Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

steeldragons said:

I'm gonna say this once and hopefully that will be the end of it....Multiclassing is optional.

I'm not going to second guess and and cringe and cower about what someone using multiclassing [or feats] can/might do. If someone wants to "build" a ranger-type character using a fighter/rogue MC with an outlander background...or an assassin/barbarian with a criminal background "bounty hunter" type guy or..well, anything...and that's fun for them? Bully! They are going to do that. There is no stopping it. There is no "accounting" for it or "balancing" so that "this guy can't take my stuff." It is childish and it is pointless and it will ALWAYS be able to be circumvented. There is no designing [without extensively more complexity than I am interested in either creating or playing] around it.

So...no...multiclassing is not an issue of any number.

Click to expand...

I know that.
You know that.

But the D&D fanbase will complain and complain if this happens.

The class would, of course, have more than "expertise" as a feature (as you fully well know). and have some things the rogue doesn't and the fighter doesn't and, I suppose, the outlander doesn't. So they will have their "this toy is mine and you can't have it", same as every other class (which my "structure it like a warlock" concept would fully do). I have no doubt a player with a mind toward it will be able to "build" their fighter/rogue outlander, maybe even throw in a bit of druid or sorcerer for some magicky fun and make a perfectly passable "ranger" kind of character...but it still won't be "the ranger" class. If they like it better...so be it. There's nothing to be done about that.

Click to expand...

I know that.
You know that.

But the design team just printed 2 UA rangers that might be worse than fighters or rogues with Stealth and Survival proficiency.

Level 5 Human with 16 Dex dual wielding

Stealth skill
Fighter +6 to check, Action Surge
Rogue +9 to check, Cunning action, subclass features
PHBranger +6 to check. up to 4 fog clouds a day
UAranger +6 to check, Skrimisher's Stealth

Combat skill
Fighter +6 attack, Action Surge, Second Wind, Extra Attack, TWF fighting style
Rogue +6 attack, Sneak Attack 3d6, Uncanny Dodge, Cunning action, subclass features
PHBranger +6 attack. up to 4 hunter's marks a day, Extra Attack, subclass features, TWF fighting style
UAranger +6 attack, Ambuscade, Extra Attack, subclass features, TWF fighting style

steeldragons said:

I'm gonna say this once and hopefully that will be the end of it....Multiclassing is optional.

Click to expand...

The problem is that, for the AL, its NOT optional. Its very much the default assumption. If WotC is going to support AL at all, they have to keep what things will happen there. We've already banned the Tengu-with-an-A from there. How much more will? Are multiple bans like this something they want to push, considering the negative effect it would have?

Personally, I already banned multi-classing from my game. So it doesn't bother me. But there are some who don't have that option, however.

BluSponge said:

Olgar and Steeldragons,

Share emails. Write this up. Post the first five levels. I'd really like to see where you can go with this.

Tom

Click to expand...

Thanks Tom. Well, first, I'll direct you here, Rehashing the Ranger "Final" version is post #37, for the ranger rewrite I've already done.

But this does rather interest me...which kinda makes my head want to explode, considering I have a half dozen fighter archetypes (including a warlord) and a witch class using up "brain space" at the same time.

Since it would just be a 5 level, "mini-class" just to get the idea out into the inter-verse, I can probably throw something together today.

Olgar Shiverstone said:

Here's an initial draft, covering 20 levels (see attachment).

For speed and simplicity, I've mostly repurposed and improved existing Ranger features, rather than completely reinventing everything from scratch. It does a good enough job of showing my initial vision, I think. Please note the revised Beast action mechanics.

Click to expand...

I like what you've done here. It's not really what I'm thinking, but it totally works.

My only two thoughts/questions are: 1. For the Spellcaster, if I don't take it until my 5th level archetype, does that mean I get to start as a 5th level caster (4 1st/2 2nd)? I think it clear that is not/should not be the case...but I can totally see people trying to get away with that. Since there are no #2, 3, 4 features for this subclass, I would think a single sentence stating that if you take this archetype as your 5th level/Secondary archetype, you begin at the start of the spell progression table, i.e. as a 3rd level caster, and increase with your levels from there. Basically, just tack on, "If you take this archetype as your 5th level/Secondary Archetype, you function as a spellcaster two levels lower than you are."

2. The "Flank" action for the Special Beast actions is not really necessary/redundant. The Help action will allow the beast to flank with you (or any other character you direct it to Help). I also think "Stay" is unnecessary and, in my own Beastmaster rewrite, I just say that when it isn't directed or completes an action, the animal just returns to your side (or close to you/your immediate area as it can).

But the rest all looks good to me. I'll get to hammering out something for levels 1-5 after a fresh cup of coffee.

It's occurred to me that I have been in this thread for several pages now...and have yet to weigh in (other than speculation) on the ACTUAL source of the thread: the UA 5e Ranger: Take 3!

So, very quickly, let's see....page 1...Intro, check. Design notes. Check, and always appreciated to get these glimpses into the thought process...

"...They are the paladins of the forest."

Click to expand...

D'OH! Had me right up to the last sentence.

Page 2...

"Key Mechanics: Spirit Path. The Spirit Path class feature combines the concept of an animal companion with the
ranger’s traditional spellcasting..."

Click to expand...

The whowhat now? "...combines the concept of..." uhhhnnnooo. No, it doesn't. That might be what they were going for. They missed....by a lot. This is a shaman kind of thing to do...and as a Ranger archtype, I suppose, it's plausible...though I'd certainly prefer it as a Druid or Barbarian archetype (which it kinda already is, and is sort of directly copying/stepping on the creative space of the Totem Barb, imho)...but as the base Ranger core "lookit I can do" thing?! Not so much....Like, so very not.

Class Features (all of the fiddly bits at the beginning) mostly looks fine/the same. Light armors and shield only...<shrug> It's a start/thing and opens up the subclasses to bonus prof into Medium or Heavy armors, I guess.

Ambuscade...are you ffffundamentally kidding me? A free round* before anyone else acts ?!...every "round"/ initiative roll?! ...AND, in case that isn't completely enough broken for you, you're never surprised...ever.

<tick>

*yes, I know, 5e doesn't have "rounds", but that's what they are/you know what I mean.

Skirmisher's Stealth...

You remain hidden from that creature during your turn, regardless of your actions or the actions of other
creatures. As a bonus action at the end of your turn, you can make a Dexterity (Stealth) check to hide again if you fulfill the conditions
needed to hide.

Click to expand...

Does that...so you...but if...

Dear designers: Read that again...did you read it the first time?...No matter what you do...or anyone else does...your enemy doesn't see you. I can stand next to you with a flashing neon arrow-shaped sign saying "Ranger Here!" pointing to the guy in the 5' space next to me...who just attacked you, by the way...and they are still hidden?!?!

<tick. tick.>

Spirit Path/Companion...sooo, the ranger is the shaman base-class now?

<head explodes>

Yeah. I'm out...Cranial combustion is my limit. Not even going to finish reading.

So, basically, this was posted just to give people to keep them busy/argue about on the internet for a month while they work on something else more important/worthwhile...Because, this? This can't be serious. There are buckets of other topics and material that I am sure they could produce than throwing out this ill-conceived and/or just plain brokenly bad third version of the ranger class. ...and yes, I'm using that word objectively. It has ludicrously "broken" overpowered mechanics and unnecessarily redefining [if not redundant to a totem barbarian] flavor. It is a bad class...of any name.

Minigiant said:

I didn't say they didn't play rangers.
I didn't say they aren't ranger fans.

I am saying they aren't true fans or the true fans got outvoted. Because little is shown that they got into the mentality of why a ranger exists and why it would have what it does. Also a true fan of the ranger wouldn't all so many errors (Primal awareness, concentration)

It feels too much of trying to make someone eles's ranger and not trying to make a ranger that makes sense.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is more that you have a different concept than they do. Me,well, the PHB concept works fine for me. It fits my conception of a nature oriented fighter-type.

Far more so than the AD&D 1E or 2E rangers.

steeldragons said:

yes, I know, 5e doesn't have "rounds", but that's what they are/you know what I mean.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does.

PHB 189

Thanks [MENTION=6779310]aramis erak[/MENTION]

What i meant was, every feature description speaks in terms of "turns" or things taking/dropping effect "until the end of your next turn" or "the beginning of their next turn", etc... Class features, spell durations, etc... are pretty much all referred to in terms of whether they use an "action", a "bonus action", a "reaction" or somehow related to the beginning/end of "turns." So "rounds", while in the game, don't really figure into the design of the classes. I just use it in common knowledge/more easily understood as "the increment of combat in which you do something"...which 5e defines as your "turn"...whereas i (and I presume many others) think of it as "your round."

In effect [and actuality], Ambuscade gives this ranger a round to themselves, even though that's not the language 5e would use, as they're the only ones acting during it. Which, technically is still correct, as "once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round..." and the ranger is the only one getting/taking "a turn" in that "round."

aramis erak said:

Perhaps it is more that you have a different concept than they do. Me,well, the PHB concept works fine for me. It fits my conception of a nature oriented fighter-type.

Far more so than the AD&D 1E or 2E rangers.

Click to expand...

That essentially is the problem.

In popular media, there are about 5 different ranger "concepts" and 5 different ranger "functions"

gweinel said:

Ι don't like the flavor of it. The spirit guardian is not a ranger in my eyes. It is a shaman, or something else.

For me who wants to play a beastmaster, I am still looking for a decent build...

Click to expand...

I actually created a variant druid -- the Spirit Shaman -- using the spirit companion features of this new Ranger build. The spirit companion basically replaces the default Wild Shape ability.

steeldragons said:

TL;DR Model the Ranger after the Warlock...not in magic-use/-origins, of course, but in class structure with separate choice points for the player at creation, as the warlock has "Patron/Pact/Invocations."

Click to expand...

Obviously I agree The ranger has always been a hodgepodge class due to Tolkien's source material and Gygax's interpretation of that in 1e. Embrace it!

Warlock's class design I think would be the best fit for the ranger mainly for the hodgepodge of Invocations, at least that was my inspiration when writing the Wildcrafts. This is a sort of "old school meets new school" approach to the ranger class. New because warlock Invocations are new, and old because it's the equivalent of the 1e ranger's special skills (just in a game with a well developed skill system). The basic idea is there's tracking using Wisdom (Survival) and then there's RANGER tracking, and so on and so forth.

You've also articulated something that I sort of intuitively felt about the ranger class but never quite have been able to put into words.

When I've got more time I'm hoping to get back to my homebrewing, but for now it'll be interesting to see where WOTC takes this.