Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'd like to chime in on tracking. The problem with tracking is that it provides answers on what might be coming up next. The thing is the DM might not know because the DM hasn't planned that far a head. This gives the ranger an ability that doesn't really fit into gaming procedure.

This argument puts me in a tough position. On the one hand, I really hate to accuse people of playing D&D "wrong". But on the other, I think the game does have certain reasonable expectations that the DM do a certain amount of preparation and/or possess a certain ability to improvise. If the DM honestly hasn't decided what's coming up next, isn't he going to have to make something up pretty soon anyway? He just has to treat tracking as if the players walked into the next encounter, except they get the information about it without actually being there. How is this contrary to "gaming procedure"? And if it is, what about the host of divination spells that can provide much more specific and detailed information about what's coming up next? Hell, what about mundane stuff like gathering rumors and looking through telescopes? I don't think you're identifying a problem with tracking -- I think you're identifying a much larger issue you have with the way information flows in D&D.

Also, it's situational - something I think we agree on the ranger needs to get away from.

The ability to collect more information is not situational.

In a computer RPG, I might represent a ranger class' tracking ability by putting extra information on their minimap, like with the hunter in WoW. Or perhaps a visual overlay to see where creatures are, like Batman has in the Arkham series. Wouldn't this be really really useful -- not just situationally, but generally? The question is how the concept translates to the tabletop.

I suggest tracking instead grants an ability that is not dependent on what happens next. So, when the ranger successfully tracks the ranger could receive a 'get out of jail free card' chosen from the following list...

I'm certainly on board with the ranger being the "Be Prepared" class. It sets them apart from fighters and barbarians, and it has the added perk of being the Boy Scout motto. But I don't think the tracking ability should be dissociated from the actual act of tracking. Tracking is fundamentally about acquiring information. If it doesn't do that, if it just gives you a buff, it's a conceptually broken mechanic. Think about it. If you say, "I track," and the DM just says, "Okay, you are now prepared -- bonus on your next save", what just happened? Your ranger presumably learned something about the nature of the next threat, but the player didn't. What if there are other useful preparations that might be made? Might the characters wish to discuss tactics? The party can't do any of that, because the ranger's knowledge is in a sort of limbo state -- Schrödinger's Knowledge, if you will. Furthermore, how can we adjudicate if the ranger's preparation applies to the next saving throw? What if the next saving throw comes from something that the ranger couldn't have tracked -- say, a wizard teleports in and casts a spell?

If, on the other hand, you say, "I track", and the DM says, "Okay, you learn that a blue dragon passed by two hours ago -- bonus on saves against the dragon", then you know what your character knows, the party can discuss tactics, and if you are surprised by a teleporting wizard, we know that the bonus doesn't apply to that.

As it is now the player might track and ask the DM "Are they taking the hobbits to Isengard, or what?" And the DM thinks "Rats! I was planning an escort the merchant mission" and goes "Well, you don't know but you can see a lonely merchant in the distance".

Under those circumstances, why on earth was the DM planning an escort-the-merchant mission in the first place? What made him think that the players might be interested in that if only they couldn't track? Again, it doesn't seem like tracking is the real problem here.

 

[Frostmarrow]

If, on the other hand, you say, "I track", and the DM says, "Okay, you learn that a blue dragon passed by two hours ago -- bonus on saves against the dragon", then you know what your character knows, the party can discuss tactics, and if you are surprised by a teleporting wizard, we know that the bonus doesn't apply to that.

Yes, certainly the DM can provide information.

DM: What do you do?
RP: I spend a round tracking. (Rolls check and/or use up a daily use. -Whatever balances).
DM: A bear and cub has passed through here.
RP: I hide (advantage on next stealth check). OR: I focus (advantage on next to hit roll). OR: I steel myself (advantage on next save).

This makes a ranger track often and the ranger would get a general boost to sniping, ambush, toughness, and stealth without trumping other classes whom already own those areas of supremacy. It lends itself to hit and run tactics without addressing hit and run on its' own. The full round action prevents the ranger from using the ability in combat or during a chase, without the rules having to ban it outright.

Ranger variants can get the same bonuses from other activities. A scout would of course track, a beastmaster would instead observe the animal companion's behaviour, and a stalker might mark enemies by observation.

BM: I spend around whispering to my wolf.
DM: The wolf is agitated.
BM: We hide.

ST: I survey the enemy defences.
DM: There are three guards, the closest one standing by the entrance.
ST: I mark him and focus.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Sigh. So many attempts, so many failures. And Ranger has been my favorite class since 1E, with may fails along the way.

The latest is a fail, again. Nice thoughts, but the Ambuscade is overpowered (why not just a bonus to initiative, and inability to be surprised?), 2d6 steps too much on the Barbarian's toes (how about 2d8 at 1st level, 1d8 thereafter. Or d10 with 2d6 hit dice recovery), and the "spirit bond" is too magical-pigeonholey for me without enough feel of a natural beast (it fits better as a barbarian totem).

I like the 1E ranger protector-of-civilization, and beastmaster ranger archtypes. The 5E version would be OK if they'd fix the action economy for the beast. Personally, were I re-writing the ranger, I'd offer a mix of paths -- perhaps a "pick two" out of the following set:

- Magical path (gets spell use)
- Beastmaster path (get animal companion -- perhaps via a bonus action in combat for the beast, which follows orders in between)
- Scout path (get stealthy, ambushy abilities -- renamed "Stalker")
- Striker path (get abilities that boost single combat, like the current hordebreaker/colossus slayer/giant killer)

This would be in addition to some common wilderness survival and tracking abilities, a focused weapon style, and a small "quarry" fighting boost that would be similar to the 4E ability (pick an opponent, get a bonus until that opponent goes down).

Edit: I've posted a draft of this concept at post 359 below.

 

[steeldragons]

I like the 1E ranger protector-of-civilization, and beastmaster ranger archtypes. The 5E version would be OK if they'd fix the action economy for the beast. Personally, were I re-writing the ranger, I'd offer a mix of paths -- perhaps a "pick two" out of the following set:

- Magical path (gets spell use)
- Beastmaster path (get animal companion -- perhaps via a bonus action in combat for the beast, which follows orders in between)
- Scout path (get stealthy, ambushy abilities)
- Striker path (get abilities that boost single combat, like the current hordebreaker/colossus slayer)

This would be in addition to some common wilderness survival and tracking abilities, a focused weapon style, and a small "quarry" fighting boost that would be similar to the 4E ability (pick an opponent, get a bonus until that opponent goes down).

I can't believe I'm saying this (after the amount of time I put into my Ranger Rehash)...but this kind of has me wanting to redesign my homebrew redesign of the ranger...and is similar/incorporates elements of Quickleaf's homebrew redesign...I can't believe I hadn't really seen/thought of it before...

Query: Why is the Warlock the only class to be given a two part choice point to develop their class? You choose a Patron. Then, you chose a Pact. Both of these choices endow features and effect the shaping of the character. Every other class? Choose a subclass. Done.

Answer: There is no reason/need they have to be.

Ranger solution [possibly THE solution that all of these rewrites and homebrews -including my own- have been missing by some margin, some smaller than others]: Make the development of your Ranger a TWO CHOICE POINT subclass system! Arguably, the ranger could very well be compared at this point in its and the game's history, with Warlocks insofar as they each possess a distinctly specific flavor for doing what they do that is/can be taken in such a variety of directions that one could continue to come up with "subclass options" for a good long time. The plethora of redesigns (and misses) speaks to that. All are well received by some, none are able to endear a majority.

Just to follow this [admittedly] hazy/forming idea, if we suppose:
General/Base Class : Special Mechanic Class : Special Mechanic w/Particular[specific and inalterable] Story Class

We can draw the parallels, thusly:
Wizard [general/base arcane caster] is to Sorcerer [unique mechanic arcane caster: Metamagic] is to Warlock [unique flavor/story & mechanic, Patron & Pact, respectively, needs 2 choice points]

From a resource perspective: Wizard uses "all" spells > Sorcerer use fewer spells + Metamagic > Warlock use fewer spells still, but add individual/extra resource: invocations!

Still with me? So, on the flip side of the magic-dependent/[arcane] spell-user coin, we have the weapon-dependent/warriors.

Fighter [general/base warrior] is to Barbarian [unique mechanic warrior: Rage] is to ---?---- [unique story/flavor & mechanic, whatever they may be, need two choice points].

Fighter use (melee/weapon) attacks > Barbarian use fewer attacks + Rage > ---?--- use fewer attacks still, but add a individual/extra resource.

Yup, "that guy" can be the RANGER! [By all rights, if we were going for pure symmetry, I would say at the very least Paladins and Bards should follow this also...but we're trying to fix the Ranger here. One class at a time. ]

Sooo...make the Ranger, ironically, more flexible in actual creation by removing/baking in some of their story flexibility into the core class. Give it more moving parts. Add in its own unique resource other classes of its type don't have. What is our model and arcane/magic-user analogue for this? The Warlock class!

Baked in/story flexibility: The Patron. The warlock is bound to the patron. The player still has all of the freedom in the world to make your own story. How/Why you met or sought out the patron? What you are seeking out of the relationship? What is the Patron [the DM's purview, imo] getting or seeking out of the relationship? etc...etc... BUT, no Patron? No Warlock.

Moving Parts: The Pact. A secondary layer of flavor/story with additional mechanics. For the bulk of the classes, this is your subclass. How/what you do to fulfill your end of the bargain/relationship with the Patron. For the warlock, this is Tome, Chain, Blade. I would think for a ranger, three options should more than suffice.

Unique Resource other [related] Classes don't have: Invocations. Giving you something akin to the recourse the other classes of your group are known for and yet, something they can not do. Balanced by giving significantly less of the main resource of the class group. In the case of "Arcane spellcasters", this is spells. For the warriors, it would be direct [melee/weapon] attacks.

For the Ranger, this could fall into place for us VERY handily...and I daresay is sooooo close to giving almost EVERYbody what they want I can taste it...without needing a huge variety of subclasses.

[take all titles/names with a grain of salt, this is all off the top my head/based on the endless versions, rewrites, and arguments we've all seen]

Baked in Flavor: What is your ranger's purpose? What is it they direct most of the abilities toward? The core abilities/features you need to do that are defined here. All rangers, it can be agreed, have some level of armor, weaponry, stealth, and general wilderness/survival lore (which includes tracking). We'll call these, for the ranger, a LODGE!

Will you belong to...

• the Lodge of the Guardians: along the edges of/protecting civilization and/or seeking out threats, more need for and access to better armor and training, the most AD&D. Put another way, more/most concerned about "the people."
• the Lodge of the Hinterlands: farther out in the wild/unknown, more need for survival and self-reliance, the most 3e or the former UA 5e "Spell-less." Put another way, more/most concerned about "the places."
• the Lodge of the Seekers: the most remote from civilization, not necessarily in the literal, but always figuratively, more need for supernatural lore and know-how, the most this UA 5e. Put another way, more/most concerned about "the [unknown or supernatural] things."

Moving Parts: How do you do what you do? In what way are you fulfilling your purpose? For rangers, since Barbarians already cornered the market on "Paths" and Monks have absconded with "Ways", the Ranger's TRAIL!

• Do you follow along the Trail of the Hunt: add more combat/fighter options, the Hunter-ranger?
• Do you disappear into the dappled shadows on the Trail of the Cloak: add more skills/rogue options, the Scout-ranger?
• Are you initiated in the secrets of the Trail of the Land (overlaps the druid subclass, you say? Why, yes it does!): add more spell-casting/magic options, the Warden-ranger?

You can find Hunter, Scout, and Warden rangers, all, of any Lodge. Just as you can find Blade, Chain, and Tome warlocks of any Patron.

Unique Resource: [this is where @Quickleaf has done most of the heavy lifting ] We'll call these, for now, Quickleaf's WILDCRAFTS! These are a variety of "extras", some might be training or learning, some figured out on your own or flavored as innate or supernatural talents: enhanced skills (setting traps, healing poultices, keen senses, etc...), individual magical tricks (scrying lore, talking to animals or plants, darkvision, etc...), animal companions, favored enemies, terrain boons, etc...

What is a ranger? Mixed bag. You want a tanking spellcaster with an animal companion? Have at it. You want a battleaxe-wielding spirit-summoning scout? Knock yourself out. Dragon-hunting herbalist slayer? Have fun.

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."

 

[Coffinthrower]

I can't believe I'm saying this (after the amount of time I put into my Ranger Rehash)...but this kind of has me wanting to redesign my homebrew redesign of the ranger...and is similar/incorporates elements of Quickleaf's homebrew redesign...I can't believe I hadn't really seen/thought of it before...

Now this sounds like a cool ranger, with Olgar's divisions in mind as well.

 

[Corpsetaker]

If you give the beastmaster ranger's companion actions on it's own it works just fine. I have tried and tested this.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

This is a totally different class than the Ranger... this class needs a new name. Maybe that's what they are really going for and not telling us.

However, this is the kind of Ranger I can see Aragorn in Lord of the Rings being.

 

[Yaarel]

I like the 1E ranger protector-of-civilization, and beastmaster ranger archtypes. The 5E version would be OK if they'd fix the action economy for the beast. Personally, were I re-writing the ranger, I'd offer a mix of paths -- perhaps a "pick two" out of the following set:

- Magical path (gets spell use)
- Beastmaster path (get animal companion -- perhaps via a bonus action in combat for the beast, which follows orders in between)
- Scout path (get stealthy, ambushy abilities)
- Striker path (get abilities that boost single combat, like the current hordebreaker/colossus slayer)

This would be in addition to some common wilderness survival and tracking abilities, a focused weapon style, and a small "quarry" fighting boost that would be similar to the 4E ability (pick an opponent, get a bonus until that opponent goes down).

I agree with your outline here.

The problem seems to be, how is the ‘Striker path’ different from the Fighter class, and the ‘Scout path’ different from the Rogue class?

It seems to me, WotC blended the animal companion and the spellcasting abilities into a single ‘spirit animal’ feature in order to clearly distinguish the Ranger class from the Fighter class.



It occurs to me, 1e originally organized the Ranger as a Fighter subclass. Maybe 5e should create a ‘Ranger path’ for the 5e Fighter class? Then the Ranger would and should resemble the Fighter.

In sum, I agree with the outline identifying the main flavors of the Ranger tradition. At the same time, I sympathize with the need to make separate classes to differ from each other.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The full round action prevents the ranger from using the ability in combat or during a chase, without the rules having to ban it outright.

The full-round action doesn't exist in 5E, because it can be used in combat but when it is used it makes combat less dynamic. If you want an ability to be used outside of combat, make it a minute or ten minutes.

(how about 2d8 at 1st level, 1d8 thereafter. Or d10 with 2d6 hit dice recovery)

The 2d8-at-1st model from 1E is a bad idea, giving the character a huge advantage at 1st level that then fades away at higher levels. You want a consistent progression there. Getting extra recovery dice is a better idea, but for the sake of clarity and simplicity I wouldn't use a different size of die.

I'd offer a mix of paths -- perhaps a "pick two" out of the following set...

I like the idea of "pick two". How would it work logistically, though? Would the character just get two abilities instead of one at every "Archetype feature" level? Because that seems a bit clunky, and it would necessitate they each have to be a bit weaker. Or is there some way to stagger them?

 

[BluSponge]

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