Circle of the Ranger (Ranger as a Druid Subclass)

[dmhelp]

.......................

[Naanomi]

I've thought that since release... between Scout Rogue and an equivalent Fighter/Druid class like you have here (could be a fighter subclass akin to Eldritch Knight as well) except... Beastmaster is a cool concept and doesn't cleave easily onto another class (a few other subclasses presumably as well)

[RogueJK]

It is maybe a little overpowered.

Yeah... Full Martial progression with full Spellcaster progression. There are only a couple others that do that - Valor/Swords Bard, Bladesinger, and Bladelock (which is a whole different animal) - and those subclasses' other abilities are limited as a result. Adding in the other Ranger subclass abilities, especially really strong ones like Gloomstalker, puts it well over the edge.

Plus the additional Ranger spell options, some of which are balanced off only being accessible at higher levels. (Some of the Ranger/Paladin-specific 5th level spells are roughly equivalent to another caster's 6th/7th/8th level spell... Which is what makes them so tempting for a Bard to spend their precious Magical Secrets on.)

Plus the Druid is a Spells Prepared caster, which is stronger and more versatile than the Ranger's more limited Spells Known casting.

could be a fighter subclass akin to Eldritch Knight as well

That's likely more in line, power-wise.


Also potentially doable as two subclasses. An EK-style Fighter subclass for more martial and less spellcasting. And then a Druid subclass for more spellcasting and less martial, maybe with something like a tweaked/improved Beastmaster-style animal companion instead of Wild Shape.

[paladinn]

I don't think the ranger needs to be (yet) another flavor of druid. I've been tempted to make it a fighter subclass ala the EK, but that loses a lot of the rogueish features. The scout archetype isn't bad, but it lacks some of the ranger/fighterish stuff.

Volumes have been written on here about "fixing" the ranger, some by me. I still haven't found what I'm looking for.

[Morty]

Is there any precedent for a subclass removing main class features? As far as I know, they only add them, but I could be wrong.

[Let'sGetKraken]

I like the idea of this, but I don't think rangers really mesh with the full-caster nature of druids. A ranger has to be a warrior first and foremost, and it's nigh-impossible to have a class be a comparable level of warrior to what the ranger fantasy requires and be a full caster without being horribly overpowered.

For me, I would do it as a fighter or even as a rogue subclass first, but this is neat work!

[paladinn]

So if we were to use the EK as a template, a ranger would have better combat ability (I think), while allowing access to druid spells. The different EK class abilities (weapon bond, war magic, eldritch strike, arcane charge) could be swapped out for more rangerish ones. Any ideas which?

For the "base" fighter features, things like 2nd Wind, Action Surge and Indomitable could possibly be exchanged for something more rogueish.

Thinking "out loud"

[Nidgit]

While I disagree with the idea of removing the Ranger, I'm not opposed to having a Ranger-flavored Druid subclass exist. I'd make it something like:

2nd level- gain proficiency in martial weapons and one skill between Athletics, Perception, Stealth, and Survival. Add a new use for Wild Shape: Hunter's Instincts.
While Hunter's Instincts is active, you gain 10 ft extra movement and advantage on Perception checks, Survival checks, and Constitution saving throws.

6th level- Extra Attack. Additionally, whenever Hunter's Instincts is active, you can add your Wisdom modifier to your AC.

10th level- when you activate Hunter's Instincts, you can spend both Wild Shape uses to gain one additional benefit for the duration:
Feral Strikes: your weapon attacks deal 1d6 additional damage and advantage on Dexterity Saving Throws.
Natural Bulwark: you gain resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage.

14th level- when you cast a spell or activate a spell's effects as a bonus action, you can make a weapon attack as part of that same bonus action.

[Let'sGetKraken]

So if we were to use the EK as a template, a ranger would have better combat ability (I think), while allowing access to druid spells. The different EK class abilities (weapon bond, war magic, eldritch strike, arcane charge) could be swapped out for more rangerish ones. Any ideas which?

For the "base" fighter features, things like 2nd Wind, Action Surge and Indomitable could possibly be exchanged for something more rogueish.

Thinking "out loud"

I definitely think that EK is a good chassis for it, if you want a subclass. Though honestly, the revised ranger is lots of fun, and reasonably well balanced.

[paladinn]

Thinking about it, the Eldritch Knight spellcasting feels kind of anemic. I think I'd still prefer a Druid version of the Ranger. If someone wants a more melee focused Ranger they can always play a multiclass.

The ranger started off as a fighter subclass; and that's where it needs to remain, whether as an actual subclass or as a heavily-melee or missile combatant.

My personal preference is to have a spell-less ranger (and a spell-less paladin). But if the two "fighters+" have to have spells, I would limit to the EK progression and have them branch off from fighter at level 3. EK's get wizard spells, paladins get cleric spells, rangers get druid spells. For rangers, just substitute some rangery class features for the EK-specific ones, allow access to more rogueish skills and allow expertise in tracking, animal handling, etc.

[TheUser]

Ranger as a Fighter subclass is the best.

Like an Eldritch Knight but with the Druid spell list and instead of Cantrips they get expertise.

Level 3: Expertise in perception and survival.

Level 7: expertise in stealth, hide as a bonus action and can hide even when lightly obscured. Gain hide in plain sight; 1 minute to create camouflage for a specific natural terrain making you lightly obscured in that terrain and granting advantage on stealth checks to hide in that terrain.

Level 10: leave no tracks. Perception checks can be performed as a bonus action. Choose one of the following - eyes of the eagle (as per totem barbarian but also advantage on perception checks reliant on sight), ears of the bat (advantage on perception to hear, sense location of any creature with a heartbeat within 20ft so long as not deafened) or nose of the hound (advantage on perception and survival checks that use smell, can determine health, race and sex of a creature based on scent if they are familiar with that smell)
Gain another at 15 and the last at level 18.

Level 15: when attacking an enemy from which you are hidden, you may make all attacks on your turn with advantage instead of just the first. If a target does not grant advantage to hidden attackers this feature does not trigger.

Level 18: After spending 15 minutes studying the remains of, or 1 hour researching a creature, creatures of that type become your Favored Enemy. All attacks against a favored enemy add your wisdom modifier to damage and you have advantage on all saving throws those creatures force you to make that are not spells. You may only have 1 favored enemy at a time. If you study a new favored enemy it replaces the old one.

Best rework I've seen in practice.

[8wGremlin]

I'd rather have a simpler fighter sub-class based on the Eldritch Knight
but you have the following:

Paladin = Eldritch Knight, but access to Cleric spells
Eldritch Knight = Eldritch Knight, but access to Wizard spells (remove school access)
Ranger = Eldritch Knight, but access to Druid spells

You would also extend this to the Rogue, based on the Arcane trickster

Arcane trickster = Arcane trickster, but access to Wizard spells (remove school access)
Divine Avenger = Arcane trickster, but access to Cleric spells
Druidic Avenger = Arcane trickster, but access to Druidic spells

* Yes I know this will annoy others with the down grading of the paladin and ranger, but it seems to be more thematically and mechanically easier

We could alleviate some of this by consolidating the paladin spells in to the Cleric list, Ranger spells into the Druidic list, and some of the core abilities into the the same level locations as the EK and AT.

Just my thoughts

[Sorinth]

Having a martial focused Druid that doesn't focus on Wildshaped fighting would be a good subclass for Druid to have but I don't think it should replace the ranger.

Personally I'm not a fan of using the 1/3rd casters as the basis for Ranger.

I feel the problem with the Ranger has always been the things that it's supposed to be good (Wilderness/Exploration stuff) for the most part just don't really matter. That means what Ranger really needs is something unique combat wise sort of like how the Paladin has Smite.

I would be tempted by something along the lines of spending a spell slot to grant Bonus Actions stuff. So as an example, as a Bonus Action the Ranger can spend a spell slot to gain a number of free actions equal to the spell level from the following list. The same action can't be selected more then once per use and can be done in any order and at any time during the turn.

• Take the Disengage Action
• Take the Dash Action
• Make one Attack
• Gain Advantage on the next Attack
• Gain +2 AC

[Gtdead]

Rangers aren't "just bad" and in need of fixing. Their problem is that they aren't very good at their niche because their class specific abilities aren't great and have terrible action economy.

His only valid comparison is the Paladin. What does Paladin get? Awesome unique spells, a mechanism to spontaneously change spells to damage in a way that compliments his other abilities (smite), thematic spells that are useful both in combat and out of it (sense, lay on hands, auras).

What does ranger get? Unique spells that don't synergize with anything, an ability that only works well if the DM chooses to include it in his game (exploration boosts), and bad martial progression from lvl 5 onwards.

Hunter's mark has awful design and it's the worst thing that happened to the ranger in this edition. It's a half baked spell that clogs his BA economy and completely destroys the dual wielding builds, in addition to how bad dual wielding is past lvl 5 even in a featless game.

Swift Quiver is also terrible for rangers. This spell was designed for every other class except ranger. What they need is a haste. Not more BA clog.

This is how I would change the ranger:

Give haste to the chassis. This fixes the problematic dpr progression. Still not better than a fighter, but at least it allows him to compete.

Rework swift quiver to give 2 extra actions like haste does, not to use a bonus action.

Change Hunter Mark's retargeting to be done mentally. You use your bonus action once the first time you cast it and that's it.

Rework ensnaring strike into a smite. You can spend a slot to empower your arrow, rest of the effect stays the same. The damage scaling should be +1d6 per turn per level, no cap needed.

Move Vanish to lvl 10 instead of 14.

I'd also be tempted to make foe slayer work on every attack but I'm not too sure about it.

[RogueJK]

Hunter's mark has awful design and it's the worst thing that happened to the ranger in this edition. It's a half baked spell that clogs his BA economy

Hunter's Mark is fine, for what it is: A spell primarily targeted at leveraging mostly-unused Bonus Actions into increased damage output for Archery and standard Melee. Basically identical to Hex, and that's generally regarded as one of the better Warlock low level spells. (Although the Warlock does get some additional benefit in Tiers 3/4, from the extra "attacks" (rays) from Eldritch Blast outstripping the Ranger's number of attacks.)

Most non-dual-wielding or non-multiclassed Rangers don't have much to do with their Bonus Actions other than use it to boost their damage or impose conditions using BA Ranger spells like Hunter's Mark and others like Hail of Thorns, Ensnaring Strike, Zephyr Strike, Lightning Arrow, Swift Quiver. Spending a long period Concentrating on Hunter's Mark and moving it from target to target is a good use of your otherwise mostly unused Bonus Actions and of your limited spell slots.

Most Warlocks similarly don't have much to do with their Bonus Actions, hence Hex.

and completely destroys the dual wielding builds, in addition to how bad dual wielding is past lvl 5 even in a featless game.

Exactly. DW is noticeably suboptimal in this edition. I think this HM/DW conflict should actually be viewed as (another) shortcoming of Dual Wielding, rather than the other way around.


And in non-mechanical flavor terms, a Ranger in the worlds of D&D would generally be using Hunter's Mark to take down a lone large prey (in normal life) or a lone large enemy target (when fighting/stalking/avenging). So they wouldn't be needing to switch to a new prey/enemy every 6-12 seconds.

[Gtdead]

Hunter's Mark is fine, for what it is: A spell primarily targeted at increasing the damage output of Archery and standard Melee.

I disagree, it's a thematic spell with a lot of fluff. If it was just about increasing dpr, it would be like divine favor. It's the extra stuff that make it work like that. It should be what you described in combat, but it's awkward.

Most non-dual-wielding or non-multiclassed Rangers don't have a lot to do with their Bonus Actions, other than boost their damage or impose conditions using BA Ranger spells like Hail of Thorns, Ensnaring Strike, Zephyr Strike, Lightning Arrow, Swift Quiver, and Hunter's Mark.

Just for dealing damage, ranger has to pick one between CE/DW/Hunter's Mark/Vanish/Swift Quiver

This is also why I advocate for Haste as a class spell. With haste, you can use both CE or Vanish. With CE it becomes quiver, with vanish it becomes advantage so you can choose depending on the situation. It's the only way the ranger can stack his abilities and increase his output.

How is that similar to other classes? Paladin can get PAM and still has so many ways to use his spells along with PAM. Shield of Faith, Bless, Divine Favor take only 1 action or BA and last for the whole fight. The ranger doesn't have that option unless he only ever attacks one monster.

Warlock is different, doesn't have BA clog and has a lot better concentration spells than hex. Hex is something to outgrow and scales way better with EB than Ranger attacks. Hunter's Mark stays with the ranger up till swift quiver or haste if you go horizon walker.

Exactly. DW is noticeably suboptimal in this edition. I think this HM/DW conflict should actually be viewed as a (another) shortcoming of Dual Wielding, namely its overt hogging of Bonus Actions, rather than the other way around.

I agree that DW is problematic, but it is core mechanics. Hunter's Mark and other class abilities improve the core mechanics but in the case of ranger, they don't because HM + 2 d8+mod attacks is the same as 3 d6+mod dw attacks.

For the rogue it's different. If he can sneak attack without advantage, DW is better. If not then hide+attack is better. But the difference is minuscule and it doesn't cost anything at all.

[Sorinth]

What does ranger get? Unique spells that don't synergize with anything, an ability that only works well if the DM chooses to include it in his game (exploration boosts), and bad martial progression from lvl 5 onwards.

Although I'd agree that the unique Ranger spells aren't all that great (Especially for non-Archers), there are still many very good spells on the Ranger list.

The "bad" martial progression from lvl 5+ is a problem only because there isn't anything equivalent to the Paladin's Smite ability. The spells by themselves aren't enough to keep the DPR high enough. This is partly due to the fact that the spell DC is based off a Tertiary stat. If for example spell DC was based on Dex I think people would find the Ranger spells quite good (Moreso Archers).

[Gtdead]

Although I'd agree that the unique Ranger spells aren't all that great (Especially for non-Archers), there are still many very good spells on the Ranger list.

The "bad" martial progression from lvl 5+ is a problem only because there isn't anything equivalent to the Paladin's Smite ability. The spells by themselves aren't enough to keep the DPR high enough. This is partly due to the fact that the spell DC is based off a Tertiary stat. If for example spell DC was based on Dex I think people would find the Ranger spells quite good (Moreso Archers).

I'm not sure what spells you mean. Even with a maxed wisdom, I'd probably not use Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow and Conjure Barrage. I'd probably use steel wind strike but that's lvl 17. For me the go to spells beyond Hunter's Mark are Absorb Elements, Silence, Pass without Trace and Spike Growth. I'd love to use ensnaring strike too but I don't like the way it's implemented, which is why I proposed to rework this one into a smite instead of it being concentration and contesting with hunter's mark.

Conjure Animals is a good spell but at lvl 9... not so much.

[paladinn]

I'd rather have a simpler fighter sub-class based on the Eldritch Knight
but you have the following:

Paladin = Eldritch Knight, but access to Cleric spells
Eldritch Knight = Eldritch Knight, but access to Wizard spells (remove school access)
Ranger = Eldritch Knight, but access to Druid spells

You would also extend this to the Rogue, based on the Arcane trickster

Arcane trickster = Arcane trickster, but access to Wizard spells (remove school access)
Divine Avenger = Arcane trickster, but access to Cleric spells
Druidic Avenger = Arcane trickster, but access to Druidic spells

* Yes I know this will annoy others with the down grading of the paladin and ranger, but it seems to be more thematically and mechanically easier

We could alleviate some of this by consolidating the paladin spells in to the Cleric list, Ranger spells into the Druidic list, and some of the core abilities into the the same level locations as the EK and AT.

Just my thoughts

The ranger class in general has lost its focus. I would choose to make the ranger a fighter subclass in one of two ways:

a. Use EK as a template and swap out the arcane spells for druid and/or ranger spells. Trade out the EK class features (non-spells) for appropriate ranger or hunter or beastmaster features. Also allow some of the Class Features UA ranger possibilities.

b. As above, but spell-less. Use Champion as a template. Swap out the Champion features for ranger/hunter/beastmaster features Or for rogue/scout features. Lots to choose from.

The paladin has the divine smite as a "unique" ability, but there really isn't anything equivalent for the ranger. Favored Enemy used to be the ranger's "thing", but 5e has nerfed it tremendously in the name of preserving bounded accuracy. Favored Foe is better, but still not great. Rangers would gain more from the options above.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I don't think a Ranger needs spells at all. Having spells is just to try to give it enough diversity from fighter to spin it into it's own class.

Ranger archetype characters in fiction and in real life might be someone like Legolas, or Jim Bridger. Being a resourceful outdoorsman who can live off the land, track, and hunt targets at range etc. Spells aren't important for them.


In that vein, I think one could go:
Ranger [Fighter Archetype]
3 - Expertise in Nature, Select 1 creature type excluding humanoid or 2 humanoid subtypes and add your proficiency bonus to damage against them
7 - Cunning Action
10 - Companion - gain an animal companion who you can give orders to as a bonus action and acts immediately after your turn. Chose another creature type excluding humanoid or 2 humanoid subtypes to add your proficiency bonus to damage against.
15 - Evasion or Uncanny Dodge
18 - Ambush & Pursuit: On the first round of combat or against creatures with less than half their maximum wounds remaining, add your [some number] to attack damage.

[Sorinth]

I'm not sure that spells you mean. Even with a maxed wisdom, I'd probably not use Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow and Conjure Barrage. I'd probably use steel wind strike but that's lvl 17. For me the go to spells beyond Hunter's Mark are Absorb Elements, Silence, Pass without Trace and Spike Growth. I'd love to use ensnaring strike too but I don't like the way it's implemented, which is why I proposed to rework this one into a smite instead of it being concentration and contesting with hunter's mark.

Conjure Animals is a good spell but at lvl 9... not so much.

For the most part because the Ranger's spell DC is not very high all the damaging spells are basically doing half damage. Doing half damage is a big part of why those AoE spells are not really worth it.

Ensnaring Strike would be great if the DC was high because it needs an action to attempt to break free.

[SandyAndy]

I'm not sure about making it a subclass. I do think that spellcaster could be nerfed a bit though. The way I do that in my games is that magic makes you go a little insane and you have to do class-specific things to offset that. It encourages role-play and makes you more selective about magic usage.

As far as roleplay, I think there's a simple solution. Ranger is to Druid what Paladin is to Cleric. More focused on the mundane and temporal than the abstract and spiritual. That way there's always a legit story purpose to having a ranger to go with your druid.

[Sorinth]

I don't think a Ranger needs spells at all. Having spells is just to try to give it enough diversity from fighter to spin it into it's own class.

Ranger archetype characters in fiction and in real life might be someone like Legolas, or Jim Bridger. Being a resourceful outdoorsman who can live off the land, track, and hunt targets at range etc. Spells aren't important for them.

If all you want is an outdoorsy fighter why not just be a fighter with the outlander background?

[Gtdead]

For the most part because the Ranger's spell DC is not very high all the damaging spells are basically doing half damage. Doing half damage is a big part of why those AoE spells are not really worth it.

Ensnaring Strike would be great if the DC was high because it needs an action to attempt to break free.

Can you make a case for any ranger spells that use spell DC? I think all of them are awful. Lightning Arrow, Conjure Barrage or whatever else you think is good enough? I'd never even consider preparing these spells. I don't see any value in them.

[GlenSmash!]

Ranger archetype characters in fiction and in real life might be someone like Legolas, or Jim Bridger. Being a resourceful outdoorsman who can live off the land, track, and hunt targets at range etc.

If Legolas was a Ranger, why did Aragon do all the guiding and tracking for the party? Legolas could see pretty far (though he didn't look for the Uruk hai until Aragorn asked him too) but Aragorn could put his ear to the ground and hear a company of Uruk Hai on foot far away even though he had to ignore the sound a company of horseman that were far closer to do it. That boi is your Ranger. Legolas is an bowmanelf who likes forests, and has exceptional senses, but he is no tracker and therefore I think no ranger..

A Ranger should be the best at living off the land, tracking, guiding parties, overland travel, and using the land to their advantage. The trouble is that in D&D typically "the land" is intrinsically magical. Something Jim Bridger didn't encounter. The D&D outdoorsman would be doing themselves a disservice by not picking up at least a smattering of nature magic to assist them. That said I think the sweet spot for Ranger spells are ones that can be described as explicitly magical, or described as exceptional wilderness knowhow/ability. Zephyr strike might be magic, or just a Ranger using his hardiness for a burst of speed and force. Hunter's Mark is a spell, but can be described as exploiting a specific enemies weakness and using a Ranger's superior knowledge to track it. Etc.

I absolutely think there is enough there for the Ranger to have its own archetype and specializations to merit a class and subclass. I agree with other posters who say that poor mechanics and lack of a class defining mechanic like Smite, Auras, Rage etc are have caused the "Ranger Problem". Tireless from the class features UA (and Likely Tasha's) is a step in the right direction in giving them a unique ability to represent the Ranger's hardiness/self sufficiency.

[paladinn]

I can see giving the ranger all the survival, wilderness, tracking, etc. skills and even giving them Expertise with them. I just don't think that is enough to justify the ranger as a discreet class. If the ranger is, at heart, a warrior, the class would do well with the fighter class features. It needs something more if it's to be a viable class. I would lobby for the UA Favored Foe feature, but not even sure that's enough.

[Sorinth]

Can you make a case for any ranger spells that use spell DC? I think all of them are awful. Lightning Arrow, Conjure Barrage or whatever else you think is good enough? I'd never even consider preparing these spells. I don't see any value in them.

Ensnaring Strike is a powerful debuff that requires an action to attempt to end. With a high save DC this would be a great spell.

The others aren't as good, and frankly shouldn't be concentration spells. But regardless they hold their own damage wise compared to Divine Smite.
Hail of Thorns out damages smite so long as you can hit a second target
Lightning Arrow deals the same extra 4d8 damage as a 3rd level Divine Smite does and deals some AoE damage
Conjure Barrage covers a huge area, so it can be worth it if you can hit a large number of enemies.

Now there are good and bad with the fact that the damage get spread out over multiple targets. The primary usefulness is dealing with swarms, and more specifically they are best when facing a big bad surrounded by minions. One of the bigger issues with those spells is that because of the low DC, it's not enough damage to actually deal with the minions.

[Sorinth]

I absolutely think there is enough there for the Ranger to have its own archetype and specializations to merit a class and subclass. I agree with other posters who say that poor mechanics and lack of a class defining mechanic like Smite, Auras, Rage etc are have caused the "Ranger Problem". Tireless from the class features UA (and Likely Tasha's) is a step in the right direction in giving them a unique ability to represent the Ranger's hardiness/self sufficiency.

There's already a fairly strong AoE component to many ranger spells/abilities. So there's a case for them to double down on that aspect as the way to differentiate them from other martials.

Flavour wise it kind of also fits the Ranger theme as they are the ones to call when you are being raided by goblins/orcs.

[Gtdead]

Ensnaring Strike is a powerful debuff that requires an action to attempt to end. With a high save DC this would be a great spell.

The others aren't as good, and frankly shouldn't be concentration spells. But regardless they hold their own damage wise compared to Divine Smite.
Hail of Thorns out damages smite so long as you can hit a second target
Lightning Arrow deals the same extra 4d8 damage as a 3rd level Divine Smite does and deals some AoE damage
Conjure Barrage covers a huge area, so it can be worth it if you can hit a large number of enemies.

Now there are good and bad with the fact that the damage get spread out over multiple targets. The primary usefulness is dealing with swarms, and more specifically they are best when facing a big bad surrounded by minions. One of the bigger issues with those spells is that because of the low DC, it's not enough damage to actually deal with the minions.

Hail of thorns is ok. I'd still go for Hunter's Mark but it's a clutch option at low levels.

My problem with Lightning Arrow is that it replaces the weapon damage and can miss (for half). Smite works only on successful attacks, but LA replaces an attack. While it's guaranteed damage I still don't like the tradeoff. If it actually worked like smite, activating on successful attacks, it would be a nice option. If it wasn't concentration, I may have liked it a bit more, but this really seals the deal. With my ranger I want to be concentrating either on pass without trace or an upcasted mark. Especially pass without trace is an hour long and can last long enough to clear a whole dungeon. I can't just drop concentration to deal that damage. And I'm not even taking into account the low DC due to WIS.

And the problem with barrage is that you get it at lvl 9 so it's unlikely to kill anything. Against swarms, it's not damage you really want, it's kill potential. 10 monsters with full health deal the same damage as 10 monsters with half health. It may be useful to combine with a fireball, but in this case the extra radius is irrelevant. 3d8 amounts to little more than an attack from weapons. So assuming that a monster would need 2 hits in average to die, against 10 monsters you reduced the attacks required from 20 to 10 without reducing the damage taken. Fireball may hit only 5 instead but in this scenario it will kill the targets which halves the effectiveness of the swarm.