Ranger fix

[paladinn]

Just thinking about how the Ranger might be fixed in the simplest way possible. I know that volumes have been written on the topic. In the interest of simplicity, I'd like to propose 2 things:

1. Restore some combat bonuses to the Favored Enemy feature. I would propose a +2 to hit and AC, to reflect the ranger's skill in fighting said enemies.

2. In Pathfinder, there is a "spell" called Instant Enemy that allows the bonuses of the Favored Enemy to be applied to one non-favored enemy. This c/should be either a spell or a limited class feature.

This would go a long way to help the anemic ranger class, IMHO.

[Asisreo1]

Just thinking about how the Ranger might be fixed in the simplest way possible. I know that volumes have been written on the topic. In the interest of simplicity, I'd like to propose 2 things:

1. Restore some combat bonuses to the Favored Enemy feature. I would propose a +2 to hit and AC, to reflect the ranger's skill in fighting said enemies.

2. In Pathfinder, there is a "spell" called Instant Enemy that allows the bonuses of the Favored Enemy to be applied to one non-favored enemy. This c/should be either a spell or a limited class feature.

This would go a long way to help the anemic ranger class, IMHO.
You should actually have the Ranger make 2 attacks at 1st level, rather than 5th. Spellcasting shouldn't be so limiting. First off, give them druid's spell progression except they also get resurrection magic.

I've balanced out a fix for Natural Explorer:
Unnatural Explorer
The Ranger must make a DC 18 charisma check. If he succeeds, he can cast gate but only if the DM didn't actually do any work on exploration. If they failed or the DM actually did something with exploration, the Ranger dies and the player is legally unable to play Ranger anymore

I also fixed favored enemy:
I hate everyone
The Ranger casts hunters mark on every creature in a mile radius without concentration. If the Ranger hits a creature while this is active, the creature instantly dies. If the creature is a humanoid, monstrosity, or whatever the third most common DM enemy NPC, you also get to steal the DM's dice collection and roll it as damage against your teammates.

Here's my Primeval Awareness fix:
No one shall escape my sight
Using a 0th level spellslot, you gain truesight except you can also see every plane at once and can find literally every thing that could use any definition of hidden the DM can find in websters's and oxford's dictionary.

Hide in Plain Sight fix:
Wish
You gain Wish at-will as a bonus action

And finally, Beastmaster's fix:
Lord of Beasts
At 3rd level, you can gain the Lord of Beasts, Baphomet, as an animal companion. Five times on your turn, you can command him to keel, rollover, or play dead. If he keels, you and baphomet gets a +15 AC boost. If he rolls over, Baphomet gets to cast imprisonment as a bonus action on a target. His save DC is 31. If he plays dead, you and Baphomet gain complete immortality indefinitely and the DM has to say "I am a big fat loser, I don't know how to balance, I suck eggs, and everyone in this room is now allowed to beat me up and take my money."

That seems fairly balanced. Should fix the dissatisfaction of the Ranger class. Now, it's playable for even you people that like to carefully optimize. I'll probably fix the second weakest class, Wizard, when I get the chance.

Hopefully WoTC actually allows these changes in the base game because they would be so much fun to look at in theory.

[paladinn]

You should actually have the Ranger make 2 attacks at 1st level, rather than 5th. Spellcasting shouldn't be so limiting. First off, give them druid's spell progression except they also get resurrection magic.

I've balanced out a fix for Natural Explorer:
Unnatural Explorer
The Ranger must make a DC 18 charisma check. If he succeeds, he can cast gate but only if the DM didn't actually do any work on exploration. If they failed or the DM actually did something with exploration, the Ranger dies and the player is legally unable to play Ranger anymore

I also fixed favored enemy:
I hate everyone
The Ranger casts hunters mark on every creature in a mile radius without concentration. If the Ranger hits a creature while this is active, the creature instantly dies. If the creature is a humanoid, monstrosity, or whatever the third most common DM enemy NPC, you also get to steal the DM's dice collection and roll it as damage against your teammates.

Here's my Primeval Awareness fix:
No one shall escape my sight
Using a 0th level spellslot, you gain truesight except you can also see every plane at once and can find literally every thing that could use any definition of hidden the DM can find in websters's and oxford's dictionary.

Hide in Plain Sight fix:
Wish
You gain Wish at-will as a bonus action

And finally, Beastmaster's fix:
Lord of Beasts
At 3rd level, you can gain the Lord of Beasts, Baphomet, as an animal companion. Five times on your turn, you can command him to keel, rollover, or play dead. If he keels, you and baphomet gets a +15 AC boost. If he rolls over, Baphomet gets to cast imprisonment as a bonus action on a target. His save DC is 31. If he plays dead, you and Baphomet gain complete immortality indefinitely and the DM has to say "I am a big fat loser, I don't know how to balance, I suck eggs, and everyone in this room is now allowed to beat me up and take my money."

That seems fairly balanced. Should fix the dissatisfaction of the Ranger class. Now, it's playable for even you people that like to carefully optimize. I'll probably fix the second weakest class, Wizard, when I get the chance.

Hopefully WoTC actually allows these changes in the base game because they would be so much fun to look at in theory.

So much for constructive input

[Kane0]

You should actually have the Ranger make 2 attacks at 1st level, rather than 5th. Spellcasting shouldn't be so limiting. First off, give them druid's spell progression except they also get resurrection magic.

I've balanced out a fix for Natural Explorer:
Unnatural Explorer
The Ranger must make a DC 18 charisma check. If he succeeds, he can cast gate but only if the DM didn't actually do any work on exploration. If they failed or the DM actually did something with exploration, the Ranger dies and the player is legally unable to play Ranger anymore

I also fixed favored enemy:
I hate everyone
The Ranger casts hunters mark on every creature in a mile radius without concentration. If the Ranger hits a creature while this is active, the creature instantly dies. If the creature is a humanoid, monstrosity, or whatever the third most common DM enemy NPC, you also get to steal the DM's dice collection and roll it as damage against your teammates.

Here's my Primeval Awareness fix:
No one shall escape my sight
Using a 0th level spellslot, you gain truesight except you can also see every plane at once and can find literally every thing that could use any definition of hidden the DM can find in websters's and oxford's dictionary.

Hide in Plain Sight fix:
Wish
You gain Wish at-will as a bonus action

And finally, Beastmaster's fix:
Lord of Beasts
At 3rd level, you can gain the Lord of Beasts, Baphomet, as an animal companion. Five times on your turn, you can command him to keel, rollover, or play dead. If he keels, you and baphomet gets a +15 AC boost. If he rolls over, Baphomet gets to cast imprisonment as a bonus action on a target. His save DC is 31. If he plays dead, you and Baphomet gain complete immortality indefinitely and the DM has to say "I am a big fat loser, I don't know how to balance, I suck eggs, and everyone in this room is now allowed to beat me up and take my money."

That seems fairly balanced. Should fix the dissatisfaction of the Ranger class. Now, it's playable for even you people that like to carefully optimize. I'll probably fix the second weakest class, Wizard, when I get the chance.

Hopefully WoTC actually allows these changes in the base game because they would be so much fun to look at in theory.
You forgot the blue text.



Just thinking about how the Ranger might be fixed in the simplest way possible. I know that volumes have been written on the topic. In the interest of simplicity, I'd like to propose 2 things:

1. Restore some combat bonuses to the Favored Enemy feature. I would propose a +2 to hit and AC, to reflect the ranger's skill in fighting said enemies.

2. In Pathfinder, there is a "spell" called Instant Enemy that allows the bonuses of the Favored Enemy to be applied to one non-favored enemy. This c/should be either a spell or a limited class feature.

This would go a long way to help the anemic ranger class, IMHO.


Setting aside the other problems with the Ranger and only looking at what's here:
1: As a rule of thumb 5e system design doesn't do circumstancial +1s and -2s, preferring advantage or bonus dice instead. When they are handed out, such as fighting styles, they are always-on passive benefits that you can put on your character sheet and never look at again. Favored enemies do not follow that, as you check creature type in each instance.
Second, +2 AC is a big increase, it's the same as a shield or light cover and stacks with it. If you wanted to go down this path I would instead suggest Prof bonus extra damage against favored enemies.

2: This is a solid idea, allowing some leeway in FE choices without just letting them change every rest and making the choice nigh moot. Needing a spell known and spell slot 'tax' indicates this would work better as a class feature rather than spell known, especially since spells don't interact with class features (imagine a bard stealing this spell, it would do nothing for them). Would it be replacing another feature or in addition, and what level would you put it in?

[paladinn]

You forgot the blue text.
Setting aside the other problems with the Ranger and only looking at what's here:
1: As a rule of thumb 5e system design doesn't do circumstancial +1s and -2s, preferring advantage or bonus dice instead. When they are handed out, such as fighting styles, they are always-on passive benefits that you can put on your character sheet and never look at again. Favored enemies do not follow that, as you check creature type in each instance.
Second, +2 AC is a big increase, it's the same as a shield or light cover and stacks with it. If you wanted to go down this path I would instead suggest Prof bonus extra damage against favored enemies.

2: This is a solid idea, allowing some leeway in FE choices without just letting them change every rest and making the choice nigh moot. Needing a spell known and spell slot 'tax' indicates this would work better as a class feature rather than spell known, especially since spells don't interact with class features (imagine a bard stealing this spell, it would do nothing for them). Would it be replacing another feature or in addition, and what level would you put it in?

1. I would prefer to do a bonus to hit and AC as opposed to a bonus to damage. I want it to work differently than, say, a divine smite. The smite damage bonus comes from the divine power in the paladin. The ranger bonus should be a reflection of his/her training. Maybe give expertise or advantage on hit rolls when fighting the favored enemy?

2. I agree that the "instant enemy" should be a class feature rather than a spell. If favored enemy worked as above, this could take the place of Hunter's Mark, which should also be a feature (as you and I worked out). This would also work for a spell-less ranger. The level, I'm not sure of. I honestly don't care for a lot of the ranger class features, but I'm open to suggestion.

[Kane0]

1. I would prefer to do a bonus to hit and AC as opposed to a bonus to damage. I want it to work differently than, say, a divine smite. The smite damage bonus comes from the divine power in the paladin. The ranger bonus should be a reflection of his/her training. Maybe give expertise or advantage on hit rolls when fighting the favored enemy?

2. I agree that the "instant enemy" should be a class feature rather than a spell. If favored enemy worked as above, this could take the place of Hunter's Mark, which should also be a feature (as you and I worked out). This would also work for a spell-less ranger. The level, I'm not sure of. I honestly don't care for a lot of the ranger class features, but I'm open to suggestion.

1: Well in that case advantage/disadvantage is probably what you're looking for. Perhaps something like once on your turn you can give yourself advantage on one attack roll against a favored enemy, and you can use your reaction to grant disadvantage on a Favored Enemy's attack roll against you but if you do use this reaction you cannot also get the advantage on your next turn. Sort of like the War Wizards's Arcane Deflection.

2: Hunter's Mark is it's own problem, if you're thinking of any changes you might want to outline them in their own point to be broken down. As i'm sure you know when you really dig into fixing the Ranger one problem almost always connects to another.
As is, I would suggest level 3, tying it to Primeval Awareness uses assuming you're using a wis-mod times per day model rather than spell-slot fueled. Ugh, see what I mean? It always snowballs.

[Asisreo1]

So much for constructive input
Alright, alright. Just having a gaff with you.

I don't particularly like the +damage or +attack rolls on favored enemies, in any capacity. They make you feel like you're weaker if you don't fight these creatures. Instead, how about you gain something, like know their mechanical stats when you fight it. Like AC or CR.

Primeval Awareness was meant to be for hexcrawls and if you run it that way, it's actually pretty decent. But, adding the option to gain advantage on perception checks at the same cost with the same duration could be helpful in all games.

Vanish is fine as is, but if you're still not satisfied, you can allow it to be placed on others for the same time of prep.

For Beastmaster, I read it so that you can add your proficiency bonus to all saving throws, not just the ones the beast is proficient in. Some don't read it like that, but I would make it so you can read it like that. Would help with the beast's survivability.

I may give the Rangers subclasses a couple new spells from Xanathar's. I wouldn't give them revival magic, though. Just a couple more nature based utility spells.

Hunter would get snare, invisibility, and clairvoyance, for example.

Beastmaster would get Sanctuary, Enhance ability, and Protection for Energy.

Notice I didn't really touch the damage of Ranger. That's because the damage is already fine/competitive. It didn't feel Ranger-y enough so hopefully these changes are actually reasonable this time.

[paladinn]

Alright, alright. Just having a gaff with you.

I don't particularly like the +damage or +attack rolls on favored enemies, in any capacity. They make you feel like you're weaker if you don't fight these creatures. Instead, how about you gain something, like know their mechanical stats when you fight it. Like AC or CR.

Primeval Awareness was meant to be for hexcrawls and if you run it that way, it's actually pretty decent. But, adding the option to gain advantage on perception checks at the same cost with the same duration could be helpful in all games.

Vanish is fine as is, but if you're still not satisfied, you can allow it to be placed on others for the same time of prep.

For Beastmaster, I read it so that you can add your proficiency bonus to all saving throws, not just the ones the beast is proficient in. Some don't read it like that, but I would make it so you can read it like that. Would help with the beast's survivability.

I may give the Rangers subclasses a couple new spells from Xanathar's. I wouldn't give them revival magic, though. Just a couple more nature based utility spells.

Hunter would get snare, invisibility, and clairvoyance, for example.

Beastmaster would get Sanctuary, Enhance ability, and Protection for Energy.

Notice I didn't really touch the damage of Ranger. That's because the damage is already fine/competitive. It didn't feel Ranger-y enough so hopefully these changes are actually reasonable this time.

Gaffs are fine. I just felt like you were mocking the entire thing. That was one very long "gaff".

I get the impression that the Ranger is a hodgepodge of stuff that they just threw together because they "had to have" a Ranger class; and in 5e, every class "has to have" subclasses. So the core Ranger is pretty anemic, and the heavy lifting is left to the subclasses. Granted, some of the abilities for each subclass are kind of cool, but each class seems incomplete on its own, even given what's granted in the core.

I would just like one class, or class/subclass combo, where I can say, "Now that's a ranger!" Kane0 and I spent a lot of time working out some of this a while back; and even though the end product wasn't dogfood, by the time others added their stuff, it felt like we were back to the hodgepodge.

When I look at how the ranger class started, the things that really "made" the (sub)class were a) being still a fighter at heart, b) the survival/tracking/outdoors element, c) the druid/magic element, d) stealth abilities, and e) the favored enemy concept. I would likely throw in some natural healing/ poison neutralization and animal handling/friendship. I'm not that crazy about c; but without it, it really doesn't need to be a class of its own. The horizon walker and gloomstalker subclasses are cool, but seem to me to distract from the heart of the class. The beastmaster has been widely panned as the most anemic subclass maybe in the whole game.

I still haven't found what I'm looking for..lol

[Tanarii]

I get the impression that the Ranger is a hodgepodge of stuff that they just threw together because they "had to have" a Ranger class; and in 5e, every class "has to have" subclasses.
This is a common misconception. The 5e Ranger has pretty much what the 1e ranger had in terms of features. This is true for most editions, only 4e left stuff out. What's different is the implementation of the features, how they work. But the concepts are similar:
- tough warrior
- hide/ms/ambusher
- wilderness skills
- special bonus vs enemies of civilization
- spellcasting (at high level)
- animal companion (at high level; though animal friendship spell)
- animal companion (at high level; through random followers)
- hunter-type weapon skills (added in unearthed arcana)

About the one real mechanical fix the 5e ranger could use is allowing the bullet points of Natural explorer in all wilderness terrains. The expertise-like should still be restricted by terrains though.

Getting a damage bonus bs specific enemies is too restrictive. Those bonuses have been moved to spells and subclasses instead. Damage output is not a ranger problem, so any addition needs to be balanced. If you want to add it back, you should lower damage elsewhere.

[Dienekes]

That’s ok, but I don’t think it really fixes the core problems of the Ranger so much as spitshines it.

The thing is, Ranger already has an ability that applies damage, and better tracking to a non-favored enemy. That’s Hunter’s Mark. Sure it doesn’t provide AC bonuses like you suggest, but I don’t think that fixes anything.

The problem with the Ranger is that it is the only class that doesn’t get a combat feature at level 1. Meaning it doesn’t really have a combat role until level 2. And at level 2 on, their combat role is clearly supposed to be damage with some utility. But their main damage ability does not scale well, and requires a lot of actions to keep up.

Compare and contrast Rage to Hunter’s Mark. Rage requires 1 bonus action to use and then it remains the rest of combat, more or less. There’s a way to get it to turn off, but it takes a bit of fiddling. And it provides additional combat effects like Resistance to the three most common damage types in the game.

Hunter’s Mark requires a Bonus Action for every new target, meaning it doesn’t really work with two weapon fighting. So they’re pushed toward Strength weapons, but that means they’re dumping Dex, and they don’t have Heavy Armor or some other AC boosting feature to make up the defensive difference.

HM also does not get better per individual combat as you level up. Takes up your Concentration slot, which means the Ranger can’t use their other Concentration spells while they have it up. And of course they can lose the spell if they ever take damage, since they don’t have proficiency in Constitution saving throws. So it’s pretty much pigeon-holed into only being an archer. But again because of the Bonus Action tax they can’t make best use of Crossbow Expert.

The rest of it, that Ranger is learned caster instead of a prepared caster which cuts down on their utility even more even if they did have the actions and Constitution saves to make use of their spells. And you can see why Ranger is a pretty flawed class.

Not unworkable, of course. But these pieces just don’t fit together well.

[HiveStriker]

So much for constructive input
Well, you kinda asked for it when titling your thread "Ranger fix" (whereas Ranger has never had any real problem, in spite of what the hive mind says, apart from feeling too mechanical when playing Beastmaster) instead of simply "I don't like PHB Ranger, would these houserule be fair?" or something...

You saying "anemic" class just displays that you never had a chance to really play it, whatever the reason behind is.

For what is worth, I think your two houserules would certainly help you enjoying it and would break absolutely nothing (make the Instant Enemy a concentration-less, one minute long buff for 1st level slot, or even simpler modify Hunter's Mark to say "you can apply every benefit from your Favored Enemy feature against the target currently under the spell effect". :)


That’s ok, but I don’t think it really fixes the core problems of the Ranger so much as spitshines it.

The thing is, Ranger already has an ability that applies damage, and better tracking to a non-favored enemy. That’s Hunter’s Mark. Sure it doesn’t provide AC bonuses like you suggest, but I don’t think that fixes anything.

The problem with the Ranger is that it is the only class that doesn’t get a combat feature at level 1. Meaning it doesn’t really have a combat role until level 2. And at level 2 on, their combat role is clearly supposed to be damage with some utility. But their main damage ability does not scale well, and requires a lot of actions to keep up.

Compare and contrast Rage to Hunter’s Mark. Rage requires 1 bonus action to use and then it remains the rest of combat, more or less. There’s a way to get it to turn off, but it takes a bit of fiddling. And it provides additional combat effects like Resistance to the three most common damage types in the game.

Hunter’s Mark requires a Bonus Action for every new target, meaning it doesn’t really work with two weapon fighting. So they’re pushed toward Strength weapons, but that means they’re dumping Dex, and they don’t have Heavy Armor or some other AC boosting feature to make up the defensive difference.

HM also does not get better per individual combat as you level up. Takes up your Concentration slot, which means the Ranger can’t use their other Concentration spells while they have it up. And of course they can lose the spell if they ever take damage, since they don’t have proficiency in Constitution saving throws. So it’s pretty much pigeon-holed into only being an archer. But again because of the Bonus Action tax they can’t make best use of Crossbow Expert.

The rest of it, that Ranger is learned caster instead of a prepared caster which cuts down on their utility even more even if they did have the actions and Constitution saves to make use of their spells. And you can see why Ranger is a pretty flawed class.

Not unworkable, of course. But these pieces just don’t fit together well.
SIGH and here we are again...
Ah well, let's try it one more time.

1. Rage is simply unusable in some situations (no enemy in range of even weapon thrown at disadvantage): it's rare, but it exists. It's also worthless on ranged attacks, contrarily to Hunter's Mark. And you really don't need Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter is *much* better in theory (especially since you have several good spells which use bonus action and bows have a much larger range of engagement). So the question of how Xbow expert and Hunter's Mark interact would be thrown at level 12 at best. Unless you are in particular context, like tag-teaming with a Shoving Barbarian so you don't care about distance since you will always use xbow from 5 feet away to benefit advantage.

2. Hunter's Mark helps in keeping track of a creature. it seems an often ovelooked benefit, but you're damn glad you have it when an important creature has vastly superior fleeing speed or invisibility.

3. If you have to change Hunter's Mark target at a frequency superior than once every 3 turns at most (preferably once every 5 turns) while going two-weapon, you're "doing it wrong". As simple as that. You'd be better off buffing yourself with Zephyr's Strike, or maybe try and land an Ensnaring Strike instead, or provide some obscuration against ranged with Fog Cloud.

4. Unless feats are forbidden OR you want to max DEX AND WIS ASAP because you really love offensive spells, there is no reason not to pick Resilient: Constitution somewhere before level 12 depending on your most used spell. Fog Cloud, Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit, Conjure Animals, Haste if some archetype are all spells that don't require high WIS but are valuable enough to keep that you want to maximize your chance at keeping concentration.

Ranger feels flawed by some in terms of fluff, I understand that, but there is really no problem mechanically. Just people that actively try and use Ranger's *all* strenghs together, instead of trying to play them like a melee Fighter with some offensive spells.
Yeah, we would all love them having more versatility in spell, but they are very effective as is. It's the same kind of nonsense thrown at Sorcerer "you're useless/unplayable/boring because you have so few spells". Nope, those people saying that just don't know how to change their own mindset to embrace the class. :)

[Tanarii]

(whereas Ranger has never had any real problem, in spite of what the hive mind says, apart from feeling too mechanical when playing Beastmaster)
Technically a perception problem is a problem.

The only problem with a perception problem, is people often try to "fix" it incorrectly. In the case of the Ranger, often by boosting damage, which it doesn't need.

[paladinn]

I feel like the ranger class has really lost its purpose. In the first 2 AD&D editions, and in OSR games now, there was no real question as to the function of the ranger. Now it's like, "Well we don't know what the ranger is for, but we have to have one, so let's throw a bunch of unrelated features into the mix and create some non-rangerish subclasses and see if something works."

In each class, there is (I think) one subclass that is supposed to be the "basic" subclass. For the ranger, I suppose that is the Hunter. But even the hunter feels very disjointed.

I've looked at the C&C ranger class. It is spell-less, but still pretty viable, and definitely fills the ranger-shaped void in the game. But even the C&C ranger is very situational, maybe too much so. I like the UA Favored Foe feature more than the 5e favored enemy. Maybe there's a way to combine the two?

[Asisreo1]

Technically a perception problem is a problem.

The only problem with a perception problem, is people often try to "fix" it incorrectly. In the case of the Ranger, often by boosting damage, which it doesn't need.
Actually, Rangers have had pretty good Perception in my experience. (Another joke)

[Asisreo1]

About the one real mechanical fix the 5e ranger could use is allowing the bullet points of Natural explorer in all wilderness terrains. The expertise-like should still be restricted by terrains though.

This is the most fun part of these discussions, for me. People look at Ranger's Natural Explorer and think "So, it's an instant-win button or a completely useless feature, then?" Well, in most games, yeah. But that's because the exploration pillar gets shafted because DM's don't prepare them as the DMG expected you to.

D&D was designed to be a hexcrawl into dungeoncrawl game. Exploration was the second biggest part of the game, not social. In 5e, they meant to preserve this but they got so many things wrong you'd probably think D&D has no decent exploration rules at all.

But there are. See, exploration is about 3 things: Context, Choices, and Consequences. In a hexcrawl, whenever you enter a new hex, you are given at least one of these each time. If it's a location like a statue that shows the history of the area or an NPC that warns of the predominant monster, it's context. If it's an ancient ruin where you can enter and find a map of the land or a faction war between two monster types in the area, you're given a choice. If it's a dragon whose presence has influenced the nearby area or a foreshadowed combat encounter, it's a consequence of your choice.

What does this have to do with Ranger's abilities? Well, even at province scale, there's a majority of terrain and some isolated other terrains. The Ranger can't get lost if he stays within his hex terrain but it may take longer to go around the other terrain hexes if he doesn't cut through them. Time may be of the essence for the simple fact that the DM keeps rolling for random encounters every hour and the longer it takes, the more likely we are to be attacked. There's other factors I can get into, but if people played D&D's exploration pillar more, the Ranger would be, not only more powerful, but also more interesting.

[Tanarii]

Now it's like, "Well we don't know what the ranger is for, but we have to have one, so let's throw a bunch of unrelated features into the mix and create some non-rangerish subclasses and see if something works."

How are they unrelated. You get:
- fighter hit dice
- fighter weapon skills, medium armor
- rogue-like and wilderness-related skills
- special knowledge of enemies (of frontier civilization if you like)
- special wilderness talents, including less likelihood of surprise
- fighter like fighting style
- Druid-like spell casting, and significantly before old editions. (Magic-user spell casting is MIA)
- either hunting weapon skills or animal companions

About the only thing they're really missing is they can technically have retainers/henchman but nobody plays with that any more, and they don't get special followers at level 10.


This is the most fun part of these discussions, for me. People look at Ranger's Natural Explorer and think "So, it's an instant-win button or a completely useless feature, then?" Well, in most games, yeah. But that's because the exploration pillar gets shafted because DM's don't prepare them as the DMG expected you to.

D&D was designed to be a hexcrawl into dungeoncrawl game. Exploration was the second biggest part of the game, not social. In 5e, they meant to preserve this but they got so many things wrong you'd probably think D&D has no decent exploration rules at all.
Originally. But 5e isn't. I ran a hex crawl using 5e for years, and it's not well designed for it. Now I'm running a small group for Forbiddan Lands, and it's much better. When things open up again I may try to relaunch my campaign, but it's probably going to be using O5R's mod of 5e named Into the Unknown. Only thing is I don't know if I'll get players that way. People like their 5e classes too much.

[Specter]

Aight, hear me out. I have played many Rangers in 5E, and DM'd for probably a dozen.

The Ranger class in its entirety is probably 90% balanced with other martials, and the only problem are levels 6, 10 and 14. These are mostly dead rubber levels that fail to measure up to other martial classes (and classes in general). Favored enemies and terrains can be cool if your DM requires many INT and WIS checks, but they're not used often and might even become irrelevant if the party's traveling through other planes and stuff. What you need is not more damage (their damage is fine), but ways to make Rangers better than a Fighter/Druid at the things they do (like tracking and being in the wild).

Example:
Level 5 - Extra Attack and 2nd-level spells (cool!)
Level 6 - Terrain and enemy stuff (whatever)
Level 7 - Subclass feature (cool!)
Level 8 - ASI (cool!)

As you can see, these levels are a pain and really make you want to multiclass to something else.
Here's something I've done that works:

Level 6
- Give the ranger proficiency in CON saves. The only reason they don't have it is because of the '1 good and 1 bad save per class', but for a guy that's out in the wild facing weather, poison and all that, it doesn't make sense that they don't have it. If this seems too much, remember that fighters get an extra ASI at level 6, and Paladins get Aura of Protection, which boosts all saves AND saves of people within 10 feet.

Level 10
- I really like Hide in Plain Sight, because it's a massive boost and is something very unique to the class. The problem is it only works against a specific background (like a wall or a tree), and it's over the second you do anything. So if you want to boost that, you could make it work against 'similar surfaces'. In other words, if the ranger prepares a 'tree' camouflage, he can get that bonus after he presses himself against another tree. That makes it an ability you can actually use in combat, as long as you are prepared.
Also, move Vanish from level 14 to this level. It's nothing that a Rogue can't do at level 2, pretty much, so it's not breaking anything.
Fighters get an archetype feature and Paladins get Aura of Courage at level 10, so these level 10 abilities really need to be good.

Level 14
- Here we can get more unique things to the Ranger and make them better at tracking than others: at this rate, just tracking footprints and leaves on the ground seems kinda underwhelming. What I've done is allow the Ranger to cast 'Find the Path' once a day (without material components), and also to always know the general direction of a favored enemy they've seen in the last 24 hours (but not the exact location, for obvious reasons). Now your Ranger can be the best navigator in the game. Again, Fighter gets another ASI at this level and Paladin gets Cleansing Touch, so whatever you do you need to measure up to those things.

Now these are not the best solutions ever (there could be improvements), but the point is, as long as you fix those lame levels, you don't need to worry about Ranger feeling stuck or whatever.

[KorvinStarmast]

D&D was designed to be a hexcrawl into dungeoncrawl game. Exploration was the second biggest part of the game, not social. In 5e, they meant to preserve this but they got so many things wrong you'd probably think D&D has no decent exploration rules at all.

But there are. See, exploration is about 3 things: Context, Choices, and Consequences. In a hexcrawl, whenever you enter a new hex, you are given at least one of these each time. If it's a location like a statue that shows the history of the area or an NPC that warns of the predominant monster, it's context. If it's an ancient ruin where you can enter and find a map of the land or a faction war between two monster types in the area, you're given a choice. If it's a dragon whose presence has influenced the nearby area or a foreshadowed combat encounter, it's a consequence of your choice.

What does this have to do with Ranger's abilities? Well, even at province scale, there's a majority of terrain and some isolated other terrains. The Ranger can't get lost if he stays within his hex terrain but it may take longer to go around the other terrain hexes if he doesn't cut through them. Time may be of the essence for the simple fact that the DM keeps rolling for random encounters every hour and the longer it takes, the more likely we are to be attacked. There's other factors I can get into, but if people played D&D's exploration pillar more, the Ranger would be, not only more powerful, but also more interesting. This. ToA has a bit of that and the Ranger shines just fine.

As to your first post: I laughed. Over the top humor works for some people, not so much for others. :smallsmile:


Now these are not the best solutions ever (there could be improvements), but the point is, as long as you fix those lame levels, you don't need to worry about Ranger feeling stuck or whatever. I like where you are going with this.

[Asisreo1]

Originally. But 5e isn't. I ran a hex crawl using 5e for years, and it's not well designed for it.
I've ran a fair share of hexcrawls as well, and they're really fun. My advice is to steer clear from incomplete hexcrawls like WoTC has been putting out. I would love to play a hexcrawl with everyone here to show off how fun it can be with careful consideration. But I know it's not for Everyone. I just think people would like it if they tried a good one.

[HiveStriker]

Aight, hear me out. I have played many Rangers in 5E, and DM'd for probably a dozen.

The Ranger class in its entirety is probably 90% balanced with other martials, and the only problem are levels 6, 10 and 14. These are mostly dead rubber levels that fail to measure up to other martial classes (and classes in general). Favored enemies and terrains can be cool if your DM requires many INT and WIS checks, but they're not used often and might even become irrelevant if the party's traveling through other planes and stuff. What you need is not more damage (their damage is fine), but ways to make Rangers better than a Fighter/Druid at the things they do (like tracking and being in the wild).

Example:
Level 5 - Extra Attack and 2nd-level spells (cool!)
Level 6 - Terrain and enemy stuff (whatever)
Level 7 - Subclass feature (cool!)
Level 8 - ASI (cool!)

As you can see, these levels are a pain and really make you want to multiclass to something else.
Here's something I've done that works:

Level 6
- Give the ranger proficiency in CON saves. The only reason they don't have it is because of the '1 good and 1 bad save per class', but for a guy that's out in the wild facing weather, poison and all that, it doesn't make sense that they don't have it. If this seems too much, remember that fighters get an extra ASI at level 6, and Paladins get Aura of Protection, which boosts all saves AND saves of people within 10 feet.

Level 10
- I really like Hide in Plain Sight, because it's a massive boost and is something very unique to the class. The problem is it only works against a specific background (like a wall or a tree), and it's over the second you do anything. So if you want to boost that, you could make it work against 'similar surfaces'. In other words, if the ranger prepares a 'tree' camouflage, he can get that bonus after he presses himself against another tree. That makes it an ability you can actually use in combat, as long as you are prepared.
Also, move Vanish from level 14 to this level. It's nothing that a Rogue can't do at level 2, pretty much, so it's not breaking anything.
Fighters get an archetype feature and Paladins get Aura of Courage at level 10, so these level 10 abilities really need to be good.

Level 14
- Here we can get more unique things to the Ranger and make them better at tracking than others: at this rate, just tracking footprints and leaves on the ground seems kinda underwhelming. What I've done is allow the Ranger to cast 'Find the Path' once a day (without material components), and also to always know the general direction of a favored enemy they've seen in the last 24 hours (but not the exact location, for obvious reasons). Now your Ranger can be the best navigator in the game. Again, Fighter gets another ASI at this level and Paladin gets Cleansing Touch, so whatever you do you need to measure up to those things.

Now these are not the best solutions ever (there could be improvements), but the point is, as long as you fix those lame levels, you don't need to worry about Ranger feeling stuck or whatever.
This bolded part is a hidden gem. I too love that feature, works great combined with Beast Sense and/or Observant feat and/or Pass Without Trace. Yet the fact you need "natural" environment was certainly a limitation, which I embraced eventually.

Working on every kind of surface (if I understdood correctly, not sure)? This is a cool idea. I'd just be kinda wary it would make that ability actually overboard in the other way aka too powerful for non-combat situations (eating too much in the " perma great stealth" department which is more of the Rogue - or possibly Shadow Monk ^^-'s schtick.
I'd have no trouble allowing that variant without either in party though.

Overall very nice houserules. Thanks for sharing. :)

Quick note about your post otherwise: let's not forget that you still get spell slot upgrade and extra spell known at those levels, this definitely counts in my book. ;)
Whether that + "feature" is enough is up to each one to decide, but imo it would be unfaithful to evalute the "added value" of those levels on non-spellcasting features only.

Besides that, the one simple houserule I would personally make if I had a player that really wanted "more" of a Ranger, would be basically provide Ritual Caster Druid (possibly at that dreaded level 6, or right out from level 1) which a black on white agreement he could write down as rituals spells he can learn as Ranger.
In other words, some kind of "Ritual Caster: Ranger" tied to a book (middle ground between PHB "learned" and fancied "prepared").

Which is basically what I did on many of my Rangers, for the greater benefit of everyone, myself included and foremost. :)
This is a cheap (well, gold excepted), auto-sufficient and balanced way to give Ranger a boost in spell versatility. Main (only) problem is that it requires a solid knowledge of Range spelllist and big planification on spell learning as you progress, which makes it unsuitable for newcomers (or people who precisely like non-fullcasters like Rangers because much less bookkeeping).

[Contrast]

Technically a perception problem is a problem.

The only problem with a perception problem, is people often try to "fix" it incorrectly. In the case of the Ranger, often by boosting damage, which it doesn't need.

Mmm the direction of this thread surprised me. Rangers do fine damage - its all their other features that are the problem in my opinion. Once they hit level 5 I'm always just underwhelmed by the options they get from that point compared to what you'd get from multiclassing rogue or druid.

[paladinn]

[QUOTE=Specter;24506402]The Ranger class in its entirety is probably 90% balanced with other martials, and the only problem are levels 6, 10 and 14. These are mostly dead rubber levels that fail to measure up to other martial classes (and classes in general). [QUOTE]

I think this gets to the problem I have with all the WotC versions. D&D is being marketed to video/computer gamers, who are used to getting something new and shiny every level. If they don't get that, the levels are considered "dead", in spite of gaining in hit probability, saving throws, proficiency, hit dice, and improving skills and abilities.

4e was absolutely eaten-up with this: the whole thing played like a video game, and all players of a given level had basically the same potential abilities, with different labels. 5e is better, but still suffers from the "new stuff every level" syndrome. This is why every class, even casters, show the effects of this.

I will likely keep gleaning the new/er editions for cool ideas and mechanics I can back-port. But I think I'll stick to the OSR for actual participation from henceforth.

Pax vobiscum!

[Specter]

This bolded part is a hidden gem. I too love that feature, works great combined with Beast Sense and/or Observant feat and/or Pass Without Trace. Yet the fact you need "natural" environment was certainly a limitation, which I embraced eventually.

Working on every kind of surface (if I understdood correctly, not sure)? This is a cool idea. I'd just be kinda wary it would make that ability actually overboard in the other way aka too powerful for non-combat situations (eating too much in the " perma great stealth" department which is more of the Rogue - or possibly Shadow Monk ^^-'s schtick.
I'd have no trouble allowing that variant without either in party though.

Overall very nice houserules. Thanks for sharing. :)

Quick note about your post otherwise: let's not forget that you still get spell slot upgrade and extra spell known at those levels, this definitely counts in my book. ;)
Whether that + "feature" is enough is up to each one to decide, but imo it would be unfaithful to evalute the "added value" of those levels on non-spellcasting features only.

Besides that, the one simple houserule I would personally make if I had a player that really wanted "more" of a Ranger, would be basically provide Ritual Caster Druid (possibly at that dreaded level 6, or right out from level 1) which a black on white agreement he could write down as rituals spells he can learn as Ranger.
In other words, some kind of "Ritual Caster: Ranger" tied to a book (middle ground between PHB "learned" and fancied "prepared").

Which is basically what I did on many of my Rangers, for the greater benefit of everyone, myself included and foremost. :)
This is a cheap (well, gold excepted), auto-sufficient and balanced way to give Ranger a boost in spell versatility. Main (only) problem is that it requires a solid knowledge of Range spelllist and big planification on spell learning as you progress, which makes it unsuitable for newcomers (or people who precisely like non-fullcasters like Rangers because much less bookkeeping).

What I meant was that you could get that +10 bonus again after you move, as long as you hide against a similar background (going from one tree to another, or one white rock to the other). But sure, you can adapt in any way that makes it more usable. You can make it:
- magical, meaning you don't need the materials or prep time, just an action
- make the ranger adapt to any surface he's pressed against after one round (like octocamouflage in MGS4)

Etcetcetc. But as it's written in the book, it requires you to know exactly where the enemy will be passing by and plan in advance, which is rare if you're an adventurer.

[Specter]

I think this gets to the problem I have with all the WotC versions. D&D is being marketed to video/computer gamers, who are used to getting something new and shiny every level. If they don't get that, the levels are considered "dead", in spite of gaining in hit probability, saving throws, proficiency, hit dice, and improving skills and abilities.

4e was absolutely eaten-up with this: the whole thing played like a video game, and all players of a given level had basically the same potential abilities, with different labels. 5e is better, but still suffers from the "new stuff every level" syndrome. This is why every class, even casters, show the effects of this.

I will likely keep gleaning the new/er editions for cool ideas and mechanics I can back-port. But I think I'll stick to the OSR for actual participation from henceforth.

Pax vobiscum!

But that's the whole point of leveling up: to get new, useful abilities. The three levels I've described are like raiding a red dragon's lair only to find a couple of +1 weapons. Sometimes you could take a ranger level, and immediately know you're not using the new abilities depending on the situation you're in. That's sad.

Also, at level 6-10-14 there's no increase in proficiency bonus, which means there's no increase in hit probability and all those other things.

[GlenSmash!]

2. In Pathfinder, there is a "spell" called Instant Enemy that allows the bonuses of the Favored Enemy to be applied to one non-favored enemy. This c/should be either a spell or a limited class feature.

Isn't this pretty much what Favored Foe from the Class Variants UA does?

[paladinn]

Isn't this pretty much what Favored Foe from the Class Variants UA does?

Sort of, but it's an either/or thing with the variant. I'm looking to add to FE's combat utility and allow that utility to be used on a Very limited basis for a non-favored enemy.

[Dienekes]

SIGH and here we are again...
Ah well, let's try it one more time.

1. Rage is simply unusable in some situations (no enemy in range of even weapon thrown at disadvantage): it's rare, but it exists. It's also worthless on ranged attacks, contrarily to Hunter's Mark. And you really don't need Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter is *much* better in theory (especially since you have several good spells which use bonus action and bows have a much larger range of engagement). So the question of how Xbow expert and Hunter's Mark interact would be thrown at level 12 at best. Unless you are in particular context, like tag-teaming with a Shoving Barbarian so you don't care about distance since you will always use xbow from 5 feet away to benefit advantage.

2. Hunter's Mark helps in keeping track of a creature. it seems an often ovelooked benefit, but you're damn glad you have it when an important creature has vastly superior fleeing speed or invisibility.

3. If you have to change Hunter's Mark target at a frequency superior than once every 3 turns at most (preferably once every 5 turns) while going two-weapon, you're "doing it wrong". As simple as that. You'd be better off buffing yourself with Zephyr's Strike, or maybe try and land an Ensnaring Strike instead, or provide some obscuration against ranged with Fog Cloud.

4. Unless feats are forbidden OR you want to max DEX AND WIS ASAP because you really love offensive spells, there is no reason not to pick Resilient: Constitution somewhere before level 12 depending on your most used spell. Fog Cloud, Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit, Conjure Animals, Haste if some archetype are all spells that don't require high WIS but are valuable enough to keep that you want to maximize your chance at keeping concentration.

Ranger feels flawed by some in terms of fluff, I understand that, but there is really no problem mechanically. Just people that actively try and use Ranger's *all* strenghs together, instead of trying to play them like a melee Fighter with some offensive spells.
Yeah, we would all love them having more versatility in spell, but they are very effective as is. It's the same kind of nonsense thrown at Sorcerer "you're useless/unplayable/boring because you have so few spells". Nope, those people saying that just don't know how to change their own mindset to embrace the class. :)

Here's a somewhat half-hearted rebuttal. But my last sentence agrees with you for the most part. You can make Ranger work. It is not horrible class.

However, I maintain that what I wrote are design issues that make it more finicky to play than any other class for no good reason.

Yes, there are situations where Rage isn't used. There are far more situations where the main threats are a bunch of wheenies that take 2 rounds to kill tops. Yes, the Ranger has a bunch of spells that can theoretically be useful. But they're limited to only a handful. They're probably only going to have 3 1st level spells learned at all. I don't think I've ever seen a Ranger take both Zephyr's Strike and Hunter's Mark because they take up so much of the same design space and the Ranger needs to be frugal with the spell they've learned.

And finally, because it can be worked around with an optional rule at probably around level 12 to get Constitution saving throws. Does not negate that this means most of lifespan of the class they have to deal with one of their central mechanics and reasons to take the class being overly difficult to maintain.

I think the Paladin also suffers from that problem, the difference being the Paladin still has the Smite mechanic to make up the difference.

I don't think the Ranger's ineffective. I do think it's badly designed at a fundamental level.

[HiveStriker]

What I meant was that you could get that +10 bonus again after you move, as long as you hide against a similar background (going from one tree to another, or one white rock to the other). But sure, you can adapt in any way that makes it more usable. You can make it:
- magical, meaning you don't need the materials or prep time, just an action
- make the ranger adapt to any surface he's pressed against after one round (like octocamouflage in MGS4)

Etcetcetc. But as it's written in the book, it requires you to know exactly where the enemy will be passing by and plan in advance, which is rare if you're an adventurer.
Eeeeh... That would be actually a big, BIG nerf.

Many people seem not to realize that Hide in Plain Sight is a non-magical ability, with everything that implies. In a world where so many people rely on magic for deception, meaning even more people rely on magical detection, you'll actually be invisible from non-casters. Worst threat would be creatures with keen smell or hear if your DM wants to be extra rigorous... :=)

And since the idea is usually to pick a good position then stay completely immobile for as long as you want/need to spy, you will normally need one single check for the entire duration (unless big change in circumstances of course), meaning it synergizes very well with Pass Without Trace for long duration surveillance (AND you also have just one goodberry to take to have no need for sustainance either, and very little need for "vidange" too - DM could be legitimate in considering thirst as separate too, never found Goodberry very clear on that).

Here's a somewhat half-hearted rebuttal. But my last sentence agrees with you for the most part. You can make Ranger work. It is not horrible class.

However, I maintain that what I wrote are design issues that make it more finicky to play than any other class for no good reason.

Yes, there are situations where Rage isn't used. There are far more situations where the main threats are a bunch of wheenies that take 2 rounds to kill tops. Yes, the Ranger has a bunch of spells that can theoretically be useful. But they're limited to only a handful. They're probably only going to have 3 1st level spells learned at all. I don't think I've ever seen a Ranger take both Zephyr's Strike and Hunter's Mark because they take up so much of the same design space and the Ranger needs to be frugal with the spell they've learned.

And finally, because it can be worked around with an optional rule at probably around level 12 to get Constitution saving throws. Does not negate that this means most of lifespan of the class they have to deal with one of their central mechanics and reasons to take the class being overly difficult to maintain.

I think the Paladin also suffers from that problem, the difference being the Paladin still has the Smite mechanic to make up the difference.

I don't think the Ranger's ineffective. I do think it's badly designed at a fundamental level.
So, you half-read my post. Because nowhere I say about waiting for level 12 to pick Resilient, neither do I say it's actually required.
As most things, it's just a comfort choice, a "building" decision one can make because (s)he considers it that good for own playstyle.

I'm sorry, but it really feels simply like you played the Ranger with many premade expectations on how to play and how it should work, so obviously you cannot enjoy it.

Whereas a properly played Ranger largely as efficient over a day than an Eldricht Knight for example. Just in a different way. And even without Resilient: Constitution. :)

It's not a horrible class. It's a great class. It simply has its own niche, which apparently many people are not fond of: versatility/adaptability.
From experience, in a party without at least 2 full casters, if I have to pick a martial, I'll pick Ranger over any other class any day.

[Dienekes]

So, you half-read my post. Because nowhere I say about waiting for level 12 to pick Resilient, neither do I say it's actually required.
As most things, it's just a comfort choice, a "building" decision one can make because (s)he considers it that good for own playstyle.

I'm sorry, but it really feels simply like you played the Ranger with many premade expectations on how to play and how it should work, so obviously you cannot enjoy it.

Whereas a properly played Ranger largely as efficient over a day than an Eldricht Knight for example. Just in a different way. And even without Resilient: Constitution. :)

It's not a horrible class. It's a great class. It simply has its own niche, which apparently many people are not fond of: versatility/adaptability.
From experience, in a party without at least 2 full casters, if I have to pick a martial, I'll pick Ranger over any other class any day.

I just don't see how their niche is versatility/adaptability. Not when compared to any full caster or even a few rogues. Not with only 11 spells to its name at its highest level.

I'll grant it having more versatility than Eldritch Knight Fighter. 13 spells known vs 11, but the Ranger definitely has better skill selection and some half-decent ooc abilities. Admittedly, some of the later subclasses gets a few more. Which is very helpful, but I don't think changes the core class enough.

But if blanket versatility/adaptability is what the Ranger is about. Then how is it better in that regard than say a wizard or a druid?

[Asisreo1]

I just don't see how their niche is versatility/adaptability. Not when compared to any full caster or even a few rogues. Not with only 11 spells to its name at its highest level.

I'll grant it having more versatility than Eldritch Knight Fighter. 13 spells known vs 11, but the Ranger definitely has better skill selection and some half-decent ooc abilities. Admittedly, some of the later subclasses gets a few more. Which is very helpful, but I don't think changes the core class enough.

But if blanket versatility/adaptability is what the Ranger is about. Then how is it better in that regard than say a wizard or a druid?
It's not, but it doesn't have to be. Because there's certain compromises. Rangers have versatility but they also have melee-ability. There main attack source is powerful and at-will with the most common saving throw, and third most common saving throw against pure martial opponent (spellcasters use wisdom but presumably your Wis is high, but melee fighters will force strength or dexterity saves to prone, restrain, grapple, etc. They're also excellent at range with a bow, which is how the majority of Ranger builds go.

Not every class can have the versatility of a wizard, that's their schtick. A Ranger's being a generalist while still holding their own as a martial class.

[Lupine]

If you wanted to go down this path I would instead suggest Prof bonus extra damage against favored enemies.

I would not do this, as it makes the character a bit too dip friendly.

In a (work in progress) ranger thing I'm doing, favored enemy doesn't do extra damage until sixth level, whereupon it does quarter ranger level extra damage to favored enemies. kind of tasty, because at 20th level, you can deal 1o extra damage to a favored enemy. I've also allowing the favored enemy to switch after short rests, with the 18th level ability allowing switches after one minute of concentration.

It's not ready to show people yet, but that feature's not likely to change.

[Tanarii]

I just don't see how their niche is versatility/adaptability. Not when compared to any full caster or even a few rogues. Not with only 11 spells to its name at its highest level.



Not every class can have the versatility of a wizard, that's their schtick. A Ranger's being a generalist while still holding their own as a martial class.I always find it weird that people equate casting spells with versatility or adaptability.

[Dienekes]

It's not, but it doesn't have to be. Because there's certain compromises. Rangers have versatility but they also have melee-ability. There main attack source is powerful and at-will with the most common saving throw, and third most common saving throw against pure martial opponent (spellcasters use wisdom but presumably your Wis is high, but melee fighters will force strength or dexterity saves to prone, restrain, grapple, etc. They're also excellent at range with a bow, which is how the majority of Ranger builds go.

Not every class can have the versatility of a wizard, that's their schtick. A Ranger's being a generalist while still holding their own as a martial class.

I don't really think melee-ability is a thing, or it really shouldn't be considered one. Being a martial class is not a point in or against its favor outside of just fluff.

In combat the sources of power are as far as I can tell are damage, survivability, buffing, and debuffing/crowd control. It does not matter if you're martial or caster, using a sword or a cantrip. Provided your build succeeds at some of these pillars.

When I look at most classes I can see them do 2 of those things really well and maybe one more passable, if they have to. The most powerful classes can usually do 3 of them really well. Ranger does one thing well though the design to do it is far more finnicky and annoying than it needs to be, and the rest kinda passable if they have to. And I don't think that's very good design.

At least, for the base class and initial released subclasses. Gloomstalker and Horizon Walker "fixed" some of these problems by just being blatantly more powerful that the initial subclasses.

[Kane0]

I would not do this, as it makes the character a bit too dip friendly.

In a (work in progress) ranger thing I'm doing, favored enemy doesn't do extra damage until sixth level, whereupon it does quarter ranger level extra damage to favored enemies. kind of tasty, because at 20th level, you can deal 1o extra damage to a favored enemy. I've also allowing the favored enemy to switch after short rests, with the 18th level ability allowing switches after one minute of concentration.

It's not ready to show people yet, but that feature's not likely to change.

Fair enough. Once on your turn half Ranger level is also a pretty normal way of handling it, but as discussed accuracy and defence was prioritised over damage.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I would say that IMO, the ranger's biggest downside is that a Fighter seems to consistently upstage a Ranger at "things that I expect a Ranger to be doing" [shooting things]

Technically, the ranger gets a bunch of plot-based bonuses... that might either be completely critical, completely useless, or more often than not, are useless 90% of the time except for that one scene the GM made to use them.

What ranger adjustments would I make?

Honestly, I have no idea. Most of anything I come up with basically winds up as "turn it into a Fighter subtype" or "turn it into a Druid subtype" or "turn it into a Rogue subtype".

[Kane0]

What ranger adjustments would I make?

Honestly, I have no idea. Most of anything I come up with basically winds up as "turn it into a Fighter subtype" or "turn it into a Druid subtype" or "turn it into a Rogue subtype".

Ideally the Ranger would be bits of all three along with something to call its own as the linchpin.

[Asisreo1]

I don't really think melee-ability is a thing, or it really shouldn't be considered one. Being a martial class is not a point in or against its favor outside of just fluff.

In combat the sources of power are as far as I can tell are damage, survivability, buffing, and debuffing/crowd control. It does not matter if you're martial or caster, using a sword or a cantrip. Provided your build succeeds at some of these pillars.

When I look at most classes I can see them do 2 of those things really well and maybe one more passable, if they have to. The most powerful classes can usually do 3 of them really well. Ranger does one thing well though the design to do it is far more finnicky and annoying than it needs to be, and the rest kinda passable if they have to. And I don't think that's very good design.

At least, for the base class and initial released subclasses. Gloomstalker and Horizon Walker "fixed" some of these problems by just being blatantly more powerful that the initial subclasses.
Well, to put melee-ability in a more concrete term, it's your AC, melee attack capabilities, HP, and melee combat features.

Essentially, a good way to measure would be to remove spellcasting and anything that doesn't have anything to do with being in melee, now take a theoretical orc with unlimited HP and see how long they can last and how much damage they can do given the best melee weapon.

So for instance, a wizard has very low melee-ability because they have no offensive or defensive features for melee and they have low HP and AC.

On the other hand, a Barbarian has high melee-ability because they have both offensive and defensive abilities that are useful in a melee.

Why the distinction? Well, if a DM were to play an encounter with good strategy, they'd force the wizard into melee. In practice, the wizard has some options like shield to keep them protected but if they're caught in melee with two opponents, they're taking damage. And if they want to get rid of them, they're basically forced to use their LR resource, a spellslot or two.

Now, take a look at the same situation with a fighter. Without multiclassing, a fighter can easily get 20+ AC and they have several offensive and defensive features. Two melee fighters won't be too big of a deal unless they're punching above their weight class for both opponents.

And you can see how new DM's get frustrated because they have fighters and paladins and such being seemingly unkillable because of their features.

[Willie the Duck]

Overall, I think the Ranger as a class is fine. I think 5e as a whole could have made the exploration pillar of the game a little more interesting. Also, for people who saw Ranger and thought, 'oh cool, I can play my old lightly armored, two weapon fighting guy again,' the way that Hunter's Mark and 2wf interact is genuinely disappointing.


This is the most fun part of these discussions, for me. People look at Ranger's Natural Explorer and think "So, it's an instant-win button or a completely useless feature, then?" Well, in most games, yeah. But that's because the exploration pillar gets shafted because DM's don't prepare them as the DMG expected you to.
<etc.>
What does this have to do with Ranger's abilities? Well, even at province scale, there's a majority of terrain and some isolated other terrains. The Ranger can't get lost if he stays within his hex terrain but it may take longer to go around the other terrain hexes if he doesn't cut through them. Time may be of the essence for the simple fact that the DM keeps rolling for random encounters every hour and the longer it takes, the more likely we are to be attacked. There's other factors I can get into, but if people played D&D's exploration pillar more, the Ranger would be, not only more powerful, but also more interesting.
Can you expand on this? Certainly agree that if a DM doesn’t bother with exploration well of course Natural Explorer fails to wow. As to people thinking instant win/useless, I’m not sure they are wrong. I mean, it does make trivial a lot of the things that one would want to do if you were excited about wilderness adventure (along with goodberry, and a few other spells). Those tough decisions that you are describing are the ones that the rangers has to/gets to make less of than a rangerless party would have to/get to do in the same situation.

When things open up again I may try to relaunch my campaign, but it's probably going to be using O5R's mod of 5e named Into the Unknown. Only thing is I don't know if I'll get players that way. People like their 5e classes too much.
Considering the same. Into the Unknown bills itself as being compatible with 5e characters. If you curate the available spells they probably can just use the 5e classes.

As to your first post: I laughed. Over the top humor works for some people, not so much for others. :smallsmile:
The humor was always fine. A multi-paragraph post like that without bluetext or smileys just looked like <excrement>-posting is all.

Mmm the direction of this thread surprised me. Rangers do fine damage - its all their other features that are the problem in my opinion. Once they hit level 5 I'm always just underwhelmed by the options they get from that point compared to what you'd get from multiclassing rogue or druid.
This is true for the paladin as well, though (barbarian too). If you do not expect to get to the point where the upper level capstones come into play, most of the non-full-spellcasters have some very intuitive jumping off points, usually once they have gotten as many extra attacks as you think you’ll end up getting (Fighters also oftentimes seem to be a hard sell past 11 if you aren’t going to play to 20). The most I can say is that I don’t think I’d call that a weakness of the Ranger specifically.

[Tanarii]

Considering the same. Into the Unknown bills itself as being compatible with 5e characters. If you curate the available spells they probably can just use the 5e classes.

That might work. It's the other rules I really care about. XP for GP squandered, slow healing, better exploration pillar mechanics, morale, etc. All the things D&D had for a reason that have gone away because they were unfun, resulting in predictable consequences for the game.

[Specter]

Eeeeh... That would be actually a big, BIG nerf.

Many people seem not to realize that Hide in Plain Sight is a non-magical ability, with everything that implies. In a world where so many people rely on magic for deception, meaning even more people rely on magical detection, you'll actually be invisible from non-casters. Worst threat would be creatures with keen smell or hear if your DM wants to be extra rigorous... :=)

And since the idea is usually to pick a good position then stay completely immobile for as long as you want/need to spy, you will normally need one single check for the entire duration (unless big change in circumstances of course), meaning it synergizes very well with Pass Without Trace for long duration surveillance (AND you also have just one goodberry to take to have no need for sustainance either, and very little need for "vidange" too - DM could be legitimate in considering thirst as separate too, never found Goodberry very clear on that).

When I said 'magical', I meant that you wouldnt need to have materials and ink ready, you would just magically adapt to your surroundings.
And I also didn't mean like in a detect magic way, more like in a ki way. But whatever works!

[Contrast]

This is true for the paladin as well, though (barbarian too). If you do not expect to get to the point where the upper level capstones come into play, most of the non-full-spellcasters have some very intuitive jumping off points, usually once they have gotten as many extra attacks as you think you’ll end up getting (Fighters also oftentimes seem to be a hard sell past 11 if you aren’t going to play to 20). The most I can say is that I don’t think I’d call that a weakness of the Ranger specifically.

I would say Rangers are kind of like paladins who only got Divine Sense and Divine Health as class features. Meanwhile Divine Smite, Lay on Hands (but only if you stick paladin), Aura of Protection and Improved Divine Smite are some of the best class features in the game. Hunters Mark and Pass without Trace are both good but I also generally think that Paladins get the better spell list.

Critically - I don't think multiclassing out of paladin into sorc (for example) makes you better at the archetypal idea of being a paladin that being a paladin does. In contrast I do think that multiclassing out of ranger will probably make you better at the things that you would expect the archetypal ranger to do. If my advice to someone who wants to play the rangiest ranger who ever ranged is to consider multiclassing I feel like there's an issue.

You do have a point with barbarians though - their base class features are pretty underwhelming at higher levels and the main thing that stops multiclassing out on them is that they don't really multiclass very well with other classes beyond dips (assuming you want to stick to the 'big guy who hits people with big weapons' archetype anyway). You can make a strength rogue but then you're not using big weapons which is part of the attraction - otherwise you probably want a couple of levels of barb on otherwise fighter or 2-3 levels of fighter on a barb and thats about it. This is a weakness of the class and one of the reasons why barbarian would probably come next after ranger on my wish list of 'if we could go back in time and try to fix a class'.

[Willie the Duck]

I would say Rangers are kind of like paladins who only got Divine Sense and Divine Health as class features. Meanwhile Divine Smite, Lay on Hands (but only if you stick paladin), Aura of Protection and Improved Divine Smite are some of the best class features in the game. Hunters Mark and Pass without Trace are both good but I also generally think that Paladins get the better spell list.

It's really going to depend on what else you include in your builds, what levels you will play to, and most importantly what levels you are going to spend a long time playing. Divine Smite improves very well with multiclassing. Improved Divine Smite is +2d8 (yes, plus crits) unless you can get consistent bonus/reaction attacks and I've mostly seen it shine when on top of Polearm Master. The spells... boy, if you stay in long enough to grab the mount spells I absolutely agree. The special smite spells have seemed pretty underwhelming to me. I think the most effective non-MC paladins I've seen have been vengeance paladins who lay down a lot of Hold Persons and Hastes and position themselves with Misty Steps and the like, which are undoubtedly powerful, but not very paladin-like. Which leads me to...


Critically - I don't think multiclassing out of paladin into sorc (for example) makes you better at the archetypal idea of being a paladin that being a paladin does. In contrast I do think that multiclassing out of ranger will probably make you better at the things that you would expect the archetypal ranger to do. If my advice to someone who wants to play the rangiest ranger who ever ranged is to consider multiclassing I feel like there's an issue.

I think a celestial sorc does a pretty good job of keeping a sorcadin on-brand for paladinhood (better than some paladin archetypes as I mentioned above). In general, I do not disagree with the underlined point, I just think that paladins are in the same boat. Multiclassing in general sets up some really strange incentive structures and oftentimes making 'the most iconic X' involves some kind of X/Y hybrid, particularly if you are also looking at power. Eldritch Knight fighters jumping off into wizard is another example.


You do have a point with barbarians though - their base class features are pretty underwhelming at higher levels and the main thing that stops multiclassing out on them is that they don't really multiclass very well with other classes beyond dips (assuming you want to stick to the 'big guy who hits people with big weapons' archetype anyway). You can make a strength rogue but then you're not using big weapons which is part of the attraction - otherwise you probably want a couple of levels of barb on otherwise fighter or 2-3 levels of fighter on a barb and thats about it. This is a weakness of the class and one of the reasons why barbarian would probably come next after ranger on my wish list of 'if we could go back in time and try to fix a class'.
That's pretty much it. War Cleric if the barbarian has a decent Wis is an option. If Sneak Attack worked with non-finesse weapons, I imagine we would see a bunch of barb-rogue builds (which, interestingly, would mean we finally got an easy way to approximate the literary version of Conan in modern D&D).

[paladinn]

What ranger adjustments would I make?

Honestly, I have no idea. Most of anything I come up with basically winds up as "turn it into a Fighter subtype" or "turn it into a Druid subtype" or "turn it into a Rogue subtype".

Bing bing bing! This is my point. If a ranger is a fighter at heart, let it be a fighter sub. That's where it started back in Strategic Review, and where is was in 1e and 2e. IMO, a ranger would be much better defined as a fighter with special abilities than as a junior druid. And it would be much better than coming up with wonky features to justify its existence as a discreet "full class".

I'd like to take the basic fighter chassis, grab some of the features from the ranger base class and the hunter sub, and call it a day. Not All the features of course, but enough to distinguish it as a viable fighter subclass.

Not sure what that would look like, but it would be fun to theorycraft.

[Specter]

Bing bing bing! This is my point. If a ranger is a fighter at heart, let it be a fighter sub. That's where it started back in Strategic Review, and where is was in 1e and 2e. IMO, a ranger would be much better defined as a fighter with special abilities than as a junior druid. And it would be much better than coming up with wonky features to justify its existence as a discreet "full class".

I'd like to take the basic fighter chassis, grab some of the features from the ranger base class and the hunter sub, and call it a day. Not All the features of course, but enough to distinguish it as a viable fighter subclass.

Not sure what that would look like, but it would be fun to theorycraft.

If you're going down that path, Paladin should also be a fighter subclass, and Druid should be just a Nature Cleric. Not all things need to be boiled down to the most basic.

[paladinn]

If you're going down that path, Paladin should also be a fighter subclass, and Druid should be just a Nature Cleric. Not all things need to be boiled down to the most basic.

I can live with that. Paladin smites are already spells. Just make Wildshape into a spell and both assertions could work.

Simplicity isn't a bad thing

[HiveStriker]

I just don't see how their niche is versatility/adaptability. Not when compared to any full caster or even a few rogues. Not with only 11 spells to its name at its highest level.

I'll grant it having more versatility than Eldritch Knight Fighter. 13 spells known vs 11, but the Ranger definitely has better skill selection and some half-decent ooc abilities. Admittedly, some of the later subclasses gets a few more. Which is very helpful, but I don't think changes the core class enough.

But if blanket versatility/adaptability is what the Ranger is about. Then how is it better in that regard than say a wizard or a druid?
Since when is it even remotely pertinent to compare a fullcaster and a non-fullcaster on versatility?
It's obvious on theorycraft that the former will be more versatile than the latter (although I'm sure that asking some people on this forum could demonstrate how versatile even characters with just "use an item" or "basic cantrips" can be ;)).

It's as pertinent as comparing a fullcaster and a martial in terms of flat-out resilience: latter will always trump the former, hard.

If you load the dice before rolling them, don't play surprised when people counter you harshly. :)

Ranger is the most versatile of all *martials*, from the get-go.
- Can be built equally well as a melee focused guy, a ranged focused guy, or a guy that excels in both (only Rogue and Fighter match that). Barbarian or Paladin will outdamage him in melee, but Ranger can attack when the other cannot.
- Can be built and played like a Rogue (mobility first, evasion) or like a Fighter (use a shield or polearm), and can seamlessly switch from one fight to another.
- Has spells that are great for the whole party, far more than anything other martials can get at the same level (Fighter is usually about buffing himself, Rogue too until at least level 8, Paladin has some nice offensive spells but those affect only one creature), covering traveling, control through vision, control through movement.
- Will outmatch Rogue/Bard in 5-6 skills whenever in Favored Environment (which is great because, even if you did have one of those in party, Rogue would probably pick Stealth first, and Acrobatics or Perception later, while Bard would certainly pick Stealth and Persuasion/Intimidation first).
- Can outmatch Rogue in spying safely with proper use of spells and features (Beast Sense is greatly underrated, with or without Beastmaster companion).

Yeah, you "only" get 11 spells, but a majority of spells you get stay relevant up until end-game, and the other you can swap on level up or put down in book if rituals with the right feat.



Not every class can have the versatility of a wizard, that's their schtick. A Ranger's being a generalist while still holding their own as a martial class.
Pretty good one-line summary. :)

[Segev]

I'll share this (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?610762-Yet-another-Ranger-revision) again, since it was my effort at fixing the ranger last time this came up.

Making "tracker" give favored-enemy-type bonuses that are more interaction- and wilderness-investigation-based, applying to common denizens and travelers through the wilds, and having "favored enemy" add less common-to-the-wilds creature types to the same thing, is one of the starting points.

I'm not entirely thrilled with everything I have going on for the Natural Explorer. The campsite thing is too complicated, but also shows off a bit of the concept I think they should have: they should empower the party while they're traveling the wilderness. Let them do things more on their terms. Less focus on obviating an already-mostly-skipped part of the game and more on making it cool to focus on scenes and elements happening in the ranger's chosen environments.

"Expert Stalker" is a modular choice, letting them get Hunters Mark as a more often-usable feature if they like, and letting them add favored enemies and terrains.

Making them a prepared caster doesn't seem like a huge change, but it brings them in line with paladins and lets them actually pick spells based on their environment, like a wilderness explorer would.

Primeval Awareness is made more specific so that it's not just "yep, I'm in a hex with SOMETHING."

I'm particularly pleased with Hide in Plain Sight and Vanish. They both do something akin to what their name sounds like.

Relentless Stalker is something I've gotten mixed reactions on; it feels a little sudden, but still feels in theme, I think. It definitely makes them the terminator of hunters!

[Dienekes]

Well, to put melee-ability in a more concrete term, it's your AC, melee attack capabilities, HP, and melee combat features.

Essentially, a good way to measure would be to remove spellcasting and anything that doesn't have anything to do with being in melee, now take a theoretical orc with unlimited HP and see how long they can last and how much damage they can do given the best melee weapon.

So for instance, a wizard has very low melee-ability because they have no offensive or defensive features for melee and they have low HP and AC.

On the other hand, a Barbarian has high melee-ability because they have both offensive and defensive abilities that are useful in a melee.

Why the distinction? Well, if a DM were to play an encounter with good strategy, they'd force the wizard into melee. In practice, the wizard has some options like shield to keep them protected but if they're caught in melee with two opponents, they're taking damage. And if they want to get rid of them, they're basically forced to use their LR resource, a spellslot or two.

Now, take a look at the same situation with a fighter. Without multiclassing, a fighter can easily get 20+ AC and they have several offensive and defensive features. Two melee fighters won't be too big of a deal unless they're punching above their weight class for both opponents.

And you can see how new DM's get frustrated because they have fighters and paladins and such being seemingly unkillable because of their features.

See to me, this is just one specific type of survivability. One that is arguably not even the most important type. And even with this, the Ranger still trails behind in effectiveness from the Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian. And if we are looking in overall survivability we can add Druid, Cleric, and some Wizard and Warlock builds that decide to go this route.

Which goes back to the point. You can make the Ranger work. But at everything it can do, I would much rather have a different class fill the role. It's not all that survivable. It's utility is not all that great. It's just passable.

[HiveStriker]

This is true for the paladin as well, though (barbarian too). If you do not expect to get to the point where the upper level capstones come into play, most of the non-full-spellcasters have some very intuitive jumping off points, usually once they have gotten as many extra attacks as you think you’ll end up getting (Fighters also oftentimes seem to be a hard sell past 11 if you aren’t going to play to 20). The most I can say is that I don’t think I’d call that a weakness of the Ranger specifically.
I'll plus that, heavily.

In my personal taste I never saw any interest going above Fighter 11/12, even as an Eldricht Knight (my favorite). There are simply too many levels which I feel uninteresting for me before at least getting another Action Surge.

More or less the same for Barbarian and Paladin. Ranger (half because spells), Rogue (a good thing at least every two level) I could let myself push further than 13-14 depending on what I want to play.
Monk (greatness in every step) is the one I'd definitely push to the max in most cases. To each his own taste. :)
(NOTE: this only because I suppose I'll never reach at least level 18. If a character of mine has a chance to make it that long, all martials are great to keep single-class).

I would say Rangers are kind of like paladins who only got Divine Sense and Divine Health as class features. Meanwhile Divine Smite, Lay on Hands (but only if you stick paladin), Aura of Protection and Improved Divine Smite are some of the best class features in the game. Hunters Mark and Pass without Trace are both good but I also generally think that Paladins get the better spell list.

Critically - I don't think multiclassing out of paladin into sorc (for example) makes you better at the archetypal idea of being a paladin that being a paladin does. In contrast I do think that multiclassing out of ranger will probably make you better at the things that you would expect the archetypal ranger to do. If my advice to someone who wants to play the rangiest ranger who ever ranged is to consider multiclassing I feel like there's an issue.

You do have a point with barbarians though - their base class features are pretty underwhelming at higher levels and the main thing that stops multiclassing out on them is that they don't really multiclass very well with other classes beyond dips (assuming you want to stick to the 'big guy who hits people with big weapons' archetype anyway). You can make a strength rogue but then you're not using big weapons which is part of the attraction - otherwise you probably want a couple of levels of barb on otherwise fighter or 2-3 levels of fighter on a barb and thats about it. This is a weakness of the class and one of the reasons why barbarian would probably come next after ranger on my wish list of 'if we could go back in time and try to fix a class'.
I guess it's where taste comes into play.
I personally find Paladin's list overall uninteresting. I do like smite spells, and there are a few nice heal/buff here and there, but otherwise spells are either too situational to come into play more than a few times in your whole life (although you'll be glad you could prepare them at the moment ^^) or too high-level to be considered ("I'll never get to have fun with them").
Only the improved Steed really comes out, but that's a recent addition.

Ranger list can make you a scout, a soft controller, a negociator, a "traveler's helper", a skirmisher... I do feel sad they didn't get Polymorph though, but maybe it was "too magical" for a supposedly martial at heart class. ^^


When I said 'magical', I meant that you wouldnt need to have materials and ink ready, you would just magically adapt to your surroundings.
And I also didn't mean like in a detect magic way, more like in a ki way. But whatever works!
Sorry if I'm sidetracking here, but aren't Ki effects supposed to be magical as well? ^^

[Specter]

Sorry if I'm sidetracking here, but aren't Ki effects supposed to be magical as well? ^^

Well yeah, but that's never fully explained in RAW and is left in RAI limbo. If you cast detect magic, can you see a monk's stunning strike as magical? Etc. Who knows.

[Kane0]

Bing bing bing! This is my point. If a ranger is a fighter at heart, let it be a fighter sub. That's where it started back in Strategic Review, and where is was in 1e and 2e. IMO, a ranger would be much better defined as a fighter with special abilities than as a junior druid. And it would be much better than coming up with wonky features to justify its existence as a discreet "full class".

I'd like to take the basic fighter chassis, grab some of the features from the ranger base class and the hunter sub, and call it a day. Not All the features of course, but enough to distinguish it as a viable fighter subclass.

Not sure what that would look like, but it would be fun to theorycraft.

Kudos for the commitment to the mentality, but at that point you’re not really fixing the ranger but rewriting swathes of the game and changing course from the last few decades of game design direction.

[paladinn]

Kudos for the commitment to the mentality, but at that point you’re not really fixing the ranger but rewriting swathes of the game and changing course from the last few decades of game design direction.

I'm just a grognard at heart.. Simplicity is not a bad thing

Trying to find the best of all D&D worlds..lol

[Desamir]

Sorry if I'm sidetracking here, but aren't Ki effects supposed to be magical as well? ^^


Well yeah, but that's never fully explained in RAW and is left in RAI limbo. If you cast detect magic, can you see a monk's stunning strike as magical? Etc. Who knows.

FWIW, Crawford and company have been consistent in saying that unless something is a spell, a magic item, or explicitly described as magical in its description, it's not magical in any way that matters mechanically. (See: Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical? (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-february-2016))

In 3.5, special abilities were labeled Ex/Sp/Su to indicate their interaction with things like dispel magic. Similarly, 5e buries the word "magical" in features/attacks/traits to indicate the same. Although ki is described as a "magical energy" in the class blurb, the word "magic" isn't found in the text of the Monk's class features, except the one that makes their fists count as magic weapons.

[Kane0]

I'm just a grognard at heart.. Simplicity is not a bad thing

Trying to find the best of all D&D worlds..lol

Instead of crowbaring 5e back into an AD&D style you may find better luck taking the base of a retro-clone and re-tooling it with the parts of later editions that do appeal to you. It would probably be about the same amount of work either way but it will feel more... natural, for lack of a better word.

[HiveStriker]

FWIW, Crawford and company have been consistent in saying that unless something is a spell, a magic item, or explicitly described as magical in its description, it's not magical in any way that matters mechanically. (See: Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical? (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-february-2016))

In 3.5, special abilities were labeled Ex/Sp/Su to indicate their interaction with things like dispel magic. Similarly, 5e buries the word "magical" in features/attacks/traits to indicate the same. Although ki is described as a "magical energy" in the class blurb, the word "magic" isn't found in the text of the Monk's class features, except the one that makes their fists count as magic weapons.
Cool, thank you very much for the sourced clarification. :)

[paladinn]

Instead of crowbaring 5e back into an AD&D style you may find better luck taking the base of a retro-clone and re-tooling it with the parts of later editions that do appeal to you. It would probably be about the same amount of work either way but it will feel more... natural, for lack of a better word.

Working on it. But 5e is supposed to be able to accommodate most any style of D&D. I would actually love to start with a BXECMI foundation and build up from there. 5e has some great mechanics that could be adapted to OSR.

[Dark.Revenant]

Throwing in my piece:
Fixes: https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/LhO8kd6Q8
Commentary: https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...95&postcount=2

In short, the basic chassis of the Ranger is maintained, but with certain key changes.
Favored Enemy: Tweaked
Favored Terrain: Rewritten and greatly expanded into a primary class feature
Hunter's Mark: Worked into Favored Enemy
Primeval Awareness: Replaced
Land's Stride: Replaced (overlapped with new Favored Terrain)
Hide in Plain Sight: Rewritten
Foe Slayer: Rewritten

[Tanarii]

Working on it. But 5e is supposed to be able to accommodate most any style of D&D. I would actually love to start with a BXECMI foundation and build up from there. 5e has some great mechanics that could be adapted to OSR.5e can do it. I used it for a west marches open table hex crawl campaign for years. I highly recommend reading the Alexandrian on hex crawls before you start if you go that route, and be prepared for a LOT of prep time.

And again, recommend checking out O5R's Into the Unknown. They've already done the majority of the work for you.

[paladinn]

5e can do it. I used it for a west marches open table hex crawl campaign for years. I highly recommend reading the Alexandrian on hex crawls before you start if you go that route, and be prepared for a LOT of prep time.

And again, recommend checking out O5R's Into the Unknown. They've already done the majority of the work for you.

I checked ItU.. Very interesting, but I don't think it's quite what I'm looking for. It seems to be OSRing 5e; I think I'm wanting more to bring 5eisms to the OSR. And I definitely don't care for racial classes.

The elf racial class seems to be a reskin of the bard class in many ways.

Still pondering. Thanks for the recommendation!