D&D 5E Is it possible that the Revised Ranger is not dead?

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
One other class that I think needs an overhaul is the warlock. The use of invocations (Agonizing Blast, Thirsting Blade) to "complete" their at-will attacks was a very bad choice. On the one hand, it creates a trap for novice players who don't realize how heavily warlocks depend on their at-wills. On the other hand, it opens up a lot of space for multiclass cheese.

If I were revising the warlock, I'd give them a choice of class features at 1st level: Eldritch Blast (use your action to make a ranged spell attack for 1d10+Cha) or Thirsting Blade (use your action to make a melee weapon attack using Cha; note this is not the Attack action and thus does not work with Extra Attack). Then they would get another feature at 5th or 6th level where they get to make a second attack with their "attack feature." Finally, an invocation would let you pick up the second option so you have both EB and TB; I feel that's more in the design space for invocations, which should focus on versatility and flavor rather than raw power.

As for the ranger, I'm interested to see what they come up with. Trading spell slots for a more powerful animal companion, along the lines of the necromancer, is an elegant solution that makes perfect sense.
That's not bad. I think the only change I'd make is that I'd have the Tier 2 upgrade be either a second attack or the ability to do one of each, mixing and matching would be kind of fun. Especially if Thirsting Blade and Eldritch Blast each have their own suite of invocations.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Crawford has clarified on Twitter:

James Introcaso: "Hang on. They ARE changing the ranger?"

Crawford: "Nope"

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1141451770377334784

Navy DM [MENTION=6875]Pax[/MENTION]East: "Too bad, it needs it. What was Mearls referring to then?"

Crawford: "He was referring to the alternative class features we're exploring for various classes, including the ranger. These would be optional rules, not a redesign of a class."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1141455272939884544
 

Crawford has clarified on Twitter:

James Introcaso: "Hang on. They ARE changing the ranger?"

Crawford: "Nope"

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1141451770377334784

Navy DM @PaxEast: "Too bad, it needs it. What was Mearls referring to then?"

Crawford: "He was referring to the alternative class features we're exploring for various classes, including the ranger. These would be optional rules, not a redesign of a class."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1141455272939884544

I'm calling it, D&D's 2020 crunch book will be basically be D&D Unchained (obviously not that title). Wikipedia will melt from all the people searching to see how long from PF Unchained until the PF2 playtest, and we will be inflicted with "it is going to be 1 year 8 months until 6e" type statements for the next 5 years.....
 

Dausuul

Legend
Crawford: "He was referring to the alternative class features we're exploring for various classes, including the ranger. These would be optional rules, not a redesign of a class."
So, they are changing the ranger, but you can keep using the old busted version if you really want to. :)
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
So, they are changing the ranger, but you can keep using the old busted version if you really want to. :)

The PHB Ranger isn't busted, just narratively dissatisfying to a significant number of players. Most people are already happy with the Ranger as-is, which is one of the main source of their reluctance to pursue a solution, they don't want to to put out the majority report that is already fine.
 

I'm calling it, D&D's 2020 crunch book will be basically be D&D Unchained (obviously not that title). Wikipedia will melt from all the people searching to see how long from PF Unchained until the PF2 playtest, and we will be inflicted with "it is going to be 1 year 8 months until 6e" type statements for the next 5 years.....

They could call the book Unearthed Arcana as a reference dating back to 1e, and confusing everyone that it's also the series of articles that appears on the website... I also predict that 6e comes out in 2025.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I would be very surprised if Mearls hasn't had a folder on his computer named "6e ideas" since at least the day 5e went to the printer. I would also be surprised if it has gone farther than that.



I’m guessing that folder contains “use varying dice types to add to proficiency instead of a flat rate.” 😉

He was pretty fond of that idea in playtest, and seemed disappointed the survey results didn’t support it.
 


cmad1977

Hero
I'd welcome another stab at a variant. I want the beast master ranger to work. I've been trying to rebuild it to have a pet from first level but the design space isn't really big enough.

Have you tried basing it off the Druid?
IMO the Ranger as a class should be deleted and broken into a fighter subclass(hunter),and Druid subclass(beastmaster).

Just musing really.
 

Xeviat

Hero
Have you tried basing it off the Druid?
IMO the Ranger as a class should be deleted and broken into a fighter subclass(hunter),and Druid subclass(beastmaster).

Just musing really.


Nah.

I just think the companion is what would make the ranger stand apart as a class of its own. The base concept is kind of just a fighter/rogue/druid, or a rogue/druid, but multiclassing makes that unnecessary. Thus, it needs something of it's own.

Like it or not, having a pet has become synonymous with the ranger for some people. WoW made it a core part of their hunter class. Pillars of Eternity put it in their ranger. It would give the class something unique that other classes don't have.

Favored enemy is an old mechanic and I'm really surprised to see it is still there. This could have been the basis for subclasses, but it does fall into DM charity territory. I like the idea of favored terrain being something they learn on the fly, and I too think it should compare to the Rogue's expertise.

I don't want to give up my spells for a companion. If a paladin can get a CR 1/2 horse with a 2nd level spell and a CR 2 mount with a 4th level spell, I want my CR 1/4th pet from a first level spell.

And Hunter's Mark should have been a class ability that was powered off spell slots like smite.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top