D&D 5E Building a better Ranger

[Paul Smart]

How do you feel about the revised Ranger Class that was brought out as UA?

Are they part of the discussion?

Overall, I like them. They are absolutely part of this discussion.

 

[CTurbo]

I think the UA revised Ranger solved a lot of the issues the Ranger had. Beast Master is certainly a lot better for sure. Of course I could nitpick. I wish you had the option to make a second attack OR use the Beast's Coordinated attack.

I think the Hunter archetype is incredibly strong whether you choose Archer, TWF, S&B, or GWM.

My only remaining true complaint is the Foe Slayer capstone ability. I think you should be able to add the Wis mod to all attack damages. Yes that is really powerful, but a 20th level capstone ability SHOULD be. Look at the Barb and Druid for example.

 

[Ath'kethin]

Everything I wanted from a Ranger I got form Talislanta: The Savage Land (which isn't even out yet!).

The following preview provided everything I needed to make rangers be what I wanted in my campaign:

Ranger

Rangers in this variation can’t cast spells. They don’t get the Spellcasting Trait. In exchange for this loss they have proficiency with Strength, Dexterity, Constitution and Wisdom saving throws. They also get a second Extra Attack at 11th Level and at 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th Level they get Expertise (as a Rogue) with the skill of their choice from the following list - Animal Handling, Athletics, Medicine, Nature, Perception, Stealth, Survival.

Boom. I'm done.

 

[Xeviat]

I personally would have liked the Ranger to be more of a Druidic Rogue than a Druidic Fighter, but legacy has them placed in the warrior bracket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

Let's talk Rangers. What works about them? What would you change and why? How can they be improved?

The ranger class has been pretty dismal in 5e. No coherent identity, not particularly well done. A waste of page-count.

Depending on what you think the ranger should be, an Outlander Fighter or Fighter/Druid could cover it.

Not that it's often been a lot better. The classic Ranger was obviously based on Aragorn, with limited casting at high level to represent his training with elves, use of a healing herb and so forth. With skills available, there's little call for that, but, instead the ranger got more casting in 3e & 5e. Pointless, but if you want it MCing could handle it - or a fighter sub-class like the EK, but with the ranger spell list.

The 4e ranger was ok sitting in the corner of Martial & Striker, but in 5e, the Fighter takes that role, dishing high DPR with the ranger's traditional Archery &TWFing combat styles, and can pick up the ranger's woodcraft through the outalander background.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The 5e ranger is excellent, having a very strong identity and conceptual space, and with the revised version is executed very well.

I'd love a fighter with favored enemy and 1/3 casting using ranger spells, and a rogue with natural explorer or primeval awareness and the same 1/3 casting, as well as a Druid subclass that gets some of the level 1-3 ranger stuff along with some extra non wild shaped melee oomph.

None of that, even taken together, would obviate the Ranger class, though.

What I would like to see is:

a pole arm (spear) fighting style (gwf isn't what I want from such a thing, at all), perhaps even as specific as spear and shield, or instead of a fighting style, getting some kind of benefit for being good with high bow and blade, instead of pushing for weapon specialization.

A subclass with herbal remedies, ritual casting, and some shamanic benefits

A subclass that is a little bit totem Barbarian (or better support for hunter type barbarians. I literally don't care about keeping strength "viable", let rage boost damage even when attacking with dex), but maybe a little more...spirit walker?

A Ghost Walker subclass. The Stalker comes close.

A subclass that shares space a little with the archefey warlock.

The 4e warden, as a ranger subclass.

More spells that evoke the ranger flavor.

None of which is a big deal. Overall, the revised ranger is one of my favorite classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd love a fighter with favored enemy and 1/3 casting using ranger spells, and a rogue with natural explorer or primeval awareness and the same 1/3 casting, as well as a Druid subclass that gets some of the level 1-3 ranger stuff along with some extra non wild shaped melee oomph.

None of that, even taken together, would obviate the Ranger class, though.

OK, you do have a strong point, there: 5e design offers multiple paths to the same concept, some standard, some optional, mostly PH, some in later offerings.
Mere redundancy, conceptual and/or functional is no reason to scrub a class.

What I would like to see is:

a pole arm (spear) fighting style (gwf isn't what I want from such a thing, at all), perhaps even as specific as spear and shield, or instead of a fighting style, getting some kind of benefit for being good with high bow and blade, instead of pushing for weapon specialization.

A subclass with herbal remedies, ritual casting, and some shamanic benefits

A subclass that is a little bit totem Barbarian (or better support for hunter type barbarians. I literally don't care about keeping strength "viable", let rage boost damage even when attacking with dex), but maybe a little more...spirit walker?

A Ghost Walker subclass. The Stalker comes close.

A subclass that shares space a little with the archefey warlock.

The 4e warden, as a ranger subclass.

More spells that evoke the ranger flavor.

None of which is a big deal.

Some good ideas, there.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

OK, you do have a strong point, there: 5e design offers multiple paths to the same concept, some standard, some optional, mostly PH, some in later offerings.
Mere redundancy, conceptual and/or functional is no reason to scrub a class.

Some good ideas, there.

Thanks. I definitely think a lot of the subclasses they have put out have been kinda...conceptually risk averse? Not quite boring or flat, but not really exciting.

But in general I think the 5e ranger is the best version of it we've had in a while.

 

[mellored]

Overall, I like them. They are absolutely part of this discussion.

The fact the UA ranger gives you much more space to put an identity into the sub-class makes them much better. Especially since there are so many different versions of "Ranger". There's enough room for a serious pet for instance.

Overall I would buff up the utility side of the ranger. They are known for the hunting, tracking, and survival skills. Reduce damage closer to warlock level if needed.

Expertise in survival seems like a no brainer.
The UA primal awareness is solid
A nature version of leomunds tiny hut, but camouflaged. This can replace hide-in-plane sight.
Anyone attempting to tack you/the party has disadvantage.
Fletching and leather crafting from natural materials.

I would also add domain spells. Which improves their versatility and flavor, without boosting their combat power.

i.e.
Beastmaster:
3: animal friendship, speak with animals.
5: Beast Sense, Warding Bond.
9: conjure animals, protection from energy
13: stone skin, dominate beast
17: Rary’s Telepathic Bond, Awaken
Hunter:
3: Hunter's Mark, Ensaring Strike
5: Pass without a trace, locate animal or plants
9: Nondetect, Water Walk
13: Freedom of Movement, Locate Creature
17: Tree Stride, Scrying.
etc...

The 4e warden, as a ranger subclass.

-1

A 4e warden would be great, but, IMO, they would fit much better as a barbarian or druid. "When you rage, choose a form of..." or "you can expend your shape shifting to gain the form of..."
Ranger just doesn't seem to have the "morph into tree" feel.

 

[BookBarbarian]

The Revised ranger hit's almost all the marks I would tick of for a Ranger, particularly the Deepstalker Ranger.

Looking at a Deepstalker Ranger with resilient Constitution was the first time I considered playing a single classed ranger.

I still think the Capstone is still lackluster, however.