Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[Yaarel]

@steeldragons

I like the direction of your comparison of the Ranger design.

Maybe something like ...

Level 1 Ranger, choose two terrain environments (Arctic, Coastal/Seafaring, Desert, Forest, Grassland/Plain, Hill, Mountain, Swamp, Urban, plus exotic environments depending on setting and DM approval, such as Underdark, Underwater/Aquatic, Ether, Fire, and so on.)

Level 3 Ranger, choose two tactics: Striker, Scout/Ambusher, Animal Companion, Spells.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]

Your idea looks like what I posted on on post #147.

The real issue is the ranger's purpose.
The 5e ranger has a purpose. The PHB has it's a Deadly Hunter and Independent Adventurer.
As a Deadly Hunter, the PHB ranger can track anyone with a Good Wisdom (Survival) checks and bypass most means of hiding one's trail via magic with it's own magic.
As a Independent Adventurer, the PHB ranger is good alone. It is good in a fight, can use stealth and perception, knew a few langauges and conversation magic to get along with various peoples, beasts, and plants, has restorative magic to heal itself.

The problem with the UA "Ranger with No spells" is that it wasn't better at anything than other classes. The fighter fought better. The rogue had better skills. Without magic, it couldn't track or escort better than a rogue nor be independent. There was no reason to bring a "Ranger with No spells" along.

The problem with the UA Neoranger is that it too did nothing better. The Fighter still fought better. The Rogue still did skills and hit and run tactics better. It also served no unique purpose.

---

This is the crux of the issue. You can't just give the ranger new random features just because other classes have weapons, skills, and magic. The class needs needs a purpose. You have to answer.

• What is the ranger's general role in the party?
• Why would we bring a ranger along instead of another class?
• What unique features does this ranger bring to the party?
• Would it make sense that the ranger has these features?

You have to answer these questions first before you make the ranger.

 

[steeldragons]

This is the crux of the issue. You can't just give the ranger new random features just because other classes have weapons, skills, and magic. The class needs needs a purpose. You have to answer.

I am with you 100% that an answer to the purpose of the class is essential to effectively constructing a usable, fair, and well-received class. As usual, I believe your premise, the questions presented here as the road to finding that answer, are flawed and would not produce the result you seem to think they will/should as regards a D&D ranger.

What is the ranger's general role in the party?

I take and give no stock to the concept of "party roles." The role of the ranger in the party is the same as any other character...to survive and attempt to succeed in the challenges one encounters in a life of adventure. A "good" class should give you some means to do something in a variety of areas, if significantly better in some than others. A class doesn't have a "role", the character (what the player wants them to do) has whatever he/she needs to do in the scenario/circumstances/challenge presented...and yes, sometimes that is nothing/staying out of the way...and that's ok!

Why would we bring a ranger along instead of another class?

Again, question that has no merit/baring and similar answer...the same reason you have any other class in the party, because they are a character at the table...a player read it/liked it/wants to play make-believe as one. That is the only reason ANY class is "brought along." The players get to choose their characters and the group needs a reason to be formed/find themselves "working" together. Setting one of the rangers primary traits, as "officially" presented in the PHB, as being an "independent adventurer" was a HUGE mistake, imo, in what is a group-based game/activity.

What unique features does this ranger bring to the party?

Now, here is where you can get into some meat. This is the question that needs answering for any class to...well, justify being a class in the first place. "What do you do?" = the class. Now, as 5e is set up, you can do whatever that is in a variety of ways, the "How you do what you do" which are, then, your subclass options.

Yes. What unique features the ranger has [to "bring to the party," if you like] is, indeed, a critical and foundational question. It seems, over and over, one of the ranger's biggest problems is that they have too much about them that has been/were once unique...too many different abilities that shape and color people's preferences of what they are "supposed" to be.

Would it make sense that the ranger has these features?

Obviously, whatever is chosen will make sense for the ranger to have...or they wouldn't be part of the ranger. The list of what makes sense is very long, as I just pointed out, in the ranger's case.

You have to answer these questions first before you make the ranger.

I have. Many/multiple times with a variety of answers over the years. They just rarely seem to be the answer you want everyone to come to. Namely, that being a ranger musts needs mean you have water breathing, poison immunity, and animal summoning/control... iow, that early and significant spell-use is fundamental to the class.

I simply disagree and have debated this across a variety of threads. It is great for an archetype. It absolutely belongs and needs to be an option. Magic-using rangers absolutely have a place as a subclass, even more than one! But I am not ever going to agree/create a ranger that is dependent, in its base, on magic or animal companions or anything other than themselves.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

What is the ranger's general role in the party?

A hybrid between a warrior and a skill expert.

Why would we bring a ranger along instead of another class?
What unique features does this ranger bring to the party?

These seem to be the same question, so I'm going to answer them at the same time.
A ranger brings endurance, situational awareness, flexibility, precision, and hunting skill. Parties with rangers can travel farther and faster than those without. They are safer from surprises, of both the "Surprise! You're under attack by gnolls!" and "Surprise! Those berries were poisonous!" variety, thanks to the ranger's keen senses and extensive knowledge. They have extra redundancy, since the ranger can both hold the line with the fighter and go sneaking off with the rogue as the strategic situation requires. And above all, there is no escaping a ranger -- no other class is as inevitable in its methods.

Would it make sense that the ranger has these features?

These are features common to heroic woodsman characters that tend to distinguish them from characters who are not woodsmen (or woodswomen, of course). They're the ones who find paths, provide safe food and shelter, spot ambushes, and so on.

 

[Minigiant]

I am with you 100% that an answer to the purpose of the class is essential to effectively constructing a usable, fair, and well-received class. As usual, I believe your premise, the questions presented here as the road to finding that answer, are flawed and would not produce the result you seem to think they will/should as regards a D&D ranger.

I think you are taking my question in unintended directions based on the various definitions of terms used.

I take and give no stock to the concept of "party roles." The role of the ranger in the party is the same as any other character...to survive and attempt to succeed in the challenges one encounters in a life of adventure. A "good" class should give you some means to do something in a variety of areas, if significantly better in some than others. A class doesn't have a "role", the character (what the player wants them to do) has whatever he/she needs to do in the scenario/circumstances/challenge presented...and yes, sometimes that is nothing/staying out of the way...and that's ok!

By general role, I mean what can the class do well. What is it generally good at?

For example the shapeshifter class in my setting excels at disguises and physical adaption.

Again, question that has no merit/baring and similar answer...the same reason you have any other class in the party, because they are a character at the table...a player read it/liked it/wants to play make-believe as one. That is the only reason ANY class is "brought along." The players get to choose their characters and the group needs a reason to be formed/find themselves "working" together. Setting one of the rangers primary traits, as "officially" presented in the PHB, as being an "independent adventurer" was a HUGE mistake, imo, in what is a group-based game/activity.

So a party would bring a cobbler with no combat ability into a dungeon with them?

By "Why would we bring a ranger along instead of another class?" I mean why wouldn't the party look for another character to bring on adventure and thus spend resources on and share loot with outside of story reason?

If a class has no uniqueness, it can cause a problem at the table. A character not pulling their weight due to the class not functioning can dishearten players and cause issues at the table.

An official trait of the ranger has been the "independent one" and "the tracker" for a while. It doesn't need to stay the "independent one" and "the tracker" but it needs a trait.

Now, here is where you can get into some meat. This is the question that needs answering for any class to...well, justify being a class in the first place. "What do you do?" = the class. Now, as 5e is set up, you can do whatever that is in a variety of ways, the "How you do what you do" which are, then, your subclass options.

Yes. What unique features the ranger has [to "bring to the party," if you like] is, indeed, a critical and foundational question. It seems, over and over, one of the ranger's biggest problems is that they have too much about them that has been/were once unique...too many different abilities that shape and color people's preferences of what they are "supposed" to be.

The problem isn't that they don't have anything unique. They do. They have the best combination of feature to track and be independent.

The problem is the "official answer" and the "popular answer" don't match. The ranger is a dinner fork being called a bad knife because it doesn't cut people up well. That's because its a fork. Maybe the ranger shouldn't be a fork.

But if you don't make it a fork, which tool do you make it into?

Obviously, whatever is chosen will make sense for the ranger to have...or they wouldn't be part of the ranger. The list of what makes sense is very long, as I just pointed out, in the ranger's case.



I have. Many/multiple times with a variety of answers over the years. They just rarely seem to be the answer you want everyone to come to. Namely, that being a ranger musts needs mean you have water breathing, poison immunity, and animal summoning/control... iow, that early and significant spell-use is fundamental to the class.

I simply disagree and have debated this across a variety of threads. It is great for an archetype. It absolutely belongs and needs to be an option. Magic-using rangers absolutely have a place as a subclass, even more than one! But I am not ever going to agree/create a ranger that is dependent, in its base, on magic or animal companions or anything other than themselves.

I really don't care what the ranger is. As long as it has a unique purpose. It won't be the iconic ranger but it will be unique in purpose.
Otherwise, you're wasting page space and not solving the problem. It's trading a unique purpose for a unique mechanic.

The ranger doesn't need magic. However if you make it "the tracker" and "the independent survivalist", it then needs magic in D&D.
If you make it into the "perception and detection" class, it doesn't need magic as you do that without magic.
If you make it into the "run around the battlefield" class. it doesn't need magic as you do that without magic.

What point is there to change the ranger into a fighter or rogue with green and brown paint on it?
People will just end up complaining that fighters or rogues are better at being fighters or rogues.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

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.

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.

 

[steeldragons]

What point is there to change the ranger into a fighter or rogue with green and brown paint on it?
People will just end up complaining that fighters or rogues are better at being fighters or rogues.

As people should do and those respective classes should be.

BUT, a fighter can't be a "better" fighter and rogue...and a rogue can't be a "better" rogue and fighter.

But a ranger can be a fighter and rogue. That is their purpose and "role", I suppose, as far as you're concerned. That's what they do the other classes can't [or don't as well], the reason you want to have one around.

Just like a fighter can't be a better fighter and cleric, and a cleric can't be a better cleric and fighter...but a paladin can.

And they need [should have] the flexibility to maybe be a great fighter and passable rogue...or a great rogue and passable fighter...or either of those with a touch of magic...or either of those with a LOT of magic...or either of those with an animal companion...or knowing shamanic spirit conjuring (apparently).

 

[DerekSTheRed]

Even if ambuscade isn't overpowered (which I think it is) it can make combat too swingy when paired with rogue/assassin or fighter. It needs to be later not at first level to prevent cherry picking.

Consider the barbarian has an ability around 6 or 7 to get advantage on initiative and the ability to act in the surprise round if surprised so long as rage is your first action.

The ranger should get something similar like a bonus action in the surprise round to hide or dash if surprised. Maybe a single attack as part of that bonus action.

 

[Minigiant]

As people should do and those respective classes should be.

BUT, a fighter can't be a "better" fighter and rogue...and a rogue can't be a "better" rogue and fighter.

But a ranger can be a fighter and rogue. That is their purpose and "role", I suppose, as far as you're concerned. That's what they do the other classes can't [or don't as well], the reason you want to have one around.

Just like a fighter can't be a better fighter and cleric, and a cleric can't be a better cleric and fighter...but a paladin can.

And they need [should have] the flexibility to maybe be a great fighter and passable rogue...or a great rogue and passable fighter...or either of those with a touch of magic...or either of those with a LOT of magic...or either of those with an animal companion...or knowing shamanic spirit conjuring (apparently).

So you're saying, rangers should get expertise. I'm cool with that.

Because of the background and proficiency system, you can't be a better a "skills" class without a big bonus to ability checks. Or a valor bard or assassin rogue could do the ranger's job.

You could have the ranger choose between spells or expertise. Then choose between hunter, beast master, or spirit guardian.

Issue number two is muticlassing. The fighter/rogue has to be different for the ranger. Much how the paladin differentiates itself from fighter/cleric via a big class features like Divine Smite, unique Challenge Divinities, and Auras. You can't have the outlander fighter/rogue punking the class.

 

[steeldragons]

Issue number two is muticlassing. The fighter/rogue has to be different for the ranger. Much how the paladin differentiates itself from fighter/cleric via a big class features like Divine Smite, unique Challenge Divinities, and Auras. You can't have the outlander fighter/rogue punking the class.

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.

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.