D&D 5E Could the Revised/Variant Ranger be released by the end of the year?

[MechaTarrasque]

Sorry, no UA this December (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/0...advice-articles-published-this-december-2017/).

 

[Parmandur]

This is a bit of an aside, but I remembered another thing Crawford said in that interview that might be of interest. He said that one clue that a given UA article is on a topic that they are seriously considering for a product (in other words, not just a random experiment like Mike's alternative initiative rule or a very early try at something) is when his name is associated with the article. In other words, once he gets involved the idea is far enough along that they are making a serious run at it.

AD

Interesting...

 

[lkj]

Yeah, it's funny. I listened to that while I was working on something else and didn't think a lot about it. But it was surprisingly informative when I look back and also see these messageboard discussions.

Other fun tidbits were his mention of the mystic and how much more work it needed. He said something like, 'Because frankly, the mystic right now is bonkazonks broken'. I probably don't have the exact quote right, but the word 'bonkazonks' sticks in my head.

It was also funny to hear him laugh as he talked about Mike's alternative initiative rules, saying something along the lines of how those 'would never ever show up in a printed product'.

AD

 

[Azzy]

There is not a zero chance of an official Warlord.

True, zero chance is way too committal. It would be more accurate to say that there's a dismally small chance of an official 5e Warlord (unfortunately).

 

[Hussar]

Having seen both the revised hunter and beast master rangers in play, I can say that I can see why they might want to pull back a bit on the base class features. The revised ranger is VERY strong. Pretty much guaranteed advantage in the first round of combat is a bit OP IMO. Plus completely ignoring all difficult terrain? Yeah, that's a bit much.

And the beast master ranger is a bloody brute. At least in our 6th level group anyway. Dunno about higher levels, but, wow, that beast master is nasty. 3-4 attacks per round (between two weapon fighting, the single attack from the wolf companion plus the bonus wolf attack when the ranger attacks) half of them carrying rider effects (wolf trip) and the wolf pretty much having advantage 100% of the time (pack tactics) means that the ranger is dealing insane damage.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't need to see it in play to conclude the revised first-levels benefits were too strong.

That the Beastmaster is very strong in combat is a feature, not a bug. We want the pet to be capable. Controlling two capable entities instead of just one is bound to be strong.

The main fault with the original Beastmaster was - when you get down to it - that it tried to be balanced.

I'd much rather they add a sidebar saying the revised Beastmaster needs explicit buy-in from the DM and the group - yes, it will steal more than a single share of the spotlight, that's what running two creatures mean.

They could have the text say the animal is technically under the DMs control and is only cooperating as long as everybody is fine with the way the player is handling the subclass; generally being fair and effective.

Something along the way the Wild Sorcerer requires DM buy-in.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Azzy]

Having seen both the revised hunter and beast master rangers in play, I can say that I can see why they might want to pull back a bit on the base class features. The revised ranger is VERY strong. Pretty much guaranteed advantage in the first round of combat is a bit OP IMO. Plus completely ignoring all difficult terrain? Yeah, that's a bit much.

Yeah, my biggest beefs with the revised ranger was that many of the features didn't just make them*better* in the exploration pillar, it flat-out negated most challenges of the exploration pillar. It was just too much.

 

[Mistwell]

There is not a zero chance of an official Warlord.

What you meant to say is that YOU want there to be a zero chance of an official Warlord. You simply got fact and want mixed up there bud.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

No Cap, I want a Warlord. You have me completely wrong. It was my favorite class in 4e, and I'd like to see one for 5e. I am saying every indication from Crawford and Mearls is they have no interest in touching the class again. Even though I, and you, and others, would like to see it happen.

Now maybe I am wrong. I'd like to be wrong on this one. But, my read of their opinions on the Warlord is they have no intention of ever touching it for 5e.

 

[Xeviat]

Yeah, my biggest beefs with the revised ranger was that many of the features didn't just make them*better* in the exploration pillar, it flat-out negated most challenges of the exploration pillar. It was just too much.

This a million times. I don't just want the ranger to be a wilderness rogue who spent their expertises on nature, survival, perception, and stealth, but I want it to be comparable.

 

[Eric V]

Hmm. I am playing a 9th level beastmaster now, and average about 2.5 attacks per round. I am not dual-wielding since that would make my melee guy too squishy IMO. Since wolfie and I go on separate initiatives, wolfie can't always pull off the reaction-attack, especially if we have to split up, or I have to use my bow. (And then, causing my target to go prone is NOT helpful...). To be sure, we shine against humanoids and undead, but are fairly plebian otherwise, especially standing next to the GWM barbarian and SS Arcane archer, but even next to the super-stealth rogue.

We actually forgot I get advantage on 1st round of combat, so if that goes, we won't miss much.
-E