(PEACH) Controller-variant Ranger

I find myself curious as to just how badly I broker the ranger doing this.

Ranger, Controller-Variant

BTW, PEACH means Please Evaluate and Critique Honestly.

And this is the reason the revised ranger is so important to me. LOL!

There was an article in the DDI recently that gave rangers controller-ish powers.

You have added some feats that add control options to the striker ranger, but since you neither reduce the damage the ranger can do nor give them reliable control, I don't think you've really opened up fr a controller ranger - instead you just added options for a more controllerish build. Its a question of degrees, your variant doesn't go all the way to a true controller class. Which is probably good; rebuilding the ranger as a controller is a pretty big task. Adding some feats that give the ranger-as-striker some limited control is a much smaller and less risky change.

In other words, go for it.

I like the concept, using feats to turn damage into control. I don't know why 'stun' is paragon and 'immobilized' is epic. I actually think that giving an extra stun per encounter is a little dangerous, especially when it applies a -2 or -3 to the save. To be honest I think that the prime shot is a little powerful too. Bonus attacks once per round is a much better advantage than +1 to hit some targets.

If you want a controller ranger, I would suggest you start with removing the extra damage from the quarry. Allowing the ranger (already one of the most powerful classes) to retain its insane striker damage and giving it bonus controller options is a little overpowered. Twin strike with daze once per combat for one feat is just too good.

I DO like the idea of applying a status condition instead of extra damage with the hunters quarry. I think it would be more balanced as a class feature for controller rangers than as a feat available to all rangers.

Finally, there is a rules conflict in the wording of quarry. You cannot choose to substitute the status affect for the quarry damage BEFORE you make the attack, because you don't even decide to use quarry until AFTER you hit (PHB).
Sorry if that sounded a little harsh, but I will continue to offer criticism if you update because I like this idea .

Actually, "harsh" is sorta what I was looking for, so you're cool. I knew it was broken. I just needed someone to explain HOW it was broken and point me in a better direction... which is exactly what you did. I'll do some more work on it tomorrow and post a new version, hopefully.

The effort seems rather redundant, since there are a couple of excellent martial controllers available now (the explorer, the guerrilla, and the artillerist amongst them), but my OCD is compelling me to move the ranger from striker to controller SOMEHOW, so I've been trying out ideas.

Thanks for the critiques!

Mmkay, well I do think that the controller ranger is a worth while project for flavor purposes (although OCD is a good reason too). The current ranger powers are nice, they often target multiple foes for controller like tendencies.
When I think of Aragorn holding off 9 Nazgul, it makes me think of a controller.
It makes sense to continue to allow the player to choose their build option (two weapon, ranged, etc) as you have. Losing the quarry damage will be the sacrifice they make for their controller powers.
I also like how you are preserving the ranger's 'quarry' ability but using it for control rather than damage. I would do it as a build option (separate from the build option rangers get normally).
One issue with the feats you use, they stack. Currently your rangers get an extra debuff per encounter for each feat they spend on their quarry ability, which makes the feat too good. Rangers with this build will take all of these feats before other options. Compare this to divine classes with 'channel divinity'. They have decent encounter skills they can get access to with a feat, but they are limited to one 'channel divinity' per fight overall. Similarly your ranger could get a certain limitation on the number of debuffs it can apply, and spending feats increases the ranger's options rather than increasing how many times it can apply debuffs.
So far the debuffs you offer are fairly good, and split up well into different tiers. I don't think it is broken, you might be able to afford to let the player use these debuffs multiple times per combat.
One issue with ranger as a controller is that controllers target multiple foes, while rangers only have one quarry.
Here is my thought:
The ranger is a striker-controller combination. It works by choosing a single, tough target as its quarry, while helping to eliminate other weak targets from the battle. Whenever the ranger kills an enemy, it regains the ability to debuff a target. By eliminating weak enemies, and debuffing more dangerous enemies, the ranger uses battlefield control to protect the party.
Example, your party is ambused by goblins, and an ogre is approaching. In turn 1 you use careful attack to slow the ogre and keep it away for an additional turn. You move beside the goblins and put your bow away. In turn two the ogre is 4 squares closer and no longer slowed. You use twin-strike to take down a goblin minion or two, recharging your debuff. Meanwhile the party's defender moves in on the ogre. In turn 3 the defender is hurt, you rush to his aid, dazing the ogre with another twin strike.
My only problem is that this gives the ranger a debuff aprox. once every 2 turns (assuming he has minions to kill) or maybe a bit less. I don't know if this is balanced with giving up the 1d6 damage a turn.

PS: do you think deafened is much weaker than slow/prone/daze?
PPS: maybe the ranger should get one of these feats for free by default (so that he has at least one option), and can then buy others (again, like channel divinity)
PPPS: thanks for letting me stomp all over your idea
EDIT: forgot to mention, my idea for recharging the debuff on a successful kill was to replace PRIME SHOT. Inspired by your idea to replace prime shot.

Actually, thank you for stomping all over my idea. You've fed me some excellent ideas on how to "un-break" my concept. Thank you!

A new version of the document is up. The link in the OP has been revised accordingly. Attack it viciously! ;-)

"Hunter's quarry: immobilized" says blinded in its text.
"Hunter's quarry: immobilized" isn't available until epic, although restrained is available at paragon, and is strictly better.

Things look pretty good. I can't think of anything else atm.

Yeah, you caught me being sloppy with my copypasta... and with not reading restrained, which says as part of itself that the victim is immobilized. Color me silly.

Another revision, to catch the typographical errors that ErikTheGuy pointed out. This thing is starting to look really good, IMHO.