D&D 5E What will the final revised Ranger look like

[OB1]

Okay, so we know from Mearls that the newest UA version of the ranger is both more powerful than the final version will be and need to have some features adjusted for multi-classing. So the question I ask now is what will the final Revised Ranger look like?

I think there are three additional pieces of information that are important to the discussion. The first is that the new class will sit next to the first class with both continuing to be AL legal. The second is the emphasis on getting the "feel" of the ranger correct as opposed to the need to give it a power boost. As numerous EnWorlders have shown previously with math skills far beyond mine, the PHB Ranger, even the Beastmaster, isn't the underpowered whelp that many make her out to be. Finally, the new Ranger will officially be a part of the original Ranger class, not a separately named new class.

So with that said, I expect the new version of the Ranger to be presented in a similar fashion to Sorcerous Origins or Warlock Pacts, both also taken at 1st level.

When choosing a Ranger at 1st level, you first choose a Ranger Path.

This language allows for the sharing of Hit Die, Starting Equipment and Skill Selection, which are all the same in both versions.

Now, for lack of better terms, I'll from here on refer to the original PHB Ranger as Path of the Guardian and the Revised Ranger as Path of the Fellowship.

So since Path of the Guardian won't change, the question becomes, what needs to change with the Path of the Fellowship to bring it on roughly even footing with it. My contention is that since both are available, both should still be attractive for players to play.

I propose that the following changes will be made to Path of the Fellowship to adjust its power level and make it MC friendly.

1. Remove spellcasting (and the resurrect beast ability from Beast Conclave)
2. Add either a Hunter's Mark like ability triggered off long rests, or Hunter's Dice triggered off short rests
3. Add an ability to making healing poultices from local plant life triggered off long rest or Hunter's Dice
4. Move advantage on initiative and against enemies who haven't acted to 3rd level
5. Limit Primeval Awareness to x per long rest (with Barbarian Rage progression?) or trigger off Hunter's Dice

What I like about this is you end up with one ranger who has a narrow set of pre-defined Rangery Skills with broad application and consistent power (Fellowship) and another with a wider set of skills with some nova potential (because of magic) with narrower application of the "core" ranger skills (Guardian).

Could this be the path forward? What else might the Conclave Path need to make up for the loss of magic? What other ways might the new path be implemented?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

So with that said, I expect the new version of the Ranger to be presented in a similar fashion to Sorcerous Origins or Warlock Pacts, both also taken at 1st level.

When choosing a Ranger at 1st level, you first choose a Ranger Path.

I expect the new version of the ranger to be presented in exactly the same fashion as the UA article currently presents it: a freestanding class write-up with some text that says, "Here's a new ranger, you can use either it or the old ranger, enjoy." No need to get fancy. This isn't a new "path" for the ranger; it's an attempt to fix the parts of the old ranger that many people were dissatisfied with. And as a corollary to that observation, it's very doubtful that we'll see major changes to the direction of the class, like the removal of spellcasting or the addition of a mark feature. They are simply beyond the scope of what this project is trying to accomplish.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think we'll see basically what's in the UA article, but it'll be a few whacks with the nerf bat. Maybe spreading out the features a bit and making the thing a little more usable with multiclassing, as well. But drastic changes to the class probably aren't in this serving.

I mean, there's been a spell-less ranger in the wild for, what, more than a year now? And despite being a big fan of spell-less rangers personally, I ain't seen much response to it. We probably won't be seeing any new dice mechanics or anything.

Besides, if someone wants a spell-less "ranger," maybe they're better off making a new, flavorful, woodsy fighter subclass and calling that a better fit. You've already got a BM's Superiority Dice as a die mechanic!

 

[OB1]

It's an attempt to fix the parts of the old ranger that many people were dissatisfied with. And as a corollary to that observation, it's very doubtful that we'll see major changes to the direction of the class, like the removal of spellcasting or the addition of a mark feature. They are simply beyond the scope of what this project is trying to accomplish.

Well yes, but the combination of features like the new Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer and Primeval Awareness make utility magic for this version of the ranger redundant, and would allow for a focus on spells to nova in combat.

But if you take away spellcasting, I think you need a way to allow for a hunter's mark like ability and some ability to heal, which could be done through either once per x limits or through a "Ranger Dice" mechanic. Extensive playtesting of a Ranger Dice mechanic wouldn't be necessary since they are taking from another well understood class.

That said, I would bet that they would just go with a x per xRest mechanic for a Hunter's Mark and Healing Poultice ability.

 

[Bardbarian]

I think it will look like my friend Dave.

 

[OB1]

I think we'll see basically what's in the UA article, but it'll be a few whacks with the nerf bat. Maybe spreading out the features a bit and making the thing a little more usable with multiclassing, as well. But drastic changes to the class probably aren't in this serving.

I mean, there's been a spell-less ranger in the wild for, what, more than a year now? And despite being a big fan of spell-less rangers personally, I ain't seen much response to it. We probably won't be seeing any new dice mechanics or anything.

Besides, if someone wants a spell-less "ranger," maybe they're better off making a new, flavorful, woodsy fighter subclass and calling that a better fit. You've already got a BM's Superiority Dice as a die mechanic!

Well, I'm actually coming from this from the side that the current Ranger doesn't need fixing at all, but realize I'm in the minority on that. What I'd love to see is a new version that gives those who don't like the current version what they want, without making the old version obviously obsolete.

Would you consider the changes I've suggested to be underpowered? Do you think that even with those changes the new version would still do it's job in appealing to those who didn't like the feel of the original?

After all, if you could still MC with Druid, Warlock, Sorcerer, Cleric or Paladin to get some of the magic into my version of the Fellowship ranger.

But, as you say, you could also just take 1 level in the UA Ranger and then move to BM Fighter to have a pretty effective spell-less ranger if the current version stands.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

What I'd love to see is a new version that gives those who don't like the current version what they want, without making the old version obviously obsolete.

I'd like to see that too, but it's pretty clear from Mearls' introduction and the write-up itself that it's exactly what they weren't setting out to do. This is the next draft of the same project, not a new project.

 

[mellored]

It depends on the feedback. As is, it seems most people like this version, but need to spread out the level 1 feature.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think we'll see basically what's in the UA article, but it'll be a few whacks with the nerf bat. Maybe spreading out the features a bit and making the thing a little more usable with multiclassing, as well. But drastic changes to the class probably aren't in this serving.

I concur. I think the UA version is quite close, it just needs a bit of polish and a light amount of nerf. A very easy way to nerf a bit would be tightening the language. For example, the natural explorer feature should only work in a natural environment. Return the favored enemy feature, when applying to humanoid, to two specific species (like goblins and gnolls for example) as opposed to *all* humanoids.

Edit: and less front loading, I agree about that too.

I mean, there's been a spell-less ranger in the wild for, what, more than a year now? And despite being a big fan of spell-less rangers personally, I ain't seen much response to it. We probably won't be seeing any new dice mechanics or anything.

Besides, if someone wants a spell-less "ranger," maybe they're better off making a new, flavorful, woodsy fighter subclass and calling that a better fit. You've already got a BM's Superiority Dice as a die mechanic!

Spell less rangers -ish characters can be made with the outlander background

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Return the favored enemy feature, when applying to humanoid, to two specific species (like goblins and gnolls for example) as opposed to *all* humanoids.

It won't make much of a difference making favoured humanoid enemies only 2 specific races. Everyone who seeks to optimize would for sure pick Humans as one, as Humans are commonly encountered as an enemy at all levels of play, and then the 2nd choice would either be something common at low levels and never encountered again at higher levels, or be something uncommonly encountered until later on because they're meta-gaming about the campaign. Also there's the fact there will certainly be a large variety of humanoid races that goes beyond just the MM.

Having all humanoids saves a lot of these problems, about having specific choices becoming irrelevant because of different things in different adventures. Sure it may seem like too much to be able to have a bonus that works against Goblin hordes, some thuggish Human bodyguard, a Drow assassin and a Yuan-Ti infiltrator. But some of these like the last 2 are so specific they get rarely encountered outside of certain scenarios.