Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[ninjayeti]

So the defining ability is that they can summon spirits? That might make for an interesting class, but it sure as hell is not a ranger.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Balance.

You really can't give a Player Character a PC-level-equivalent power companion with no restrictions on actions for very long. D&D combats are won and lost on the number of powerful actions made on each side. Soemthing has to give.

You have to give up something.

• Power. As in the conjure animals and conjure woodland beings spells. You keep all your actions and get to use them often but the actual beasts are weak.

• 
  
  Except... they're not weak in the aggregate, and aggregate is what the spell gives you. Conjure Animals is extremely strong. Have you seen what a dozen flying snakes (Conjure Animals V = 16 animals) can do as they fly by? Blindsight and a +6 attack for 3d4+1 damage with flyby. Even the basic 3rd level spell will murderize giants. Sure, a single hit will kill a snake (although Flyby + decent AC + blindsight + darkness can make them quite hard to hit), but meanwhile the spellcaster and his buddies are killing you.
  
  If anyone in my game ever wants to play a beastmaster ranger, I plan to just tell him that there is no restriction on the beast's actions, but he gets the proficiency bonus to attack/damage/AC/saves if and only if the ranger PC is spending his action directing the beast per the PHB. At any other time, it just has regular stats for the kind of beast it is, plus inflated HP. That is somewhat stronger than the PHB ranger but won't cause any balance problems, because the Hunter ranger already gets Conjure Animals and three or more attacks per round (counting Horde Breaker and sometimes Volley). The main benefit is that it prevents the beast from standing around idiotically at inappropriate times.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Skirmisher's Stealth. This is another ranged-only power. Being able to dash in and out of cover and make a melee attack seems super situational. Plus it provokes opportunity attacks.

Skirmisher's Stealth actually prevents opportunity attacks, since you can make opportunity attacks only against a creature you can see. (Darkness prevents opportunity attacks as well.)

 

[Evenglare]

Sucks that they took all the time and still messed up the ranger and misnamed the fighter subclass. :/

 

[Minigiant]

Except... they're not weak in the aggregate, and aggregate is what the spell gives you. Conjure Animals is extremely strong. Have you seen what a dozen flying snakes (Conjure Animals V = 16 animals) can do as they fly by? Blindsight and a +6 attack for 3d4+1 damage with flyby. Even the basic 3rd level spell will murderize giants. Sure, a single hit will kill a snake (although Flyby + decent AC + blindsight + darkness can make them quite hard to hit), but meanwhile the spellcaster and his buddies are killing you.

If anyone in my game ever wants to play a beastmaster ranger, I plan to just tell him that there is no restriction on the beast's actions, but he gets the proficiency bonus to attack/damage/AC/saves if and only if the ranger PC is spending his action directing the beast per the PHB. At any other time, it just has regular stats for the kind of beast it is, plus inflated HP. That is somewhat stronger than the PHB ranger but won't cause any balance problems, because the Hunter ranger already gets Conjure Animals and three or more attacks per round (counting Horde Breaker and sometimes Volley). The main benefit is that it prevents the beast from standing around idiotically at inappropriate times.

Yeah but you don't get to choose the animals anymore. The DM could give you giant rats. And they suck.
Rangers have a max 2 of Conjure Animals V at levels where half those boss monsters have AOE.

Whereas a beast master ranger sacrifices one attack for 1 or 2 attacks with +proficiency to damage and attack rolls.+ hunter's mark. The BM beast is stronger, but you sacrifice your attacks to use it.

 

[variant]

So the defining ability is that they can summon spirits? That might make for an interesting class, but it sure as hell is not a ranger.

I agree. It sounds like a shaman.

 

[Jester David]

Skirmisher's Stealth actually prevents opportunity attacks, since you can make opportunity attacks only against a creature you can see. (Darkness prevents opportunity attacks as well.)

Which makes sense when talking about darkness/fog.
When someone rushes out from behind a wall, hits you with two swords, and then dives into a shrubbery you very much see them! You can justify them hiding after (being uncertain exactly where they are even if you suspect they're around) but you still know they're coming back.

 

[Mercule]

I don't get why Paladins with the Oath of the Ancients aren't natures paladins, given that they are... well... paladins. I like the ranger as someone who does their business in the wild, and masters tools of the trade accordingly. Sometimes this might be a little nature magic, but it doesnt mean they revere nature. The savage gnoll hunter who uses terrain to its advantage, throws down an entangle and brutally kills fluffy bunnies/people for food and profit is just as valid as a ranger as a druid with a bow.

This. Rangers almost certainly respect nature. They may even love it. Ultimately, though, Rangers use nature, not the other way around.

The Paladin is an instrument of their god, just as the Cleric. The Druid is (probably) an instrument of Nature, but the Ranger is not. Personally, I don't think the concept of being an instrument of nature has any more to do with the Ranger than it does the Barbarian, maybe less. Can you be a servant/caretaker/guardian of nature as a Ranger? Absolutely. Your class just doesn't give you any more mechanical tie to the theme than being a Sorcerer would. If you want the mechanical tie, dip into Druid. Alternatively, create a Ranger Path to do that, the same as Fighters have Eldritch Knight to give them magic without dipping into Wizard.

That gnoll hunter, though, is no servant of nature. He's not even a servant of nature's brutality. He's using nature in a horrible, brutal, and unpleasant way. It's not the same sort of Ranger presented in 1E, but it's a lot more thematically related than the "Paladin of Nature" concept. The brutal gnoll Ranger is pretty much the flip-side of the 1E, must-be-good Ranger, it's just hunting the other direction.

Again, I'd say throw out the Spirit Companion entirely. Replace it with

Rangers are resourceful and prepared. They almost always have a backup plan. They learn supernatural abilities reminiscent of the Druids, but approach with the same mental focus as a Wizard would.

 

[Roger]

You could say... they really put the 'anger' back in 'ranger'.

 

[variant]

Traditionally in fantasy, rangers are protectors of civilization from what roams out in the wilderness. They are hunters, skirmishers, law enforcers, scouts, and do other jobs that kings and local governments need.

I don't know why they keep making the ranger as a protector of nature, that's what a druid is. Now protecting civilization may involve protecting the nature from things like aberrations and undead because civilization needs it to thrive, but that could also mean protecting the humans from the druid that wants to stop them from cutting down trees.