Fixing The 5E Ranger: Give them arcane archer?

[Omni-Centrist]

I was sitting yesterday thinking about how painful it can be to be a Ranger compared to a Paladin or Artificer when it comes to the half casters, and this was my idea to give the Ranger their own built-in Damage or Utility feature, and Arcane Archer has it all. You can give them all built-in abilities similar to their spells, like a Entangling Shot, a Poison Bomb shot, Rain of Thorns shot, even a Piercing shot.

It feels like, at least to me, base class Ranger got the short end of the stick compared to the other two half classes in terms of useful unique abilities, and this would fix it and be thematically appropriate.

[Kuulvheysoon]

The biggest issue with this is that it would lock them into ranged combat.

Which is perfectly valid, if you want to take it that way - it'd be the mirror to the Paladin. But for a lot of people, the two-weapon ranger is just as iconic as the archery ranger, and your proposed fix would annihilate that as a valid option (like a ranged paladin).

Ranger's in a really weird spot design-wise in 5E.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

The main problem the ranger have is that it feels weak and not rangery

It can be kind of useful as a tactical bow master.

At later levels he can mach the number of attack a fighter have with swift quiver.

I played a ranger in 5e and saw it played in my table as a DM and in groups I was a part of.

It mostly works great.

[Theodoxus]

The fatal flaw with Ranger is the action economy. If people (WotC) would just relax a smidge and let Rangers have their cake and take a bite too, so that things like Beast Master actually played like people want them to (where the beast was actively contributing along side the Ranger from day one, rather than either being a walk-in for the Ranger or a ball of HP just waiting to be a meatshield.

I agree, it's in a really weird space. It needs 4 attacks like the Fighter so it can actually split them up between himself and a companion, but gets spells and is thus relegated to 1/2 caster status, but has no decent alternate option to use them like a Paladin does, nor gains useful arcane DPR spells like the Artificer does. And that makes trying to fix them end up all over the place, because it really would require a scorched earth type rebuild of the class to make it fit more of the boxes individuals want.

I agree with BloodSnake'sCha that it mostly works. I'm not 100% onboard with "great" but that's here nor there. It's a problem with expectations, and 5E's Ranger doesn't meet the expectations of what the class has been in the past.

Now, Omni-Centrist's idea isn't wholly bad. I think bolting on the AA's abilities on the base Ranger would be an adequate step to take, much like I'd prefer the Battlemaster's abilities to be grafted onto the base Fighter. If Paladin had a "two-weapon fighting 'Ranger'" subclass for folks who prefer that playstyle, that'd be one thing. Then Paladins would be THE melee magical class, Rangers would be THE ranged magical class and Artificers is their weird mix-class baby... But we don't, and expectations for Ranger aren't 100% ranged, so that puts it back in the weird space.

[Kane0]

I was sitting yesterday thinking about how painful it can be to be a Ranger compared to a Paladin or Artificer when it comes to the half casters, and this was my idea to give the Ranger their own built-in Damage or Utility feature, and Arcane Archer has it all. You can give them all built-in abilities similar to their spells, like a Entangling Shot, a Poison Bomb shot, Rain of Thorns shot, even a Piercing shot.

It feels like, at least to me, base class Ranger got the short end of the stick compared to the other two half classes in terms of useful unique abilities, and this would fix it and be thematically appropriate.

Sounds reasonable, if implemented well. Arcane Shot is short rest based which complements the Ranger which is a long rest class, perhaps remove a few notable spells like Hunter's Mark and Entangling strike from their list in exchange for Arcane Shots at level 1 or 2, with close to the same progression as the subclass. Start knowing 2 or 3 with 2 shots per rest, maybe 1d6 damage to start with scaling by an extra 1d6 at levels 5, 11 and 17 to match cantrips which they don't get. Learn more shots and get an extra shot or two per rest as you level up as well, and throw in a feature that recharges one when you expend a Ranger spell slot or something instead of the ever-ready shot of later subclass levels.

I'm not sure if you should do this on top of the Tasha's options, that may swing the balance too far in the other direction but then again if you do the above then you would be using Favored Foe which isn't as good so that would probably be OK stacking with the Shots and actually free up your Ranger casting to cast other spells, even if favored foe and some of the shots use concentration.

It wouldn't be a straight cut-and-paste, but with a bit of massaging I can see it working out alright. Might want to remove the ranged-only restriction though since the Ranger has other fighting styles and spells like Zephyr Strike.

[Witty Username]

The fatal flaw with Ranger is the action economy. If people (WotC) would just relax a smidge and let Rangers have their cake and take a bite too, so that things like Beast Master actually played like people want them to (where the beast was actively contributing along side the Ranger from day one, rather than either being a walk-in for the Ranger or a ball of HP just waiting to be a meatshield.

It looked to me like the Tasha's Ranger did that, as long as you don't Two-weapon fight or rely on crossbow expert/PAM.

[Omni-Centrist]

Sounds reasonable, if implemented well. Arcane Shot is short rest based which complements the Ranger which is a long rest class, perhaps remove a few notable spells like Hunter's Mark and Entangling strike from their list in exchange for Arcane Shots at level 1 or 2, with close to the same progression as the subclass. Start knowing 2 or 3 with 2 shots per rest, maybe 1d6 damage to start with scaling by an extra 1d6 at levels 5, 11 and 17 to match cantrips which they don't get. Learn more shots and get an extra shot or two per rest as you level up as well, and throw in a feature that recharges one when you expend a Ranger spell slot or something instead of the ever-ready shot of later subclass levels.

I'm not sure if you should do this on top of the Tasha's options, that may swing the balance too far in the other direction but then again if you do the above then you would be using Favored Foe which isn't as good so that would probably be OK stacking with the Shots and actually free up your Ranger casting to cast other spells, even if favored foe and some of the shots use concentration.

It wouldn't be a straight cut-and-paste, but with a bit of massaging I can see it working out alright. Might want to remove the ranged-only restriction though since the Ranger has other fighting styles and spells like Zephyr Strike.

I think Favored Foe is probably my main beef with the tasha options and why I wanted something like this. Paladin is still Leagues better than Ranger and can mimic their ability to **** on dudes at range with just two levels of warlock and Hex.

[Omni-Centrist]

The fatal flaw with Ranger is the action economy. If people (WotC) would just relax a smidge and let Rangers have their cake and take a bite too, so that things like Beast Master actually played like people want them to (where the beast was actively contributing along side the Ranger from day one, rather than either being a walk-in for the Ranger or a ball of HP just waiting to be a meatshield.

I agree, it's in a really weird space. It needs 4 attacks like the Fighter so it can actually split them up between himself and a companion, but gets spells and is thus relegated to 1/2 caster status, but has no decent alternate option to use them like a Paladin does, nor gains useful arcane DPR spells like the Artificer does. And that makes trying to fix them end up all over the place, because it really would require a scorched earth type rebuild of the class to make it fit more of the boxes individuals want.

I agree with BloodSnake'sCha that it mostly works. I'm not 100% onboard with "great" but that's here nor there. It's a problem with expectations, and 5E's Ranger doesn't meet the expectations of what the class has been in the past.

Now, Omni-Centrist's idea isn't wholly bad. I think bolting on the AA's abilities on the base Ranger would be an adequate step to take, much like I'd prefer the Battlemaster's abilities to be grafted onto the base Fighter. If Paladin had a "two-weapon fighting 'Ranger'" subclass for folks who prefer that playstyle, that'd be one thing. Then Paladins would be THE melee magical class, Rangers would be THE ranged magical class and Artificers is their weird mix-class baby... But we don't, and expectations for Ranger aren't 100% ranged, so that puts it back in the weird space.

Yep, totally agree that it puts it back in the weirdspace, and I think you could circumvent it by having it work in either melee or ranged. My slight towards ranged attacks is based on the class name mostly.

I really like the idea of a Ranger who can basically twice per short rest at Level 2 blast a super limited web spell at a 5x5 square. The ranger is the more martial version of a Druid, let's give them more crowd control/Damage Busting options.

[Reach Weapon]

It seems to me that the biggest flaw of the Ranger class is the chassis, complicated by the competing Ranger archetypes in 5E's action economy. Simply throwing the Arcane Archer into this doesn't address the underlying issues and does it to the detriment of other visions of the Ranger.

I might adjust first two levels, so you select a Ranger Emphasis (archetype) and Favored Adversary at 1st level. Favored Adversary splits the difference between the other two implementations, offering tracking, knowledge and a small damage boost against a type that can be changed during rests. Improvements at 6th and 14th. 2nd Level would be Deft Explorer and a Fighting Style.

There are four areas of possible Ranger Emphasis:
Beast Masters: Progressions for Rangers with vastly improved animal companions. Other Rangers can get familiars, if they want.
Two Weapon Fighters: These Rangers get progressively better using a weapon in each hand. Other Rangers can still select the two-weapon fighting style or feats to have some competency in this area.
Range-ers: Progressions to get the most out of ranged combat. Other Rangers can still select a ranged fighting style or feats to improve in this type of combat.
Casters: Improved spell list (cantrips!) and spells known, with some doesn't count against spells sprinkled in. Other Rangers would get third spellcaster, or possibly some other schedule of Ranger ritual spells, cantrips, and some use per rest castings.

So, having done that minor change (adding another level of subclassing, redoing spell progressions (twice!), moving and reworking a whole subclass, and probably having to tweak a whole bunch of stuff so it plays nice with all that), the rest of the class seems relatively fine. In fact, I kinda like a bunch of the Conclaves. That said, I could see a place for an Aracane Archer flavored Conclave, if someone wanted to do all that work to add it.

[bsullivanp]

It seems to me that the biggest flaw of the Ranger class is the chassis, complicated by the competing Ranger archetypes in 5E's action economy. Simply throwing the Arcane Archer into this doesn't address the underlying issues and does it to the detriment of other visions of the Ranger.

I might adjust first two levels, so you select a Ranger Emphasis (archetype) and Favored Adversary at 1st level. Favored Adversary splits the difference between the other two implementations, offering tracking, knowledge and a small damage boost against a type that can be changed during rests. Improvements at 6th and 14th. 2nd Level would be Deft Explorer and a Fighting Style.

There are four areas of possible Ranger Emphasis:
Beast Masters: Progressions for Rangers with vastly improved animal companions. Other Rangers can get familiars, if they want.
Two Weapon Fighters: These Rangers get progressively better using a weapon in each hand. Other Rangers can still select the two-weapon fighting style or feats to have some competency in this area.
Range-ers: Progressions to get the most out of ranged combat. Other Rangers can still select a ranged fighting style or feats to improve in this type of combat.
Casters: Improved spell list (cantrips!) and spells known, with some doesn't count against spells sprinkled in. Other Rangers would get third spellcaster, or possibly some other schedule of Ranger ritual spells, cantrips, and some use per rest castings.

So, having done that minor change (adding another level of subclassing, redoing spell progressions (twice!), moving and reworking a whole subclass, and probably having to tweak a whole bunch of stuff so it plays nice with all that), the rest of the class seems relatively fine. In fact, I kinda like a bunch of the Conclaves. That said, I could see a place for an Aracane Archer flavored Conclave, if someone wanted to do all that work to add it.

I always thought that it could be interesting to add another area of possible Ranger Emphasis, one of a sort of Herbalist/Natural buffer/debuffer. A ranger that draws more heavily on Druid/Cleric/Rogue stats, perhaps with a focus on poison making, natural healing spells, and ways to buff their pet companions with Natural & Fey-based skills.

[Sorinth]

The biggest issue with this is that it would lock them into ranged combat.

Which is perfectly valid, if you want to take it that way - it'd be the mirror to the Paladin. But for a lot of people, the two-weapon ranger is just as iconic as the archery ranger, and your proposed fix would annihilate that as a valid option (like a ranged paladin).

Ranger's in a really weird spot design-wise in 5E.

Paladin's excel at single target damage that tanks, a good mirror would be AoE damage and debuffs/controls.

And they do that to an extent. Lots of ranger features add an extra attack so long as you aren't attacking the same creature, and there are some interesting AoE damage spells, they just are fiddly in practice. In terms of debuff/control again the spells are decent with things like Entangle, Spike Growth, etc... but the action economy doesn't work out well. The bread and butter should be casting things like Ensnaring/Zephyr Strike but in practice it doesn't work well.

I think fixing the spells so that they are actually good would go along way. Paladin gets Smite so even if the spells themselves aren't great they still benefit greatly from the spell slots. Without a feature powered by burning spell slots the spells themselves need to be good if it's going to compare to Paladin.

[MrCharlie]

Paladin's excel at single target damage that tanks, a good mirror would be AoE damage and debuffs/controls.

And they do that to an extent. Lots of ranger features add an extra attack so long as you aren't attacking the same creature, and there are some interesting AoE damage spells, they just are fiddly in practice. In terms of debuff/control again the spells are decent with things like Entangle, Spike Growth, etc... but the action economy doesn't work out well. The bread and butter should be casting things like Ensnaring/Zephyr Strike but in practice it doesn't work well.

I think fixing the spells so that they are actually good would go along way. Paladin gets Smite so even if the spells themselves aren't great they still benefit greatly from the spell slots. Without a feature powered by burning spell slots the spells themselves need to be good if it's going to compare to Paladin.

So Paladins are single target strikers and tanks, then buffers and healers, Artificers are tanks, utility, buff and control spells, and Rangers are AOE damage and debuffs/control.

I like this, if it were buffed so that it's viable. One of the real problems is that conjure barrage and similar spells which should do that are awful beyond words, or finicky with their action economy, as you've said.

It's hard, however, to put a lot of this into practice. Outside of spells, how do you turn wilderness explorer into AOE damage and debuffing thematically? It seems like the rangers ideal niche should be single target damage as well.

[Sorinth]

So Paladins are single target strikers and tanks, then buffers and healers, Artificers are tanks, utility, buff and control spells, and Rangers are AOE damage and debuffs/control.

I like this, if it were buffed so that it's viable. One of the real problems is that conjure barrage and similar spells which should do that are awful beyond words, or finicky with their action economy, as you've said.

It's hard, however, to put a lot of this into practice. Outside of spells, how do you turn wilderness explorer into AOE damage and debuffing thematically? It seems like the rangers ideal niche should be single target damage as well.

You can but things like Horde Breaker into the base class, or even just whenever you hit a creature you can do a little damage to adjacent targets, maybe once per turn all adjacent targets of your choice within range take Prof Mod damage. It's not much extra damage and it's spread around but it adds up and is good for taking on hordes of enemies since it's AoE-like.

In terms of spell management you have two choices you can add a Ranger version of smite where you burn spell slots for some feature, or make the spells better. The "smite" version might look something like taking the most thematic ranger spells and making them smite abilities. So things like Ensnaring Strike, Zephyr Strike, Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow (Making it work with Melee), and maybe even retool Hunter features like Volley/Whirlwind Attack to work off spell slots.

These are essentially your smite effects, you have to burn a spell slot after hitting something they do extra damage which scales with spell slot used but overall damage is not super great. It's the Rider effects that you are looking at. You pick a subset and get more choices as you level. Essentially think Battle Maneuvers but using spell slots and the spell slot level impacts damage and/or number of targets.

The actual spells would be a mix of non-combat spells and Druid battlefield manipulation spells like Entangle, Spike Growth, Plant Growth, etc...

[Reach Weapon]

While the description of Arcane Archers sounds like a Ranger job, I am having trouble figuring out how one would work in Arcane (Int) without going completely MAD.

Spoiler: Arcane Archer

Show

An Arcane Archer studies a unique elven method of archery that weaves magic into attacks to produce supernatural effects. Arcane Archers are some of their most elite warriors among the elves. They stand watch over the fringes of elven domains, keeping a keen eye out for trespassers and using magic-infused arrows to defeat monsters and invaders before they can reach elven settlements. Over the centuries, the methods of these elf archers have been learned by members of other races who can also balance arcane aptitude with archery.

I always thought that it could be interesting to add another area of possible Ranger Emphasis, one of a sort of Herbalist/Natural buffer/debuffer. A ranger that draws more heavily on Druid/Cleric/Rogue stats, perhaps with a focus on poison making, natural healing spells, and ways to buff their pet companions with Natural & Fey-based skills.

Yeah! That is another awesome way to be a Ranger. Maybe:

Naturalist: These Rangers focus on using nature and natural techniques. Progressively skilled in their area with clever ways to use relevant kits (alchemist's, cartographer's, cook's, healer's, herbalist's, leatherworker's, poisoner's, thieves', woodcarver's) including free action weapon coatings, exploit the environment (triggering deadfalls, etc.), and additional tricks and spell-like abilities (quick-setting traps, riling local wildlife). Other Rangers get a relevant tool proficiency at 9th.

[Witty Username]

So Paladins are single target strikers and tanks, then buffers and healers, Artificers are tanks, utility, buff and control spells, and Rangers are AOE damage and debuffs/control.

I like this, if it were buffed so that it's viable. One of the real problems is that conjure barrage and similar spells which should do that are awful beyond words, or finicky with their action economy, as you've said.

It's hard, however, to put a lot of this into practice. Outside of spells, how do you turn wilderness explorer into AOE damage and debuffing thematically? It seems like the rangers ideal niche should be single target damage as well.

There are spells like plant growth, conjure animals and spike growth, all of which can fundamentally change a combat. Those would be more in the debuff control category, although spike growth and conjure animals can deal reasonably good damage. Also, not to nitpick, but I think the Ranger is a better healer off of spells like goodberry, and healing spirit (if you don't use the useless new one). Also, they get Aid and Revivify now so the idea of the Paladin being the healer seems to be false.

[Omni-Centrist]

Paladins get Channel Divinity, Smite, Auras, Improved Smite and so on. What do Rangers get base class that came compare?

[Kuulvheysoon]

Paladins get Channel Divinity, Smite, Auras, Improved Smite and so on. What do Rangers get base class that came compare?

Compares mechanically or thematically? If it's the latter, we have the Favoured Enemy/Natural Explorer/movement or hiding abilities (HiPS, Vanish, Land's stride).

Mechanically? I suppose that Favored Enemy is supposed to match the Paladin's Smite (smaller damage boost, but resourceless), but yeah. I keep saying that 5E Ranger is in a really weird design space. I'd almost throw out the whole thing and redesign it from the bottom up. Right now it's kinda split, whereas Paladin has that concrete focus.

[Sorinth]

Paladins get Channel Divinity, Smite, Auras, Improved Smite and so on. What do Rangers get base class that came compare?

Base class only comparisons can create a false impression since some classes are more base class focused and others put their cool abilities into the subclasses. And Ranger's are definitely one of the classes where a lot of the flavour/mechanics come from the subclass.

[Tvtyrant]

I was sitting yesterday thinking about how painful it can be to be a Ranger compared to a Paladin or Artificer when it comes to the half casters, and this was my idea to give the Ranger their own built-in Damage or Utility feature, and Arcane Archer has it all. You can give them all built-in abilities similar to their spells, like a Entangling Shot, a Poison Bomb shot, Rain of Thorns shot, even a Piercing shot.

It feels like, at least to me, base class Ranger got the short end of the stick compared to the other two half classes in terms of useful unique abilities, and this would fix it and be thematically appropriate.

If you can deliver the arcane shots with your beast or offhand strike as well I think that would work pretty well. Gives the ranger a lot of control options that feel unique and interesting.

[Witty Username]

Paladins get Channel Divinity, Smite, Auras, Improved Smite and so on. What do Rangers get base class that came compare?

Base class?
A significantly strong spell list. Goodberry (the best 1st level spell for hp recovered), Pass without trace, Spike growth, Conjure animals, Plant growth, and Conjure Woodland beings.
Over to Tasha's they get a few more like entangle and summon beast.
Paladin spells tend to be lower impact, and compete with smites. That isn't to say they don't get value from their spells, but they tend towards straight damage or short term buffs. While Ranger tends toward terrain alteration along with a few standouts in healing, and the difficult to place pass without trace (utility?).

P.S. Cause it is bugging me, base class Paladin's don't get channel divinity. That is part of their subclasses.

[Person_Man]

As others have mentioned, WotC realized its subpar and gave them a bunch of additional spells and subclasses in splat. And I think there are several thousand Ranger fixes floating around the internet homebrew forums. My preferred fix is basically:

Favored Enemy: You gain Advantage on all Survival checks, and also on all Int checks related to knowing things about non-humanoid enemies (weaknesses, habits, etc).
Natural Explorer: Gain all of the benefits listed on all terrain.
Spellcasting: Spells regained on Short or Long Rest. Paladins gain same benefit.
Beastmaster Archetype: Creature can act on its own, following your mental commands. Has Str, Dex, Con of 10 + 1/2 your Ranger level rounded up. AC = 10 + its Dex bonus + your Prof bonus. Add your Prof bonus to its Saves and Skills, and is proficient with Stealth, Acrobatics, Athletics, Perception. Hit point calculation is the same. 7th level the Companion can use its Bonus Action to Dash, Dodge, Disengage, or Help (not yours). 11th level the Beast can make 2 attacks. 15th level Share Spells is fine as-is, especially since you'll be spamming buffs more often.
Hunter: 3rd level ability is fine. 7th level you get all three Defensive Tactics, which are each situational. 11th level you get both Volley and Whirlwind Attack. (Because 90% of Rangers are going to be built for melee or ranged, so its its not that big of a deal to give them both). 15th level is fine.
Hide in Plain Sight: Takes an Action to use instead of a minute. But you cannot be observed by enemies or in battle when you use it.
Feral Senses: Grants continuous True Sight.
Foe Slayer: Gain Wis damage on your attack and damage roll once per turn, decided after you roll each attack.

[Kuulvheysoon]

As others have mentioned, WotC realized its subpar and gave them a bunch of additional spells and subclasses in splat. And I think there are several thousand Ranger fixes floating around the internet homebrew forums. My preferred fix is basically:

Spellcasting: Spells regained on Short or Long Rest. Paladins gain same benefit.

...

...Okay, I know you made some other good points, but SR refresh with the full 2/3 caster spell slot suite on Paladins? My immediate thought is that that's hilariously OP, but I'm willing to be convinced.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, I'm all good with SR spell slot recovery, but at 1/3 the slots. That's basically two level 1 slots max, and 1 slot max for all other levels (this works for full casters as well, though you have to give them Mystic Arcanum for 6th - 9th for the math to work. (given the overall power of 6th level + spells, I'm also fine following the Warlock's lead of making them long rest recharge. YMMV.

[Person_Man]

...Okay, I know you made some other good points, but SR refresh with the full 2/3 caster spell slot suite on Paladins? My immediate thought is that that's hilariously OP, but I'm willing to be convinced.

Here is my argument, which may likely apply to many but certainly not all Paladins:

1) When a party chooses to rest, what prevents them from taking a Long Rest? The Plot/DM, which can introduce "beat the clock" elements, which presumably will happen occasionally but is not the default gameplay. The DM can also throw a ton of encounters at the players while they are taking a Long Rest to punish them, if they're spiteful. But this does not actually prevent the Long Rest from working, as it can be interrupted by up to an hour of non-continuous combat. It would, however, prevent a Short rest from working, unless the DM allowed you to rest for exactly 1 hour and THEN started throwing lots of random encounters at you. But that seems extra contrived/spiteful. It will happen occasionally. But the default is that players can take Long Rests whenever they can take any rest. So the difference between Short Rest and Long Rest is situational for most parties in most campaigns.

2) Full casters are availing themselves of animate/summons when needed (or regularly) and also splat book cantrips which adds greatly to their at-will damage, and other splat book spells which add greatly to their versatility and power. So by default, a low-mid level caster is generally going to be as powerful/useful as a low-mid level Paladin.

3) Go level by level and compare the Paladin to any full caster. There are multiple levels where the paladin gets 1 or 2 spells, and the full caster is getting 1 higher level spell. This difference becomes more pronounced at mid-high levels.

4) At levels 13+, there is nothing that the Paladin gets that is as remotely powerful and versatile as 7th-9th level spells.

5) Paladins are MAD, and at low levels their builds tend to be hungry for Feats. So in point buy games, some of their best class features are going to be less effective. (Though this is obviously not an issue if you're allowed to roll for stats and get 3 big numbers).

6) Bards can use a Paladin's best Paladin only spells.

I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that a levels 2-6ish level a Paladin with Short Rest spells, in a campaign where the DM chooses to make Long Rests difficult from time to time, will be more powerful than a level 2-6 full caster. If that's a concern, you can have Paladin spells work normally until the full casters in your campaign start to outshine them, and then switch them to Short Rest. I think that starts happening around level 7, but it can obviously differ based on your party.

Back on topic though, the Ranger is a hot mess. You could basically double or triple their spells per day via Short Rest or some other homebrew, and I still wouldn't play one at any level without other comprehensive homebrew fix.

[Witty Username]

I would like to say, making a warlock and a druid into the same class and giving it the fighting abilities of a full martial and calling it a ranger is a terrible idea.
Entangle every combat, spike growth every combat.
An extra 60hp in healing, every day by 2nd level.
And archery style, extra attack, SS, XBE.