D&D 5E Ranger fight: PHB vs. UA

[TheCosmicKid]

I attribute a good chunk of this malaise towards the 5e ranger to the last edition. In 4e it was a striker class. A damage-dealing machine (often the leader in many DPR challenges) with a few explorer ribbons tossed onto it as window dressing. But the 5e ranger, IMO, is more of an explorer first who can also fight well.

What do people think about that? The more I look at the ranger concept and mess around with some homebrew ideas, the more I see it as best served by a sort of "Big Ball of Ribbons" approach. Give it something like Hunter's Mark to keep it from not totally sucking in the raw damage department, and then just go to town with abilities like Natural Explorer and Land's Stride.

 

[Mercule]

What do people think about that? The more I look at the ranger concept and mess around with some homebrew ideas, the more I see it as best served by a sort of "Big Ball of Ribbons" approach. Give it something like Hunter's Mark to keep it from not totally sucking in the raw damage department, and then just go to town with abilities like Natural Explorer and Land's Stride.

I think the Ranger is extremely poorly served as a "striker". Sure, something like Ambuscade is thematically OK, but the Ranger is not a wilderness Rogue.

I think the exploration route is fair. Really, I play a Ranger because I want to be the guy who always finds a way to survive. Exploration fills a lot of that need by virtue of the Ranger knowing more about his surroundings. Unfortunately, that doesn't come out well in mechanics. So, higher skills (especially stealth and perception) and higher hit points work.

 

[steeldragons]

Chalk up another abstention. Spell-less base is the only way to go, though I wasn't a great fan of the UA effort...Gun to my head? Of the 3, I would have picked that 1st UA rewrite. Definitely not interested in playing the shaman we saw most recently.

So, I'll stick to my own homebrew, thanks. No vote from me.

 

[Minigiant]

I attribute most of the issues with rangers to the different rangers of different editions, books, video games, movies, and stories.

Is it a combat class with exploration ribbons, a exploration class with combat ribbons, a dual combat/exploration class, or even a combat class with interaction ribbons.

The truth is you do choose between ranger classes. You choose between SETTINGS to place the ranger in.

The ranger of the Forgotten Realms is different from the one from Middle Earth, Azeroth, Ferelden, or Westeros.

 

[Celondon]

Chalk up another abstention. Spell-less base is the only way to go, though I wasn't a great fan of the UA effort...Gun to my head? Of the 3, I would have picked that 1st UA rewrite. Definitely not interested in playing the shaman we saw most recently.

So, I'll stick to my own homebrew, thanks. No vote from me.

I respectfully disagree. Rangers in D&D have had spells since they were introduced. I think it would be a shame for that heritage to be lost.

 

[steeldragons]

I respectfully disagree. Rangers in D&D have had spells since they were introduced. I think it would be a shame for that heritage to be lost.

No worries. Loads of people disagree with me on lots of stuff.

You are correct...and it is a constant thorn in my side in Ranger conversations. Yes, I know. Rangers have "always had" spells...

They have NOT, however, always had spells from level 1! (or level 2 in 5e, but what's the diff, really?) Their magic use came later (8+ level) and was minor...never going above 1 or 2 4th level spells, I believe, and that only in the upper teens.

The paladin was the same. Of course, Paladins had magical powers from their starting days and got spells later. So they were always a, rather, "half-magic" class.

My beef with the 5e PHB ranger base class is that it was constructed (understandably so, for/from a symmetry standpoint), like the paladin, as a "half caster" from their very beginning.

I don't like it. I don't want rangers being "magical" from the word "go." 5e classes, in general, are FAR too magic/spell-oriented.

Ranger was one of the FEW character archetypes that was supposed to be cool/playable without magic for a good chunk (at least a good half, by 1e standards) of their adventuring careers. Toting the proverbial non-magic-user "party line" with Fighters and Thieves.

That has been completely annihilated by modern representations of the class (3e+ D&D, though really I blame a certain video game that 3e catered to/stole from)...and, simply put, I don't like it.

 

[Minigiant]

No worries. Loads of people disagree with me on lots of stuff.

You are correct...and it is a constant thorn in my side in Ranger conversations. Yes, I know. Rangers have "always had" spells...

They have NOT, however, always had spells from level 1! (or level 2 in 5e, but what's the diff, really?) Their magic use came later (8+ level) and was minor...never going above 1 or 2 4th level spells, I believe, and that only in the upper teens.

The paladin was the same. Of course, Paladins had magical powers from their starting days and got spells later. So they were always a, rather, "half-magic" class.

My beef with the 5e PHB ranger base class is that it was constructed (understandably so, for/from a symmetry standpoint), like the paladin, as a "half caster" from their very beginning.

I don't like it. I don't want rangers being "magical" from the word "go." 5e classes, in general, are FAR too magic/spell-oriented.

Ranger was one of the FEW character archetypes that was supposed to be cool/playable without magic for a good chunk (at least a good half, by 1e standards) of their adventuring careers. Toting the proverbial non-magic-user "party line" with Fighters and Thieves.

That has been completely annihilated by modern representations of the class (3e+ D&D, though really I blame a certain video game that 3e catered to/stole from)...and, simply put, I don't like it.

I think the part that really doomed the 1e or 3e style magic for the ranger was the "get first level magic at level 9" thing.

5th was designed to make 1st level magic weak and minor at level 10 or so in order to prevent a repeat of brokenness like in 3rd edition first level spells. So giving a ranger fist level spells would be basically doing nothing. Being anything less that a 1/2 caster is the same (meaning lame).

That's essentialy was the problem. The 9th through 11th level for a class is the second tier shift for each class in 5e edition.
In 1st and 2nd edition 9th-11th is where your character get a new (but weak) power (unless you are a wizard) and are nudged by the game to retire.
3rd edition sets it back later to the 11th-13th level. Sadly full casters tier-jump trumps all others. HARD.
4th edition was blatant. You actually switch tiers formally in the rules.


This is why the UA rangers both a hard to judge. The first won't doesn't get anything spectacular and the second UA ranger only goes 5 levels.

That makes the choice really hard to make. The image for what the level 2 ranger, the level 5 ranger, level 11 ranger, and the level 17 ranger have to mesh seamlessly and match the setting around them.

 

[ZickZak]

The latest UA is OP / unfinished. PHB is on the weaker side, still won for me.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

I personally would love to see a Frankenstein mash-up of all three existing Ranger write-ups, based mostly off of the PHB version. Hide in Plain Sight is virtually useless, and Foe Slayer is interesting, but also very situational due to the tie to Favored Enemies. Honestly, what I'd love to see is Skirmisher's Stealth [UA Ranger Lvl 2 feature] (or something very similar) replace Hide in Plain Sight at level 10. Then replace Foe Slayer with Ambuscade [UA Ranger Lvl 1 feature, that most say is broken]. After that, I'd like to see a level two feature be added in that is Foe Slayer and Hunter's Mark combined, sort of. Hear me out: You can only use the ability once or twice a day, like Action Surge. But it functions exactly like Hunter's Mark (requires concentration and all) except you can't move the target around, even if it dies. But instead of adding 1d6 damage, you get Foe Slayer on it. Lasts for 8 hours. Slap this on a BBEG and it helps with either accuracy or damage, and if it gives your party the slip before it dies, you can track it better than anyone.

If we're going one step further, I would remove the few healing spells on the spell list, and replace Primeval Awareness with Poultices [Spell-less Variant from Modifying Classes UA]. I like all this because it actually incentivizes increasing your wisdom, beyond just being better at key skills.

And I've ranted long enough, but I also don't think the Beastmaster subclass is bad, but minor changes can be made that would make it feel more "Beastmaster"-y, while still not breaking balance. (Though I am in the camp that believes letting the beast attack without expending actions of your own is almost impossible to balance in any kind of satisfying way).

P.S. First post! This seems like a very great, well-rounded community.

 

[steeldragons]

P.S. First post! This seems like a very great, well-rounded community.

Welcome! Have some start up XP.