Class variants: ranger, fighter, and others ("Class X" series)

[peterka99]

OBJECTIVES


• Accommodate both spell-less and spellcasting rangers (with magic akin to an eldritch knight rather
than half caster). Checked
• Encourage a play style that focuses on scouting, planning, and exploiting the enemy’s weakness,
rather than rushing headlong into the fray. This helps distinguish the ranger from other warriors.
not the weakness, but tactical bonuses
• Reincorporate ideas presented originally in the exploration rules of the 5e playtest. Also, revise the
Natural Explorer feature so it’s easier to keep track of and remember in play. checked
• Give rangers an aura that boosts allies’ awareness and advances as the ranger character levels. checked
• Maintain traditional features like favored enemy and favored terrain, but make them optional. checked
• Introduce “Wildcrafts” using a similar mechanic to warlock Invocations to encompass optional features
(e.g. animal companions, favored enemy). checked

 

[Quickleaf]

I know 2 systems for point-buy for d&d 5e:

1st is the one by Catodon, the one I use (as mictrepanier) to create high-level races and classes

http://community.wizards.com/forum/dungeon-master-help/threads/4153621

and
http://community.wizards.com/forum/dungeon-master-help/threads/4156341

and another one by James Musicus

http://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTh...5e_homebrew_guides_ujamesmusicus_process_and/

and

http://zappyman2.wix.com/musicushomebrew#!homebrew-races/c8co

It had trouble figuring out Catodon's methodology for balancing classes via points. I get the basics that he (or she) is using as a baseline "Ability Score Improvement / Feat = 4 points."

However, based on the files I downloaded (a PDF that's focused on home-brew races, and a disorganized spreadsheet), I couldn't figure out how evaluations of other features were made in light of the baseline.

I checked out some of the others, and similarly found their formatting undecipherable, so their point systems - if they actually are systems - are just not actually useable for me.

Anyhow, sitting down to go over some of your recent critiques & things I've been wanting to address for the Ranger.

 

[Quickleaf]

Tier 1

-Your level one ranger is way better than level 1 base ranger. Remove medium armor and shield. Give it only to guard at 3th level.

That makes a lot of sense, since my version of the ranger is more focused on dealing damage.

- Overwatch: RAW the ranger may have a free reaction attack + 1d6. Better than hunter's mark, and there is no limits to the feature. I recommend leave the second part to Guard only (3rd level). Allies overwatch: 7th level (so defensive camp will not be the only ability there).

The feature has the same practical limit as hunter’s mark - concentration. But yes, it is better. I agree that the second part - overwatching an area - is a better fit for the Borderlands Guard. Thanks!

- Tracking: what is the check ? survival or WS check ?

Wisdom (Survival), just like it says in the core rules.

- Wilderness Lore: How can the ranger know all animals and plants after 1 hour in the area ? It should be a superficial knowledge... enough to find the herb the herbalist needs for her potion. Nature lore check for more….

Ah, I can see how that might be unclear translating between English and French!

So only the 1st level part of Wilderness Lore pertains to “traveling for 1 hour or more.”

The 6th level and above parts of Wilderness Lore are just constant benefits.

- Wildcraft vs magic: Ok. The same progression as warlock invocations.

assume magic initiative feat 2 cantrips + 1 level 1; 2 levels one = 2/3 feat= 1 invocation seems appropriate
vs spells points from DMG: level 2: 4; 6-6-14-14-16-16-26-26-31-31-38 (level 13); it wont help
progression should be level 2: 1 Wildcraft 3-4: 2 will still be too much.

The result is: Wilcraft/invocations progression is more potent that ranger magic progression. So nerf WC or shovel the problem into other features yard. Assumption 1 above is false.

I actually get the opposite result: that Wildcrafts are “underpowered.” Here’s my math…

Ok, so the question is do Wildcrafts (Invocations) roughly balance against PHB Ranger Spellcasting as a replacement?

To compare, we’re using this assumption:
Two 1st-level spells = 2/3 feat = 1 Wildcraft or Invocation

Then we convert the 1st-level spells to spell points using the DMG variant:
4 spell points = 2/3 feat = 1 Wildcraft or Invocation

Then we total up the number of spell points the PHB Ranger gets over the course of their adventuring career (at 20th level):
(4*2) + (3*3) + (3*5) + (3*6) + (2*7) = 64 spell points

So then we take those spell points and figure out how many Wildcrafts would be equivalent:
64 spell points / 4 = 16 Wildcrafts or Invocations

We’d expect 16 Wildcrafts to replace PHB Ranger Spellcasting, but it turns out my Ranger X gets 8 Wildcrafts over the course of their adventuring career (at 20th level).

I think this is OK, because ranger spells generally break down into 1/2 combat and 1/2 utility (with a dash of healing and defense). I've basically replaced combat spells with Overwatch. Which leaves the Wildcrafts to replace the utility spells. Seems well balanced to me!

Magic: at tier 1, the eldritch warrior progression is better than ranger's. At tiers 2-3-4, the opposite.

Ack! I made a typo! The Wildlands Warden’s spellcasting progression should be identical to the Eldritch Knight. I’ll fix it.

More to come...

 

[peterka99]

It had trouble figuring out Catodon's methodology for balancing classes via points. I get the basics that he (or she) is using as a baseline "Ability Score Improvement / Feat = 4 points."

So I was. His intention is to create races. I did the math to balance the classes. He still lacks final result, an easy table with all the costs. I worked on it for a score of hours, that is the difference...

Tier 1 The 6th level and above parts of Wilderness Lore are just constant benefits.

Please dont render nature lore checks obsoletes. Can identify the animal or plant. No further info given.

 

[transcendantviewer]

Problem I'm seeing is that there's nothing for more unconventional characters. I play grappler fighters that beat people down with furnature and random household items. Think you'd be able to make something for Improvised Weapons/Unarmed/Grappling?

 

[peterka99]

Problem I'm seeing is that there's nothing for more unconventional characters. I play grappler fighters that beat people down with furnature and random household items. Think you'd be able to make something for Improvised Weapons/Unarmed/Grappling?

As a new class of options replacing styles or as new feats ? My character in Quickleaf game has grappler and tavern fighter. Might be great.

First there is a thread are about grapplers. http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4142801?page=6 . Did you read it ?

some ideas:

- 1st thing willl be to allow a better pin.
- Stand agaisnt the tide as ranger, especilaly if it is removed as per thevirant ranger posted here (redirect a missed attack to a given target- very tavern brawler related
- rules for throws- throwing a foe on the wall, onto his friends, etc.
- Ability to handle very large item (large tables and furniture, with basic 2d8, 3d6, etc base damage, etc).

 

[Quickleaf]

Problem I'm seeing is that there's nothing for more unconventional characters. I play grappler fighters that beat people down with furnature and random household items. Think you'd be able to make something for Improvised Weapons/Unarmed/Grappling?

I just don't have any game experience with that particular archetype, nor am I familiar with literary or media sources for characters exemplifying the "grappler fighter."

My understanding is that the "grappler fighter" is mostly a product of 3e era feats, which enabled the concept for the first time, right? And then it was later enshrined in 4e as a brawler fighter which was good at being sticky, IIRC?

Aesthetically, I am trying to incorporate close combat techniques into the Fighting Talents to reflect what Western Martial Arts claims were the fighting style of the medieval era, which means grappling-like moves performed while wielding a weapon. Traditionally, these were moves within various types of swordplay, such as a hip throw when locking blades.

An exclusively unarmed character would be at a disadvantage compared to a fighter wielding a weapon, both defensively and offensively. I suppose a master of Aikido might be able to handle unarmed parrying of multiple armed opponents, but that starts to look a lot like the monk class.

What sorts of abilities would you want a "grappler fighter" to have that you couldn't accomplish with the feats Tavern Brawler and Grappler or with the monk class?

And if you have any literary/media inspiration for a "grappler fighter" would you share?

 

[Quickleaf]

So I was. His intention is to create races. I did the math to balance the classes. He still lacks final result, an easy table with all the costs. I worked on it for a score of hours, that is the difference...

Ah, I see. Kudos for doing the work!

Please dont render nature lore checks obsoletes. Can identify the animal or plant. No further info given.

Nature checks provide information on animals and plants, yes. They also provide information about terrain, weather, and natural cycles at a minimum, and possible other things (like identifying poisons) at the DM's discretion. I'd say identifying animals and plants is ~25% of what the Nature skill is used for.

I have not made it obsolete, any more than Tracking makes the Survival skill obsolete, or Bardic Inspiration makes the Performance skill obsolete.

 

[transcendantviewer]

I just don't have any game experience with that particular archetype, nor am I familiar with literary or media sources for characters exemplifying the "grappler fighter."

My understanding is that the "grappler fighter" is mostly a product of 3e era feats, which enabled the concept for the first time, right? And then it was later enshrined in 4e as a brawler fighter which was good at being sticky, IIRC?

Aesthetically, I am trying to incorporate close combat techniques into the Fighting Talents to reflect what Western Martial Arts claims were the fighting style of the medieval era, which means grappling-like moves performed while wielding a weapon. Traditionally, these were moves within various types of swordplay, such as a hip throw when locking blades.

An exclusively unarmed character would be at a disadvantage compared to a fighter wielding a weapon, both defensively and offensively. I suppose a master of Aikido might be able to handle unarmed parrying of multiple armed opponents, but that starts to look a lot like the monk class.

What sorts of abilities would you want a "grappler fighter" to have that you couldn't accomplish with the feats Tavern Brawler and Grappler or with the monk class?

And if you have any literary/media inspiration for a "grappler fighter" would you share?

Well, it'd most likely focus on a more commando style fighting. You'd use pins and throws to keep multiple opponents off-balance and disarm and disorient them one by one until they were no longer a threat. Well, that's the way I imagine it. The other way is the "Jackie Chan" way, where you use everything to your advantage, frantically disarming and subduing opponents with anything you can find.

 

[Quickleaf]

Well, it'd most likely focus on a more commando style fighting. You'd use pins and throws to keep multiple opponents off-balance and disarm and disorient them one by one until they were no longer a threat. Well, that's the way I imagine it. The other way is the "Jackie Chan" way, where you use everything to your advantage, frantically disarming and subduing opponents with anything you can find.

Some of what you describe I'm pointing under the Swordplay Fighting Talents of the Fighter. It's the classical archetype of using a weapon and fighting with a free hand. It will include talents like weapon binding, throws, pins, disarms, human shields, etc.

I think that's the closest I will get to what you describe.