D&D 5E Will the upcoming UA Ranger subclasses be for the PHB or the variant Ranger class?

[PrimevalSeeker]

After taking a second look at the PHB Ranger and the UA Ranger, it seems that they both gain subclass abilities at 3rd, 7th, 11th, and 15th level, with the only discrepancy in the way the two versions handle their subclasses being at 5th.

So the easiest way to handle making a Ranger subclass that works with either the PHB version or the UA version is to design it with features for 3rd, 7th, 11th, and 15th level, then include a sidebar that explains that this particular conclave grants Extra Attack at 5th level if you're using the UA variant.

I'm pretty sure the only reason Extra Attack is tied to subclass instead of being a base Ranger feature for the UA Ranger was so they could give the Beastmaster Coordinated Attack instead.

Why not keep the extra attack at level five for the ranger and change it at a later level within the beastmaster subclass, while giving the other subclasses a different feature.

It seems counter intuitive that a single subclass should dictate the design of the main class and the remaining subclasses.

 

[Valetudo]

Why not keep the extra attack at level five for the ranger and change it at a later level within the beastmaster subclass, while giving the other subclasses a different feature.

It seems counter intuitive that a single subclass should dictate the design of the main class and the remaining subclasses.

there is alot of both versions of the ranger that are counterintuitve. While I think the UA beastmaster is better than the phb one. It is still causing problems to the class as a whole. Is it playable? Yes. Are either versions well designed? No.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I'm really hoping the new UA article on the Ranger is just a 2nd draft of the new Ranger, plus maybe a couple more subclasses to try out.

Because, let's be real: NOBODY cares about the PHB Ranger anymore.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Because, let's be real: NOBODY cares about the PHB Ranger anymore.

I for one never had a problem with the PHB ranger, and I know I'm not the only one. My only desire was that I wanted a spell-less version, which UA provided.

Different classes were designed around different aspects of the game. Every complaint I have seen about the PHB ranger has pretty much boiled down to how it isn't optimal in its functionality for a pillar of the game it wasn't designed to master.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Every complaint I have seen about the PHB ranger has pretty much boiled down to how it isn't optimal in its functionality for a pillar of the game it wasn't designed to master.

Really? Because most of the complaints I've seen about the PHB Ranger have boiled down to how it isn't optimal in its functionality for a pillar of the game it was designed to master.

To wit, note that many of the new Ranger abilities have been redesigned to address those complaints, many of which were centered around the old ones being too situational, or simply just too ineffective at what they were supposed to do.

 

[steeldragons]

If they are for the latest UA Ranger base class variant, they will be useless for those who still use the PHB core class.

If they are for the PHB core class, then the new UA Ranger variant will be already dead.

Sounds like a lose - lose situation for me.

The only smooth way out would be to revise th UA base Ranger itself to be more compatible with the core PHB Ranger, e.g. in terms of Extra Attack. So that all old and new Ranger subclasses can work with both versions.

What do you think?

I'm afraid I'm missing something...I'm not quite understanding the question(s).

The UA Ranger subclasses, like any/all UA material and subclasses presented, will be optional additional material that DMs may or may not use, in whole or in any part, in their respective games.

They will be options that you can use/add to the PHB ranger class and/or to the list of subclasses available through the [also UA] variant class. Whatever you want to add/use them with.

I don't see how it makes any difference or how they could, deliberately, be made to apply to "one" or "the other." They're just more options. Tack 'em on or don't.

 

[SkidAce]

Because, let's be real: NOBODY cares about the PHB Ranger anymore.

You would be incorrect.

 

[Lanliss]

I'm afraid I'm missing something...I'm not quite understanding the question(s).

The UA Ranger subclasses, like any/all UA material and subclasses presented, will be optional additional material that DMs may or may not use, in whole or in any part, in their respective games.

They will be options that you can use/add to the PHB ranger class and/or to the list of subclasses available through the [also UA] variant class. Whatever you want to add/use them with.

I don't see how it makes any difference or how they could, deliberately, be made to apply to "one" or "the other." They're just more options. Tack 'em on or don't.

They are slightly different, which may have a domino effect in any UA trying to include both. For example, the extra attack in the UARR is tied to a subclass. As a result, any subclass built for the PHB ranger assumes the extra attack, while any Conclave for the UARR will not, giving them space for a different boost in damage or versatility. Any subclass for the PHB can built on the extra attack as a core point of its arch type, while the UARR cannot, leading to different directions when designing for them.

 

[flametitan]

They are slightly different, which may have a domino effect in any UA trying to include both. For example, the extra attack in the UARR is tied to a subclass. As a result, any subclass built for the PHB ranger assumes the extra attack, while any Conclave for the UARR will not, giving them space for a different boost in damage or versatility. Any subclass for the PHB can built on the extra attack as a core point of its arch type, while the UARR cannot, leading to different directions when designing for them.

And there's the features like Natural Explorer and Favoured enemies that work slightly differently (though FE works similarly, just one has a damage bonus and one doesn't) so building on them might cause headaches for Ranger usage.

 

[cbwjm]

Have previous ranger subclasses really built on ranger abilities instead of gaining new ones that fit the flavour of the subclass without changing the base class abilities? If they keep following the previous subclass style then they should be quite usable with either the PHB or revised ranger. Even the revised Beast Master is useable with the PHB ranger. Coordinated attack instead of multi-attack is really just an easy way of saying "When you use the attack action, you may give up one of your attacks to allow your companion to use its reaction to make a melee attack", except of course, coordinated attack forces the option instead of allowing you to decide whether to make two attacks or one and allow your pet to attack.