D&D 5E Revised Ranger (Final Draft)

So after much input from the forum, balancing and play testing, this is the finished product that I've settled on for a 5E Ranger class. It includes 4 subclasses, the Beastmaster, Hunter, Scout and Naturalist (a spell less ranger).

The last thread with all the commentary can be found here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?555981-Re-Revised-Ranger

After one last round of input and criticism, I'm going to post the .pdf to DM's Guild for anyone that wants it. Enjoy!

I haven't looked at the previous thread and I agree for a need to find a variant ranger (something between the PHB and UA RRv2), but I have an honest question with this one if you don't mind me asking: Why not include the official sub-classes from Xanathar's that are official?

Rogue128 said:

I haven't looked at the previous thread and I agree for a need to find a variant ranger (something between the PHB and UA RRv2), but I have an honest question with this one if you don't mind me asking: Why not include the official sub-classes from Xanathar's that are official?

Click to expand...

I'm sure I'm could tweak them and include them. It might be a later addition. They simply aren't there because XGTE wasn't out yet when I started this.

Good write-up!

I like the new Hunter's mark. It's MUCH better than the current.
I like the addition of the Find Familiar feat because it makes sense.
I like the Naturalist addition. We need a spell less ranger!
I like the addition of the GWF style because why not include it in the first place?

I do not like Favored Terrain in general, but I understand why it exists. Same thing with Favored Enemy to a lesser extent. Again, I understand it makes sense, just don't like it.
I do not like the changes to Hunter and Scout/Stalker I don't think Deep/Gloom Stalker needed any changes. I think the problems are mainly in the core features. I am comparing this to the UA revised Ranger of course. Hunter was mostly good the way it was. I can see making a small change here or there like Steel Will for example. I see that the new Hunter's Mark kinda replaces Colossus Slayer, but I like Horde Breaker. I know it's an odd feature that includes a rare free action, but I don't see a problem with it. I also think the Beast Master's Coordinated Attack should stay, but have the option to choose between the Ranger OR the beast getting the reaction attack each round for those Beast Masters that don't choose a melee competent beast. (they do exist)


Foe Slayer is now one of the best capstones in the game. Adding Wisdom to attacks, damage, AND AC is just crazy. A 20th level S&B Ranger can easily have a full time AC of 25 before magic armor. I'm not necessarily complaining because I think capstones SHOULD be crazy strong and there is way too big of an inbalance from class to class.

Favoured enemy Humanoid should be limited. I dont know where, it might have even been 5e, but it was Two races of the Humanoid group.

ZickZak said:

Favoured enemy Humanoid should be limited. I dont know where, it might have even been 5e, but it was Two races of the Humanoid group.

Click to expand...

Yes, the original 5E Ranger allowed two types of humanoids instead of one of the other choices. The revised Ranger from UA expanded this to just humanoids. While the humanoids category is the most expansive, it follows the same pattern as all the other creature categories such as dragons or undead. Two humanoids is certainly way too narrow. Choosing say, Orcs and Goblins, they would likely quickly become useless in later levels and be intirely dependent on the campaign and DM. A middle ground of some kind might be better, but for now I think that the entire category is the way to go.

Hunters Mark is far too powerful. You’ve basically made it a minor Sneak Attack for a class that (most subclasses for) gets Extra Attack.

It needs to cost spell slots, just like Smite, or be limited to x/day, and either way it should require concentration. That’s a lot of extra damage.

I agree with doctorbadwolf. I think Hunter's Mark doesn't need to be a spell, but it should use a spell slot to activate or be limited in a similar ways as the spell. Also, the slayer sub class isn't very elegant in the way it works with Hunter's Mark. Basically, I read it as it replaces hunter's mark and does that damage per every attack?
I would call it Slayer's Mark and say it replaces Hunter's Mark ... or just say it applies to each attack? It's very confusing either way.

Reading this Ranger ... It appears it would be the new DPR king, but that is without doing any math

A 20th level TWF Ranger with 20Dex and 20Wis would have +16 to attack and would do 1d6+1d10+10 x3 before factoring in any feats, magic weapons, or spells. (57 average)
A similarly equipped PAM build would do 2d10+10 x2 + 1d4+1d10+10 before factoring in magic weapons or spells. (61 average without the conditional reaction attack)
A similarly equipped GWM build would have +11 to attack and do 2d6+1d10+20 x2 before factoring in magic weapons or spells. (59.5 damage before factoring in rerolling 1s and the conditional bonus attack)

A 20th level archer would pretty much hit on anything but a 1 with it's completely ridiculous +18 to hit before factoring in magic weapon.



A generic 20th level Greatsword fighter with 20str will do 2d6+5 x4 (48 average)
A 20th level PAM Fighter will do 1d10+5 x4 + 1d4+5 (50.5 average without the conditional reaction attack)

doctorbadwolf said:

Hunters Mark is far too powerful. You’ve basically made it a minor Sneak Attack for a class that (most subclasses for) gets Extra Attack.

It needs to cost spell slots, just like Smite, or be limited to x/day, and either way it should require concentration. That’s a lot of extra damage.

Click to expand...

Wrathamon said:

I agree with doctorbadwolf. I think Hunter's Mark doesn't need to be a spell, but it should use a spell slot to activate or be limited in a similar ways as the spell. Also, the slayer sub class isn't very elegant in the way it works with Hunter's Mark. Basically, I read it as it replaces hunter's mark and does that damage per every attack?
I would call it Slayer's Mark and say it replaces Hunter's Mark ... or just say it applies to each attack? It's very confusing either way.

Reading this Ranger ... It appears it would be the new DPR king, but that is without doing any math

Click to expand...

The intention is that the Hunter subclass adds the Hunter's Mark damage to his attack with out having to Hunter's Mark creatures. It can still Hunter's Mark creatures in order to gain the other abilities of Hunter's Mark, just no bonus damage.

So, this is the way I approached this. First, Hunter's Mark needed to be an ability, not a spell.

Second, I'll work backwards a little bit. A paladin (The ranger's closest analog) gets Improved Smite at level 11, an extra 1d8 damage for each attack. That's already better then what this Ranger has, since the Ranger gets the same damage to each attack, but has to use it's bonus action to do so. The exception here is the Hunter subclass, which works the exact same way that the Paladin does, each adding 1d8 damage to all attacks. On top of this, the Paladin has the option to burn spell slots on Smite's (And cherry pick crits if he desires), something the Ranger can't do. It gets a little more competitive when the Hunter's Mark damage goes up to 1d10, but it still favors the Paladin.

So, at the levels before 11, the Ranger doesn't necessarily have an edge, it just works differently. Again, compared to the Paladin the Ranger does more sustained damage turn after turn, at the cost of his bonus action. The Paladin however, gets much more burst damage in the form of Smites, with no bonus action cost. It takes the ranger 4 hits (4d4) to get the same amount of damage as a single Paladin level 1 Smite (2d8). Both abilities are gained at level 2.

Also, for all classes but the Hunter, they lose any additional Favored Enemy damage, since that is now Hunter exclusive.

The Hunter loses the level 3 abilities that situationally add 1d8/reaction attack/extra attack within 5', but gains the most from the Hunter's Mark improvement.

That's my just justification for this issue. I think it all balances out nicely. I'm still open to criticism! Thanks for the feedback.