UA ranger

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think I need some clarification, I am not sure how hiding without obscurement and turing invisible feel different. Is it specifically the spell slot thing?

A trend of this thread so far seems to be accidental (or intentional) reinforcement of the idea that martials shouldn't have abilities that are "magical" (otherwise read as - unique and special) unless they're explicitly not tied to magic. Something I'm pretty sure some of the same users have actively campaigned against.

It's very strange to me.

[stoutstien]

A trend of this thread so far seems to be accidental (or intentional) reinforcement of the idea that martials shouldn't have abilities that are "magical" (otherwise read as - unique and special) unless they're explicitly not tied to magic. Something I'm pretty sure some of the same users have actively campaigned against.

It's very strange to me.

Nothing wrong with magic but it's a lot of features draining slots off a half caster progression. even if some of those options are good it has a weird feel.

[Witty Username]

Nothing wrong with magic but it's a lot of features draining slots off a half caster progression. even if some of those options are good it has a weird feel.

So would the proficiency times per long rest be an adequate adjustment for your purposes?

[stoutstien]

So would the proficiency times per long rest be an adequate adjustment for for purposes?

Honestly the hunters mark could just be at will. You still need to spend a bonus action to active and move it and that would go a long way to avoid the "barbarian" issue.(you tie too many features to a single resource that is limited)

You did that the nature veil would be fine.

[Woggle]

Honestly the hunters mark could just be at will. You still need to spend a bonus action to active and move it and that would go a long way to avoid the "barbarian" issue.(you tie too many features to a single resource that is limited)

You did that the nature veil would be fine.

I agree with this. Hunter's Mark and Nature's Veil both costing spell slots crowds-out other uses for spell slots, and Rangers don't get very many of them. Spending a first-level slot on anything other than the new Hunter's Mark is going to feel pretty bad.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Nothing wrong with magic but it's a lot of features draining slots off a half caster progression. even if some of those options are good it has a weird feel.

Why? Kane0, citing these as weird and off, has used Divine Smite as an example of good implementation.

It it really weird, or is it weird because the Ranger is doing something new?

[stoutstien]

Why? Kane0, citing these as weird and off, has used Divine Smite as an example of good implementation.

Divine smite is ok because it's only one feature and it has a good feel. This ranger would be like having both DS and Aura drain slots. Sure it's good but suddenly it unnecessarily restricting.
*Im in the camp that DS is woefully overrated.*

[ProsecutorGodot]

Divine smite is ok because it's only one feature and it has a good feel. This ranger would be like having both DS and Aura drain slots. Sure it's good but suddenly it unnecessarily restricting.
*Im in the camp that DS is woefully overrated.*

Hunter's Mark as an essentially always on combat feature that won't get smacked off you feels bad? Bonus Action greater invisibility for a 1st level spell slot feels bad?

Evaluate them as Paladin's do Divine Smite - What is the competition? What spells would you have that are competing with this resource?

[stoutstien]

Hunter's Mark as an essentially always on combat feature that won't get smacked off you feels bad? Bonus Action greater invisibility for a 1st level spell slot feels bad?

Evaluate them as Paladin's do Divine Smite - What is the competition? What spells would you have that are competing with this resource?

That's the issue. It completely devalues anything else so you will feel like you are wasting slots when you don't use HM of veil. However, the spell list is still eating up a huge portion of the class budget.

It feels bad to have false choices.

Look at the artificer. It has some amazing returns for spells slots but they still get a free use of the feature before they start draining them. It wouldn't take much adjustment to fix this.

[Nidgit]

That's the issue. It completely devalues anything else so you will feel like you are wasting slots when you don't use HM of veil. However, the spell list is still eating up a huge portion of the class budget.

It feels bad to have false choices.

Look at the artificer. It has some amazing returns for spells slots but they still get a free use of the feature before they start draining them. It wouldn't take much adjustment to fix this.

It's a bit ironic in a way. Because so many of their spells took concentration, Rangers often weren't using all their spell slots and needed better ways to burn them in combat. Now we get Nature's Veil (and Hunter's Mark) that want frequent spell soy expenditure, but because bonus actions have been freed up other spells are going to see their usage spike too. It doesn't help that Nature's Veil was formerly free and now it's not, even if it has been buffed a bit.

Though I'd argue that Hunter's Mark is a prime candidate for up casting since it no longer requires concentration. One 2nd or 3rd level spell slot is a steep price at first but it's more effective than spending three or four 1st level spell slots over the course of an adventuring day.

[Witty Username]

Why? Kane0, citing these as weird and off, has used Divine Smite as an example of good implementation.

It it really weird, or is it weird because the Ranger is doing something new?

Yeah, that is a question I have too.

Like, how about this:

Hunter's Mark (Ranger 1 feature, the spell is gone)
Bonus action mark a creature you can see. For as long as you maintain concentration you gain advantage on Search and Study checks against the marked creature, and once per turn you can add +1d4 damage to an attack you make against it. This extra damage scales as you gain ranger levels
Marking a new creature removes the mark on the previous one.

Some notes:
Bold: changes I would actually propose Italics: changes I am not proposing but am mulling over and want feedback
Hunter's Mark (Ranger 1 feature, the spell is gone)
Bonus action mark a creature you can see. For as long as you maintain concentration 1 minute, you gain advantage on Search and Study checks against the marked creature when you apply the mark or as a bonus action for as long as the creature is marked you may make a Search or Study checks against the marked creature and have advantage on the check, and once per turn you can add +1d4 +1d6 damage to an attack you make against it. This extra damage scales as you gain ranger levels +2d6 at 5th level, +3d6 at 11th and +4d6 at 17th level. You may use this feature a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, after that you cannot use this feature again until you finish a long rest
Marking a new creature removes the mark on the previous one.

Reasoning, the bonus action cost really hurts the feature, Favored Foe requires concentration and lower damage to balance the lack of action use. Furthermore, the search and study checks section won't work at tables that require an action to do so, the change to allow search and study checks as a bonus action gives it the intended function at those tables.

The scaling is just borrowed from cantrip scaling, and times for long rest feels right, maybe 1 per short or long rest, more importantly I think that would be too much for at will.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That's the issue. It completely devalues anything else so you will feel like you are wasting slots when you don't use HM of veil. However, the spell list is still eating up a huge portion of the class budget.

It feels bad to have false choices.

Look at the artificer. It has some amazing returns for spells slots but they still get a free use of the feature before they start draining them. It wouldn't take much adjustment to fix this.

It's not false choices, these effects have durations that will allow you to do other things while they're active.

[stoutstien]

It's not false choices, these effects have durations that will allow you to do other things while they're active.

As long as you keep putting quarters in the ride.

[animorte]

I believe this thread is proof that it doesn’t matter what they do whatsoever. Us forumites will find something wrong with content and it will never be good enough (or way too good).

As I was reading through it, I realized the Ranger is actually my favorite class in the UA (though I’m sure that will change with more content). Hunter’s Mark is significantly better than it ever has been, but it’s still not a class feature and still requires a slot.

I’m more than willing to take that trade of it functioning much better AND I also get cantrips. I’m not sure how much you would value cantrips as spell slots themselves, but there’s enough choices within that you can usually make up for it, at least as far as I’m concerned.

I’m sure additional subclasses will provide more precise thematic and mechanical purposes. You can’t have a class without a subclass after all (except the first two levels, and let’s be completely real here, who actually intends to play those?)

[stoutstien]

It's a bit ironic in a way. Because so many of their spells took concentration, Rangers often weren't using all their spell slots and needed better ways to burn them in combat. Now we get Nature's Veil (and Hunter's Mark) that want frequent spell soy expenditure, but because bonus actions have been freed up other spells are going to see their usage spike too. It doesn't help that Nature's Veil was formerly free and now it's not, even if it has been buffed a bit.

Though I'd argue that Hunter's Mark is a prime candidate for up casting since it no longer requires concentration. One 2nd or 3rd level spell slot is a steep price at first but it's more effective than spending three or four 1st level spell slots over the course of an adventuring day.

Yea they just over corrected. A little lean back to some resource economy and it would be a lot better. at least give it auto upcasting.

[Psyren]

That's the issue. It completely devalues anything else so you will feel like you are wasting slots when you don't use HM of veil.

This is way too reductive. Yes, most of the time using your slots on HM/Veil will be better than using them on spells, just like most of the time saving your slots to smite with is better than using them on spells. But most of the time != all of the time. Crafting interesting encounters that get the players to think about their resources in different ways - especially interesting non-combat encounters - is the DM's job, not the players'.

As long as you keep putting quarters in the ride.

A single 3rd-level slot means Hunter's Mark lasts all day. Will that be the best use of a 3rd-level slot on many days, absolutely. Will you be the only one who can dispel something on other days and therefore want the 1st-level "quarters" approach instead? Again, the DM should at the very least be getting you to think about these things.

[stoutstien]

This is way too reductive. Yes, most of the time using your slots on HM/Veil will be better than using them on spells, just like most of the time saving your slots to smite with is better than using them on spells. But most of the time != all of the time. Crafting interesting encounters that get the players to think about their resources in different ways - especially interesting non-combat encounters - is the DM's job, not the players'.



A single 3rd-level slot means Hunter's Mark lasts all day. Will that be the best use of a 3rd-level slot on many days, absolutely. Will you be the only one who can dispel something on other days and therefore want the 1st-level "quarters" approach instead? Again, the DM should at the very least be getting you to think about these things.

Maybe I am being over critical but the majority of people who I see who enjoy playing rangers don't want this level of resource management especially since they are now going to be prepared casters and they have to deal with that everyday. The overall payout is also really low.

[Psyren]

Maybe I am being over critical but the majority of people who I see who enjoy playing rangers don't want this level of resource management especially since they are now going to be prepared casters and they have to deal with that everyday. The overall payout is also really low.

That's far better than new players picking bad spells because they sounded cool (Ooh, Find Traps! Hail of Thorns! Conjure Barrage!) and then finding out they're stuck with jank for multiple sessions if not their whole career. Spellcasters moving to partial-vance preparation is honestly a great thing.

[Person_Man]

Maybe I am being over critical but the majority of people who I see who enjoy playing rangers don't want this level of resource management especially since they are now going to be prepared casters and they have to deal with that everyday. The overall payout is also really low.

Yeah - people who play half casters or Monks typically want some magical toys - but do not want to read a phonebook of spells. I think the Paladin is the ur-example of how to do it right. So my sense is that almost all of the Rangers abilities should be passive, one ability can be fueled by spells (Hunter’s Mark?) and maybe one or two abilities run on short rest.

[Stangler]

Am I the only one who preferred Horde Breaker? Why did they remove this option?

My guess is that horde breaker and volley are both going to pop up somewhere else like a high level feat. They were pretty fun and interesting abilities that were kind of hidden away in the hunter ranger.

[stoutstien]

My guess is that horde breaker and volley are both going to pop up somewhere else like a high level feat. They were pretty fun and interesting abilities that were kind of hidden away in the hunter ranger.

They should have put horde breaker on the two weapon fighting feat.

[Stangler]

They should have put horde breaker on the two weapon fighting feat.

I think it should probably live with a selection of feats that are similar in power level to it. Although I think the two weapon fighting feat needs some love.

[Segev]

I think I need some clarification, I am not sure how hiding without obscurement and turing invisible feel different. Is it specifically the spell slot thing?

Invisibility doesn't make you hidden in 5.0 or 5.1. They are two separate, if mildly related, conditions. Turning invisible is not an expression of supreme skill. You maybe could fluff it as such, but not when Invisibility is defined the way it is in 5e (either version).

Spending a spell slot to turn invisible as a bonus action would enable you to hide as your action. What I think works better is the more powerful ability to do so without having to turn invisible. It also fits more with "expert."

The snarky comment about not wanting martials to have magic is noted, but I don't mind rangers having the invisibility spell. But as a class feature standing on its own, no. It is lazy design that only has a place in quickly made house rules or a video game where trying to program something better would be too expensive.

[Witty Username]

Spending a spell slot to turn invisible as a bonus action would enable you to hide as your action. What I think works better is the more powerful ability to do so without having to turn invisible. It also fits more with "expert."

I don't think it would be more powerful.
I will just call this proposed ability hide in plain sight since that was what this would be in earlier editions.
Hide in plain sight, wouldn't have the same utility in combat, since it takes an action to hide. Nature's veil, gives the advantage from attacking unseen without taking your attack action.

I think you mentioned something about it in your original post, but I think it would have to be pared with an ability to attack without breaking stealth, to it becomes a one 1 turn investment into greater gains later. Or an ability to hide as a bonus action, so it can mimic rogue gameplay with cunning action.

I personally don't see the issue from a flavor point, both appear as disappearing from sight, and using nature magic to vanish from perception may not fit "Expert" but it does fit "Ranger". Further, invisible is a condition, it doesn’t have to be tied to magic.

Heck, probably for wording ease I would word Hide in plain sight as, "you may turn invisible as you attempt a hide check, you remain invisible for as long as you are hiding."
Feels very video gamey, but I am not sure that is the wording so much as the effect for me.

Edit: hm, reading the UA ranger now in case something was lost in translation. I find the number of spell slots, and number of prepared spells the ranger has matching exactly, pretty neat. It is not a big change (+4 spells known by level 20), but it smooths out the jumps in spell level quite a bit. I hope that design makes it into sorcerer as well (they need it a lot more).

Hm, no Natural Explorer, 4 choices of Expertise instead, I think that sells the ranger better in the first place, since it was a hassle to determine what "Related to your terrain" meant, and can apply to things like stealth and athletics, which should have been benefits rangers got in familiar terrain but didn't, also it won't randomly turn off due to the DM not having a cherry picked adventure setting for your abilities.

I think 17th level should have a feature, just to fill it with something, another tick of expertise feels cheap, but it would get it done. then we reach 1-20 with no dead levels.

Until you actually read the features. We have a half caster that now has more ways of expending spell slots to fuel features than most primary casters.

I count three features (five including the hunter subclass), Favored Enemy, Nature's Veil and Foe slayer.
Expertise, the fighting style, Extra Attack, Roving, Tireless and Feral senses are all at will not costing spell slots.
I agree that Foe Slayer sucks, but that is sort of a separate thing, as it isn't really a feature because of how small the effect is.

As for primary casters, I agree that two is more than 0, but casters tend to not get much in the way of features beyond additional spells, and modifications to spells.
Overall,
This looks like the Tasha's Ranger but all the abilities are stronger, sans Primal awareness (which was better than nothing but still not much, and is kinda worked into the additional spells known) and Nature's Veil, which loses the separate resource but has a doubled duration.

[Segev]

I personally don't see the issue from a flavor point, both appear as disappearing from sight, and using nature magic to vanish from perception may not fit "Expert" but it does fit "Ranger". Further, invisible is a condition, it doesn’t have to be tied to magic.

My issue with it is that "using nature magic to...fits Ranger" can have anything you want inserted into that ellipsis. Which makes the "turn invisible" not really "fit ranger" any more than "breathe fire" or "turn your enemies into swine" or "flap your arms and fly."

There's nothing "ranger-y" about being invisible. There is about being hidden.

And if you don't see the difference, then why can't all rogues cast invisibility as a bonus action at will as part of Cunning Action? "Turn invisible" is different from "hide really well."

I would have zero problem with Rangers getting invisibility added to their spell list the same way Bards get spells added to theirs with "Song of Healing." Or even having invisibility just being on the Primal list, especially if "you call on nature spirits to..." is enough to make something flavored appropriately. I do have issue with them getting a wonky class feature called "Nature's Veil" that gives them an admittedly-good invisibility power when that's just...ehn. It's a rogue thing, not a ranger thing. Really, more of a shadow monk thing, if I'm really precise.

It just feels "off," to me. I won't dispute it's potent. Probably just about the right power level, or maybe a little underpowered, for the level they get it. But the fact they feel the need to throw in fluff that is hollow and generic and could justify literally anythign in order to justify it only highlights to me how inappropriate it is.

[Abracadangit]

My issue with it is that "using nature magic to...fits Ranger" can have anything you want inserted into that ellipsis. Which makes the "turn invisible" not really "fit ranger" any more than "breathe fire" or "turn your enemies into swine" or "flap your arms and fly."

There's nothing "ranger-y" about being invisible. There is about being hidden.

And if you don't see the difference, then why can't all rogues cast invisibility as a bonus action at will as part of Cunning Action? "Turn invisible" is different from "hide really well."

I would have zero problem with Rangers getting invisibility added to their spell list the same way Bards get spells added to theirs with "Song of Healing." Or even having invisibility just being on the Primal list, especially if "you call on nature spirits to..." is enough to make something flavored appropriately. I do have issue with them getting a wonky class feature called "Nature's Veil" that gives them an admittedly-good invisibility power when that's just...ehn. It's a rogue thing, not a ranger thing. Really, more of a shadow monk thing, if I'm really precise.

It just feels "off," to me. I won't dispute it's potent. Probably just about the right power level, or maybe a little underpowered, for the level they get it. But the fact they feel the need to throw in fluff that is hollow and generic and could justify literally anythign in order to justify it only highlights to me how inappropriate it is.

It's interesting, isn't it? Like, why does it being magical, with a little graphic of leaves swirling around you as you cast it, feel wrong -- but it does, for reasons you touch down on. Being a sort of ambush-specialized stalker of your prey shouldn't involve magic per se, there should be core ranger features that are accessible without the use of magic or spell slots, and yet this is where it keeps going.

I think part of the issue is WotC wants there to be parity between the Paladin and the Ranger: "Look, one is a martial with divine magic mixed in, the other is a martial with primal magic mixed in, and they're philosophical opposites in this way and that way. Look how elegant it is." But the problem is that thematically, the Paladin needs divine magic to do paladinesque things. Aside from some serious refluffing, there's no way to take the magic out of healing with a touch, or imbuing your weapon with holy energy, or everything else -- it's core to what the Paladin can do, in a more fundamental way than the Ranger. So much of what the Ranger can do feels like it shouldn't be tethered to magic.

But then it's down the rabbit hole, and eventually you end up with a completely un-magic Ranger like the "Level Up - 5e Advanced" one. And that always feels like it's going too far, somehow. So the Ranger debates continue.

[Rukelnikov]

It's interesting, isn't it? Like, why does it being magical, with a little graphic of leaves swirling around you as you cast it, feel wrong -- but it does, for reasons you touch down on. Being a sort of ambush-specialized stalker of your prey shouldn't involve magic per se, there should be core ranger features that are accessible without the use of magic or spell slots, and yet this is where it keeps going.

I think part of the issue is WotC wants there to be parity between the Paladin and the Ranger: "Look, one is a martial with divine magic mixed in, the other is a martial with primal magic mixed in, and they're philosophical opposites in this way and that way. Look how elegant it is." But the problem is that thematically, the Paladin needs divine magic to do paladinesque things. Aside from some serious refluffing, there's no way to take the magic out of healing with a touch, or imbuing your weapon with holy energy, or everything else -- it's core to what the Paladin can do, in a more fundamental way than the Ranger. So much of what the Ranger can do feels like it shouldn't be tethered to magic.

But then it's down the rabbit hole, and eventually you end up with a completely un-magic Ranger like the "Level Up - 5e Advanced" one. And that always feels like it's going too far, somehow. So the Ranger debates continue.

Yeah, the Ranger having magic is ok, but shouldn't depend on it.

[Segev]

I have no problem with the ranger having Primal magic. Give them the Invisibility spell on their class list, for all I care. But they shouldn't have special things the base ranger does with invisibility.

The Gloomstalker being invisible to darkvision? That is cool and flavorful to me. Whether it is magic or not. It doesn't need "you call on nature spirits" to justify it. It is just a cool thing that works with the subclass themes. Ranger magic including means of becoming invisible is fine. But not as a class feature. Not as a whole level's feature.

Heck, if it worked with environmental dependence, or with some quirk the way the Gloomstalker one does...? That'd work for me.

Maybe if they still had favored terrain, and the Nature's Veil was different based on your favored terrain. Arctic gives you bonus action Displacement as you refract through the magic of ice. Desert gives you an obscuring sandstorm that you can see through but others can't. Forest gives you hide in plain sight as a bonus action. Coast makes you invisible underwater. Etc.

[Abracadangit]

Yeah, the Ranger having magic is ok, but shouldn't depend on it.

Agreed. I wonder if there's a chance that they do with the Ranger what Fizban's did with that dragon monk subclass -- like you have a pool based on prof bonus or some ability modifier, and then if you want, you can elect to burn spell slots to fuel the ability once you're out of your standard allotment. And that merges the martial with the magic nicely -- like the Ranger has so much stamina to burn per long rest, but can fall back on magic to supplement when the times are tough.

Of course, it still has the "Poof in a magical cloud of leaves" Nature's Veil problem, but it could be a start.

[Kane0]

So something similar to invocations then?