UA ranger

[Witty Username]

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.

So if the description was: your knowledge of the forces of nature and the natural environment give you the ability to disappear from sight. Would that work better for you?

I don't like tying the feature to a specific favored terrain, I feel that just ports in the problems that made natural explorer unusable in the first place. Whether the reasoning is using the natural environment it should be usable in any environment.

Sidenote: turn invisible is a bridge too far, but conjuring sandstorms is not?

[Rukelnikov]

So if the description was: your knowledge of the forces of nature and the natural environment give you the ability to disappear from sight. Would that work better for you?

I don't like tying the feature to a specific favored terrain, I feel that just ports in the problems that made natural explorer unusable in the first place. Whether the reasoning is using the natural environment it should be usable in any environment.

Sidenote: turn invisible is a bridge too far, but conjuring sandstorms is not?

The thing is, a power usable X times per day feels like magic not skill.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So if the description was: your knowledge of the forces of nature and the natural environment give you the ability to disappear from sight. Would that work better for you?

I don't like tying the feature to a specific favored terrain, I feel that just ports in the problems that made natural explorer unusable in the first place. Whether the reasoning is using the natural environment it should be usable in any environment.

Sidenote: turn invisible is a bridge too far, but conjuring sandstorms is not?

Let's pose the question in another way then - to those who think the feature is "bad" for the ranger.

If the flavor was there, is there anything wrong with the mechanic? I don't think so. Personally I don't see anything wrong with there being a lack of flavor associated with it anyway, all the more reason to create your own.

And I absolutely agree, a lot of these proposed solutions are assuming a backwoods or borderlands type of Ranger. What about an Urban Ranger, someone who hunts prey in cities and can disappear into the shadows briefly. This feature is pretty cool, it lets me be Batman when he's popping in and out of the darkness in an alleyway. If we attach some limitation like "blend into foliage or natural terrain" then what do I do in a dungeon or city?

The thing is, a power usable X times per day feels like magic not skill.

The sooner we accept that everyone is a little magical the sooner we can get away from "guy at the gym". Besides, it can be both, it's already very typical in fantasy for it to be both.

[Rukelnikov]

Let's pose the question in another way then - to those who think the feature is "bad" for the ranger.

If the flavor was there, is there anything wrong with the mechanic? I don't think so. Personally I don't see anything wrong with there being a lack of flavor associated with it anyway, all the more reason to create your own.

And I absolutely agree, a lot of these proposed solutions are assuming a backwoods or borderlands type of Ranger. What about an Urban Ranger, someone who hunts prey in cities and can disappear into the shadows briefly. This feature is pretty cool, it lets me be Batman when he's popping in and out of the darkness in an alleyway. If we attach some limitation like "blend into foliage or natural terrain" then what do I do in a dungeon or city?

The sooner we accept that everyone is a little magical the sooner we can get away from "guy at the gym". Besides, it can be both, it's already very typical in fantasy for it to be both.

And it doing that is great, but something like HiPS historically allowed for something similar, which could be done at will, and I think something like that is more fitting because A- It showcases skill, and B- Doesn't bypass the skill system like casting invisibility does, how good you are at stealth matters in that case.

Sadly, I think that may exactly be the reason why they preffer something like invis, because if you did not pick Stealth as a proficiency and do not have a good Dex its useless. Base classes have no feature that depends on a skill, that's the purview of choice based features, like subclasses, Invocations or spells. However, I'd argue that if that's the case, then the feature has no place in the base class, and should be part of a subclass, or other choice based feature. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of invacation based Ranger. EDIT: And maybe a spellcasting akin to PM too.

BTW somehow I hadn't realised or seen mention that the Vanish feature vanished.

[Witty Username]

Invisibility doesn't bypass the skill system, beyond granting advantage and disadvantage.
To hide with it, you need to use the skill system, otherwise enemies will still know your location.

Hide in plain sight (from 3.5, Hide in plain sight from 5e is a non-feature) is functionally the same as briefly turning invisible.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Hide in plain sight (from 3.5, Hide in plain sight from 5e is a non-feature) is functionally the same as briefly turning invisible.

Actually, now that I'm reading it, doesn't this feature literally not work? You take a minute to camouflage yourself, the benefit of which is a +10 bonus to stealth checks as long as you remain there without moving or taking actions.

Once you take an action (to hide) you lose the benefits of the camouflage.

[Witty Username]

Actually, now that I'm reading it, doesn't this feature literally not work? You take a minute to camouflage yourself, the benefit of which is a +10 bonus to stealth checks as long as you remain there without moving or taking actions.

Once you take an action (to hide) you lose the benefits of the camouflage.

Yeah, there are reasons why, while I am willing to defend PHB Ranger as a class, I am not willing to defend its class features.

[Abracadangit]

Yeah, the problem with specific terrain types is then you end up with the same issue as the Fathomless Warlock -- if you don't have bodies of water to fuel that one ability, that button just stays grayed out on your character sheet, and then it's on the DM to find ways to work the necessary biomes into the game.

And I absolutely agree, a lot of these proposed solutions are assuming a backwoods or borderlands type of Ranger. What about an Urban Ranger, someone who hunts prey in cities and can disappear into the shadows briefly. This feature is pretty cool, it lets me be Batman when he's popping in and out of the darkness in an alleyway. If we attach some limitation like "blend into foliage or natural terrain" then what do I do in a dungeon or city?

Funny, both you and I used Batman metaphors to frame what we want Ranger combat to feel like. Which is good, because the Batman thing helps touch down on what I don't like about Nature's Veil being magicky; in much the same way you can't turn Batman's ability to ambush badguys "off," I don't like the thought of antimagic nullifying a Ranger's ability to do that, either. (I know there's nothing stopping them from Hiding and then attacking badguys later, but I'm talking specifically about the zipping-around-the-battlefield thing.)

Not averse to them having magic! They want to talk to animals or bust out an Entangling Strike or shoot an arrow that turns into a pecking murder of crows or whatever, that should be magic. But I like the idea of the Batman combat being more integral to the core Ranger without being beholden to magic or spell slots. Maybe it consumes another resource a la maneuvers or whatever, and perhaps that would require overhauling the Ranger with some kind of quasi-maneuver mechanic (or just... giving them maneuvers), which I know isn't for everyone, but is something I think would be cool.

[Rukelnikov]

Invisibility doesn't bypass the skill system, beyond granting advantage and disadvantage.
To hide with it, you need to use the skill system, otherwise enemies will still know your location.

You still get advantage to attack and enemies have disad to attack you.

Hide in plain sight (from 3.5, Hide in plain sight from 5e is a non-feature) is functionally the same as briefly turning invisible.

Yeah, that's why I said historically, 5e is a non feature.

[Segev]

So if the description was: your knowledge of the forces of nature and the natural environment give you the ability to disappear from sight. Would that work better for you?

Maybe, but that still isn't really "invisibility." But...maybe.

I don't like tying the feature to a specific favored terrain, I feel that just ports in the problems that made natural explorer unusable in the first place. Whether the reasoning is using the natural environment it should be usable in any environment.

I didn't say it only worked IN your favored terrain. Just that it was themed on what you chose, and possibly different because of it.

Sidenote: turn invisible is a bridge too far, but conjuring sandstorms is not?

It's not that it's magical that's the problem. It's that "invisibility" is not something I think of when I think "Ranger." It's fine if it's on their spell list - though I like pass without trace, which is on the Primal list natively, even better for Rangers than I do invisibility - but as an actual feature....

I don't even like the invisibility features on the Monk and Shadow Monk; I feel they're too janky to use well. But they at least "fit" a little better, there.

Heck, if Nature's Veil gave them pass without trace auto-prepared, and maybe some special perk like they don't have to concentrate on it, or they can cast it without components, or while under its effects they can Hide as a bonus action, or something, that'd be pretty cool. It fits with being a "veil," and it is a spell more in theme than invisibility.

[Rukelnikov]

Maybe, but that still isn't really "invisibility." But...maybe.

I didn't say it only worked IN your favored terrain. Just that it was themed on what you chose, and possibly different because of it.

It's not that it's magical that's the problem. It's that "invisibility" is not something I think of when I think "Ranger." It's fine if it's on their spell list - though I like pass without trace, which is on the Primal list natively, even better for Rangers than I do invisibility - but as an actual feature....

I don't even like the invisibility features on the Monk and Shadow Monk; I feel they're too janky to use well. But they at least "fit" a little better, there.

Heck, if Nature's Veil gave them pass without trace auto-prepared, and maybe some special perk like they don't have to concentrate on it, or they can cast it without components, or while under its effects they can Hide as a bonus action, or something, that'd be pretty cool. It fits with being a "veil," and it is a spell more in theme than invisibility.

Weirdly enough they took that away.

[Witty Username]

Weirdly enough they took that away.

Maybe because it steps on the rogues toes a bit? maybe because they thought it unnecessary given at a similar level is a bonus action invisibility effect, so bonus action hide would be dubiously valuable.

Good candidate for a level 17 feature to suggest?

Maybe, but that still isn't really "invisibility." But...maybe.

So maybe, invisibility heavily obscured? Mechanically the same but shifts the idea that something is blocking vision rather that not being visible out right, kinda like how I imagine shadow of moil looks (I don't recall the spells actual description).

[Kane0]

Bonus action hide being a tier 3 ability is not a good idea, especially if another class in the same 'category' gets it in tier 1 with other things attached

[ProsecutorGodot]

Bonus action hide being a tier 3 ability is not a good idea, especially if another class in the same 'category' gets it in tier 1 with other things attached

Well, it's an ability that the current ranger has, apparently they want to keep it.

[Witty Username]

For Foe Slayer, assuming we were keeping the premise of it, additional +1d6 or +2d6 damage on top off the standard Hunter's mark?

[ProsecutorGodot]

For Foe Slayer, assuming we were keeping the premise of it, additional +1d6 or +2d6 damage on top off the standard Hunter's mark?

How about this - Instead of rolling, you always deal the maximum amount of damage with your hunter's mark.

Keep in mind that Hunter's Mark has a 24 hour permanent duration at this point when you cast it at 5th level, a TWF or PAM wielding Ranger will be getting 18 flat additional damage, although the PAM user spends an additional turn setting up.

[Segev]

Weirdly enough they took that away.

What did they take away? Pass without trace is still in 5.1, and it's on the Primal list, and it isn't an Evocation spell, so Rangers can cast it. I don't think Rangers ever had a bonus action hide, did they?

[Kane0]

What did they take away? Pass without trace is still in 5.1, and it's on the Primal list, and it isn't an Evocation spell, so Rangers can cast it. I don't think Rangers ever had a bonus action hide, did they?

Yeah 5e PHB ranger, at a level too little and too late

[Psyren]

How about this - Instead of rolling, you always deal the maximum amount of damage with your hunter's mark.

Keep in mind that Hunter's Mark has a 24 hour permanent duration at this point when you cast it at 5th level, a TWF or PAM wielding Ranger will be getting 18 flat additional damage, although the PAM user spends an additional turn setting up.

1) The max roll would mean 6 damage per hit, which is not that far ahead of the current FS 5.5 per hit

2) Max roll might take away FS' current ability to crit since it would no longer be a die roll

3) The 24 hour duration makes sense if you're able to end the day with a 5th level slot free or have any downtime between adventuring days. If neither of these are true, go with the 8-hour 3rd-level slot each day instead, or possibly even a couple of 1st-level slots depending on how useful scouting is at your table.

[Witty Username]

What did they take away? Pass without trace is still in 5.1, and it's on the Primal list, and it isn't an Evocation spell, so Rangers can cast it. I don't think Rangers ever had a bonus action hide, did they?

Vanish, 14th level, you can hide as a bonus action, also you can't be tracked by non-magical means unless you choose to leave a trail.

Overall, very underwhelming

[ProsecutorGodot]

1) The max roll would mean 6 damage per hit, which is not that far ahead of the current FS 5.5 per hit

2) Max roll might take away FS' current ability to crit since it would no longer be a die roll

3) The 24 hour duration makes sense if you're able to end the day with a 5th level slot free or have any downtime between adventuring days. If neither of these are true, go with the 8-hour 3rd-level slot each day instead, or possibly even a couple of 1st-level slots depending on how useful scouting is at your table.

1) That's fine. Consistency is good. Heck, increase it to a d8 or just add this to the playtest version as is and see how it breaks.

2) I'd prefer not to bank on crits or assume they'll show up with enough regularity that this would matter. The wording can be changed in a way that dice are involved but the values are maximized.

3)I'm sure that will happen often enough, but you're right, the 3rd level version is more resource efficient in most cases.

[Sindal]

Which subclasses do you guys think will survive?

If we assume roughly 4 per class

Hunter, beastmaster, gloomstalker and horizon walker?

(Default, companion, underground and space)

[Leon]

Which subclasses do you guys think will survive?

If we assume roughly 4 per class

Hunter, beastmaster, gloomstalker and horizon walker?

(Default, companion, underground and space)

Hunter hasn't survived, its been shanked

[Segev]

1) That's fine. Consistency is good. Heck, increase it to a d8 or just add this to the playtest version as is and see how it breaks.

I am not sure "consistency is good" is an accurate statement as far as 5e damage goes. They generally moved away from flat bonuses to damage in favor of dice bonuses, as well as in ability check improvers. Flat bonuses are also less rewarded in 5e damage, not being improved by critical hits.

While I think I appreciate where you're coming from, if consistency were a virtue in damage, would that not be a reason to do away with dice altogether when determining it?

[Schwann145]

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.

Isn't it obvious on it's face?
It's because the Ranger is a Wizard.
They included it in the "Expert" group by mistake; it should be in the "Mage" group, with how reliant on spells, spell-mimicing-effects, and spell-slot burning it is.

And, over the years, they've only doubled, tripled, quadrupled down on this nonsense.
You don't observe the vulnerabilities, weaknesses, strengths, etc of your foes and engage accordingly based on what you learn with your eyes and knowledges; you cast a spell that tells you where best to shoot/stab it for best effect, like a Wizard does.
You don't train and hone yourself to be able to blend in with your surroundings and ambush your foes; you twiddle your fingers and turn invisible, like a Wizard does.
You don't master and tame the beasts of the land; you force elemental spirits to pretend to be beasts and do your bidding, like a Wizard does.
You don't commune with nature in any way, shape, or form; you bend force it to your will with chanting and components, like a Wizard does.

Those that can, do. Those that can't, cast spells to make up for their shortcomings.
The Ranger is supposed to be the class that CAN. Instead, it's just another caster. And it's a real shame. Just another victim of 5e's over-reliance on spells-as-abilities in a lazy-but-effective way to balance the game.

[animorte]

Instead, it's just another caster. And it's a real shame. Just another victim of 5e's over-reliance on spells-as-abilities in a lazy-but-effective way to balance the game.

I think I understand why though. I’ve said consistently that the quickest way to martial/caster balance would be calming down spells. Leveling then down, reducing number of overall spells, etc. but nobody will go for that, not the community and certainly not the designers. Power creep.

They’ve already pumped so much power into spells over the years that the only reasonable way to power up martial classes is by giving them spells. At this point, there aren’t very many abilities/features you can add without it just simulating a pre-existing spell. Granted, they could take a good look and improve basic martial features all around, but that will never really approach spell-worthy power.

[Witty Username]

A Ranger that doesn't cast spells is a fighter with a bow. I don't want to play a fighter with a bow, I want to play a Ranger.
Rangers are spellcasters always have been.

And they get Expertise, fightings styles and extra attack. A warrior with a bunch of skills, and when those skills aren't enough they use magic.
Expertise in nature, what is this monster's stuff, biff the check, cast libra (or scan depending on your FF).

[KorvinStarmast]

Not had time to read through the thread entirely yet, but has anyone noticed how weird it is they stripped Dueling from Rangers?

I noticed that, and I will be mentioning that in the feedback.

It's kinda wild, isn't it? There are definitely positive changes in the update, don't get me wrong, but it's incredible how for a class that should feel active and mobile and like a skirmisher, the class features are all so... boring.
It's a yawnfest of passives and weird Johnny-come-latelies that impress no one.
It's how late they show up that is a problem.

7th Level: Roving.

Yes. Too late.
11th Level: Tireless.

Too late.

13th Level: Nature's Veil. You can expend a spell slot to become Invisible for one turn. And it uses your Bonus Action, instead of your Action Action, which is probably also supposed to be impressive.

Should not cost a spell slot. (Maybe Prof bonus times per LR?)

15th Level: Blindsight hrrrrnnnggghhhhh

I like it.

What anti-Ranger group is lobbying them not to?

Been an issue since about 2014. Maybe they all hate Belkar.

Where are all the active abilities that aren't spells?

Nice points.

It feels like there's all this thematic real estate on the table, and they just... won't... touch it.

Maybe they all hate Aragorn. Maybe some of them hate Drizzt.

Nature's veil ... The mistake in that feature IMO is consuming spell slots,

With you, and I'll mention this in the feedback.

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.

Good perspective.

Which subclasses do you guys think will survive?
Hunter, beastmaster, gloomstalker and horizon walker

It's more than enough.

It's because the Ranger is a Wizard.

The company is not called Rangers of the Coast.

The Ranger is supposed to be the class that CAN. {snip} Just another victim of 5e's over-reliance on spells-as-abilities in a lazy-but-effective way to balance the game.

Not gonna disagree.

[Witty Username]

I think proficiency bonus times per long rest for nature's veil is a good idea, I think using spell slots after that would be a good. I like that design for casting classes.

While we are asking for fighting styles, what do people think about Ranger getting Great weapon fighting? I found personally I prefer more permissive than restrictive, so bias, but I also thing Great weapon fighting is pretty reasonably in the wheelhouse of ranger (that and Minsc is Iconic at this point).

[Schwann145]

A Ranger that doesn't cast spells is a fighter with a bow.

But a Ranger with spells is just a Fighter pretending to be a Druid.

Kidding aside, the root of the problem is what the Ranger is, is a Fighter/Rogue gestalt with a handful of Druid spells thrown in for flavor.
Obviously that can't be allowed; it nukes any idea of balance. But by the time we've carved it down into something that's fair, it's lost too much of what makes it "the Ranger."