I've spent the past few months breaking down the Ranger and trying to find some common ground across different fan expectations. Here's what I've got.

[Acr0ssTh3P0nd]

Ok, so the ranger has an identity problem. People can agree on three things about the ranger: it is (a) the exploration class, and is (b) a competent martial character that (c) has access to spellcasting options.

Thing is, no one can agree on how to implement (b) and (c). If you have 1/2-spellcasting as part of the main class, then you can't have an independent animal companion for the Beast Master archetype. But the Beast Master is such a "ranger" thing, and works really well thematically! You could fix this by making the Beast Master a separate class. But, if the Ranger class has spellcasting in its core, you still can't use the exploration class in low-magic campaigns, which (to me, at least) sees really silly. If the class has no spellcasting, what differentiates it from a fighter or rogue with the outlander background, at least in flavor?

See what I mean?

So, to fix this, I've honed in on the one thing that people can agree on: the exploration.

In my attempt to rework the Ranger, the base class is almost entirely exploration-based, no spells as a default (don't panic, I'll explain further), with the only combat features being Extra Attack at 5th level and the weapon and armor proficiencies as they are now. For example, the ranger gets expertise with the survival skill at 1st level as a baseline. This overall approach makes it much, much better at exploration than a rogue or fighter with the outlander background, and so establishes and retains its identity in that regard.

With spellcasting removed from the base class, each subclass has the power and the freedom to take care of how ranger fights. You have the Hunter, the Beast Master, and the Spellstrider (1/2 caster subclass, with the classic Ranger spells and certain Druid ones - you can finally run a Ranger with Flameblade!). Each one uses unique features to gain their combat boost.

I'd like to note that I 100% think that the Ranger should have spellcasting options. I also 100% think there should be a way to play a no-magic ranger in the default class, rather than requiring a rework of the whole thing.

Over the course of the last few updates, I've used feedback from Reddit and multiple social media sites to hone and refine "survivalist dice" as a class mechanic that can be used in both utility and combat. The ranger class gives some ways to use them for utility (healing in short rests, reducing falling damage, etc) and the subclasses use them for extra damage and more utility (Hunter uses them to deal extra damage and get some set-up, the Beast Master uses them to fuel maneuvers it can pull off with its beast, and the Spellstrider can use them for empowering ranger spells).

Survivalist dice don't recharge until the end of your turn, so you have to be careful about how you use them. Do I spend some on utility options before my turn comes up, or do I blow them all on damage boosts? If I save them for damage, do I spread them across multiple enemies or stack them on a single enemy?

I've decided to call my attempt to rework this classic D&D class "The 'Have Your Cake' Ranger", since its design goals are widesweeping, (overly) ambitious, and are attempting to let rangers have their cake and eat it, too:

• Create a unifying vision for the ranger focused on exploration
• Allow both magic and non-magic rangers by default
• Fix the beast master's balance vs. fun issue
• Change as little as possible from the current, official Ranger
• Save the world and be home in time for tea

A proof-of-concept write-up can be found here.

"Just boost the Beast Master, everything else is fine!" suggestions will be politely-but-firmly rejected. The WotC design team consensus is that the Beast Master's power level is actually balanced with the ranger class as a whole, but is wonky because it doesn't have enough room to work within the ranger subclass space as-written, and I trust their judgement on that one. I also firmly believe that, as "the exploration class", the Ranger should have an option to have no spellcasting in the default class so that you can play the gritty survivalist or person-with-the-wolf in low-magic campaigns.

Additionally, I would like to point out that a fighter with the Outlander background is not the same as a non-magic ranger. The Outlander fighter does not get Survival Expertise (or anything similar), Favored Enemy, Primeval Awareness, Land's Stride, Hide in Plain Sight, or Feral Senses. These are all really cool features that flavorwise (mostly) work with non-magic characters just as well as spellcasters. Beyond tradition, there's no reason to restrict them to any particular character.

 

[Yunru]

Couldn't you just have the battle prowess be from the beast itself? Or just boost the subclasses so if it's not spellcasting it's either Hunter or Beastmaster, rather than how it currently is (I'd say it's currently about 1/3 subclass, I'm suggesting 1/2 to 2/3, depending on how much spellcasting is involved).

 

[Acr0ssTh3P0nd]

I'm not quite following what you're saying. Could you perhaps explain further?

 

[Yunru]

I don't quiet know myself. Currently the ranger has a lot of features even if you disregard the subclasses. My suggestion would be to change that: move more features from the main class to the subclasses, in turn giving them more power, which allows for a better beastmaster.

Also as a personal opinion, Ranger subclasses should be choose at 1st level: I want to play a ranger for the animal companion, not to sit through at least a month's worth of lnot having a companion to eventually get a companion.

If I'm not making much srnse, it's late/very early.

 

[Davinshe]

For the most part I like it. There are definitely parts I'd fiddle with, and I'd still like to see a stronger favored enemy and primal awareness features (though I think your changes there were definitely a step in the right direction and especially liked how it's free once per hour). Ultimately, I think moving more power into the subclasses and giving the main class strengthened exploration yielded good results.

I am still a little worried that a higher level ranger is going to be undercut by spellcasters in the exploration tier. When they have such powerful divinations and travel spells, it's really hard for at-will abilities to not be completely overshadowed. Still, I'd play this version of the ranger in adventurer's league instead of my PHB ranger if I had the option.

 

[Yunru]

Hide in Plain Sight should probably read or, not and, unless you want it to require a tonne of things. It's also quite nonsensical (although this is also a problem with the original): I can disguise better than these elite rangers can, at least I don't have to reapply camouflage each time I move.

Skirmisher doesn't make sense as written: When you start your turn you can roll a dice, but you get to see a (future) attack resolve first?

You've nerfed the beastmaster's beast, which is a step backwards, but also allowed it to break action economy, which is another step backwards (Level 3, 3 attacks, hell yeah!). It does, however, suffer the problem that you're not adding your proficiency to it's damage (unlike the original), so it's use peters out very quickly.

 

[Acr0ssTh3P0nd]

There are definitely parts I'd fiddle with...

Such as? I'm genuinely interested in specifics - I'm trying to make this the ranger fix (oh ambition, you'll kill me).

Ultimately, I think moving more power into the subclasses and giving the main class strengthened exploration yielded good results.

Glad to hear I'm not barking up the wrong tree!

I am still a little worried that a higher level ranger is going to be undercut by spellcasters in the exploration tier. When they have such powerful divinations and travel spells, it's really hard for at-will abilities to not be completely overshadowed.

I agree, and that's a worry with any class that doesn't have full 9th-level spellcasting. At that point, the best I can offer is that if you want that kind of utility and daily power, you should play the Spellstrider ranger archetype.

Still, I'd play this version of the ranger in adventurer's league instead of my PHB ranger if I had the option.

Well, if that's not praise, I don't know what is! I appreciate it.

 

[Acr0ssTh3P0nd]

Hide in Plain Sight should probably read or, not and, unless you want it to require a tonne of things. It's also quite nonsensical (although this is also a problem with the original): I can disguise better than these elite rangers can, at least I don't have to reapply camouflage each time I move.

Good point - I just changed it so that you can move without having to reapply the camouflage.

Skirmisher doesn't make sense as written: When you start your turn you can roll a dice, but you get to see a (future) attack resolve first?

I'll clarify that in the next draft - if you hit a creature with a melee attack and you started your turn at least 15 feet away from that creature, you can roll one or more of your survivalist dice and add them to the damage of the attack.

You've nerfed the beastmaster's beast, which is a step backwards, but also allowed it to break action economy, which is another step backwards (Level 3, 3 attacks, hell yeah!). It does, however, suffer the problem that you're not adding your proficiency to it's damage (unlike the original), so it's use peters out very quickly.

Well, the beast isn't just a damage machine. Yes, 8 extra damage is less helpful as you hit level 7, but at that point, Beast Master maneuvers allow you to set up additional attacks. Unlike the Hunter, you're guaranteed that extra 8 damage and you have a bodyguard to pin down enemies while you go at them from range, and unlike the Spellstrider, you don't expend any resources to get that extra damage.

Also, I just ran the math, and the way I've got it written, the Beast Master has a higher potential damage output than the hunter all the way up to level 10. I've haven't tested it past there, but the Beast master does continue to have the advantage in single-target damage.

 

[WanderingMystic]

While I love the concept you have managed to take one of the worst damage dealing classes in the game and have it deal less damage. Loss of Hunters mark and fighting style from the base class cost the beast master and hunter archetypes. At level 5 hunter 32.5 orig/ 21.5 yours, beastmaster 24 orig/ 27.5 yours the round after you use your action to sick your pet on them so you actually need the pet to attack for 4 round to break even with the original. oh and your beast will miss 15% more than the original beast master.

 

[Acr0ssTh3P0nd]

While I love the concept you have managed to take one of the worst damage dealing classes in the game and have it deal less damage. Loss of Hunters mark and fighting style from the base class cost the beast master and hunter archetypes. At level 5 hunter 32.5 orig/ 21.5 yours, beastmaster 24 orig/ 27.5 yours the round after you use your action to sick your pet on them so you actually need the pet to attack for 4 round to break even with the original. oh and your beast will miss 15% more than the original beast master.

Well, I suppose it's a change from the overpowered special snowflake crud that too many people end up making, innit?

Seriously, I appreciate you doing that math for me. It's given me a lot to consider in terms of power moving forward into playtesting. I originally had the Survivalist dice start at 2d6 instead of 1d8 and improve from there - I might bring that back.

Also, the Hunter still gets a fighting style, but I see what you're saying. I'd just prefer to be very conservative with the power level to start and then to bring it up through playtesting. The actual damage math is the least of my worries about it right now - I'm more concerned with "Is it fun?", "Does it mesh with the 5e design?", "Does it capture 'the Ranger'?", and "How easy is it to balance when the time comes?".