What will the Post-TCoE Ranger Look Like?

[ZRN]

So we know there's a new source book coming out (Tasha's Cauldron of Everything) and it'll include much of the UA stuff from the past year, specifically including the Class Options stuff.

What I'm wondering is what we expect in terms of changes to the Ranger class, since there was an earlier UA that also included (different) changes/additions to that class.

Should we just be expecting basically the PHB ranger plus some revised version of the stuff from the Class Options UA (plus whatever new subclasses there are)? Or should we expect some combination of the Class Options stuff AND the earlier attempt at the revised ranger?

I doubt we have any official word either way, but maybe the developers said something along the way about the status of their revisions on this class.

[Rfkannen]

No word yet, but i am basically just expecting the class features ua. I would HOPE that they replace more of the higher level features, but I do not expect it.

[cutlery]

I wouldn't mind a well thought out mageslayer melee ranger archetype. Actually, I'd mind a lot, because I'd play one ASAP.

[king_steve]

The Class Variants UA had the following changes:

Deft Explorer (Replacing Natural Explorer)
Pick one of 3 class features, pick the rest as you level up. They all seem reasonable to me, Tireless lets you reduce Exhaustion on a short rest, which is pretty powerful.

Favored Foe (Replaces Favored Enemy)
Wis modifier casts of hunters mark for 1 hour without concentration frees them up to take more concentration based spells.

Additional Fighting Style Druidic Warrior
Lets them get a druid cantrip, not sure if its worth it compared to say the archery fighting style, but cantrips can be helpful.

Additional spells on the spell list
To me, the key new additions are the smiting spells. Previously, their spell list didn't have a ton of damage boosting spells, but they overall get a bit more utility with some of the other new additions.

Spell Versatility
If this goes in unchanged, thats pretty nice to change 1 spell per long rest, that gives them a lot more utility.

Spell casting focus
I think the fact they couldn't use a focus before was an oversight in all honesty...

Primal Awareness (Replaces Primeval Awareness)
7 bonus spells they can cast once per day... again a lot more utility, none of theses seem game changing though.

Fade Away (Replaces Hide in Plain Sight)
Bonus action invisibility is much better than spending 1 minute to get a +10 bonus to stealth checks if you don't move. Honestly, I don't know what the intent of Hide in Plain Sight was. It seems to be for ambushing but all the things you need to do to get it to work makes it unlikely to work in practice.

Companion Options
This should definitely improve the beast master archetype.


Overall, it gives them a lot more utility that is more broadly applicable than their previous features.

[Unoriginal]

We know the Beastmaster will have access to "Primal Beasts" as companions.

[Lupine]

I think we have a pretty good idea of what’s going in, my curiosity is to how they are going to implement it.

[MrStabby]

I think we have a pretty good idea of what’s going in, my curiosity is to how they are going to implement it.

As in can you pick and chose or do you have to pick an entire series of options? Or whether there are preconditions to being able to swap in an ability? I am not quite sure what you mean about how they will implement it.

[LudicSavant]

So we know there's a new source book coming out (Tasha's Cauldron of Everything) and it'll include much of the UA stuff from the past year, specifically including the Class Options stuff.

What I'm wondering is what we expect in terms of changes to the Ranger class, since there was an earlier UA that also included (different) changes/additions to that class.

Should we just be expecting basically the PHB ranger plus some revised version of the stuff from the Class Options UA (plus whatever new subclasses there are)? Or should we expect some combination of the Class Options stuff AND the earlier attempt at the revised ranger?

I doubt we have any official word either way, but maybe the developers said something along the way about the status of their revisions on this class.

I give it

40% chance it'll make them into a boring powercreep Hexblade-esque dip class with a level 1 concentrationless Hunter's Mark or something, like Gloomstalker is a dip class for Fighter but more. Then declare victory because they made builds with a nonzero amount of Ranger levels more 'popular.'

30% chance it'll just be a phoned in mess.

20% chance it'll be something that actually makes the Ranger decent numerically, but devoid of any particular vision for flavor or ludonarrative design beyond 'kind of a naturey Fighter I guess??'

Only 10% chance it'll actually have decent theming and care about making the Ranger fun and mechanically sound.

But I would really, really like to see that 10% pan out. Here's hoping.

[Kane0]

-Snip-


About the same thoughts here. I expect the most likely result to be combining the alternate features UA with Xanathar’s subclasses, new and inproved beasts or that UA fey ranger to make the Ranger significantly stronger but not actually address its problems.

[Man on Fire]

It probably doesn't matter. Last time I had a Player play a Ranger I had to basically beg them to take any of the variants because I fear they'd be overshadowed by other party members....and it was clear the player was happy with PH Ranger as it is and only took the variants to make me happy, proceeded to not use a single one of them and still had a blast. I', starting to think the whole cry about 5e Ranger being lame is blown out of proportions.

[micahaphone]

I wouldn't mind a well thought out mageslayer melee ranger archetype. Actually, I'd mind a lot, because I'd play one ASAP.

That's what the Monster Slayer conclave is for, right? it only gets there at higher levels, and maybe not well, but Supernatural Defense at 7 gives you better saves against spells, level 11 gives Magic-User's Nemesis which is a spell slot-less counterspell/counter-teleport, and 15 gives you a retaliation at having magic cast upon you, which can give a guaranteed save.

[x3n0n]

I give it

40% chance it'll make them into a boring powercreep Hexblade-esque dip class with a level 1 concentrationless Hunter's Mark or something, like Gloomstalker is a dip class for Fighter but more. Then declare victory because they made builds with a nonzero amount of Ranger levels more 'popular.'

30% chance it'll just be a phoned in mess.

20% chance it'll be something that actually makes the Ranger decent numerically, but devoid of any particular vision for flavor or ludonarrative design beyond 'kind of a naturey Fighter I guess??'

Only 10% chance it'll actually have decent theming and care about making the Ranger fun and mechanically sound.

But I would really, really like to see that 10% pan out. Here's hoping.

I assume that "Class Feature Variants UA as-is" counts as "dip-only power creep" for concentration-less Hunter's Mark (Favored Foe) and taking your favorite Natural Explorer feature, potentially the one that lets you shed an exhaustion level on a short rest.

If you only got the other features from the UA (more spell choices, flavorful auto-known spells with daily free casting, druid-cantrip fighting style option, druidic focus, replace Hide in Plain Sight with bonus action single-turn invisibility, stat-block companion), which category would that be?

What flavor should they be shooting for? I already thought of Ranger as the fighter/druid half caster who can cast spells early without delaying Extra Attack.

For comparison, Paladin feels like the corresponding fighter/cleric half caster, but with more base class oomph than Ranger gets (mostly Divine Smite and the various auras).

[Fnissalot]

PH ranger is "fine". They have 2 ribbons on level 1 but the strong proficiencies makes up for it a bit. 2 to level 8-11 something is good, but it gets very little more after that.

Alternative beasts for the beastmaster will probably make that subclass feel alright (or probably rather strong).

As long as you can swap one of the level 1 ribbons for an actual ability that has some combat use it will be fine at level 1 as well. If you can swap both for the UA variants, it will be a powerhouse and a likely dip.

I would have wanted replacements for Vanish and Foeslayer to make it worth it to go to 20 but I guess we cannot have everything.

[LudicSavant]

For comparison, Paladin feels like the corresponding fighter/cleric half caster, but with more base class oomph than Ranger gets (mostly Divine Smite and the various auras).

The Paladin in 5e is a really good example of giving another look at a class's ludonarrative design and turning it up a notch.

Replacing the old alignment code of conduct with the Oath system was a big step forward, a couple of decades overdue.

Then they made the smart decision of making auras improve allies (rather than just themselves) to make them feel much more like protectors/guardians.

And also the smart decision to make it lean towards being a nova class; it very much fits the feel of the self-sacrificing hero putting the last of his strength that he's been saving up into that final heroic punch to save the world from the Big Bad Evil Guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujC7rxFVZ18). Which is exactly the feeling people are looking for in a Paladin, I think.

It's not just a matter of the Paladin being a strong class, but also one that is good at accomplishing its Fantasy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKEzMz6FcXs). Good at creating memorable moments where you felt like a Paladin, not just because you were roleplaying a Paladin well but because the mechanics very intentionally helped facilitate, encourage, and create those moments.

The Ranger has none of that. They have less ludonarrative design than they used to, rather than more. In some cases it's just really, really egregious, like how a Beastmaster's dog can't do basic dog things (if it's not given commands for 6 seconds it acts like a robot with a horribly glitched AI, not a living creature and companion who works together with you as a seamless team). Another particularly egregious example is the wilderness exploration features that actually reduce the spotlight on such aspects of the game (the devs themselves have even given various rants and essays about what a failure that is... but will they actually fix it?)

Speaking as a game designer I find those issues far more offensive to my eye than any balance issues (though those are pretty bad too, especially since some of the things that could be relatively interesting like Cordon of Arrows see relatively little use for balance reasons).

[Dienekes]

The Paladin in 5e is a really good example of giving another look at a class's ludonarrative design and turning it up a notch.

Replacing the old alignment code of conduct with the Oath system was a big step forward, a couple of decades overdue.

Then they made the smart decision of making auras improve allies (rather than just themselves) to make them feel much more like protectors/guardians.

And also the smart decision to make it lean towards being a nova class; it very much fits the feel of the self-sacrificing hero putting the last of his strength that he's been saving up into that final heroic punch to save the world from the Big Bad Evil Guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujC7rxFVZ18). Which is exactly the feeling people are looking for in a Paladin, I think.

It's not just a matter of the Paladin being a strong class, but also one that is good at accomplishing its Fantasy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKEzMz6FcXs). Good at creating memorable moments where you felt like a Paladin, not just because you were roleplaying a Paladin well but because the mechanics very intentionally helped facilitate, encourage, and create those moments.

The Ranger has none of that. They have less ludonarrative design than they used to, rather than more. In some cases it's just really, really egregious, like how a Beastmaster's dog can't do basic dog things (if it's not given commands for 6 seconds it acts like a robot with a horribly glitched AI, not a living creature and companion who works together with you as a seamless team). Another particularly egregious example is the wilderness exploration features that actually reduce the spotlight on such aspects of the game (the devs themselves have even given various rants and essays about what a failure that is... but will they actually fix it?)

Speaking as a game designer I find those issues far more offensive to my eye than any balance issues (though those are pretty bad too, especially since some of the things that could be relatively interesting like Cordon of Arrows see relatively little use for balance reasons).

Out of curiosity, what would you consider decent pathways for ludonarrative design for a Ranger? Other than the obvious pet one.

[Makorel]

I saw an article somewhere that there were going to be more variants that we haven't seen in the book. Given that the Ranger got a large bulk of the variants we probably won't see much more from them unless there were some level 11-20 features for every class that they decided to withhold from us for some reason.

[LudicSavant]

Out of curiosity, what would you consider decent pathways for ludonarrative design for a Ranger? Other than the obvious pet one.

If I were going to redesign the Ranger from scratch, I would focus on Favored Enemy. The specialized hunter, with subclasses or build options like "Monster Hunter" or "Dragoon" or "Exorcist" or "Manhunter" or "Beastmaster" or "Vampire Hunter" or "Demonslayer" or "Inquisitor."

Crucially, these would not have features like "+1 damage to Fiends" because I hate those for a variety of reasons. Instead, they would be features that seem like toolkit abilities a specialist against that kind of creature would actually want to learn, but are also useful elsewhere. Things that give us a feeling of why they are uniquely good against these creatures and make players go 'haha, I was ready for exactly this attack you have, monster!"

As an example, a hypothetical Dragoon subclass might have something like...
- Abilities that help them defend themselves and allies behind them against elemental attacks, for standing between your party and those nasty breath weapons.
- Jump Good, like an iconic Final Fantasy dragoon, for reaching those pesky flying lizards.
- Something that can knock even enormous enemies prone on-hit (kind of like Eldritch Smite does) to bring those lizards to the ground when you Jump Good.
- Immunity to fear, for you are the one who does not flee Frightening Presence.

See what I'm doing here? All of these abilities are good even if you never fight dragons, and yet give you an actual reason for feeling like they're an expert in their field beyond just 'I do a little more damage against them.' You can do this for every iconic creature type, whether it's "Manhunter" getting iconic bounty hunting abilities like throwing bolas at people, an "Exorcist" getting things like dimensional shackling arrows (maybe with an almost Kyudo spirit archer flavor), the works. A witch hunter could give us a proper antimagic martial kit. And so forth.

You could likely do something similar with favored terrains as well. Giving abilities that are clearly useful in those terrains, but have applications elsewhere too. Not just a generic "I have a +1 when I'm in a desert," but some distinct, specific skill than a desert survivor might pick up that they can apply in other situations, too.

This also broadens the scope of the class a bit, just like the Paladin update in 5e did. In previous editions, they were all just Lawful Good Guys Following The Same Code and people would constantly ask why they weren't just a Cleric subclass (a constant recurring thread that you just don't see anymore). Now in 5e, Paladins are champions of a set of principles in general. There's more room to make your own vision of a Paladin there. I'd be going for the same thing with a Ranger.

I also would be taking notes from The Witcher and the way they establish the ludonarrative design of Geralt. The way they utilize mechanics to make you feel like you really prepare to hunt down your prey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntjv4jdwmCM

[Man on Fire]

Witcher is a copyrighted brand, tho.

[LudicSavant]

Witcher is a copyrighted brand, tho.

And so's Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings. What's your point?

[Unoriginal]

I think the biggest problem with the ludonarrative consistency is that while plenty can agree about what a Ranger is in the grand lines, no one in the 5e design room could agree on the specifics. And so they were stuck with: is the Ranger an archer? Wild explorer? Dual-wielder? Heartbreaker? Dream maker? Love taker?

And so they tried to mess around with them.

[micahaphone]

Excellent suggestions LudicSavant. I really like how you marry flavor and mechanics.

[x3n0n]

If I were going to redesign the Ranger from scratch, I would focus on Favored Enemy.

<Snip>

You could likely do something similar with favored terrains as well. Giving abilities that are clearly useful in those terrains, but have applications elsewhere too. Not just a generic "I have a +1 when I'm in a desert," but some distinct, specific skill than a desert survivor might pick up that they can apply in other situations, too.

Thank you! This is wonderful food for thought.

Even within the existing framework, new variants of favored terrains and enemies would almost give Ranger a warlock/artificer vibe, as another layer of individuality on top of subclass.

If staying within the existing framework, the trick is making the choices themselves fit the flavor and balance goals of the game. Maybe each terrain gives a flavorful-but-still-generally-useful defensive bonus along with a reasonable terrain-specific exploration bonus, and each enemy a generally-useful offensive bonus along with some kind of enemy-specific tracking bonus.

[Makorel]

If I were going to redesign the Ranger from scratch, I would focus on Favored Enemy. The specialized hunter, with subclasses like "Witcher" or "Dragoon" or "Exorcist" or "Manhunter" or "Beastmaster" or "Vampire Hunter" or "Demonslayer."

You could likely do something similar with favored terrains as well. Giving abilities that are clearly useful in those terrains, but have applications elsewhere too. Not just a generic "I have a +1 when I'm in a desert," but some distinct, specific skill than a desert survivor might pick up that they can apply in other situations, too.


They're sort of doing this with subclasses now. Gloomstalker (Underdark), Horizon Walker (The Plains...which isn't even a favored terrain option), Swarm(Bugs?), Fey(Fey).

Man Imagine a PHB ranger with 14 subclasses; one for each creature type. That's more than the Wizard started with.

[pragma]

This also broadens the scope of the class a bit, just like the Paladin update in 5e did. In previous editions, they were all just Lawful Good Guys Following The Same Code and people would constantly ask why they weren't just a Cleric subclass (a constant recurring thread that you just don't see anymore). Now in 5e, Paladins are champions of a set of principles in general. There's more room to make your own vision of a Paladin there. I'd be going for the same thing with a Ranger.


I think they did a good enough job with this that they flipped the script: I regularly wonder why Cleric exists as a class instead (other than all the ink they spent on 9th level cleric spells). I think classes need both a unique mechanical identity and a unique conceptual space, and while cleric and paladin mechanics are different, their conceptual space boils down to "holy warrior who punches" in many cases.

(I know you -- especially you, Ludic -- can build clerics in a lot of ways, but I think the archetypal one is still a semi-melee support caster.)

[Dienekes]

If I were going to redesign the Ranger from scratch, I would focus on Favored Enemy. The specialized hunter, with subclasses or build options like "Monster Hunter" or "Dragoon" or "Exorcist" or "Manhunter" or "Beastmaster" or "Vampire Hunter" or "Demonslayer" or "Inquisitor."


Thank you. You’ve given me a good deal to think about, but I am glad we had a fair few similar ideas as well.

Though as a minor quibble. A dragoon is a mounted rifleman. Doesn’t have much to do with dragons except in that their rifle was once nicknamed the dragon. But that has nothing to do with the actually interesting I ideas of your post.

[Man on Fire]

And so's Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings. What's your point?

I understood it that you want to literally pick the name and slap it on a Ranger subclass in TCoE. Which would not fly, especially when you consider creator of Witcher believes anyone who ever used Orcs in anything committed plagiatrism of Tolkien.

[Unoriginal]

I understood it that you want to literally pick the name and slap it on a Ranger subclass in TCoE. Which would not fly, especially when you consider creator of Witcher believes anyone who ever used Orcs in anything committed plagiatrism of Tolkien.

So you're saying they'd have to toss a coin at the Witcher's author?

[Dienekes]

I understood it that you want to literally pick the name and slap it on a Ranger subclass in TCoE. Which would not fly, especially when you consider creator of Witcher believes anyone who ever used Orcs in anything committed plagiatrism of Tolkien.

Where did you get “You want to slap the name Witcher to the Ranger class” from:



I also would be taking notes from The Witcher and the way they establish the ludonarrative design of Geralt. The way they utilize mechanics to make you feel like you really prepare to hunt down your prey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntjv4jdwmCM

The only time they even mentioned Witcher. Which very clearly just says to take notes.

Though a part of me, kind of thinks to appropriately get that kind of feel, the monsters of the game would need to be redesigned.

Witcher feels like Witcher because he knows a bunch of pretty much nonsensical magic tricks to make monsters less dangerous. This creature doesn’t like bright light. That one needs to be force fed garlic. That sort of thing.

I wonder if there could be a mechanic for specific weaknesses for creatures. With Ranger getting abilities to find that weakness easier.

Perhaps a random weakness table, so players can’t just memorize the weaknesses beforehand and make the Ranger player feel useless.

[ZRN]

They actually had a version of the ranger in the early 5e play test that was a lot like Ludic’s concept, if I recall.

I get the concern about rangers becoming a “dip” class to a degree, but on further thought it doesn’t bug me. Almost every class in 5e gets some great defining stuff in the first couple levels that you’d want to poach. I don’t think the goal is to prevent min-maxers from finding more powerful builds; its to make sure the people who just want to play the class without worrying about optimizing don’t get left behind.

[Evaar]

If I were going to redesign the Ranger from scratch, I would focus on Favored Enemy. The specialized hunter, with subclasses or build options like "Monster Hunter" or "Dragoon" or "Exorcist" or "Manhunter" or "Beastmaster" or "Vampire Hunter" or "Demonslayer" or "Inquisitor."

At the risk of bloating the concept, I would also want to give social options to these subclasses surrounding the targets of their hunt.

Geralt isn't just good at hunting monsters, he's also uniquely good at interviewing them and figuring out what's causing them to behave the way they're behaving. Sometimes he decides the best way to deal with them isn't to slay them at all, but to solve their problem. And Geralt isn't the only example of this sort of thing - Tanjiro Kamado and demons, Drizzt and drow, Harry Dresden and the Fae (granted he's technically a wizard), Jon Snow and the Wildlings, hell even Aragorn had to negotiate with the Dead Men of Dunharrow.

I'd like a mechanic to emphasize that a Ranger isn't just about hunting and killing a certain target, but knowing them psychologically. The obvious mechanic would be a bonus to Insight, Persuasion, Intimidation, and/or Deception checks against the favored enemy, but I'd rather follow the example and try to find a core expression of that you could apply to others. Say a Dragonslayer gains advantage to Deception checks when appealing to the target's sense of greed and pride, the Fey Wanderer gains the ability to distract targets and become the focus of attention using a Performance check, that kind of thing. Something more than combat/tracking bonuses.

[Draz74]

As someone who's always loved the Ranger fluff and is currently playing a heavily UA-influenced Ranger ... I hope they stick fairly close to what the UA had. It was a pretty great upgrade to the Ranger, at least at Tier 2. Possibly too good at Tier 1.


The Class Variants UA had the following changes:

Deft Explorer (Replacing Natural Explorer)
Pick one of 3 class features, pick the rest as you level up. They all seem reasonable to me, Tireless lets you reduce Exhaustion on a short rest, which is pretty powerful.
Tireless is absolutely too powerful at Level 1. That many temporary hit points makes you unkillable like no one else at that level. Combined with Favored Foe, it would make Ranger way too frontloaded.

That said, I love the flavor of Tireless for an Aragorn-like Ranger. I wouldn't mind if they kept it, but just made it available at Levels 6 or 10 rather than 1. Canny and Roving would still give you two decent choices for Level 1. (My current Ranger went with Canny.)


Favored Foe (Replaces Favored Enemy)
Wis modifier casts of hunters mark for 1 hour without concentration frees them up to take more concentration based spells.
A great way to make Ranger 1 not suck, but possibly makes Ranger too good as a dip as LudicSavant is worried about.


Additional Fighting Style Druidic Warrior
Lets them get a druid cantrip, not sure if its worth it compared to say the archery fighting style, but cantrips can be helpful.
Slight correction: two Druid cantrips. Possibly the most important feature for my Ranger build, which uses Shillelagh and Thorn Whip to become Wisdom-SAD. Since Favored Foe and Tireless (and to a tiny extent the new Primal Beasts) are also Wisdom-dependent features, it all works pretty well.

But I agree that most Rangers would rather have another Fighting Style. Which is fine; it would be bad if the one new Fighting Style replaced most of the old ones.


Additional spells on the spell list
To me, the key new additions are the smiting spells. Previously, their spell list didn't have a ton of damage boosting spells, but they overall get a bit more utility with some of the other new additions.
Meh. The spell list additions aren't a big deal IMO.


Spell Versatility
If this goes in unchanged, thats pretty nice to change 1 spell per long rest, that gives them a lot more utility.

Spell casting focus
I think the fact they couldn't use a focus before was an oversight in all honesty...
Absolutely.


Primal Awareness (Replaces Primeval Awareness)
7 bonus spells they can cast once per day... again a lot more utility, none of theses seem game changing though.
Maybe not game-changing, but flavorful, since they're mostly Divinations. Gives the Ranger a useful ability to be a "seeker" of monsters in a way that contributes to the party ... without being the DM-torturing mess that the long-range radar of Primeval Awareness was (even worse on the Revised Ranger). Also, casting these free once per day isn't as big a deal as just adding them to Spells Known. Rangers get so few spells known that no one could ever fit most of these spells on their list before. Now all Rangers (level 3+) will be able to Detect Magic ... that's just, you know, useful.


Fade Away (Replaces Hide in Plain Sight)
Bonus action invisibility is much better than spending 1 minute to get a +10 bonus to stealth checks if you don't move. Honestly, I don't know what the intent of Hide in Plain Sight was. It seems to be for ambushing but all the things you need to do to get it to work makes it unlikely to work in practice.
Meh, this is actually one of the few features I won't be using on my Ranger. As situational as the HiPS ability was, and as much as I expect most Rangers to take Fade Away instead, Fade Away is still pretty pointless on a Beast Master, Polearm Master, or other Ranger build that always has other uses for its bonus actions.


Companion Options
This should definitely improve the beast master archetype.
So much.

High levels are definitely an issue the UA ignored, though. Vanish and Feral Senses could definitely use an upgrade, and Foe Slayer (the freakin' Capstone) actually went from "terrible" to "useless on a build that uses Favored Foe." So I'm expecting at least that to be developed more in Tasha's.

[Fnissalot]

If I were going to redesign the Ranger from scratch, I would focus on Favored Enemy. The specialized hunter, with subclasses or build options like "Monster Hunter" or "Dragoon" or "Exorcist" or "Manhunter" or "Beastmaster" or "Vampire Hunter" or "Demonslayer" or "Inquisitor."

Crucially, these would not have features like "+1 damage to Fiends" because I hate those for a variety of reasons. Instead, they would be features that seem like toolkit abilities a specialist against that kind of creature would actually want to learn, but are also useful elsewhere. Things that give us a feeling of why they are uniquely good against these creatures and make players go 'haha, I was ready for exactly this attack you have, monster!"

As an example, a hypothetical Dragoon subclass might have something like...
- Abilities that help them defend themselves and allies behind them against elemental attacks, for standing between your party and those nasty breath weapons.
- Jump Good, like an iconic Final Fantasy dragoon, for reaching those pesky flying lizards.
- Something that can knock even enormous enemies prone on-hit (kind of like Eldritch Smite does) to bring those lizards to the ground when you Jump Good.
- Immunity to fear, for you are the one who does not flee Frightening Presence.

See what I'm doing here? All of these abilities are good even if you never fight dragons, and yet give you an actual reason for feeling like they're an expert in their field beyond just 'I do a little more damage against them.' You can do this for every iconic creature type, whether it's "Manhunter" getting iconic bounty hunting abilities like throwing bolas at people, an "Exorcist" getting things like dimensional shackling arrows (maybe with an almost Kyudo spirit archer flavor), the works. A witch hunter could give us a proper antimagic martial kit. And so forth.

You could likely do something similar with favored terrains as well. Giving abilities that are clearly useful in those terrains, but have applications elsewhere too. Not just a generic "I have a +1 when I'm in a desert," but some distinct, specific skill than a desert survivor might pick up that they can apply in other situations, too.

This also broadens the scope of the class a bit, just like the Paladin update in 5e did. In previous editions, they were all just Lawful Good Guys Following The Same Code and people would constantly ask why they weren't just a Cleric subclass (a constant recurring thread that you just don't see anymore). Now in 5e, Paladins are champions of a set of principles in general. There's more room to make your own vision of a Paladin there. I'd be going for the same thing with a Ranger.

I also would be taking notes from The Witcher and the way they establish the ludonarrative design of Geralt. The way they utilize mechanics to make you feel like you really prepare to hunt down your prey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntjv4jdwmCM

Good points and I agree! I tried to do that for a redesign of the ranger a year ago. I also tried to make that for the favored terrain; for example grasslands increases your long ranged of weapons as you are used to shooting in the open read where the wind will affect your arrows while an Arctic ranger would know how to protect themselves from the cold.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23995748&postcount=10

If done well, this type of design you propose does not turn the ranger into a narrow set limitations. +1 to hit against dragons will make you useless unless you fight dragons but resistance to elements and better jumps can always be used even if the narrative of it is that you do so from fighting dragons.

[Arkhios]

Isn't it a bit too early to make any claims what "will the Post-TCoE Ranger look like?"

I, for one, am not a clairvoyant seer, and I strongly doubt anyone here has such a supernatural ability, unless they're WotC employees spilling the beans and breaking their non-disclosure agreement. Speculations can be made of course, but those speculations can get us only so far; speculations, based on Unearthed Arcana playtest information that is subject to any changes, are just that: Speculations, not facts.

[Kane0]

To be fair, we also have a few years worth of precedent and pattern recognition to work with

[Arkhios]

To be fair, we also have a few years worth of precedent and pattern recognition to work with

Doesn't change the fact that all we can do based on that is to speculate at best. We can't know for sure until it's released.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, this is a speculation thread. I don't think anyone was doubting it.

[Arkhios]

To ask what will something be is a rather absolute and definite question, expecting irrefutable answers, which we can't give at the moment.

[Draz74]

Personally I thought it was obvious this was a speculation thread, not an actual exercise in predicting the future accurately. :smalltongue:

[Man on Fire]

Tireless is absolutely too powerful at Level 1. That many temporary hit points makes you unkillable like no one else at that level. Combined with Favored Foe, it would make Ranger way too frontloaded.

Tiereless is basically like Fighter's Second Wind, I don't see a problem with it.

[Dienekes]

Tiereless is basically like Fighter's Second Wind, I don't see a problem with it.

Balance differences between increasing total health and raising you back up to total health. And since there's no time limit on the temporary hit points gained with Tireless it is essentially increasing your total hit points as there's no penalty for using right when you wake up.

At lower levels especially, increasing your total hit points is really good. During the period where a single crit can down just about anyone. An Orc with a crit deals 2d12 + 3 damage, which averages out at about 16 damage. It is impossible for a Fighter to survive an average rolled crit at level 1 without human feat shenanigans.

Compare and contrast withe the Ranger who actually has a good reason to put their highest modifier in Wisdom with this, but let's just say they have a Wis of +3. That's 8.5 more hit points at a time. Even with Con 0 that's an effective health of 18. Which means they get to survive the hit. And then since it's not single use per Short Rest dependent, but instead a number per long rest they can immediately use it again and bring their health back up by another roughly 8.5. Which they can do an additional time per day.

Which leads into the point of risk in using the ability. A Fighter with Second Wind has to make a judgment call after every hit if this is the time to use it. If they took any damage at all, that increases the chance that the next hit might just level them. Even creatures much weaker than the Orc, like say a Goblin can still get 9 damage on average from a crit. So do you use your Second Wind to make certain you don't die by a crit, even though you've only just taken a scrap and most of your 1d10 roll will be wasted as it can't go above your maximum health, or do you hold it. Hope you don't suffer a crit so that you have less of wasting the potential health gained.

Tireless doesn't have this problem. You will always just get that big sack of HP back. Now it does take an Action to use. But if that is a problem I believe they’re still better off just using it after battles.

This gives the Ranger just a lot more survivability at lower levels than the comparable Second Wind. And for the record Second Wind is already one of the best level 1 martial abilities in the game. I think with only Rage having a chance of going toe to toe with it at the first level.

Now once you get past the dead in one turn nova point, temporary hit points become less dominant over healing. Especially as healing scales faster than temporary hit points usually do.

I'd personally say Tireless would be a fair and balanced ability at level 5ish. Gives a good deal of survivability to the Ranger undercuts that they are three ability score dependent instead of most other martial's two ability score dependency.

[Fnissalot]

Tiereless is basically like Fighter's Second Wind, I don't see a problem with it.
Fighter gets 1d10+1 hp per rest at level 1 with second wind as a bonus action.
Rangers get 1d10+1to3 temp hp 1 to 3 times per long rest as an action.

So it will likely even out over a day, but a 16wis ranger can get 25.5 hp in a fight with it. Second wind can overheal while tireless takes an action. I would be fine with tireless being a d6 instead of a d10 at level 1 and have it scale up as you level in the class.

Edit: tireless can be used before combat instead of during which makes it a lot better also

[ZRN]

Isn't it a bit too early to make any claims what "will the Post-TCoE Ranger look like?"

I, for one, am not a clairvoyant seer, and I strongly doubt anyone here has such a supernatural ability, unless they're WotC employees spilling the beans and breaking their non-disclosure agreement. Speculations can be made of course, but those speculations can get us only so far; speculations, based on Unearthed Arcana playtest information that is subject to any changes, are just that: Speculations, not facts.

Yes, this thread is explicitly asking for informed speculation.

[Satori01]

If I were going to redesign the Ranger from scratch, I would focus on Favored Enemy. The specialized hunter, with subclasses or build options like "Monster Hunter" or "Dragoon" or "Exorcist" or "Manhunter" or "Beastmaster" or "Vampire Hunter" or "Demonslayer" or "Inquisitor."


Yep this lets you design a broad base of generally applicable abilities for the base class, with more narrowed and tailored options derived by the player's choice of subclass.

Sigh, missed opportunity. The U/A features help, but not as much as a redesign would.

[Yakk]

Tireless: As an action, you can gain 1/2 of your Ranger class level d6 temporary HP (min 1d6), plus your proficiency bonus. You can do this a number of times per day equal to your Wisdom bonus (min 1).

A 20 wis level 17+ character can dip Ranger for 47.5 temporary HP/day, and about 9.5 at a time.

A level 1 16 wis Ranger has an average of 16.5 temporary HP/day.

It scales with Ranger level, starting at 4. So at level 20, a 20 wis ranger gets an average of 41 temporary HP per use, and has 5 uses.

(I'd also do something similar to Second Wind; it should be Fighter Level/2 d10s (min 1d10) plus Fighter level. That makes a second wind on a level 20 fighter actually do something (~75 HP on a ~160 HP character, instead of 25 HP on a 160 HP character meh)).

[Sam113097]

One option that I would have enjoyed in the UA, and hope to see in TCoE, is a small mechanical benefit from Favored Terrain; I don't think it needs to be a damage boost or extra spells (necessarily), but I could see things like Cold Resistance for Arctic, Fire Resistance for Desert, a Swim Speed for Coast, a Climb Speed for Mountain, perhaps Darkvision for Underdark, etc. adding a nice little bonus that helps Rangers feel more like they are truly accustomed to and at home in their Favored Terrain.

[Kane0]

One option that I would have enjoyed in the UA, and hope to see in TCoE, is a small mechanical benefit from Favored Terrain; I don't think it needs to be a damage boost or extra spells (necessarily), but I could see things like Cold Resistance for Arctic, Fire Resistance for Desert, a Swim Speed for Coast, a Climb Speed for Mountain, perhaps Darkvision for Underdark, etc. adding a nice little bonus that helps Rangers feel more like they are truly accustomed to and at home in their Favored Terrain.

Bonus points if those damage types match the dragons that typically live in those terrains.

[Witty Username]

My hope is in the line of theme for the Ranger:
the biggest problem with the ranger is favored enemy, natural explorer, and primeval awareness, do not do what they say on the tin. Take favored enemy and the pillars of play, it has no effect on combat:no damage, attack bonus, no bonus on hiding or perception to ambush or avoid being ambushed, and minimal effect on exploration (tracking), and social by gaining a language. Why is a ranger better at polite conversation with enemies than fighting them?

[LudicSavant]

Yep this lets you design a broad base of generally applicable abilities for the base class, with more narrowed and tailored options derived by the player's choice of subclass.

Sigh, missed opportunity. The U/A features help, but not as much as a redesign would.


Thank you. You’ve given me a good deal to think about, but I am glad we had a fair few similar ideas as well.

Though as a minor quibble. A dragoon is a mounted rifleman. Doesn’t have much to do with dragons except in that their rifle was once nicknamed the dragon. But that has nothing to do with the actually interesting I ideas of your post.


I think they did a good enough job with this that they flipped the script: I regularly wonder why Cleric exists as a class instead (other than all the ink they spent on 9th level cleric spells). I think classes need both a unique mechanical identity and a unique conceptual space, and while cleric and paladin mechanics are different, their conceptual space boils down to "holy warrior who punches" in many cases.

(I know you -- especially you, Ludic -- can build clerics in a lot of ways, but I think the archetypal one is still a semi-melee support caster.)


Thank you! This is wonderful food for thought.

Even within the existing framework, new variants of favored terrains and enemies would almost give Ranger a warlock/artificer vibe, as another layer of individuality on top of subclass.

If staying within the existing framework, the trick is making the choices themselves fit the flavor and balance goals of the game. Maybe each terrain gives a flavorful-but-still-generally-useful defensive bonus along with a reasonable terrain-specific exploration bonus, and each enemy a generally-useful offensive bonus along with some kind of enemy-specific tracking bonus.


Excellent suggestions LudicSavant. I really like how you marry flavor and mechanics.

Why, if I didn't know better, I'd think you guys wanted me to actually write this up. :smallwink:


At the risk of bloating the concept, I would also want to give social options to these subclasses surrounding the targets of their hunt.

Geralt isn't just good at hunting monsters, he's also uniquely good at interviewing them and figuring out what's causing them to behave the way they're behaving. Sometimes he decides the best way to deal with them isn't to slay them at all, but to solve their problem. And Geralt isn't the only example of this sort of thing - Tanjiro Kamado and demons, Drizzt and drow, Harry Dresden and the Fae (granted he's technically a wizard), Jon Snow and the Wildlings, hell even Aragorn had to negotiate with the Dead Men of Dunharrow.

I'd like a mechanic to emphasize that a Ranger isn't just about hunting and killing a certain target, but knowing them psychologically. The obvious mechanic would be a bonus to Insight, Persuasion, Intimidation, and/or Deception checks against the favored enemy, but I'd rather follow the example and try to find a core expression of that you could apply to others. Say a Dragonslayer gains advantage to Deception checks when appealing to the target's sense of greed and pride, the Fey Wanderer gains the ability to distract targets and become the focus of attention using a Performance check, that kind of thing. Something more than combat/tracking bonuses.

For sure. That sounds like a great idea to me.

[Edea]

This is probably getting too into the 'primal power source', but "whispered advice from the spirits/past lives" would be a decent-enough way to introduce the concept of a ranger having exceptional insight into the psychology of others even if they're not necessarily the favored species he studied on his own.

[Aldo8880]

[QUOTE=LudicSavant;24685243]Why, if I didn't know better, I'd think you guys wanted me to actually write this up. :smallwink:


Yes, I would really like to see this expanded and written up. That’d be fantastic.

[Kane0]

Feel free to mine the sigged gitp ranger for ideas.

[Draz74]

No offense to Ludic, but personally I don't like the heavy emphasis on the "Monster Hunter" archetype for a redesigned Ranger. The Ranger is more than that to me; IMO a subclass is a good place for "Monster Hunter." Although I suppose breaking it into several subclasses for more variety would be ok.

[TigerT20]

No offense to Ludic, but personally I don't like the heavy emphasis on the "Monster Hunter" archetype for a redesigned Ranger. The Ranger is more than that to me; IMO a subclass is a good place for "Monster Hunter." Although I suppose breaking it into several subclasses for more variety would be ok.

You could make it sort of like the Land Druid, but instead of spells it's minor abilities.

Actually, could you just convert the Land Druid to the Ranger? People call it underpowered because it just makes Druids even more spellcasty rather than give them something new, but what about the Ranger? The main issue I see is lack of slots, but they get Natural Recovery from it.

[Amechra]

You could make it sort of like the Land Druid, but instead of spells it's minor abilities.

Actually, could you just convert the Land Druid to the Ranger? People call it underpowered because it just makes Druids even more spellcasty rather than give them something new, but what about the Ranger? The main issue I see is lack of slots, but they get Natural Recovery from it.

That should be pretty straightfoward, since the Land Druid doesn't get anything that boosts Wild Shape (or any other unique-to-druids features). You could pretty much include it as-is - I'd give them more than one extra cantrip, and replace Land's Stride with something else (since Rangers already get that feature)... but yeah, delay everything a level and it looks alright to me.

EDIT: I'd probably shuffle Nature's Ward down to 7th level and give the subclass a variation on War Magic at 11th level.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

No offense to Ludic, but personally I don't like the heavy emphasis on the "Monster Hunter" archetype for a redesigned Ranger. The Ranger is more than that to me; IMO a subclass is a good place for "Monster Hunter." Although I suppose breaking it into several subclasses for more variety would be ok.

Personally, I'd like to see at least one subclass dedicated to the idea of "Ranger as a guide", with support abilities like those of 4E's Warlord. Helping allies move around the battlefield, spot the enemies' weak-points, and avoid hazards/attacks seems like a great niche for the Ranger that none of the other martial classes are really doing much with.

(Or a full on Warlord class, but this is a Ranger thread.)

[LudicSavant]

Personally, I'd like to see at least one subclass dedicated to the idea of "Ranger as a guide", with support abilities like those of 4E's Warlord. Helping allies move around the battlefield, spot the enemies' weak-points, and avoid hazards/attacks seems like a great niche for the Ranger that none of the other martial classes are really doing much with.

(Or a full on Warlord class, but this is a Ranger thread.)

Can you give an example of an iconic character you see as this type of ranger?

[NorthernPhoenix]

If they're going with the "beast of the earth" stuff, the Beastmaster will still be painfully bad, regardless of it's DPR. It still utterly fails to replicate a class fantasy basically every MMO gets right.

[micahaphone]

Can you give an example of an iconic character you see as this type of ranger?

I can't speak for PoeticallyPsyco but my head first went to Aragorn, the OG ranger. He didn't really have a specific favored enemy beyond sauron itself, and specialized in leading a group through the wilderness.

[LudicSavant]

I can't speak for PoeticallyPsyco but my head first went to Aragorn, the OG ranger. He didn't really have a specific favored enemy beyond sauron itself, and specialized in leading a group through the wilderness.

I'm rusty on Lord of the Rings; what does Aragorn do that's not just being a Fighter with Survival?

[Dienekes]

I'm rusty on Lord of the Rings; what does Aragorn do that's not just being a Fighter with Survival?

The thing is a lot of it probably could be fluffed that way. But at the same time that might be kind of a mechanically hollow representation.

Throughout the book he pretty much constantly acts as giving advice that makes the journey easier for his allies. This could be just a survival check to make their travel speed slightly higher (for those who have ever used travel speed), or it could be him telling his allies how to move through difficult terrain with no speed penalty. Climb Speeds, bonuses on Strength, Survival, and Stealth checks to allies. That sort of thing.

He stopped the poison of Frodo with some plants. Which could be a spell, even though it really wasnt. It could be a survival and medicine check if you have a very lenient GM. Or it could be a specific Ranger ability.

For pointing out weaknesses. He does with the nazgul and Fire. Discusses tactics on how to deal with Wargs and trolls. Movie only but the “bring it down” scene with the torch orc. (Though in truth, Legolas’ “their armor is weakest beneath the arm and at the neck.” works as a better example).

And coolest of all, the super tracking where he is able to describe what was happening at a sight perfectly a day ago by looking at the ground. Again it could be done by giving him some kind of divination spell, but that is pretty unsatisfying.

[KorvinStarmast]

. And so they were stuck with: is the Ranger an archer? Wild explorer? Dual-wielder? Heartbreaker? Dream maker? Love taker?

And so they tried to mess around with them. Loved the Pat Benatar ref. :smallsmile:


So you're saying they'd have to toss a coin at the Witcher's author? Yer on a roll ...

[Amnestic]

I'm rusty on Lord of the Rings; what does Aragorn do that's not just being a Fighter with Survival?

He broke his toes kicking a helmet. No way a strength fighter does that.

[ZRN]

A random thought: what happens to the Monster Slayer subclass if (some version of) the class variant stuff goes into TCoE? Slayer's Prey is basically "Hunter's Mark without any of the fiddly spellcasting nonsense," but it stacks with Hunter's Mark as well, so I guess you could have Slayer's Prey AND Hunter's Mark AND a concentration spell like Swift Quiver all running at the same time? Pretty good - whip out a longbow and get 4 shots per turn with +2d6 damage each. (Of course, you're stuck using bonus actions to get everything up and running for 3 turns.)

[Blood of Gaea]

They're sort of doing this with subclasses now. Gloomstalker (Underdark), Horizon Walker (The Plains...which isn't even a favored terrain option), Swarm(Bugs?), Fey(Fey).

Man Imagine a PHB ranger with 14 subclasses; one for each creature type. That's more than the Wizard started with.
You wouldn't really need to start with all of them. Something like Beast, Dragon, Underdark, and Huminoid would be well rounded and they could always have come in later with splat books, which they do already.

[ZRN]

You wouldn't really need to start with all of them. Something like Beast, Dragon, Underdark, and Huminoid would be well rounded and they could always have come in later with splat books, which they do already.

Honestly this seems like a bad way to design the class. Like, you pick Dragon Hunter Ranger and all your subclass benefits are mostly useless against, say, a pack of bandits?

The biggest problem with the ranger is that its biggest class-defining abilities (favored enemy and favored terrain) are situational and beyond the player's control. The variant stuff they're adding is about getting RID of that; I certainly wouldn't double down on it.

[Townopolis]

I'm in favor of something like Ludic's proposed phylum specialist enclaves because

Based on how Ludic outlined a dragonslayer enclave possibility, they could be done in a way that really does convey a sense of being uniquely capable against that phylum while still being useful in other situations
If you make Favored Enemy into enclaves, you don't have to include it in the base class features. Seriously, put all that stuff where people who want it can have it, but I don't have to.


However, I would definitely want to also have enclaves that emphasize other things. You can have the "I think rangers should be spellcasters" enclave and then the "I think rangers should be at least competitive with scout rogue for overland exploration" enclave--maybe make it the same as PoeticallyPsyco's proposed wilderness guide enclave, which I am 100% in favor of as well.

I mean, I want being competitive in exploration to be a core feature, but one of the issues plaguing the class is that everyone has their own idea of what Ranger should mean. Most games still just make them a light fighter with a mandatory pet, and making pokemon trainer into an enclave was the best thing WotC did with the class in 5e.

[Dienekes]

Honestly this seems like a bad way to design the class. Like, you pick Dragon Hunter Ranger and all your subclass benefits are mostly useless against, say, a pack of bandits?

The biggest problem with the ranger is that its biggest class-defining abilities (favored enemy and favored terrain) are situational and beyond the player's control. The variant stuff they're adding is about getting RID of that; I certainly wouldn't double down on it.

I think it would really depend on how the abilities are developed.

Just for example, say we have our Fey Hunter Ranger. That can let him get +1d6 damage against Fey. But that would make it extremely limiting against a wide variety of situations.

But what if instead you had something like: Immune to Charm effects. That's flavorful and useful against Fey, as the annoying cretins love their charm effects. But would also be useful in a wide variety of situations. Maybe not that specific band of bandits, unless they have a mind-controll happy sorcerer leading them. But it should come up frequent enough to be useful even if you never see a single Fey.

The same could -in theory- be done with any of the base races. Let's say the Dragon Killer gets the ability to find weak points in hide and armor. Inspired by one of the most famous dragon slayings in fiction, so it fits the lore of the character. But also can be used on anything with noticeably tough hide. Which is a huge chunk of the monster manual.

But this type of design is tough. Far tougher than going: You pick your favored enemy. You do +2 damage to them and can track them better.

[Evaar]

Honestly this seems like a bad way to design the class. Like, you pick Dragon Hunter Ranger and all your subclass benefits are mostly useless against, say, a pack of bandits?

But they wouldn't be if you follow the design philosophy Ludic described earlier, where you aren't just gaining +whatever to attacks against Dragons, but instead are getting mechanical benefits that would likely be useful against dragons but can also be applied generally - things like immunity to Fear, maybe a bonus to dodging cone attacks, being able to shoot something out of the sky, advantages to Deception checks appealing to the target's greed or pride. The latter in particular would likely work on a pack of bandits.

The goal isn't to make them super strong against one target and useless against others. It's to provide a suite of tactical options which, added together, counter the abilities commonly used by a creature type, but also with more general application individually.

So the challenge is to 1) identify what abilities are common across specific creature types and 2) design tactics that would plausibly counter those abilities that would also have general utility.

To offer a more specific example, maybe a Dragon Slayer has the ability to, with a reaction, move half their speed when caught in an effect that would target an area they currently occupy; such that if they can escape the area, they escape the effect. That's super useful against a dragon to dodge their breath weapon... but also against any spellcaster and many, many other things as well.

EDIT: And for what it's worth, I think the Fey Wanderer does a solid job of this. +Wisdom to Charisma checks and a bonus social proficiency is a good example of something likely to be useful when dealing with Fey... but also just plain useful. Redirecting Fear/Charm effects when a target saves is useful because Fey use a lot of Fear/Charm effects... but also so can your party and even if they don't, YOU have a fear effect you can add to your attacks, so you can always use this even if you aren't up against Fey. Making yourself imperceptible to one target is generally useful all the time... but seems tailor-made to get into a hag's lair and mess with all her toys before the party engages in combat. Too bad that last one is at such a high level that hags aren't much of a threat anymore, but maybe you're up against Sora Maenya or Baba Yaga or something.

[Edea]

Not that this is original, because a lot of other bass classes already do this, but maybe the core chassis should just focus on "I'm really good at locking onto a foe, doesn't matter who it is, and decimating them utterly", and then the ranger's spells and cantrips would hold all of the "now, if you happen to be [X], I'll cast this or use it as a ritual, and then I'll REALLY be good at hunting [X] down and murdering it."

A big one: Hunter's Mark should not be a cantrip. That should just be re-worked into a core mechanism the Ranger possesses from 1st level (and then have it scale with ranger level as a dipping disincentive).

[Evaar]

Not that this is original, because a lot of other bass classes already do this, but maybe the core chassis should just focus on "I'm really good at locking onto a foe, doesn't matter who it is, and decimating them utterly"

I'm not sure that's a whole class identity. I can see it as a subclass maybe, but then you're stepping on the Oath of Vengeance Paladin's toes.

[Kane0]

Not that this is original, because a lot of other bass classes already do this, but maybe the core chassis should just focus on "I'm really good at locking onto a foe, doesn't matter who it is, and decimating them utterly", and then the ranger's spells and cantrips would hold all of the "now, if you happen to be [X], I'll cast this or use it as a ritual, and then I'll REALLY be good at hunting [X] down and murdering it."

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



Just for example, say we have our Fey Hunter Ranger. That can let him get +1d6 damage against Fey. But that would make it extremely limiting against a wide variety of situations.

But what if instead you had something like: Immune to Charm effects. That's flavorful and useful against Fey, as the annoying cretins love their charm effects. But would also be useful in a wide variety of situations. Maybe not that specific band of bandits, unless they have a mind-controll happy sorcerer leading them. But it should come up frequent enough to be useful even if you never see a single Fey.


Favored terrain could also factor into this, granting benefits against the types of creatures you would typically come across there without needing you to take a subclass for it.



However, I would definitely want to also have enclaves that emphasize other things. You can have the "I think rangers should be spellcasters" enclave and then the "I think rangers should be at least competitive with scout rogue for overland exploration" enclave--maybe make it the same as PoeticallyPsyco's proposed wilderness guide enclave, which I am 100% in favor of as well.

I mean, I want being competitive in exploration to be a core feature, but one of the issues plaguing the class is that everyone has their own idea of what Ranger should mean. Most games still just make them a light fighter with a mandatory pet, and making pokemon trainer into an enclave was the best thing WotC did with the class in 5e.

You could also take the approach the PHB Hunter took and apply it to the base class, at certain levels rangers choose from a small list of 3-5 abilities. For example stealth, healing salves, traps, better senses or a movement enhancement to really make the ranger you want without forcing the base class to try and cover all these separate and competing directions.

[ZRN]

A big one: Hunter's Mark should not be a cantrip. That should just be re-worked into a core mechanism the Ranger possesses from 1st level (and then have it scale with ranger level as a dipping disincentive).

The Monster Slayer subclass kind of looks like that - the level 3 ability is basically Hunter’s Mark Unlimited, although of course annoyingly it has to supplement hunters mark rather than replacing it.

[LudicSavant]

I'm in favor of something like Ludic's proposed phylum specialist enclaves because

Based on how Ludic outlined a dragonslayer enclave possibility, they could be done in a way that really does convey a sense of being uniquely capable against that phylum while still being useful in other situations
If you make Favored Enemy into enclaves, you don't have to include it in the base class features. Seriously, put all that stuff where people who want it can have it, but I don't have to.


However, I would definitely want to also have enclaves that emphasize other things. You can have the "I think rangers should be spellcasters" enclave and then the "I think rangers should be at least competitive with scout rogue for overland exploration" enclave--maybe make it the same as PoeticallyPsyco's proposed wilderness guide enclave, which I am 100% in favor of as well.

I mean, I want being competitive in exploration to be a core feature, but one of the issues plaguing the class is that everyone has their own idea of what Ranger should mean. Most games still just make them a light fighter with a mandatory pet, and making pokemon trainer into an enclave was the best thing WotC did with the class in 5e.


I think it would really depend on how the abilities are developed.

Just for example, say we have our Fey Hunter Ranger. That can let him get +1d6 damage against Fey. But that would make it extremely limiting against a wide variety of situations.

But what if instead you had something like: Immune to Charm effects. That's flavorful and useful against Fey, as the annoying cretins love their charm effects. But would also be useful in a wide variety of situations. Maybe not that specific band of bandits, unless they have a mind-controll happy sorcerer leading them. But it should come up frequent enough to be useful even if you never see a single Fey.

The same could -in theory- be done with any of the base races. Let's say the Dragon Killer gets the ability to find weak points in hide and armor. Inspired by one of the most famous dragon slayings in fiction, so it fits the lore of the character. But also can be used on anything with noticeably tough hide. Which is a huge chunk of the monster manual.

But this type of design is tough. Far tougher than going: You pick your favored enemy. You do +2 damage to them and can track them better.


But they wouldn't be if you follow the design philosophy Ludic described earlier, where you aren't just gaining +whatever to attacks against Dragons, but instead are getting mechanical benefits that would likely be useful against dragons but can also be applied generally - things like immunity to Fear, maybe a bonus to dodging cone attacks, being able to shoot something out of the sky, advantages to Deception checks appealing to the target's greed or pride. The latter in particular would likely work on a pack of bandits.

The goal isn't to make them super strong against one target and useless against others. It's to provide a suite of tactical options which, added together, counter the abilities commonly used by a creature type, but also with more general application individually.

So the challenge is to 1) identify what abilities are common across specific creature types and 2) design tactics that would plausibly counter those abilities that would also have general utility.

To offer a more specific example, maybe a Dragon Slayer has the ability to, with a reaction, move half their speed when caught in an effect that would target an area they currently occupy; such that if they can escape the area, they escape the effect. That's super useful against a dragon to dodge their breath weapon... but also against any spellcaster and many, many other things as well.

EDIT: And for what it's worth, I think the Fey Wanderer does a solid job of this. +Wisdom to Charisma checks and a bonus social proficiency is a good example of something likely to be useful when dealing with Fey... but also just plain useful. Redirecting Fear/Charm effects when a target saves is useful because Fey use a lot of Fear/Charm effects... but also so can your party and even if they don't, YOU have a fear effect you can add to your attacks, so you can always use this even if you aren't up against Fey. Making yourself imperceptible to one target is generally useful all the time... but seems tailor-made to get into a hag's lair and mess with all her toys before the party engages in combat. Too bad that last one is at such a high level that hags aren't much of a threat anymore, but maybe you're up against Sora Maenya or Baba Yaga or something.

Yep, exactly.

Basically the key to making a good Favored Enemy or Favored Terrain mechanic IMHO would be to avoid it being 'meta type-keyed' as much as possible. Instead of "I can do X if I'm in a desert," it should be "I can do X, which is iconically useful if I happen to be in a desert and makes me feel like a desert survivor, but is also a useful adventuring skill in general."

Not only do I think this makes for better gameplay, I also think it makes for better theming and flavor. For example, a Fey ranger against a humanoid enchanter doesn't just go 'whoops, it's not a fey, guess I have no applicable skills.' They get to say something like "Ha, I withstood the temptations of the summer courts for years, your petty spellwork offers no allure compared to the Queen of Autumn." Or whatever. This gives a sense of not only being good against fey but also of applying lessons learned from those encounters to their life.