D&D General Ranger Identity Patch (+)

Flavour-wise, if you were going to redo the sub classes for Ranger, what would you do?

Looking at the current ones, I feel like the fey and the gloomstalker are too specific and they don’t really fit my view of a Ranger.

I was thinking: Hunter
Tracking, bounty hunting, damage

Wise Bushmaster: fey/nature protections, party support, outdoors knowledge, survival, protection from elements, maybe crowd control. Very perceptive. Scout?

Beast Master: guy with a pet, speaks with animals, scout?

I can’t think of another one.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Why?

A spell that is beast only can be justified as a lower level spell than the one its derived from.

Like you could do Barkskin or Stoneskin for a spell slot lesser as beast only
It is needless clutter. Just give the ranger the ability to cast self spells on their beast. The ranger has too few spwlls known to be saddled with stuff that niche.
 

It is needless clutter. Just give the ranger the ability to cast self spells on their beast. The ranger has too few spwlls known to be saddled with stuff that niche.
You are getting the point of it.

Stoneskin is a 4th level spell that requires Concentration.

Stonefur would be a 3rd level spell that doesn't require Concentration but is beasts only.
 

You are getting the point of it.

Stoneskin is a 4th level spell that requires Concentration.

Stonefur would be a 3rd level spell that doesn't require Concentration but is beasts only.
No i get the point and I dont see the need. I dont believe that the benifit outwieghs the cost. I would never take it, whereas i would take a level 3 defensive spell that i can use on myself or my wolf or another ally if i am playing a ranger without a pet.
 

Remove ads

Top