D&D 5E New Ranger Class/Subclasses

[Voi_D_ragon]

First off, I'm not taking the credit for this; I was simply too lazy to create an account on GitPG forums, so I'm linking the post here http://www.giantitp.com/forums/show...r-archetypes-with-optional-Base-Ranger-Revamp

So, do you guys think the class (and, yes, it is missing a few points like spell list and fightinh styles) is balanced as a whole? If not, are the subclasses integrable with the new revised ranger in your opinion? If (not?) so, why?

 

[Xeviat]

At a glance, I like it. I'm not sure they need the damage bonus from "Skirmish" at 2nd level. At that level, paladin's get Smite, but Ranger's get Hunter's Mark or other damage dealing spells. I like moving Fighting style to first level (I believe Paladin and Rangers should have that). I like the simplicity of Expertise over all the favored enemy/terrain complications.

I really like "Scouting Action". I'm concerned about "Evasion" and an archetype feature at 7th. "Vanish" is super cool; other classes get at-will invisibility, and this is a nifty take on it. Their new "Killing Blow" is certainly interesting; I'm not sure about the balance, but Open Hand Monks get a save or die around then, so ...

It looks good. Simple. Clean. I like it. The Archetypes look good at a glance, and I like their beast master.

 

[Voi_D_ragon]

At a glance, I like it. I'm not sure they need the damage bonus from "Skirmish" at 2nd level. At that level, paladin's get Smite, but Ranger's get Hunter's Mark or other damage dealing spells.

About this, although it's just conjecture since the class' spell list wasn't included in the description, several of the spoilers talked about removing the Hunter's Mark spell from it. Also, there are a few new spells mentioned that should be described but aren't... Maybe I should make an account there real quick after all.

 

[Xeviat]

About this, although it's just conjecture since the class' spell list wasn't included in the description, several of the spoilers talked about removing the Hunter's Mark spell from it. Also, there are a few new spells mentioned that should be described but aren't... Maybe I should make an account there real quick after all.

If that's the case, and if their spells are tweaked to being utility only, then maaaaaybe.

I like the paladin model: you can use your spells for offense (simply with smite) or defense or utility, but the "combat power" is balanced assuming you're using it all for smites. That way defense or utility is a trade off the player gets to decide upon.

I personally would remove Hunter's Mark as a spell (and Hex) and make it a class ability to mark someone by expending a spell slot. I'd also not make it require concentration and just last until you use it again or the time expires. Have the duration and number of targets increase with spell slots. Do something like letting a Ranger mark someone so they can track them easier going forward, and even let higher level spell slots mark a target from it's tracks (These are the tracks of a man, he has a slight limp and is dragging a large sword; i know who he is).