Homebrewing the ranger

[Quickleaf]

I just finished a rough draft of a ranger class for D&D Next, and I'd like to get your feedback on it. This is for levels 1 to 10, so obviously there's some speculation about attack, save DC, hit die progression, etc. I did compare to the numbers of other classes, but I designed it more by *feel* than by math.

Why did I go to the trouble?
I've got a large group of players who can only meet intermittently, and who like a lot of classes to choose from. Specifically, the game we're trying to start is "All Stars D&D" where they take their favorite character, re-make them as a 5e character (we've yet to decide what level, probably 10th), figure out how they might know each other, and then we go from there. One of the players' favorite PC was a ranger, hence the homebrew.

Design goals
Besides making a balanced 5e class, I had a few goals for the ranger...

* Allow for spellcasting and non-spellcasting rangers in the same class thru the "Nature's Boon" feature which lets the player choose from a leveling animal companion, an improving hunter's quarry type feature, or limited spellcasting.

* Allow for several different fighting styles with simple design. The fighting styles are beast, bow, melee, and skirmisher.

* Adapt the 4e Essentials' "wilderness knacks" from Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms to 5e.

* Incorporate a new "scouting" feature to emphasize the ranger's excellence in exploration.

* Begin compiling a ranger spell list. I've just begun this and haven't designed any new spells yet.

* Borrowed David Guyll's "Hunter" background, homebrewed over here: D&D Next: Homebrew Compilation 1 | Points of Light

* Inspired by a couple posts....

Ranger: defining traits are:
1. tracking, herblore, woodscraft
2. toughness - main stat should be Con.
3. relatively simple fighting techniques (i.e. no 2-weapon tripe or fancy-pants maneuvers) but very good at these basics
4. hunter's weapons only to start with - spear, bow, axe, simple sword

Ranger
Defining Trait: Tracking.
Whether they have a wolf or panther or not, are really good at killing goblins vs. giants or surviving/moving through mountains vs. forests, whether they know some "survivalist magic" or not, the Ranger can track. They can find the signs and notice the details that others (even other trackers or woodsmen or hunters) will miss. They WILL find you.
-Favored Enemy gets wrapped up/written into Favored Terrain and get built into the class. Special movement (either a bonus or just not being penalized for difficult terrain), stealth/hiding bonuses in that terrain, attack bonus in that terrain against any foe?
-Stealth (anywhere), herbal/natural/mundane healing, and animal/plant/local regional lore should all be built into the class.
-Magic Use, either druidic or arcane AND Animal companions should be achievable options/optional builds through specialties. NOT written into the default of the class. Fighting styles (the whole "archer v. dual-wielder" stuff) should be easily achievable through options, NOT built in to the class.

It's attached as a PDF below. Looking forward to your feedback!

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

First off: Very nice!

Second: just so you can mine it for ideas, I'll point you to an old post of mine wit an alternate ranger write up (non magical): http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/328293-ranger-design-idea-contingencies.html#post5998333

Beyond that, I would suggest Quarry not apply to attack rolls (bad for bounded accuracy). Again though, very cool!

 

[Quickleaf]

First off: Very nice!

Thanks!

Second: just so you can mine it for ideas, I'll point you to an old post of mine wit an alternate ranger write up (non magical): http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/328293-ranger-design-idea-contingencies.html#post5998333

Great stuff, I think you've got a better read on the use of advantage in 5e than me. Definitely will mine your stuff for ideas

Beyond that, I would suggest Quarry not apply to attack rolls (bad for bounded accuracy). Again though, very cool!

Yep, you're absolutely right. Consider it changed.

 

[Minigiant]

Looks good.

It is similar to my own unfinished ranger class writeup/notes.

I think animal companions are best done with specialties though. And just making rangers having a team-warrior option.

Also I don't know if I am okay with even magic rangers having a spell option at level 1 from the class. That would be new.

 

[Gorgoroth]

...

5 e
+
r a n g e r

= sont des mots qui vont tres bien ensemble.

(read : gotta a nice ring to it!)

 

[Raith5]

Looks great but I think the hunters quarry boon looks to be less powerful and far less interesting than the alternatives.

Also i think I would have a problem with the ranger orison being the light spell. They should use a flint and steel dangit! I think all those orison should be skill rather than magic.

 

[Quickleaf]

I think animal companions are best done with specialties though. And just making rangers having a team-warrior option.

Yeah, I was wondering that too. When I sat down to write it however, a "team-warrior" option didn't have the same iconic feel as "animal companion".

Also I don't know if I am okay with even magic rangers having a spell option at level 1 from the class. That would be new.

Also i think I would have a problem with the ranger orison being the light spell. They should use a flint and steel dangit! I think all those orison should be skill rather than magic.

I see your point, it's definitely not traditional. I agree that if I nixed light and included one or two more "subtle" orisons it could work.

Looks great but I think the hunters quarry boon looks to be less powerful and far less interesting than the alternatives.

I agree that it could use something spicy to make it more interesting. But less powerful, really? I'll take a look at it again.

 

[steeldragons]

First off, over all, really nice job. I think it is very flavorful and eocative (as a class run down ought to be!).

I REALLY like the "Scouting" mechanic and what that adds to the flavor of the class. I like your breakdown of fighting styles (and even like the Beast style added in. Cool idea.). Generally speaking, I like the "Nature's Boon" and "Wilderness Knack" updates, but couldn't they just all be wrapped into a single list of stuff? (my vote's on Nature's Boon if you go that route)

I even like your choice of artwork...which is not a guy in a green hooded cloak holding a bow or twin scimitars with a wolf next to him! lol.

And, I very much like that you've made spell-casting a choice/option that not all rangers need to have/take.

That said, I find it curious that "Tracking", being the #1 defining feature for both Lanefan and myself, was also relegated to a "choice/option." That just makes no sense to me.

And then...there is the animal companion...oy, the animal companion. It's just a peeve of mine and this strikes me as everything BUT making them automatic to the class.

They're a given/automatic with the suggested background?! I see no reason a Hunter background automatically needs assume an animal companion.

OR you can get one through the Animal Companion-Nature Boon. Which automatically grants you a once per day use of 2 spells? "Companion Link" would do what, exactly? You've already stipulated this "mystical link" with the companion to know direction, emotional state, etc...what's a spell "Link" needed for? And then, "Raise Companion"....is this supposed to mean the ranger can raise their animal companion from the dead?!? ONCE PER DAY?!?! That just makes my immersion/flavor brain hurt (explode, actually).

Back to spells for a second...the lists are too long. If we're going to give rangers spells (especially starting at 3rd level!) and considering the advancement rate of the table provided, and the fluff that these are "tidbits" of magic the ranger has picked up to help him along the way in the wild, then the lists are too long. I'd go with 4 per spell level. (Also agree, btw, that the orisons provided pretty much all do seem to be non-magical Skills a ranger would have). They don't need "options" in their magic...if a player wants that, multi-class into a mage or druid (though I'm a sucker fer a good ole skool Ranger/Cleric, myself).

Some of them seem really out of whack...a druid can't speak with plants as a 2nd level spell...why should a ranger be able to? Commune with nature is a 5th level Druid spell....why's the ranger have it at 4th? The idea that a ranger would be more apt to or better at communing with nature than a druid just doesn't fly...for me.

A couple of other tidbits: The Healing, imho, is too low. 1 HP per HD? I'd like to see at least 2 from their herb lore. (I'd make it 2 per ranger level but 2 per HD works for 5e, I guess)

But over all, a very impressive effort.

I'd just like to see the Animal Companions made STRICTLY optional (i.e. not in the default background...some other background, fine...but not the default to make a Quick-Ranger) and put Tracking in somehow as a default...seems the natural pairing to go with the default Scouting ability.

 

[steeldragons]

Sample Ranger Spell List (Steel Dragons' style)

Orisons. . . . . . . . . .1st level. . . . . . . . . . .2nd level
Detect Magic. . . . Entanglement. . . . . . .Cure Light Wounds
Detect Poison. . . . .Faerie Fire. . . . . . . . . .Delay Poison
Message. . . . . . . .Magic Missile. . . . . . . . Obscurement
Resist Element. . .Speak with Animals. . . . . Tree Shape

3rd level. . . . . . . . . .4th level
Misdirection. . . . . Cure Serious Wounds
Neutralize Poison. . .Detect Scrying
Silence. . . . . . . . . .Dispel Magic
Speak with Plants. . . .Scrying

Ok...maybe 5 spells per might be better...but you see the flavor/get the idea, I trust (and yeah, MM is pretty much in there just for tradition's/nostalgia's sake...though the whole "arrow that doesn't miss" thing does seem to speak to the Ranger.) But in each level is a smattering of cleric and mage with a bulk of druid...or spells that intersect across divine/arcane lines, like Detect and Dispel Magic.

Just my take on magic a Ranger should/would be using if one is going to opt for a spell-using ranger.

--SD

 

[Quickleaf]

First off, over all, really nice job. I think it is very flavorful and eocative (as a class run down ought to be!).

Thanks! It needs work but I think core design is good.

I REALLY like the "Scouting" mechanic and what that adds to the flavor of the class. I like your breakdown of fighting styles (and even like the Beast style added in. Cool idea.). Generally speaking, I like the "Nature's Boon" and "Wilderness Knack" updates, but couldn't they just all be wrapped into a single list of stuff? (my vote's on Nature's Boon if you go that route)

How could I combine those two? I mean, the Nature's Boons are significantly more powerful than the Wilderness Knacks (which are essentially super skills).

I even like your choice of artwork...which is not a guy in a green hooded cloak holding a bow or twin scimitars with a wolf next to him! lol.

I resisted the urge

That said, I find it curious that "Tracking", being the [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] defining feature for both Lanefan and myself, was also relegated to a "choice/option." That just makes no sense to me.

Yeah, you guys are the ones who inspired me to invent the Scouting mechanic. Perhaps, the Wilderness Tracker knack ought to be an automatic class feature along with Scouting? I think that's what I'll do.

And then...there is the animal companion...oy, the animal companion. It's just a peeve of mine and this strikes me as everything BUT making them automatic to the class.

They're a given/automatic with the suggested background?! I see no reason a Hunter background automatically needs assume an animal companion.

True enough. I will change the background.

the Animal Companion-Nature Boon. Which automatically grants you a once per day use of 2 spells? "Companion Link" would do what, exactly? You've already stipulated this "mystical link" with the companion to know direction, emotional state, etc...what's a spell "Link" needed for? And then, "Raise Companion"....is this supposed to mean the ranger can raise their animal companion from the dead?!? ONCE PER DAY?!?! That just makes my immersion/flavor brain hurt (explode, actually).

I know, I know. Let me explain both of those. The Companion Link is a "see through their eyes" spell, not unlike Bran in the Game of Thrones...actually don't familiars allow this? It just seemed too evocative to pass up...or it could be made a core ability of the animal companio.

With the Raise Companion spell here's what I was thinking...folks get attached to their pets ,especially kids (who many a DM directed to play rangers in old editions because they were the "easy" class). The idea here is that no one could find the animals body, but that when the ranger blows their whistle, the animal companion comes limping out of the woods or emerges from the dense valley mist with a faint glow in its eyes that fades. That's how I'd run it.

Back to spells for a second...the lists are too long. If we're going to give rangers spells (especially starting at 3rd level!) and considering the advancement rate of the table provided, and the fluff that these are "tidbits" of magic the ranger has picked up to help him along the way in the wild, then the lists are too long. I'd go with 4 per spell level. (Also agree, btw, that the orisons provided pretty much all do seem to be non-magical Skills a ranger would have). They don't need "options" in their magic...if a player wants that, multi-class into a mage or druid (though I'm a sucker fer a good ole skool Ranger/Cleric, myself).

Yeah, those are good spell lists you posted below. I agree with everything you said...though I wonder if I should slow down the spell advancement some?

Some of them seem really out of whack...a druid can't speak with plants as a 2nd level spell...why should a ranger be able to? Commune with nature is a 5th level Druid spell....why's the ranger have it at 4th? The idea that a ranger would be more apt to or better at communing with nature than a druid just doesn't fly...for me.

Ah, I was using the PFSRD as a source of spell level guidelines, which I guess are different than 3e.

A couple of other tidbits: The Healing, imho, is too low. 1 HP per HD? I'd like to see at least 2 from their herb lore. (I'd make it 2 per ranger level but 2 per HD works for 5e, I guess)

Yes, consider it changed.

But over all, a very impressive effort.

Thanks I'll post an updated PDF end of the week/weekend taking into account all your suggestions plus the others. Then we will see how my attempt stacks up in October when playtest 3 is released, and what I should change.