Beyond D&D: Replacements and Enhancements for the Ranger and Fighter

Parmandur

Legend
I'd be unsurprised to see WotC split the difference, actually and have "X's guide to the Planes", with a sort of Xanathar-style personality guiding us through the Planes. Just so long as it's not some GOOGLY-MOOGLY has-been Forgotten Realms "celeb" like Volo. He can go back into retirement. Bring us a REAL NPC from Planescape. Someone who says "berk" non-ironically.

(Note: portions of this post may not be intended seriously - adding this before someone decides to defend Volo's "honour" or something equally mad!)
They already made Shemeska one of the narrators to Mordenkein's Tome of Foes. Such a "Guide to the Planes" would likely be a Planescape Setting book, full stop, which is to my mind currently the most likely possibility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ruin Explorer

Adventurer
They already made Shemeska one of the narrators to Mordenkein's Tome of Foes. Such a "Guide to the Planes" would likely be a Planescape Setting book, full stop, which is to my mind currently the most likely possibility.
I'd forgotten that. Honestly if they stick with the car-crash Monte Cook version (which 4E did), I'll be pretty sad, but it seems likely with her prominent (she was in the 4E version). It's literally like some Tyler Durden "I just felt like destroying something beautiful" deal. I honestly hope Monte Cook is profoundly ashamed of what he did (he has sort of indicated he kinda maybe sorta kinda is, in that he blamed TSR/WotC for not letting him finish what he was doing and bring the Factions back). Only the 4E FR compares for "setting ruined by idiotic hooligan", and it's still not nearly as bad, and they rolled that back with 5E at least.
 

Parmandur

Legend
I'd forgotten that. Honestly if they stick with the car-crash Monte Cook version (which 4E did), I'll be pretty sad, but it seems likely with her prominent (she was in the 4E version). It's literally like some Tyler Durden "I just felt like destroying something beautiful" deal. I honestly hope Monte Cook is profoundly ashamed of what he did (he has sort of indicated he kinda maybe sorta kinda is, in that he blamed TSR/WotC for not letting him finish what he was doing and bring the Factions back). Only the 4E FR compares for "setting ruined by idiotic hooligan", and it's still not nearly as bad, and they rolled that back with 5E at least.
I'll admit to not being deeply familiar with Planescape, but I think any 5E approach would lean into the Factions hard.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
At ~34 pages (plus art, minus anything that doesn't pass muster with the public: I checked, the words per page and style match the printed book parameters), it is significantly less player material than XGtE, less than half. And Xanathar's is one of the shortest books for 5E. Unl as they are going to throw a few full Classes out there (Paion, Warlord...Blood Hunter), it doesn't seem like XGtE 2: Eldritch Bugaloo. A total surprise (which they are well capable.of) or a Setting book, I think. But the options range too much from straight weird (Rune Knight, Swarm Ranger, Firebug Druid) to relatively mundane ("I throw things!", Heroism Paladin) without a strong flavor of an old school setting: my guesses in that case remain the catch-all meta-settings Magic: the Gathering or Planescape, or as a wild card Greyhawk (OG Setting with room for anything, including weird or down to Earth, original rules supplement introducing new Classes was Greyhawk...Greyhawk wouldn't really have Race options screaming to be added, for that matter, unlike the meta-settings).
Right, I’m not suggesting a Xanathars style book. I’m suggesting a setting guide meets guidebook on worldbuilding and understanding the interconnected cosmos of dnd.

Because Planescape is weird as hell, as is Spelljammer, and the MTG worlds are mostly fairly small in terms of lore, I think they may well combine them in a book with a format that uses different worlds, parts of the cosmos, factions, etc, to talk about games and worlds that stretch the boundaries of traditional DnD.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
They're just bad and have literally no reason to exist, that's the problem. You can achieve the same thing, but better, by simply using the Basic-set PC class/subclass combos.
Strongly disagree. They are extremely simple classes that can be added to a race and standard array, and make a very simple companion that won’t fall behind, but won’t overshadow.

They do exactly what they should do.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Right, I’m not suggesting a Xanathars style book. I’m suggesting a setting guide meets guidebook on worldbuilding and understanding the interconnected cosmos of dnd.

Because Planescape is weird as hell, as is Spelljammer, and the MTG worlds are mostly fairly small in terms of lore, I think they may well combine them in a book with a format that uses different worlds, parts of the cosmos, factions, etc, to talk about games and worlds that stretch the boundaries of traditional DnD.
I'm sorry for being unclear, I agree with what you said and was more trying to add to what your point.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Right, I’m not suggesting a Xanathars style book. I’m suggesting a setting guide meets guidebook on worldbuilding and understanding the interconnected cosmos of dnd.

Because Planescape is weird as hell, as is Spelljammer, and the MTG worlds are mostly fairly small in terms of lore, I think they may well combine them in a book with a format that uses different worlds, parts of the cosmos, factions, etc, to talk about games and worlds that stretch the boundaries of traditional DnD.
I think you’re right on the money here.
 

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
A Mount is probably the least likely kind of pet (At least for the first round of this variant ranger, maybe more pets can be added later like how the SCAG added more Barbarian Totem Animals) If only because combat on a mount is a pain inside dungeons and castles. More likely is a DPR tuned pet, or possibly some kind of utility pet that would "go for the eyes" in order to cash in on the other popular ranger they have made into an Iconic character recently.
 
A Mount is probably the least likely kind of pet (At least for the first round of this variant ranger, maybe more pets can be added later like how the SCAG added more Barbarian Totem Animals) If only because combat on a mount is a pain inside dungeons and castles. More likely is a DPR tuned pet, or possibly some kind of utility pet that would "go for the eyes" in order to cash in on the other popular ranger they have made into an Iconic character recently.
It would say that the existing "beast of the earth" is as DPR as any pet is likely to get, and the "beast of the air" has utility and can "go for the eyes".

Given that we already have a whole subclass themed around mounted combat (Cavalier), it doesn't seem like to much of a stretch to have is as an option for a subclass. How much mileage you would get from it would depend on the campaign, but the beastmaster isn't terribly disadvantaged if they have to leave their pet behind sometimes.

"Beast of the waters" would seem the obvious choice for the forth, but it is even more campaign specific than a mount. Perhaps a thief type pet with slight of hand and stealth?

If I remember the original "Beastmaster" movie correctly, Dar had a panther (beast of the land) a hawk (beast of the air) and two ferrets (beasts of stealing stuff).
 

gyor

Hero
Right, I’m not suggesting a Xanathars style book. I’m suggesting a setting guide meets guidebook on worldbuilding and understanding the interconnected cosmos of dnd.

Because Planescape is weird as hell, as is Spelljammer, and the MTG worlds are mostly fairly small in terms of lore, I think they may well combine them in a book with a format that uses different worlds, parts of the cosmos, factions, etc, to talk about games and worlds that stretch the boundaries of traditional DnD.
Very interesting idea, but the challenge becomes how do blend the D&D and MtG multiverses together in a single product. I mean Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica dodged the issue by focusing on just one plane and not mentioning it, but in the bool you describe, the issue will have to be addressed, how do all these planes and worlds interact? This is like how Eberron's cosmology interacts with broader D&D cosmology is getting its own chapter in Eberron: Rising from the Last War.

Also to do a book like this justice, it needs to be much bigger product, I'm thinking miniumal of 300 pages all the way up to 600 pages. I mean you need space for subclasses, races and subraces, possibly full classes like Blood Hunter, Psion, Warlord, Artificer reprint, space to explain this new combined cosmology, space for who knows how many setting, and who knows what else. This would require a bigger book then E: RftLW.

But it is possible, it'd be around the size of the Pathfinder core book, and that sells.
 

Parmandur

Legend
It would say that the existing "beast of the earth" is as DPR as any pet is likely to get, and the "beast of the air" has utility and can "go for the eyes".

Given that we already have a whole subclass themed around mounted combat (Cavalier), it doesn't seem like to much of a stretch to have is as an option for a subclass. How much mileage you would get from it would depend on the campaign, but the beastmaster isn't terribly disadvantaged if they have to leave their pet behind sometimes.

"Beast of the waters" would seem the obvious choice for the forth, but it is even more campaign specific than a mount. Perhaps a thief type pet with slight of hand and stealth?

If I remember the original "Beastmaster" movie correctly, Dar had a panther (beast of the land) a hawk (beast of the air) and two ferrets (beasts of stealing stuff).
The Gnome, Halfling, Kobold or Goblin Ranger already get a Mount!

If they did a Mount, it would have to be Medium, due to the Beastmaster feature (Crawford was at pains to emphasize that this option is just two new stat blocks geared towards being pets rather than monsters, and doesn't change the Beastmaster textnoneniota). Doable, since the Mule can already be a Mount for other Medium creatures. A Steppe Nomad archetype would be good for the Ranger in general, though I think making a new Subclass and giving them Find Steed as a Spell would do the trick.
 
The Gnome, Halfling, Kobold or Goblin Ranger already get a Mount!

If they did a Mount, it would have to be Medium, due to the Beastmaster feature (Crawford was at pains to emphasize that this option is just two new stat blocks geared towards being pets rather than monsters, and doesn't change the Beastmaster textnoneniota). Doable, since the Mule can already be a Mount for other Medium creatures. A Steppe Nomad archetype would be good for the Ranger in general, though I think making a new Subclass and giving them Find Steed as a Spell would do the trick.
Specific beats general:


Deceptive size: Although large, this beast counts as medium for the purposes of the Ranger's Companion class feature.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
If I remember the original "Beastmaster" movie correctly, Dar had a panther (beast of the land) a hawk (beast of the air) and two ferrets (beasts of stealing stuff).
Yes... yes he did! :)

Man that movie was good-bad. Maybe bad-good. Loved that movie (nostalgiclly anyway, haven't seen it in decades).

Either way, good call as a reference!

Sneaky Ferret/Weasel like companions might be fun for a certain type of Ranger or heck, a Rogue(Scout)/Ranger multiclass.

While the Beast of Water might be Niche (or not, pretty useful in Saltmarshes and parts of the PotA/SKT adventures), I'd still hazard that it makes the final cut if these options see print. Maybe even a followup UA article.

Specific beats general:
Mount is a good idea and I agree, easily accomplished

With those 4-5 I don't think you'd need anything else mechanically. Reskin it for your ranger's wants/needs/styles and away you go!
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Very interesting idea, but the challenge becomes how do blend the D&D and MtG multiverses together in a single product. I mean Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica dodged the issue by focusing on just one plane and not mentioning it, but in the bool you describe, the issue will have to be addressed, how do all these planes and worlds interact? This is like how Eberron's cosmology interacts with broader D&D cosmology is getting its own chapter in Eberron: Rising from the Last War.

Also to do a book like this justice, it needs to be much bigger product, I'm thinking miniumal of 300 pages all the way up to 600 pages. I mean you need space for subclasses, races and subraces, possibly full classes like Blood Hunter, Psion, Warlord, Artificer reprint, space to explain this new combined cosmology, space for who knows how many setting, and who knows what else. This would require a bigger book then E: RftLW.

But it is possible, it'd be around the size of the Pathfinder core book, and that sells.
Could easily be the size of the phb.
None of these worlds need a deep dive, and nowhere near that much crunch is needed.
Yes... yes he did! :)

Man that movie was good-bad. Maybe bad-good. Loved that movie (nostalgiclly anyway, haven't seen it in decades).

Either way, good call as a reference!

Sneaky Ferret/Weasel like companions might be fun for a certain type of Ranger or heck, a Rogue(Scout)/Ranger multiclass.

While the Beast of Water might be Niche (or not, pretty useful in Saltmarshes and parts of the PotA/SKT adventures), I'd still hazard that it makes the final cut if these options see print. Maybe even a followup UA article.



Mount is a good idea and I agree, easily accomplished

With those 4-5 I don't think you'd need anything else mechanically. Reskin it for your ranger's wants/needs/styles and away you go!
I’d add a beefier tank animal to that, but otherwise that sounds fine.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Thanks for this specific thread.

I like what he says about multiclass dip prevention in the next round of development if it makes it past this round of development around 3 minutes in.
That was my favorite part as well, and glad to hear him say it. It was one of my biggest beefs with 3e, that not only was level dipping encouraged, multi classing became assumed. My preference is that multi classing needs to make sense in game, and have a logical reasoning why it's happening. Meaning, if your fighter wants to multiclasss into a wizard, you should have been doing wizarding things beforehand, like studying magic on your off time, etc. I never liked the "boom! now you know how to cast spells all the sudden!"

5e has done a really good job to allow you to not multiclass at all and still get good benefits, limiting level dipping. For example, if my 3rd level gloomstalker level dips into rogue at level 4, then I miss out on the ASI and extra attack I'd normally get at level 5. So there's definitely not an obvious need to level dip without giving something up. The only time where that doesn't seem to matter is when people start right at level 20 or zoom past all those earlier levels to get to their optimized build. I never play that way, so it's irrelevant to me.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Yes... yes he did! :)

Man that movie was good-bad. Maybe bad-good. Loved that movie (nostalgiclly anyway, haven't seen it in decades).
When you watch it now, you realize how literally every character in the movie has a one syllable name. It bothered me for some reason :D
 

Advertisement

Top