Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: The ranger, revised... overcompensation?

[Greybeard_Ray]

"Sigh"

Okay, for clarity's sake, let's repeat what is on the first page of the UA article...

"...most issues we see with classes are confined to specific abilities that don’t play a big role in determining whether players like the class as a whole. In other words, no class is perfect, but each is close enough to the mark in its own way that players are happy.... Our next step, which begins now, is verification. Are these fixes correct? Do they solve problems at your table? Do you, as the community of D&D players and DMs, accept them? I expect another revision or two to be made to the class, ... this approach captures our intent—fix what needs to be fixed when it’s necessary to do so, but in a way that minimizes disruption and maximizes player satisfaction."
[Emphasis mine]

I think we're getting ahead of the issue. What we (as DM's) need to do, is just what they've asked for: PLAY-TEST the build. Take it for a ride, kick the tires, maybe do a few donuts in a parking lot.
Actually see how it plays out. We can discuss 'theoretical' possibilities, variant alternatives, best- & worst-case scenarios ad infinitum. However, as most of you who have actually RUN the game will realize, none of that makes a difference until it's in the control of a player (who honestly doesn't give a hoot about 'meta-game design philosophy') and is in a "real" game. Then we'll see how well or poorly it works, and whether or not the PLAYERS have fun with it.

Personally, I think it will work just fine. But that's just my 2 copper...
Ray

 

[Pauln6]

I think the immunity to difficult terrain belongs with Natural Explorer. But yes, I agree, the "awareness" features regarding initiative and those who haven't acted yet. But I just really hope we don't lose the beast benefits in Primeval Awareness. That is possibly my favorite new thing in this version of the Ranger. Such a cool, flavorful thing.

I know many people feel that favoured terrain was too restrictive but I'd be fine with immunity to all non-magical difficult terrain and advantage on certain rolls for a favoured terrain to go with natural explorer at level 1 and then all non-magical terrain later, folded into Fleet of Foot at level 8, more comparable to druids.

The initiative bonus could be folded into primeval awareness at level 3 I suppose. Advantage on initiative is amazing, but as others have said, that 1 level dip

We do have a half-elf rogue/ranger in our group(previously assassin but as a half sea elf, the player is going to tweak the stalker conclave to see how that plays. As she is level 11 though, we won't be much help at determining if the spread of abilities is balanced rather than the totality. My gut feeling is that the overall picture is looking very healthy.

I'm also bearing in mind that the scout fighter gains the natural explorer feature too so spreading out the abilities might also help prevent scouts from stealing too much of the ranger thunder at low levels, while still being viable as a form of 'spell-less ranger'.

 

[bedir than]

I'm also bearing in mind that the scout fighter gains the natural explorer feature too so spreading out the abilities might also help prevent scouts from stealing too much of the ranger thunder at low levels, while still being viable as a form of 'spell-less ranger'.

I asked Mearls and he did say that Scout's Natural Explorer should be from the most recent UA Ranger. This implies to me that the final versions of both will be released in the same book.

Also, the Scout is a perfect "Spell-less Ranger" now.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think the immunity to difficult terrain belongs with Natural Explorer. But yes, I agree, the "awareness" features regarding initiative and those who haven't acted yet. But I just really hope we don't lose the beast benefits in Primeval Awareness. That is possibly my favorite new thing in this version of the Ranger. Such a cool, flavorful thing.

Yes, I meant the benefits that are only combat benefits. ignoring diff terrain is def a natural explorer ability

 

[Chaosmancer]

"Sigh"

Okay, for clarity's sake, let's repeat what is on the first page of the UA article...

"...most issues we see with classes are confined to specific abilities that don’t play a big role in determining whether players like the class as a whole. In other words, no class is perfect, but each is close enough to the mark in its own way that players are happy.... Our next step, which begins now, is verification. Are these fixes correct? Do they solve problems at your table? Do you, as the community of D&D players and DMs, accept them? I expect another revision or two to be made to the class, ... this approach captures our intent—fix what needs to be fixed when it’s necessary to do so, but in a way that minimizes disruption and maximizes player satisfaction."
[Emphasis mine]

I think we're getting ahead of the issue. What we (as DM's) need to do, is just what they've asked for: PLAY-TEST the build. Take it for a ride, kick the tires, maybe do a few donuts in a parking lot.
Actually see how it plays out. We can discuss 'theoretical' possibilities, variant alternatives, best- & worst-case scenarios ad infinitum. However, as most of you who have actually RUN the game will realize, none of that makes a difference until it's in the control of a player (who honestly doesn't give a hoot about 'meta-game design philosophy') and is in a "real" game. Then we'll see how well or poorly it works, and whether or not the PLAYERS have fun with it.

Personally, I think it will work just fine. But that's just my 2 copper...
Ray

Would if I could, but only one player is interested in playing a ranger at the moment and he wants to stick with the PHB because he's brand new to the game and feels like switching things so soon after he started will be too confusing for him. Not going to force him.

Honestly, the people I tend to game with have a few distinct loves. I've seen plenty of Warlocks, Rogues, Barbarians, Paladins and the occassional fighter or cleric. Very very few rangers, druids, bards. People just aren't interested in that story at the moment I guess.

 

[Greybeard_Ray]

Chaosmancer:

No need to force any one player in any one group. There are now literally MILLIONS of D&D players around the world. We're cool now; even Vin Diesel is one of us (OPENLY!).

I've been lucky over the last 30 years; I've been a member of 3 different gaming clubs, each with dozens of members. The latest club I'm in has over 200 members (admittedly, most are 'card-floppers' [M:TG, Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon???], but we have more than a dozen RPG sessions each week. We have players in 3 or 4 different games each week, playing totally different race/class combo's in each game. But I do remember the lean times, where it was just me and 4 or 5 friends, and we'd stick to the same campaign for months. So, don't feel pressured to have YOUR group be play-testers for any new variations or revisions: if one of them wants to, cool. If not, no worries, someone, somewhere, will.

My comment was more directed at all the 'angst' over the UA Revised Ranger, and all the 'potential' imbalance/overpower/underpower debates it has engendered. We (as DM's & Players) should worry less about theoretical what-if's and see how it actually works IN-GAME in the hands of players who want to try the new version out.

And if your player group is happy with ("loves") the characters they have, great; that means THEY'RE having fun, and YOU are doing a good job as a DM. That's the point, after all.

 

[l0lzero]

Man, that's kind of depressing, for once in many a year, I'm actually interested in playing ranger now (I always felt that rogue was closer to what I wanted to accomplish) especially since the buff to the beast companion (I want a panther named Klaus, and we will wander the wilderness looking for things to stab, and hopefully those things have magic items...). I tend to already know what I'm going to do on my turn, whereas a lot of the people I play with tend to... not. I feel that I might actually have to pay more attention to combat, which would help my phone stay charged all game. Not a problem when I DM, because I'm also arbitrating rules and describing things to players, and saying yes you can do that with an action, no you can't do that with an action, etc. But when playing, there's a good amount of thumb-twiddling between rounds. I'm a pretty good distracted listener, so it's not that I'm not paying attention, it's that there isn't enough going on to warrant my full focus. I also like to doodle when my phone finally dies lol

 

[Bacon Bits]

Natural Explorer is very good now. I agree with others that the advantage on initiative and advantage on attack rolls for the first round of combat are both a bit too good for first level abilities simply due to multiclassing concerns. I would delay that until 3rd level or so. Originally, the ability was useless outside of unique situations. Now it's quite good. It always bothered me that an adventuring Ranger was like, "Yeah, I only know forests. That's why I go adventuring into giant cities and into the underdark." The original Natural Explorer felt like an NPC's ability.

[Greater] Favored Enemy is much better, IMO. I'm not sure if I like "always have advantage" instead of "double proficiency". I'd rather have the latter, since it means that the DM can still apply situational mods with advantage. By themselves, they're mathematically about the same. Getting all humanoids seems amazing, and it is one of the better selections through mid and late game, but I think a fair number of players will choose undead. It will depend on the campaign. I like that you can pick the "default" selection of humanoid/giant.

The issue with both the original Natural Explorer and original Favored Enemy is that the game designers have to assume that the abilities actually do something. That's why Rangers felt weak. The dev team had to make Rangers not super powerful with the bonuses, but then they restricted them so much that they never came up. The way they are now you can expect both of these abilities to contribute on most adventuring days.

Not a huge fan of HiPS or Vanish, but that's mainly because I still find the Halfling and Wood Elf abilities stupid and irritating.

The capstone ability is pretty lackluster. "Once on each of your turns, you can add your Wisdom modifier to the attack roll or the damage roll of an attack you make." Really? Just once? I mean, the Barbarian essentially gets +2 to all attacks and all damage and +40 hp. I'd rather it be more compelling, like pick attack or damage, and then your Wis applies to all attack and damage rolls you make until your next turn. Granted, I really don't care at all about capstones because they never come up outside of theorycrafting, but I've always felt like they should be pretty busted.

The only thing about Beast Conclave that I don't like is the inability to to have a bird as a beast companion. My DMs are typically canicidal/felicidal/ursincidal to my animal companions. I like my companions to be scouts. I'll probably just grab Magic Initiate: Wizard: find familiar for that, though. I'm not super pleased with Coordinated Attack -- it makes the class reliant on the companion -- but at least they did significantly buff animal companions in exchange. Since the companion appears to be able to act on it's own, it's very likely that the majority of your attacks will be from the companion. I'd like to see it be Extra Attack or Coordinated Attack, but that's probably asking too much.

This phrasing is pretty confusing:

Your companion uses your proficiency bonus rather than its own. In addition to the areas where it normally uses its proficiency bonus, an animal companion also adds its proficiency bonus to its AC and to its damage rolls.

I mean, shouldn't it say, "an animal companion also adds your proficiency bonus to its AC and to its damage rolls?" You can't possibly mean "don't use the creature's proficiency bonus, except here where you use the creature's proficiency bonus," but that's exactly what it sounds like.

 

[CapnZapp]

This phrasing is pretty confusing:



I mean, shouldn't it say, "an animal companion also adds your proficiency bonus to its AC and to its damage rolls?" You can't possibly mean "don't use the creature's proficiency bonus, except here where you use the creature's proficiency bonus," but that's exactly what it sounds like.

It means that whenever we're talking about its proficiency bonus, use your proficiency bonus.

To hammer that in, it immediately then starts talking about its proficiency bonus, hoping that you would not already have forgotten the instruction you got 2 seconds ago

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

I know many people feel that favoured terrain was too restrictive but I'd be fine with immunity to all non-magical difficult terrain and advantage on certain rolls for a favoured terrain to go with natural explorer at level 1 and then all non-magical terrain later, folded into Fleet of Foot at level 8, more comparable to druids.

I wouldn't be super opposed to some of these changes. What I absolutely don't want is favored terrain anything. It's unnecessary and needs to go.

The initiative bonus could be folded into primeval awareness at level 3 I suppose. Advantage on initiative is amazing, but as others have said, that 1 level dip

I'm not too concerned about that level one dip, but I think this would appease the detractors that are out there. I know there are many.

We do have a half-elf rogue/ranger in our group(previously assassin but as a half sea elf, the player is going to tweak the stalker conclave to see how that plays. As she is level 11 though, we won't be much help at determining if the spread of abilities is balanced rather than the totality. My gut feeling is that the overall picture is looking very healthy.

I'm glad you guys are playtesting! That will be super valuable.

I'm also bearing in mind that the scout fighter gains the natural explorer feature too so spreading out the abilities might also help prevent scouts from stealing too much of the ranger thunder at low levels, while still being viable as a form of 'spell-less ranger'.

For this one, I think it will be best to just change the actual text for this version of Natural Explorer. To better model other Martial Archetypes, I think they should move this feature to level 7 for the Fighter anyway. That way it's the "flavor" ability for this archetype. It should simply be the secondary parts of Natural Explorer. No advantage on initiative or on attacks against those that haven't acted. Maybe remove non-magical difficult terrain immunity, but maybe not.