate with non-humanoids who speak a language you don't know. You must observe these creatures interacting with one another for at least 1 day, after which you learn a handful of important words, expressions, and gestures – enough to communicate on a rudimentary level.

If you take this boon again, when you communicate with them this way, you can use your Wisdom modifier instead of Charisma when doing Persuasion skill checks against them.

[Kane0]

Add some climbing or vertical movement to it and I would be ok with it.

Thats already covered by a variant rule in the DMG actually, works similar to grappling IIRC.

Edit: theres also downtime rules for learning languages plus comprehend languages and the like. And the Linguist feat, but we don’t talk about the Linguist feat.

[Jaxby]

Yeah, that describes the problem pretty well. What I ended up doing was focusing on what seemed to be a common point of intersection among the various themes: being on the border between civilization and absolute wilderness. The ranger in the PHB is described mostly from the perspective of being in the wilderness, but their goals are really about defending civilization from the wilds (and in the Batman case, the "wilds" is the unbound madness of the criminal underbelly). They straddle the edge between pure primal (such as barbarians and druids) and the civil (where you shift into ordinary fighters).

So I tried to evoke that element, of trying to protect the civilized world from the uncivilized world, but needing to make use of the uncivilized world's tools because the civilized world's tools are designed to deal with the civilized world's problems.


I'll admit that part of my motivation was keeping the text short enough to fit on one page, so I sort of merged the Independent Adventurers and Deadly Hunters sections. I wouldn't mind expanding on things if we can get a truly solid narrative to establish the point of having a ranger class.

I think the wilderness vs civilization is an interesting theme to explore! I didn't edit your text, as I wasn't sure if we all wanted to go down that path. And just editing the phb text is way easier than starting a description from scratch. Though the phb focuses much more on the "borderlands" theme than our more hunter-focused rework does.

People mentioned that the Warden was a bit lackluster in terms of flavorful feats. I'm not sure I agree, as getting spells and customizing them is a pretty big thing. But what do you guys see as the fluff theme for the Warden? Is it a protector? Is it elemental or more spiritual? Is it druid-light?

I guess it's kind of a plus that it can currently cover it all, but again makes it hard to write flavor text.

On traps and subclasses: Shouldn't we finish the core ranger and the initial 3 sub-classes before branching out? Possibly make a new thread for the new sub-classes?

[Moxxmix]

The current monster slayer is more of a mage-hunter than a Colossus Slayer.
I thought so too, at first, but when reviewing the Monster Slayer features, they really apply to a lot of different things that even non-caster monsters can do. It certainly meshes well with the Mage Slayer feat, and could be a mage hunter, but it isn't quite that restricted.


I would be fine with having more boons. In the worst case, you could have a sub-class that got to pick 2 additional level of boons.
Nature's Boon does lend itself to allowing some decent variety in the class. I expect we'll end up coming back and revising it after we work through the extended subclasses.


People mentioned that the Warden was a bit lackluster in terms of flavorful feats. I'm not sure I agree, as getting spells and customizing them is a pretty big thing. But what do you guys see as the fluff theme for the Warden? Is it a protector? Is it elemental or more spiritual? Is it druid-light?
It's not (for me, at least) that the Warden doesn't have some nice features. It's that I'm not entirely sure what the Warden's role is, other than to be the 1/3 caster for the class. Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster each build on something that helps define them in particular (cast+attack for EK, Mage Hand for AT). Warden starts off with Primal Awareness, but doesn't really take it anywhere. The rest of the features are useful, but don't really form anything coherent, to say, "This is what a Warden is."

In general, each subclass is expected to define itself with its level 3 feature, and then expand on that in later features. Same thing as with the base classes. Warden just doesn't feel like it's done that.


On traps and subclasses: Shouldn't we finish the core ranger and the initial 3 sub-classes before branching out? Possibly make a new thread for the new sub-classes?
Oh, definitely. I just had a moment of my muse kicking in, and wanted to make sure it wasn't forgotten. I don't suggest we spend any significant time on alternate subclasses for now; they're just evidence that there's solid design space to expand on the ranger concept (something that was possibly in question in the thread that spawned this one), and that ideas are recorded for reference, for when we're ready to move to the next stage.

[Kane0]

There was once a UA with something for the ranger we could probably steal some Warden fluff from
https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/2017_01_UA_RangerRogue_0117JCMM.pdf

Edit: We could model the Warden being a protector or defender, even extending that to keeper of 'the old ways'. A more bulky style of ranger is also a mechanical niche that is missing, so if the mechanics aren't integrating well we can use that as a guideline.

Edit again: Actually looking at the Warden we have indeed not given it as much scrutiny as the other two. Does anyone feel like level 3 and 7 are a bit lacklustre? I could swap around Ritual Casting and Wildsense, then add in a new feature at level 3. Maybe gain Temp HP when you cast a druid spell or mark a Quarry? Levels 10, 14 and 18 look alright though Rangers already get a reaction at level 6 which conflicts with level 14.

[Jaxby]

There was once a UA with something for the ranger we could probably steal some Warden fluff from
---snip---
Edit: We could model the Warden being a protector or defender, even extending that to keeper of 'the old ways'. A more bulky style of ranger is also a mechanical niche that is missing, so if the mechanics aren't integrating well we can use that as a guideline.

Edit again: Actually looking at the Warden we have indeed not given it as much scrutiny as the other two. Does anyone feel like level 3 and 7 are a bit lacklustre? I could swap around Ritual Casting and Wildsense, then add in a new feature at level 3. Maybe gain Temp HP when you cast a druid spell or mark a Quarry? Levels 10, 14 and 18 look alright though Rangers already get a reaction at level 6 which conflicts with level 14.

I think this is a good idea. We could play up the "borderland" protector for the Warden.

I was thinking about temp HP myself, as the eldritch knight and the arcane trickster get an offensive and a utility caster feature respectively. This leaves a good role for the Warden being defensive both in terms of ranger subclass, but also in terms of third casters. Even though the eldritch knight relies a lot on defensive spells.

I've seen people arguing that rangers should get prof in Con saves at some point. What about giving the Warden prof in Con saves while concentrating on a spell? And maybe 1dx * spell lvl of temp HP when they cast a spell? This could be their third lvl feature, as it would scale with spell lvl.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm creating a classic (non fey) Firbolg Warden using this rework. I just wanted again to complement you all for the amazing effort and care yo have put into this project. The converted Ranger spells are just spot on, too!

I actually think the Warden is in a great place right now. You have to remember that each spell functions as a class feature on its own. It's not lacking in Flavor or function. I will be creating the tough defender of the wild you talked about. Go check out MrRhexx on YouTube, his video on Firbolgs just screams Warden to me.

It's really hard making a class, since as a player you naturally want it to be able to DO ALL THE STUFF. I think this is the case with the Warden. I reeeaaallly want ritual casting earlier, but that's just me being greedy wanting to play a fighter and a druid at the same time. If you want to give it more stuff, why not give it something that feels powerful, but isn't. A flavorful ribbon. How about "When you reduce an aberration or undead creature to 0 hit points, you gain temporary hit points equal to your level" . It really pushes the defender of the wild Archetype, gives the player a fun feature to get excited about, but doesn't add too much power.
.
Warden
"I help those native to my forest, hunt those that seek to upset its balance, and guide those through it that mean it no harm"
.

The specifically 'unnatrual' monster types are a great way to get this across. I think the Emerald Enclave had a similar goal.

Is there a reason why great weapon fighting style is not presented as an option?

[Kane0]

Looking over Rituals and THP numbers i'm thinking:

- Move Ritual casting to level 3 alongside spellcasting. The druid list contains 4 rituals at 1st level (5 if we add Alarm), another 4 at 2nd level (again 5 if we add Silence) and a final 4 at 3rd level which is perfect for our purposes
- In place at level 7 add a feature that grants you (or an ally you can see within 30 feet of you) Temp HP when you cast a spell equal to three times the spell's level, which last one hour. It's not a lot, but then again it isn't supposed to be.

Great Weapon style was omitted because it isnt there for the PHB ranger, but i see no issue adding it in.

And thankyou :smallsmile: this has been very enjoyable thanks to you guys.

Edit: And with the level 14 reaction i'm thinking of changing it to add onto the level 6 reaction to avoid conflict.

[Jaxby]

Looking over Rituals and THP numbers i'm thinking:

- Move Ritual casting to level 3 alongside spellcasting. The druid list contains 4 rituals at 1st level (5 if we add Alarm), another 4 at 2nd level (again 5 if we add Silence) and a final 4 at 3rd level which is perfect for our purposes
- In place at level 7 add a feature that grants you (or an ally you can see within 30 feet of you) Temp HP when you cast a spell equal to three times the spell's level, which last one hour. It's not a lot, but then again it isn't supposed to be.

Great Weapon style was omitted because it isnt there for the PHB ranger, but i see no issue adding it in.

And thankyou :smallsmile: this has been very enjoyable thanks to you guys.

Edit: And with the level 14 reaction i'm thinking of changing it to add onto the level 6 reaction to avoid conflict.

Since you get 12-14 rituals available with the druid list as you list them, Kane0, it seems quite powerfull to get ritual casting. I don't realy know if it is better balance-wise to get this at 3rd or 7th lvl, but it's quite a boost to the ranger.

Yeah, it was mentioned earlier, that great weapon fighting isn't part of the ranger theme. Looking at hunters in the real world, I would tend to agree. You can still make a GWF ranger though, by for instance taking the +1 AC fighting style. It won't be as effective at dealing damage as a barbarian or a fighter, but then maybe that's fine.

Good catch on the lvl 14 warden ability and the lvl 6 Quarry feature. The lvl 14 ability does seem to be a kind of upgrade to the quarry feature, so I think it makes perfect sense to highlight it as such.

Bjarkmundur: I think you have a good point in "wanting it all" in a homebrew class.
Concerning the abaration/undead feature, I think we should avoid this, as it falls into the same trap as the Favoured Enemy feature does. Where the player is constantly waiting for a specific monster type to come up, and might feel wanting if the DM doesn't serve them up regularly.

All in all, it does look like the rework is almost complete from a mechanical standpoint. And what a beaut :)

[Fnissalot]

I could totally see a woodcutter ranger wielding a big two-handed axe. I might be wrong but was not barbarians included into the game after rangers? For example, Minsc was a ranger with a big sword, not a barbarian since there were no barbarian in the base game of baldurs gate.

[Bjarkmundur]

My only issue with ritual spells is the mileage it gives you. Being a third-caster means ritual casting is a HUGE boost, due to how few spell slots you normally get. I'm pretty sure we're just being greedy if we move it up to lvl 3.

[Bjarkmundur]

Just finished outlining my Lumberjack Defender of the Forest and Guide to its Guests (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HkZS1gOJvr). The ranger spells really make the whole fighter-druid thing come together!

...still wish I had ritual casting...

Trailblazer's climb and swim speed seem kinda out of place, I think its us being greedy again. I left it out of my character, it seemed more intuitive without it.

...I'm going to give myself ritual casting...

I'm really looking forward to test it out sometime :D

...I don't think I'd play this without ritual casting at 3...

I'm also not a fan of the Fey part of Wild Sense, but that's mostly as a DM. I either have to count a list of 100 fey creatures present in a forest, or make my game sound unpopulated and ill-thought out. Can we narrow it down to a single stat block containing those keywords? Instead of asking "Hey, how many hundred twig blights are there within a mile?" it becomes "We are hunting a pixies to use as currency for dealing with a hag. Can I use my Wild Sense to see if there are any pixies nearby?"

I'm a big fan of "It does what it says on the tin" design philosophy (I'm looking at you Find Traps). It's obviously a feature meant for tracking down something you are actively looking for, or determining the safest route through the wild. Do you mind if we add the bolded sentence to the description?


"As an action you can detect the number and direction of all Aberrations, Monstrosities, Fey, Dragons and Undead within one mile of you for up to one minute. This can be used to track down a specific monster type or determine the safest route through the territory with ease. Once you use this feature you cannot do so again until you finish a short or long rest.."

This is quite similar how Suggestion has examples and explanations on how it could be used, so we are not out of line with 5e design habits at all. I think steering the player more into questions like "Can I use Wild Sense to find the Green Dragon we are looking for" rather than"I know the number and direction of all dragons in the area. How many are there and where are they?" is a small change with a big positive impact. And you know I love small changes that do a lot of work.

[Kane0]

I dunno man, a climb speed sounds perfect for someone who makes a living felling trees.

With regards to ritual casting my thought was that because you're a 1/3 caster you're getting Alarm, Detect Magic/Poison/Disease and Speak with Animals two levels late, Animal Messenger, Silence and Skywrite four levels late and Meld Into Stone, Water Breathing and Water Walk eight levels late. The casting progression means if you get rituals at level 3 or 7 only changes if you have access to 1st level rituals from levels 3 to 7, as that's when you get second level spells anyways.

Edit: By the way your lumberjack knows two Druid cantrips if he's a warden.

[Bjarkmundur]

Guidence is all I need ;)
Yeah, I'm definitely using ritual casting from 3.

Hmm, I'd personally love to see the hunter get a feature thst competes for his bonus action, hopefully something that rivals TWF. Right now that subclass is a trap option and pretty much pointless if you're not using TWF. Is that intentional? It just feels very underwhelming when compared to the power and utility of an animal companion or spellcasting.

The hunter is consistently underwhelming in damage compared to the beastmaster with any other weapon than TWF, and by a huge margin.

I'm looking for a bonus action that increases damage roughly by 5 points of damage at level 3.

Bonus action to gain advantage if the target has no creatures within 5 feet of it? Call it Natural Selection (https://www.christopher-jablonski.com/en/bonus/jokes/the-sheep-theory)? It's thematic, it's a niche, it's extremely satisfying to use, I think it's perfect. Thoughts?

Cull the Herd is probably a better name. The predator theme is stronk.

[Kane0]

Hmm, I'd personally love to see the hunter get a feature that competes for his bonus action, hopefully something that rivals TWF. Right now that subclass is a trap option and pretty much pointless if you're not using TWF. Is that intentional? It just feels very underwhelming when compared to the power and utility of an animal companion or spellcasting.

What's the theme of the hunter anyways?

Keen Eye
Feats (Shield Master, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, even Charger and Magic Initiate)
Multiclassing (Barbarian Rage, Bardic Inspiration, Cleric Channel Divinity/Spells, Druid Wildshape/Spells, Fighter Second Wind, Monk Martial Arts, Rogue Cunning Action, Sorcerer/Wizard/Warlock Spells)
Two-Weapon-Fighting
Magic items (Scimitar of Speed, Dancing Sword, Bag of Tricks, Prayer Beads, Boots of Speed, anything your DM comes up with)

The hunter not having a built-in bonus action is a benefit in its own right, one might say a benefit in disguise. There is nothing competing with all the other options already on offer where Beastmasters and Warden don't have that luxury and have to choose one or the other.

It's not a trap option. A trap option is something that seems good but in fact isn't and the Hunter doesn't have extra action costs attached to anything he gets. The entire premise is minimal opportunity cost.

Thematically, the Hunter is the most basic form of Ranger and what it says on the tin. It's the frontiersman with no extra bits to dilute that. It's one of those cases where you don't actually want to analyse it for hours on end because it really is that simple.

[Bjarkmundur]

I don't think magic items, feats and Multiclassing is an excuse to be 5 points behind its other subclasses at level 3. Besides, Cull the Herd ticks all the boxes. It's unique, thematic AND solves a problem. Am I wrong?

... And are you suggesting the rogue would be more fun to play without Cunning Action?

[Kane0]

The level 3 Hunter gains a passive +1-2 Quarry damage
The level 3 Warden gains at most two uses of Hunter's Mark (bonus action, one minute each, concentration, +1d8 damage once per round)
The level 3 Beastmaster using their companion as a bonus action can deal something like 3d4 +2 damage until it loses its 12 20 to 30 hit points (Edit: which may explain why it has a flat 4 per level in the PHB, the +10 we're giving makes it pretty beefy when you initially get it for the damage output it provides)

It's a matter of perspective. It might appear boring but I wouldn't call it underwhelming. If you're truly worried about damage numbers TWF is there for you and needs zero investment, but picking other weapon options won't hamstring you.

I'm saying that as you progress in the game you come across more competition for your bonus action. The more we throw in (wanting it all) the more competition is added, and I firmly believe that we shouldn't completely fill every space just because we can.

[Bjarkmundur]

Limit Quarry to once per turn? That keeps the edge of being apple to apply and trigger with TWF, but keeps it from becoming ridiculous by douvle-proccing (or triple, with extra attack) . It smoothes the curve from the other end.

[Kane0]

The core of the problem you're seeing isn't with the Quarry or beast or spell or really anything with the ranger, it's with getting a bonus action attack.
No matter how you get one, a bonus action attack essentially doubles your combat potential as a martial until level 5 when it drops to a 'mere' +50%. Balancing the different forms of bonus action attack against each other AND against not having a bonus action attack is no small task.
It's something at the system level rather than the class level, and not something we should punish the Ranger for specifically. Honestly, that sort of thing is just beyond the scope of this thread and deserves its own.

[Fnissalot]

The easiest way to buff the hunter is to change the level 3 ability from having "advantage" on the quarry damage to just getting 2 quarry dice on the attack action. It is far simpler than adding a bonus action, still a bit weaker than the other 2 classes in the earlier levels but starts outperforming warden between level 5-13 depending on AC and fighting style. Hunter also has the largest damage boost of the subclasses at level 18, even if it is a bit unpredictable.


The core of the problem you're seeing isn't with the Quarry or beast or spell or really anything with the ranger, it's with getting a bonus action attack.
No matter how you get one, a bonus action attack essentially doubles your combat potential as a martial until level 5 when it drops to a 'mere' +50%. Balancing the different forms of bonus action attack against each other AND against not having a bonus action attack is no small task.
It's something at the system level rather than the class level, and not something we should punish the Ranger for specifically. Honestly, that sort of thing is just beyond the scope of this thread and deserves its own.

I agree! This is a systemic issue with the bonus action in 5e, not with this class.

In addition, hunter is the only subclass that does not have to question how it uses its bonus action. For the other sub-classes, choosing with bonus action to use becomes something the player needs to weigh against eachother. The hunter can always do the bonus action search to get a better grip of the combat that goes on etc.

[Bjarkmundur]

I agree! This is a systemic issue with the bonus action in 5e, not with this class.

Huh, I never thought about it that way. I guess that's why official content avoids giving at-will damage feature through subclasses as best it can, except for a few outliers (which I think are mostly Barbarian). I did whip this (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DaJsjGBtCijD9Wp5Ge1Xdlw--5H1_ElSyr2Zo5X-wJU/edit?usp=sharing)up, which gives a good idea on what the problem looks like: The Beastmaster pretty much eats the Hunter for breakfast.

I can accept bonus action attack being a problem with the system, but we have to realize we are facilitating the problem.

I mean, one subclass being 5-8 points behind in damage because of a base feature with no redeeming features to help him compete is unacceptable IMO.

I'm still working things out, but limiting Quarry to 1/turn and giving the Hunter double Quarry damage or Cull the Herd would without a doubt be a step in the right direction.

Edit: CHECK THE LINK (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DaJsjGBtCijD9Wp5Ge1Xdlw--5H1_ElSyr2Zo5X-wJU/edit?usp=sharing)! Limiting Quarry to once per turn and giving hunter double Quarry damage solves the problem perfectly! The hunter is still less effective than the Beastmaster on the first round of combat, and is generally two points of damage behind. Those are both acceptable, since you have to gain SOME power from using your bonus action.

[Fnissalot]

.

Huh, I never thought about it that way. I guess that's why official content avoids giving at-will damage feature through subclasses as best it can, except for a few outliers (which I think are mostly Barbarian). I did whip this (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DaJsjGBtCijD9Wp5Ge1Xdlw--5H1_ElSyr2Zo5X-wJU/edit?usp=sharing)up, which gives a good idea on what the problem looks like: The Beastmaster pretty much eats the Hunter for breakfast.

I can accept bonus action attack being a problem with the system, but we have to realize we are facilitating the problem.

I mean, one subclass being 5-8 points behind in damage because of a base feature with no redeeming features to help him compete is unacceptable IMO.

I'm still working things out, but limiting Quarry to 1/turn and giving the Hunter double Quarry damage or Cull the Herd would without a doubt be a step in the right direction.

Edit: CHECK THE LINK (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DaJsjGBtCijD9Wp5Ge1Xdlw--5H1_ElSyr2Zo5X-wJU/edit?usp=sharing)! Limiting Quarry to once per turn and giving hunter double Quarry damage solves the problem perfectly! The hunter is still less effective than the Beastmaster on the first round of combat, and is generally two points of damage behind. Those are both acceptable, since you have to gain SOME power from using your bonus action.

Once per turn or every attack on the attack of the attack action should scale equally between the subclasses. Having on both attacks should even buff the hunter more than the other two sub-classes due to rerolls or extra dice. Lessening it to once per turn will mainly nerf the class as a whole compared to other classes.

[Bjarkmundur]

Once per turn or every attack on the attack of the attack action should scale equally between the subclasses. Having on both attacks should even buff the hunter more than the other two sub-classes due to rerolls or extra dice. Lessening it to once per turn will mainly nerf the class as a whole compared to other classes.

You say "Should (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pH1yyJZ6QP9X4WujVeZ6Xe9OKWjcTg1EmC4-YEzXFmQ/edit?usp=sharing)" even though I have provided comparisons between the hunter and the beastmaster, using both mechanics, and compared it to other classes. This makes me feel your are objecting for the sake of objecting, rather than as means on understanding one another and reaching the truth, or at least a shared conclusion.

For clarity for future readers, I've added some other-class damage comparisons over here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DaJsjGBtCijD9Wp5Ge1Xdlw--5H1_ElSyr2Zo5X-wJU/edit?usp=sharing)

You can clearly see how the 2x quarry once per turn not only brings the classes closer together, but also makes it more in line with other consistent damage dealers, namely the Rogue and Barbarian.

I might be just being a drama queen here, but I really don't see why bringing the damage output of the subclasses closer together, and the class' damage closer to those of other classes in a similar role, is a bad thing?
We don't even have to sacrifice flavor to do it. If something is free, and makes things better, it's a good thing, right?

EDIT oh... every attack of the attack action. Ok, sorry, my bad. I guess I got confused because the beastmaster still states that the beast can trigger the Quarry damage. Having it only affect attacks of the attack actions would lower the damage of all subclasses equally, but that would still leave the beastmaster multiple points ahead of the Hunter, so the problem persists. Note that this damage discrepancy means that if the beast were to die, the Beastmaster would still deal damage competitive to the Hunter.

Basically a Beastless Beastmaster is a Hunter without the ability to reroll quarry dice, which only adds up to 1 or 2 points of damage per turn.

EDIT 2: I added the "Quarry only applies to attacks made as a part of the attack action" to the link here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DaJsjGBtCijD9Wp5Ge1Xdlw--5H1_ElSyr2Zo5X-wJU/edit?usp=sharing) on the far right. The results are pretty much identical to my suggested fix, except it does a worse job of leveling out the subclasses. It only manages to reduce the discrepancy by a little less than half, while my version manages to reduce it by 80%.

Your hunter does exactly 2 more points of damage then mine, but your beastmaster does 4 more damage than mine. Which is still unacceptable.

Is my fix so crazy? Changing a couple of lines of text at no cost of theme or niche? I feel like I'm defending something that should speak for itself. But then again, I have done so multiple times over the course of this thread and always ended up being proven wrong with time. I guess I just have to let the data speak for itself, and hope that everything turns out alright.

[Fnissalot]

You say "Should (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pH1yyJZ6QP9X4WujVeZ6Xe9OKWjcTg1EmC4-YEzXFmQ/edit?usp=sharing)" even though I have provided comparisons between the hunter and the beastmaster, using both mechanics, and compared it to other classes. This makes me feel your are objecting for the sake of objecting, rather than as means on understanding one another and reaching the truth, or at least a shared conclusion.

For clarity for future readers, I've added some other-class damage comparisons over here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DaJsjGBtCijD9Wp5Ge1Xdlw--5H1_ElSyr2Zo5X-wJU/edit?usp=sharing)

You can clearly see how the 2x quarry once per turn not only brings the classes closer together, but also makes it more in line with other consistent damage dealers, namely the Rogue and Barbarian.

I might be just being a drama queen here, but I really don't see why bringing the damage output of the subclasses closer together, and the class' damage closer to those of other classes in a similar role, is a bad thing?
We don't even have to sacrifice flavor to do it. If something is free, and makes things better, it's a good thing, right?

EDIT oh... every attack of the attack action. Ok, sorry, my bad. I guess I got confused because the beastmaster still states that the beast can trigger the Quarry damage. Having it only affect attacks of the attack actions would lower the damage of all subclasses equally, but that would still leave the beastmaster multiple points ahead of the Hunter, so the problem persists. Note that this damage discrepancy means that if the beast were to die, the Beastmaster would still deal damage competitive to the Hunter.

Basically a Beastless Beastmaster is a Hunter without the ability to reroll quarry dice, which only adds up to 1 or 2 points of damage per turn.

EDIT 2: I added the "Quarry only applies to attacks made as a part of the attack action" to the link here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DaJsjGBtCijD9Wp5Ge1Xdlw--5H1_ElSyr2Zo5X-wJU/edit?usp=sharing) on the far right. The results are pretty much identical to my suggested fix, except it does a worse job of leveling out the subclasses. It only manages to reduce the discrepancy by a little less than half, while my version manages to reduce it by 80%.

Your hunter does exactly 2 more points of damage then mine, but your beastmaster does 4 more damage than mine. Which is still unacceptable.

Is my fix so crazy? Changing a couple of lines of text at no cost of theme or niche? I feel like I'm defending something that should speak for itself. But then again, I have done so multiple times over the course of this thread and always ended up being proven wrong with time. I guess I just have to let the data speak for itself, and hope that everything turns out alright.

It is not so crazy but you only check 3 of the four combinations of quarry once per turn/quarry on attacks part of attack action and reroll/double. You have not added a column for double and all attack action attacks. I have the double quarry only attacks in the sheet I posted earlier, and it is fairly equal at most levels. The worst level of difference is at level 3-4 so you choose the most extreme place to do the comparison as well.

And as I at least stated earlier, having beasts both scale with proficiency to hit and quarry damage on attacks is too much damage. I honestly thought we removed the quarry die on it and assumed that through all my calculations. That said, letting the BM have slightly higher damage is not a big issue due to the risk of the beast biting the dust.

[Bjarkmundur]

What then meets your criteria of "unbalanced" and "fixed"?
I really want to help, but I feel like I'm being put to an unreasonable standard.

I think it's trivial what hasn't been calculated, when I have shown it quite clear that the current system doesn't work, and my suggested system does work. What else do you want?

- It doesn't change the theme
- It doesn't add or remove an existing mechanic
- It removes a major flaw between subclasses
- It brings the entire class in line with player expectations.
- It brings the class in line with damage expectations created by official material.
- It scales with only a single outlier, present for two levels, as opposed to other mechanics that have multiple persistent outliers.
- It has twelve green cells, where other tested mechanics only have a third of that.

I mean sure, I haven't tasted a dragon fruit, but I can tell you that oranges are sour and grapes are sweet. I don't think I have to taste a dragon fruit to show you that I'm right in both cases.

Edit: I have a feeling I'm about to eat my hat, as they say....

[Fnissalot]

What beast are you using for the beastmaster?
Edit2: horses hit like trucks, wolf's have pack tactics. I don't know if you consider to hit at all, but both those animals with hit more often than you for rather many levels.

Edit: Also, thanks for taking the time writing it out.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm using flat 5 damage.

Now that you mention it, I don't remember where that came from. I'll check real quick. Sec.

[Fnissalot]

I'm using flat 5 damage.

Now that you mention it, I don't remember where that came from. I'll check real quick. Sec.

Wolf's do 2d4+2 with a base +4 to hit without your proficiency or pack tactics. I would calculate with 7 if you ignore attack rolls. Edit: a draft horse should do 9 not including to hit calculations.

[Kane0]

Also, its worth noting that levels 1-4 are pretty much considered 'introductory'. The DMG or most adventures assume you go through these levels pretty quickly and so we need to account for that when looking only at level 3 features and their effectiveness.


Also also, don't forget we can't look at just damage numbers for a full evaluation.

A hunter gains bonus damage, skill expertise, variable damage resistance and whirlwind attack.
A BM gains bonus damage with their bonus action, can speak with animals, can call creatures to help in noncombat situations and has a once per round disadvantage to attack until the beast is lost in which case the damage and disadvantage is stripped away.

If you perfectly equalise damage output from these two subclasses, mechanically speaking why would you pick the beastmaster over the hunter? The fact that the beast can be taken out of the fight is a significant liability.

[Bjarkmundur]

I thought wolf was the high-end of the spectrum, an outlier. The chart in my signature says that the average damage on a 1/2 CR creature is 5.

In that case, double Quarry is definitely a win.
Only attacks within the attack action is an unprecedented mechanic, a bit wordy, but works beautifully. Using that mechanic you'd have to forgo the Quarry dice size increase at level 5 in order to stay in line with Rogue, Barbarian and Warlock (the non-nova consistent damage dealers).

I guess at this point it's up to Sir Kane0 to make a executive decision.

Option A
- Only attacks made with the attack action can trigger quarry
- Hunter's Focused Targeting replaced with "Deal double Quarry damage"

Option B
- Quarry 1/turn
- Hunter's Focused Targeting replaced with "Deal double Quarry damage"


Also, its worth noting that levels 1-4 are pretty much considered 'introductory'. The DMG or most adventures assume you go through these levels pretty quickly and so we need to account for that when looking only at level 3 features and their effectiveness.
And when introducing a new player to the game, I prefer not to showcase gaping flaw in a homebrewed class with mine and my friend's names on it.




Also also, don't forget we can't look at just damage numbers for a full evaluation.

A hunter gains bonus damage, skill expertise, variable damage resistance and whirlwind attack.
A BM gains bonus damage with their bonus action, can speak with animals, can call creatures to help in noncombat situations and has a once per round disadvantage to attack until the beast is lost in which case the damage and disadvantage is stripped away.

If you perfectly equalise damage output from these two subclasses, mechanically speaking why would you pick the beastmaster over the hunter? The fact that the beast can be taken out of the fight is a significant liability.

Alright, I'll get working on those.
And by all means, let's keep moving the goal post.
The Burden of Proof in this thread is too damn high.
At least I've managed to prove what doesn't work. This is starting to feel like an episode of House.

Even though talking to animals was superduper good, 7 damage discrepancy is still. too. much.

[Fnissalot]

I thought wolf was the high-end of the spectrum, an outlier. The chart in my signature says that the average damage on a 1/2 CR creature is 5.

In that case, double Quarry is definitely a win.
Only attacks within the attack action is an unprecedented mechanic, a bit wordy, but works beautifully. Using that mechanic you'd have to forgo the Quarry dice size increase at level 5 in order to stay in line with Rogue, Barbarian and Warlock (the non-nova consistent damage dealers).

I guess at this point it's up to Sir Kane0 to make a executive decision.

Option A
- Only attacks made with the attack action can trigger quarry
- Hunter's Focused Targeting replaced with "Deal double Quarry damage"

Option B
- Quarry 1/turn
- Hunter's Focused Targeting replaced with "Deal double Quarry damage"



Alright, I'll get working on those.
And by all means, let's keep moving the goal post.
The Burden of Proof in this thread is too damn high.

Even though talking to animals was superduper good, 7 damage discrepancy is still. too. much.



I dunno, going through the 1/4 beasts, very few deals less than 1d6+2. The worst seems to be either 1d4+2 or 1d6+1 and but most seem to deal more?

Also, how did you calculate barbarian? I don't get it to add upp
level 5
2 attacks, great sword (2d6), 18 str
2* (7+4) = 22

2 attacks, great sword (2d6), 18 str, raging
2* (7+4+2) = 26

2 attacks, great sword (2d6), 18 str, raging, frenzy (berzerker)
3* (7+4+2) = 39

Edit: sorry for pushing the math/evidence.

[Bjarkmundur]

I dunno, going through the 1/4 beasts, very few deals less than 1d6+2. The worst seems to be either 1d4+2 or 1d6+1 and but most seem to deal more?

Also, how did you calculate barbarian? I don't get it to add upp
level 5
2 attacks, great sword (2d6), 18 str
2* (7+4) = 22

2 attacks, great sword (2d6), 18 str, raging
2* (7+4+2) = 26

2 attacks, great sword (2d6), 18 str, raging, frenzy
3* (7+4+2) = 39

I think I did

Weapon, Strength, Rage x 2
2(2d6+4+2) = 26

Zealot
1d6+level = 34

Everyone okay with using 7 for beast damage, or want me to use the given average of 5?

[Fnissalot]

I think I did

Weapon, Strength, Rage x 2
2(2d6+4+2) = 26

Zealot
1d6+level = 34

Everyone okay with using 7 for beast damage, or want me to use the given average of 5?

I am ok with it but checking the average beast 1/4 damage in the mean time.

Also, don't have xanathars in front of me but is not zealot 1d6+ half level rounded down once per round?

[Bjarkmundur]

I am ok with it but checking the average beast 1/4 damage in the mean time.

Also, don't have xanathars in front of me but is not zealot 1d6+ half level rounded down once per round?

Yeah, you're right. I'll adjust.

I'll have to assume the non-combat features don't apply, based on the assumption that they are non-combat features.

I'll have to assume that casting mass suggestion on 12 animals is roughly equivalent to gaining resistances to two damage types in terms of player experience. I personally think the former gives a more awesome spotlight than the latter.

I'll have to assume that gaining inside information from animals grants a player roughly the same amount of important information as would be revealed by a +prof bonus to investigation.

I'll have to assume that when travelling talking to animals helps you survive just as much as +prof to survival.

I'll have to assume that having an extra chance on perception rolls via an animal companion with a super-sniffer is roughly equivalent to gaining +prof to perception.

I'll also have to remember than the Hunter can only gain one expertise while the Beastmaster gains all the roughly equivalent features at no opportunity cost.

I'll also have to assume that the unique utility or powers (trample, pack tactics) are enough to make up for the time an animal companion spends dead.

I personally want to go back to using BlogOfHolding's monster stat avarages. What was the result of your research on beast damage output?

My version still has the least amount of red <:Þ

Most players spend majority of their game time playing at levels >10. Besides, we don't need to keep adding ones and twos to realize there's an issue here.

Reasons why the Beastmaster should deal less damage than the hunter:
- Gains more utility through talking with animals and using his beast's senses.
- Gains additional abilities through his beast's stat block.
- Gains pounce, and can use various other actions with great action economy.

Reasons why the Beastmaster should deal more damage than the hunter:
- The beast can die
- It uses a bonus action, which should hold some value.

Sir Kane0, what is your consensus? Should the BM be more combat-effective in terms of damage, or

[Fnissalot]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PD8xTFTUJXIpVs6shksqoF5ei2Abd31WEtqUtN5r8HQ/edit?usp=sharing

6.66 is the average of 1/4 beasts in MM+volos excluding special abilities and poison damage. With poison damage you are up at 7.78 as average per beast. Haven't included charges, swallows, pact tactics etc. Also, haven't checked beasts from other books.

Only 3 of 26 beasts has an average damage of less than 5 and all of those has 4.5.

7 seems like a fair or maybe even low assessment for the average.

Edit: high barbarian should be with berzerker frenzy, not zealot.

Edit2: TFtYP has Guthash that has in practice endless damage on a disease... (If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or contract a disease. Until the disease is cured, the target can't regain hit points except by magical means, and the target's hit point maximum decreases by 3 (1d6) every 24 hours. If the target's hit point maximum drops to 0 as a result of this disease, the target dies.)

[Kane0]

Option A
- Only attacks made with the attack action can trigger quarry
- Hunter's Focused Targeting replaced with "Deal double Quarry damage"

Option B
- Quarry 1/turn
- Hunter's Focused Targeting replaced with "Deal double Quarry damage"


I do honestly prefer Option A but it limits you to the attack action so you can't use it with Opportunity Attacks or in the case of a Warden things like Thorn Whip which I'd like to see. It opens up interesting options rather than shoehorning you into the attack action (a repeat criticism of martial classes)
That leaves option B but it just feels like a lesser sneak attack in that case.

I agree that Hunter does less raw damage than Beastmaster, the numbers don't lie. I disagree that it's too much and a serious flaw.

[Bjarkmundur]

I do honestly prefer Option A but it limits you to the attack action so you can't use it with Opportunity Attacks or in the case of a Warden things like Thorn Whip which I'd like to see. It opens up interesting options rather than shoehorning you into the attack action (a repeat criticism of martial classes)
That leaves option B but it just feels like a lesser sneak attack in that case.

I agree that Hunter does less raw damage than Beastmaster, the numbers don't lie. I disagree that it's too much and a serious flaw.

Pffft, 'lesser sneak attack'. Shame on you. *posh english accent* It is, in fact, a SUPERIOR sneak attack, my good sir.

Edit: Don't worry, it has enough unique uses to be different. Let's not get too hipster and find something better just because it's different.

[Fnissalot]

9.46 if you count both poison and charge damage for the beasts.

[Bjarkmundur]

9.46 if you count both poison and charge damage for the beasts.

7 works just fine, thanks for putting in the work <3

And yeah, 1 per turn does leave it open to some fun shenanigans.

[Fnissalot]

7 works just fine, thanks for putting in the work <3

No problem!

Edit: a frenzying raging barbarian at level 3 does stupid amount of damage i.e. 22? 18 is not that bad.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm starting to think you kill a lot of animal companions in your campaigns, Kane0.

It's not so much the difference that's the issue, it's the fact that a beastmaster without a beast is pretty much just as effective as the hunter :/
Like he said, the beast deals seven points of damage. And if you look a the current table (far left) if you remove 7 damage from the Beastmaster, you get the same numbers as the Hunter. That's just not cool, in any way shape or form.


A frenzying raging barbarian at level 3 does stupid amount of damage i.e. 22? 18 is not that bad.

Frenzy barbarian? Is that one of those non-existing builds, like Hexblade, Mystic and Lore Wizard?

Looking at the context (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pH1yyJZ6QP9X4WujVeZ6Xe9OKWjcTg1EmC4-YEzXFmQ/edit?usp=sharing), 22 is an outlier. And yes, I know the Base Damage document is unfinished, I've been busy.

P.S. Did you guys even read what I wrote below the tables in the document? (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DaJsjGBtCijD9Wp5Ge1Xdlw--5H1_ElSyr2Zo5X-wJU/edit?usp=sharing)

EDIT: I'm off to watch a movie with the missus before bed. I hope that over the last few hours we've managed to change the Ranger to the better. <3

[Fnissalot]

Oh, didn't check that document.

If we should start to cheese it.
A TWF barbarian has 14 at 1-3; Main(3.5+3+2)+ Offhand(3.5+2)
Battlerager barbarian has 19.5 at level 3. Main(7+3+2)+Bonus(2.5+3+2) Most OP subclass ever!?!

Old ranger would be TWF hunters mark lvl 3; (3.5+3.5+3)*2=20 Most OP subclass ever!?!
Old ranger would be Sword + shield hunters mark lvl 3; (4.5+3.5+3+2)=13
(if you trigger colossus slayer, add 4.5 to these values)

Hunter does not really have any nova damage. Warden and beastmasters have a few tricks to nova it up abit. The old ranger(hunter) out-damaged warrior a good bit but no one cared for it anyway.

If we calculate to hit, rogue benefits even more with the extra attack from TWF since it gives an additional chance to get the sneak attack every turn.

I read most of the things below.

Now I need to sleep... Good luck!

[Bjarkmundur]

Hunter does not really have any nova damage.

This is a good point. The subclass doesn't have burst, needs an attack to set up and has fewer tricks up it's sleeve. I don't know if that's enough to say it should do more damage than the beastmaster, but it should at least be enough to be able to do more than a beast-less beastmaster.

Cheers!

[Fnissalot]

Ignoring poison damage beasts, the PHB beast masters best beast at lvl 3 (dimetrodon) does at average 11 damage.

Giant badger with multiattack for PHB BM, would only do 14.5 at level 3. Weird that they nerfed it.

[Kane0]

I'm starting to think you kill a lot of animal companions in your campaigns, Kane0.

Oddly enough not really, the current game I’m DMing is corerules with a party of Dragonborn dragon sorc, half-elf trickery cleric, half orc beastmaster ranger and elf ancients pally. Currently level 4 and the ranger has lost his boar and replaced it with a wolf. He’s the only one that has taken a feat so far too, he picked up PAM.

I’m currently on a road trip but i should be able to sit down and pore over things later.

[Kane0]

So thinking about options to replace the Quarry damage reroll:

- Add quarry damage when you mark a creature
- Once per turn add a quarry die to damage (stacking, marked or not)
- Max result on quarry die damage
- Exploding quarry die
- Quarry die damage ignores damage resistance and treats immunity as resistance

Not counting for possible use limitations like wis mod times per rest, once per short/long rest, etc.

[Fnissalot]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PD8xTFTUJXIpVs6shksqoF5ei2Abd31WEtqUtN5r8HQ/edit?usp=sharing

Added a page for comparing how much they affect different options, just counting the quarry; not the to hit, other subclasses, etc.


- Add quarry damage when you mark a creature

Better than rerolls the first 3-4? turns of combat vs single creature. A lot better when fighting many small creatures. Averaged single target on 3 turns; rerolls do 2.09, this 2.5.


- Once per turn add a quarry die to damage (stacking, marked or not)

Interesting at low levels. Equal to marking in short fights, equal to double in long fights. It peaks less on level 5. Better than rerolls but worse than doubles if the fight takes more than 1 turn on the same target from 5th. This is this versions hunter's mark but scales;starts worse, ends better.


- Max result on quarry die damage

Better than rerolling (4 on a d4) but worse than extra dice (5 on 2d4). Very consistent.


- Exploding quarry die

Average 3.33 compared to 3.13 on rerolling a d4. Not a big difference but a bit better. A lot worse though on higher levels. 14.18 compared to 16.98 on rerolling a 2 d12s every turn.


- Quarry die damage ignores damage resistance and treats immunity as resistance
Situational but can be very good, less so once you get magic weapons.

[Bjarkmundur]

- Add quarry damage when you mark a creature
Not enough to solve the problem by itself, but an interesting quality of life bonus. Perfect for the hunter.


- Once per turn add a quarry die to damage (stacking, marked or not)
Although this works, this actually makes the hunter less fun to play, since it decides your next move for you and discourages you for doing anything else.


- Max result on quarry die damage
This is the same as double quarry dice, but less fun since you don't get to roll the dice. If you're okay with this, why not just use double quarry dice. Where is all this coming from? Why are you so desperately trying to avoid using my suggestion


- Exploding quarry die
Definitely fun. Might work when combined to the "You can mark and trigger your Quarry with the same attack"


- Quarry die damage ignores damage resistance and treats immunity as resistance

Not counting for possible use limitations like wis mod times per rest, once per short/long rest, etc.

We are fixing a math problem. There is no problem with the experience of fun value of the class, so no need to break your back trying to making an interesting mechanic. Just use the simplest solution of 2x quarry and call it a day.

[Kane0]

This is the same as double quarry dice, but less fun since you don't get to roll the dice. If you're okay with this, why not just use double quarry dice. Where is all this coming from? Why are you so desperately trying to avoid using my suggestion


Basically because i’m trying to be very careful about both the power floor and ceiling. Currently both appear to be within tolerance compared to other classes, and less than 10 between each other is actually pretty damn good. Funnily enough if you compare what we have now to the UA released over the years I reckons this is a lot more polished for relatively little time invested and I commend everyone for that accomplishment.

I’m curious though, I might be reading the charts wrong but under the current rules are you applying quarry damage twice on the 2nd round from level 5 onwards?

[Bjarkmundur]

Basically because i’m trying to be very careful about both the power floor and ceiling. Currently both appear to be within tolerance compared to other classes, and less than 10 between each other is actually pretty damn good. Funnily enough if you compare what we have now to the UA released over the years I reckons this is a lot more polished for relatively little time invested and I commend everyone for that accomplishment.

I’m curious though, I might be reading the charts wrong but under the current rules are you applying quarry damage twice on the 2nd round from level 5 onwards?

Yeah, I understand that concern. This is exactly why I have also marked by red each cell that lands outside the ideal-floor-and-ceiling margin. For example tables 1 and 2, at 3rd level, you can see TWF is marked with either red, yellow or green based on how far it is from the ideal damage curve. Most green is most good, most red is most bad.

Then you must also account for the first attack against a new target, since Quarry damage is not applied. This is likely to happen a few times each combat, since there's usually more than just one enemy. Quarry 1/turn helps with that a lot, and of course the volley at 10th level. This is why we are comparing our damage to maximum damage averages between multiple classes. We can afford to be in the upper limits of the damage list, since we can't always trigger the Quarry.

In table 1 It's applied once per attack
In table 2 it's applied once per turn, but doubled for the Hunter
In table 3 it's applied once per attack made as a part of the attack action
In table 4 it's applied once per attack made as a part of the attack action, but doubled for Hunter.

[Kane0]

Hmm. As an executive decision i'm going to keep Quarry as is and not change it to once per round or to be reliant on the attack action. I find those too much of a loss of interesting interplay to be worth the change.

Now that said, the Hunter specifically does need something changed at level 3 because as-is the damage benefit doesn't kick in until quarry damage comes in, either next turn before level 5 or by using a bonus action attack like TWF. That is an unbalancing issue as pointed out.

So, the Quarry reroll is a fun quality of life benefit but not enough compared to the immediate damage spike BM is capable of. How about we combine the Quarry reroll with the Hunter being able to immediately add Quarry damage to the damage of the attack he marks a target with. This is only a raw increase of damage on turn 1 when it appears to be needed.

Thoughts? I don't want to just hand out straight extra quarry dice to the Hunter because they can then use it with TWF to come out equal to or in front of the BM without the drawbacks the BM faces. But that's just me.

[Bjarkmundur]

So basically give the Hunter barbarian rage in dice form? It loses the 'study your target, adapt to your enemy' flavor of the Quarry, but it works.

Warden changes look nice btw. I would never have thought of using 'Ley'. Very well done.

[KorvinStarmast]

Basically because i’m trying to be very careful about both the power floor and ceiling. Currently both appear to be within tolerance compared to other classes, and less than 10 between each other is actually pretty damn good. I have a different question about power levels.
How can one fit Gloom Stalker into this Ranger model.
Or is that not viable?

[Kane0]

I have a different question about power levels.
How can one fit Gloom Stalker into this Ranger model.
Or is that not viable?

The subclass probably won't work taken straight from Xan's but the concept works. The level 3 ambush attack and darkvision fit fine, as does Iron Mind at level 7. After that you'd need to get creative though, as those two features are built into Quarry as standard and there is an extra subclass level in need of a feature.

Some ideas to fill those gaps at levels 10, 14 and 18:
- Bonus action Hide (might be a bit late, maybe free Hide when you trigger a condition like when you reduce your Quarry to 0 HP?)
- Foiling special senses like tremorsense, blindsight, etc
- Using reaction to chase fleeing Quarry ala Vengeance Pally
- Temporarily shutting down Quarry's special abilities (eg getting a Crit on a quarry means that they lose one legendary action, or for a turn can't teleport, heal, cast spells, etc)
- Not provoking OAs from your Quarry

[Moxxmix]

Misc thoughts led to a couple alternatives to Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy.

For the class as a whole, a replacement for Favored Terrain:

Traveler: You are well-versed in the dangers of wilderness travel, in a variety of natural environments. When you prepare for travel, spend one hour of preparation time for every day of expected travel time. Being prepared provides you and your party several benefits, as long as you travel within the environments that you planned for.

- Your party has advantage on any travel-related skill checks.
- Your party moves at the speed of its fastest member.
- Difficult terrain only increases travel time by 50%, rather than 100%.


This provides the advantage on skill checks that were expected, while also providing some movement advantages. Don't get held up by your slowest member, and reduce the effect of difficult terrain. I wanted to make it easier to travel, but not completely "solve" the travel issue. Got rid of the bit about not getting lost, since it shouldn't be impossible to get lost, but the advantage on travel-related checks should make it less likely. Remaining alert to danger is just a general thing. Retaining stealth while traveling alone felt kinda silly to include as part of the group effect package. Foraging for food: again, advantage. And tracking something else entirely.

Making it a prepared action means it gets rid of the "only one environment" limitation, but still have the limitation of "what you prepared for". If you're ready for a trek through the jungle, but fall into a tunnel trapping you in the Underdark, you're kinda screwed. On the other hand, if you planned to head into the Underdark, whose entrance was in the middle of the jungle, you're still OK.


Bounty Hunter: You may designate a specific individual or group as an enemy that you are hunting down. While you are hunting this target, you have advantage on Tracking and Investigation skill checks related to them, as well as designing traps or planning ambushes to be used against them. You may designate a new bounty once your chosen one has been defeated, or after you gain a level.

Narrows the scope of Favored Enemy to be a single target or specific group. Gets rid of the language part. Adds features related to trapping or ambushing the target. Selectable for each individual campaign, instead of the guesswork of Favored Enemy. Fits whether you follow a single mastermind throughout the game levels, or you jump from small group to small group.

Probably fits the Hunter subclass best.


Not quite ready to try to add it to the class document I have.

[Kane0]

You mean Quarry?

[Moxxmix]

You mean Quarry?

It probably belongs with Quarry — or at least as an enhancement to Quarry under the Hunter subclass — but Quarry is currently all about damage, and less about the non-combaty stuff. (At least as far as the version I have in my document of this rewrite.)

[Moxxmix]

OK, a thread on ranger stuff popped up on another forum, and I made a comment based on the rebuild done here. However, while I was writing it up, an interesting idea related to the Warden subclass occurred to me.

First, the Warden subclass we have here is the weakest, conceptually. We put it in because a martial class generally needs a magic-using subclass, particularly after we stripped the main class of magic. The Warden is a ranger with magic, but that's about it. It doesn't have a strong identity in and of itself.

However while writing up a description for the Warden subclass, I realized that a magic subclass for Ranger really fits in well with the idea of a Shaman.

A Shaman is generally tied to spirits, in contrast to living creatures such as might be had by Beastmasters or Druids. However there's also a strong callback to Aragorn calling the spirit army.

A Shaman is often associated with a tribe, and by extension, territory. It is a pre-modern type of civilization, which is often associated with Barbarians and Rangers. The types of knowledge that a Ranger might have fits well with the role the Shaman plays in the tribe.

The Shaman has often been set aside from getting its own class because of the difficulty in developing a number of subclasses for it. It would be cool to have totem magic, but there's not enough broad conceptual support for it, as the class level. But we could narrow it down to a single subclass, with further development options similar to the tattoo ideas in UA that seemed to fit in with the Barbarian.

It would also provide an alternate route to speaking with the dead, vs Clerics, which is certainly the kind of thing a detective would love to have access to. And spirits would be an interesting cross-mixture of Beastmaster and Necromancer.

Basically, it fits with the Ranger/Hunter/Beastmaster concepts, while still being different from them.


Thoughts? I only just came up with the idea, so there might be notable problems with it, but it feels like a good fit, to me.