I've spent the past few months breaking down the Ranger and trying to find some common ground across different fan expectations. Here's what I've got.

[Herobizkit]

I recall a 2e Kit called the 'Greenwood Ranger' that slowly turned a Ranger into a Plant as he gained levels. Borrowing from the mechanics of, say, the Dragon Sorcerer, I wonder if this would be something of interest in a unique 'third' option for a Ranger spec.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I'm still reviewing some of the details, but I have to say, this looks very, very similar to what I would have done and to many of the things I've thought about when reviewing the Ranger in the past. I think the idea that the ranger is fundamentally borked as a concept and needs to be completely reinvented is misguided. I also agree that a Ranger should be a martial class with both spellcasting and beastmastery as options, rather than either being a core part of the class. Being a wilderness guardian is perfectly legitimate as a class concept. If it wasn't we also wouldn't have the Barbarian, Bard, Paladin, etc.

Here are a few initial thoughts:

I will agree with some of the above posters that, at a glance, they seem to come up a bit short on damage. I still think it's thematically strange that favored enemy doesn't grant them any bonuses at all. The bonuses shouldn't be hugely significant, but it should have some effect in combat.

I love distinguishing between Stalker and Skirmisher with Hunters. This is how core rules should have done it, rather than having a haphazard smattering of abilities creating a focus conflict. I imagine a guerrilla style fighter vs sniper style fighter. That should be the proper thematic choice, rather than melee or range proficiency.

I don't necessarily love giving players lots of options within a subclass as they level. Perhaps Skirmisher and Stalker should actually be separate subclasses, rather than just having the Hunter subclass broken into more subclasses.

As in the core rules, I dislike being forced to choose between being proficient in either archery or melee fighting. A ranger should be about versatility. I would grant both Volley and Whirlwind to Hunters rather than making them choose. They're already going to be a little better at one over the other from their Fighting style choice at early level.

I'll try to post more thoughts a bit later.

 

[Einlanzer0]

On the contrary, I think a design goal of trying to please everyone is scarcely even possible, let alone desirable. As the great Canadian philosopher said, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." The sort of universalism you're shooting for is not ever going to encompass all options because it is itself an option that looks and plays differently from other, more focused design approaches.

Here might be the heart of our disagreement: you believe that the "crisis of identity" of the ranger is because everyone has a different idea of what that identity is, so your solution is to synthesize all those identities under one general mechanic. But I think the crisis of the ranger is not that it has too many identities, but that it has none at all, at least not one that is unique to itself. Okay, the pet thing is unique (though problematic for other reasons), but the rest is borrowed pieces from the fighter, druid, and rogue. That's not a unique raison d'etre; it's a patchwork counterfeit. And if the ranger just continues to mirror these other classes, it will never have an identity of its own.

But it's important to note there's a double standard here. What you said above is true for a lot of other classes as well. The Ranger is merely the one that gets singled out for it. One reason why is because people perceive it to lack a unifying mechanic (other than beastmaster), but that's not really a legitimate argument. Not only is the ranger not unique in this aspect, but it's also a false dilemma in the context of class design. Possessing a singular, unique, overarching mechanic isn't what should arbitrate what is or isn't worthy of being a class. It's all about the theme, baby, and how well you can flesh out a set of abilities that fits into that theme well.

The problem with the ranger lies only with its execution in 5e, not with the class concept itself. The chief problem is that it tries to be too many things at the same time, which makes all of its various mechanics and abilities seem half-developed.

While I'm sure we'd disagree on some of the details, I think that Necron has exactly the right approach here.

 

[1Mac]

But it's important to note there's a double standard here. What you said above is true for a lot of other classes as well. The Ranger is merely the one that gets singled out for it.

I'm confused by what you mean here. My point was that the ranger suffers by being too much about bits and pieces from other classes and not enough about having an identity of it's own. You seem to be suggesting that other classes have this problem. Other than, arguably, the paladin, I can't say I see this.

The chief problem is that it tries to be too many things at the same time, which makes all of its various mechanics and abilities seem half-developed.

This is basically a paraphrase of my argument. We agree!

Possessing a singular, unique, overarching mechanic isn't what should arbitrate what is or isn't worthy of being a class. It's all about the theme, baby, and how well you can flesh out a set of abilities that fits into that theme well.

I also agree with this. My problem with NecronPariah's ranger isn't the lack of a singular mechanic; indeed, I don't like how Survivalist dice are used for powers that don't need them, seemingly for the sake of having such a singular mechanic. My larger problem is that Survivalist dice are too much like Combat Superiority dice, meaning they don't get out of the shadow of the Fighter, which is a hallmark of the ranger's problem as a class.

 

[Acr0ssTh3P0nd]

I'm confused by what you mean here. My point was that the ranger suffers by being too much about bits and pieces from other classes and not enough about having an identity of it's own. You seem to be suggesting that other classes have this problem. Other than, arguably, the paladin, I can't say I see this.

I think you might be fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm attempting to do with the class.

I'm not trying to make it so that the ranger class can be everything at the same time - like you said, that just leads to watered-down mechanics. Rather than pulling the ranger in many different directions at once, I'm making it so that the ranger has a single base identity (the explorer) that can then be expanded up with the appropriate amount of focus in one single direction of the player's choosing.

And, quite honestly, I don't see the survivalist dice damage infringing on the fighter's identity with maneuvers or the rogue's sneak attack any more than a sorcerer's spellcasting infringes upon a wizard's. Just as the wizard and the sorcerer both cast spells, so too do certain fighters and rangers use tactics to gain the upper hand in combat. And just as the wizard is a swiss-army-knife of magic compared to the sorcerer's themed, limited-but-empowered spell list, so too do the implementations of this tactical expertise differ.

The fighter does a limited number of maneuvers and extra damage in addition to their normal martial superiority, at any time, anywhere, against any foe. A non-magic martial-focused ranger should not be the fighter's equal in this regard - their tactics are enabled by the terrain and their use of it in set-up, and they must choose between extra damage and extra utility. The fighter relies on resources to do things in addition to their attacks, the ranger relies on set-up and/or choosing a single target and wearing them down (Hunter's Quarry in the Hunter subclass, which I plan on expanding upon).

No, the implementation isn't perfect, but the goal is to have as much difference in identity and implementation between a fighter's and a ranger's martial abilities as there is between, say, a wizard and a warlock or sorcerer. It's a WIP, but it can be done.

Also, I've taken your points about the SD not have enough utility application to heart - I've been moving some features around and editing others to address this.

 

[1Mac]

I'm finding myself warming a little bit to Survival Dice, at least as far as their combat applications go (I'd be interested in seeing their non-combat applications, though I wouldn't go out of my way to tie them to the SD mechanic just for the sake of doing so!).

I've run into a couple other very thoughtful ranger re-designs. I didn't know if you'd seen them. Neither are perfect, but they have lots of good ideas.

Chris Delvo's ranger: Alpha version, Partial revised version

Marsuplialmancer's ranger

 

[CapnZapp]

The WotC design team consensus is that the Beast Master's power level is actually balanced with the ranger class as a whole, but is wonky because it doesn't have enough room to work within the ranger subclass space as-written, and I trust their judgement on that one.

The problem, I believe, is that a successful Beastmaster class *needs* to be overpowered to work well.

The animal companion doesn't need to do huge damage, but needs to be about as sturdy as you are, and definitely as sturdy as the weakest party member.

Otherwise you either a) needs to accept that it dies significantly more often than a party member, which is upsetting and unfun; or b) it is a liability that can't fight alongside it's master, and many expect the AC to be a "combat pet".

Solution: clearly mark the class as spotlight-stealing (as you might expect for a build choice where you control effectively two characters), and make it clearly optional. As in writing "you cannot select this subclass without your group's and you DM's explicit approval" right into the book.

Other than that, I feel the exploration focus is doomed, especially if you want the class to work without magic.

Consider the party taking a Warlock with an Imp familiar along. Day ruined for the poor Ranger.

The value of exploration must be kept very low. Or the exploration abilities can't be held low key and realistic.

The realistic assumption on a class that is supposed to compete with the PHB gang is a competent fighter with a knack for exploration.

I would have made it be the go-to choice for anyone wanting best-in-class archers and dual wielders. Or, a basic no-frills warrior but with a really cool animal friend; as in a fearsome specimen that holds its own; not compared to the relatively feeble beasts of the MM, but the other player characters!

Then add a dollop of exploration on top of these two chassi, but cost those abilities essentially at zero, since they won't do anything other classes can't accomplish with magic.

 

[Fragsie]

I really like the way your ranger is put together. Placing a ranger like class into my sci-fantasy setting; the Explorer has been a struggle due to the PHB ranger assuming magic casting in the base class. Yours is the first no-magic alternative I've seen that feels like a unique class rather than just stripped of magic with some bits of other classes bolted on. Obviously you're still ironing out some kinks and balancing, but I like what you have so far. I would love to take what you've made and mod it to fit into my setting (favoured planet environment instead of terrain, starship stuff, more guns rather than bows, tech options). Would you be ok with that, I would of course credit you

 

[Fragsie]

While reading through your ranger in greater detail, something stuck out to me about your survivalist dice mechanic. It seems odd to me that they 'reset' at the end of your turn rather than at the beginning. Changing it to the latter would open up the option for using your survivalist dice during the rest of the round, abilities or manoeuvres could be created that allow you to use your dice as a part of a reaction or to aid your party members.

This would add a bit of tactical depth to the mechanic as well: 'should I use them now for extra damage, or save them in case of x'.

 

[Acr0ssTh3P0nd]

While reading through your ranger in greater detail, something stuck out to me about your survivalist dice mechanic. It seems odd to me that they 'reset' at the end of your turn rather than at the beginning. Changing it to the latter would open up the option for using your survivalist dice during the rest of the round, abilities or manoeuvres could be created that allow you to use your dice as a part of a reaction or to aid your party members.

This would add a bit of tactical depth to the mechanic as well: 'should I use them now for extra damage, or save them in case of x'.

It's funny you should mention this - I actually changed the recharge to be "end of turn" is encourage tactical usage instead of just blowing them all on damage. Damage is a much more appealing option that is much less situational, so I wanted to make it more likely for people to spend SD on reaction-based stuff (like the Beast Master) than it would other be.