D&D 5E 5th edition Ranger: Why does every class have to have it's own schtick?

[TheLoneRanger1979]

YOu are welcome to take/show your DM my rewrite of the ranger. He might not want to use it, of course, since it's not "official." But he can see if he finds it too OP/UP and which/if any subclasses he might allow. Worth a shot, right?

Where can i find it? Do you have a link?

 

[steeldragons]

Pretty sure I linked it in this thread somewhere, didn't I...or was that the other [recent] ranger thread?

Ah yes, here it is...it's in this thread. Post #158. The pdf file is called "5e_ranger_v5"

It (and other drafts and completely different versions) is also in the Homebrews sub-forum in a thread called "Ranger Rehash"...or "Rehashing the Ranger"...or something like that. It was a little bit ago (definitely a page or two into that forum by now) and I've been working on a hundred things since then.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Pretty sure I linked it in this thread somewhere, didn't I...or was that the other [recent] ranger thread?

Ah yes, here it is...it's in this thread. Post #158. The pdf file is called "5e_ranger_v5"

It (and other drafts and completely different versions) is also in the Homebrews sub-forum in a thread called "Ranger Rehash"...or "Rehashing the Ranger"...or something like that. It was a little bit ago (definitely a page or two into that forum by now) and I've been working on a hundred things since then.

Found it. The guardian really draws my attention. It kinda plays one of my two favorite themes for rangers in DnD.

EDIT: probably because it reminds me the most of the 1E ranger

 

[steeldragons]

Found it. The guardian really draws my attention. It kinda plays one of my two favorite themes for rangers in DnD.

Thanks. That's my favorite, too. It is, obviously, most closely modeling the 1e/original version. So, as the old [pre-3e] school grognard that I apparently have become, it's the closest to my heart/D&D sensibilities. If I were to ever get a chance to actually PLAY again, and I wanted to be a ranger (which has been known to happen once or a dozen times over the years), the Guardian is definitely the guy I would go with.

 

[Azurewraith]

In the same boat on dms only wanting "offcial" stuff so I tend not to play rangers even though I play a fair bit got a group with 3dms in it so playings not the issue its the convincing them. I just can't bring my self to hamstring a martial ranger from book

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

In the same boat on dms only wanting "offcial" stuff so I tend not to play rangers even though I play a fair bit got a group with 3dms in it so playings not the issue its the convincing them. I just can't bring my self to hamstring a martial ranger from book

The first time we transitioned from 4E to 5E, i actually proposed to my DM to merge to archetypes (one fighter and one ranger) into a class with an end result that would be just the same as if i did i regular MC and push the casting 6-8 levels back (or even ditch it all together). He still said no.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Don't get me wrong, there is certainly a fun way to role play a ranger that refuses to use magic, But is the class designed around a non casting combat?

Obviously not, or it wouldn't have combat spells. The non-casting Ranger appeared in 4e, and, after a fashion as the Scout in 3.5, and, most recently, in UA.

I tried something like this in 4E and it didn't work out well. I mean, i survived with my PC till level 13-14 and only stopped playing because 5E came out, but still.... I always felt like an appendix to the group. I had fun role playing but my effectiveness was .... shall we say.... lacking? I know it can be hard to have both at the same time....

The 4e ranger was a striker, which was the simplest (IMHO, least engaging, though lots of people enjoy the big-damage thing) of the roles - that might be what felt lacking about it, more so than the lack of spells.

This was my original idea as well, to write our own class. But the DM said no. I think he is afraid we may screw it up and either make it too strong or too weak. And he feels more safe, running by the book, so i'm stuck with MC. 12-8 probably.

5e's open to interpretation and DM-rulings, but creating a class from scratch is still a bit of a design undertaking. Over/Under-powered shouldn't be a big concern with a homebrew class, though, you can always change it as you go until you find the right balance.

But that is the flip side of DM Empowerment: if the DM doesn't want it to use it, that's it.

 

[Xeviat]

The way I think might be the best way to handle Animal Companions is to take a page out of the Paladin and Wizard's book and base it off of a spell; only instead of summoning a mount or familiar, you make a bond with a non-hostile beast. If the pet dies, you could re-cast it again to either get a new one or raise the old one (instead of resummoning as a paladin or wizard). It could have similar limitations to a familiar (can't attack, etc), and the Beastmaster archetype could enhance it (higher/progressive CR cap, bonus HP, attack ability, ability to use on magical beasts, etc). That way you could either not have a pet, have a small pet to aid in scouting and for RP purposes, or have a powerful animal companion that boosts your offensive capability.

Now I know that as it currently stands that would put a serious dent on the Ranger's resources as spells are known, not prepared, but there might be ways to mitigate that.

This is exactly what I've done. There's a link in my signature.

I still don't think we need support for a nonmagical ranger within the ranger class. I think we need a Rogue subclass "Scout" that would support the nonmagical ranger. It could have some out of combat health recovery, extra skills, and a new way to trigger sneak attack that would mimic favored enemy/hunter's mark.

 

[Corpsetaker]

This is exactly what I've done. There's a link in my signature.

I still don't think we need support for a nonmagical ranger within the ranger class. I think we need a Rogue subclass "Scout" that would support the nonmagical ranger. It could have some out of combat health recovery, extra skills, and a new way to trigger sneak attack that would mimic favored enemy/hunter's mark.

But what would a "scout" bring that a fighter or rogue with the Outlander background plus a few feats could not?

 

[Xeviat]

But what would a "scout" bring that a fighter or rogue with the Outlander background plus a few feats could not?

A new way to trigger sneak attack, perhaps automatically if you move 15 feet before making an attack (like the old scout class in 3E).

Some out of combat healing (could be gained by multiclassing Fighter for Second Wind, so this is less necessary).

Herbalism tricks through survival and nature skills ("might" be covered by the healer feat, depends on what people want).

Ways to ignore difficult terrain.

A monster knowledge ability (perhaps based off the Battle Master's "size up an opponent" ability?).

Perhaps something for the exploration pillar, like the ranger's ability to be alert while doing another exploration task.

That's just off the top of my head.