D&D General Ranger Identity Patch (+)

[Corinnguard]

My favorite version of the Ranger is Laser Llama's version of the class. Reasons being:

*You get a Fighting Style at 1st level instead of 2nd level.
*You receive Knacks at 1st level that allow you to customize the class even further.
*They are prepared Half-Casters. With every long rest, they get to select which spells they are going to use on a given day of an adventure. They aren't going to get stuck with a spell that doesn't work well for them until they reach the next level. There aren't that many Ranger spells at 1st level and 2nd level that are really good IMO.
*Ranger's Quarry, Laser Llama's take on HM. It's a class feature and not a spell that requires concentration. The duration of its' benefits and the amount of bonus damage scale up well together. From 1 hour to indefinite and from a d4 to a d12.
*Laser Llama's take on the Hunter subclass includes an extended list of spells. Ditto for the Beast Master subclass. I also think this take on the subclass could pair well with another of Laser Llama's subclasses. The Marksman subclass for the Alternate Fighter.

And for those of you who like psionics in your game, Laser Llama has a psionic subclass for the Ranger. The Nomad.

 

[el-remmen]

I can't imagine playing a ranger with, from my perspective as someone who sees magic as definitive to the ranger, no subclass and only 1/3 casting.

I’m having trouble parsing this.

I get that you are saying that you can’t imagine playing the version of the ranger I suggested. But my version still has subclasses (one of which starts choosing Druid and later wizard spells at 3rd level), so not sure where the no subclass part came from.

For me magic has never been a primary part of being a ranger and at best is a ribbon for some supernatural woodcraft and some defense.

 

[CreamCloud0]

mostly i think ranger ought to be designed like the warlock was with it's multiple customization avenues: pact boons, subclass and invocations, because part of what defines the ranger archetype in my eyes is it's versatile skillset, it's more of more martial counterpart to the bard: a jack of all trades with a few greater specialities within that pool of skills than something with a specific defined set, so a ranger class needs the versatility to let individual rangers dedicate themselves to specific facets within their branching skillset, this would be the primary use of ranger 'pact primal boons' and invocations, your primal boon gives you a small perk to one classic archetype: weapons, magic, skills or familiar, and your invocations let you pick more extra abilities and improvements to various areas of your general skillset (we all know how warlock invocations work i don't need to explain this really do i?)

then they get their favoured terrain and enemies back, i'm just going to quote myself from the hunter's mark thread here:

but if i had to pick a core mechanic for them i'd take a second swing at favoured terrain and favoured enemy, specifically more how BG3 tried to implement them as thematic transferable skills rather than bonuses that only activate in/against your chosen specialty, if you pick tundra as your favoured terrain and you have cold resist and a swim speed, pick fields and plains and you get improved movement speed and animal handling, pick dragons as your favoured enemy you can cast absorb elements and resist fear effects, pick undead and you resist necrotic damage and get proficiency in religion.

this multi layered design means that even if you pick one subclass or another that doesn't make it so that's your only area of skill, you've got secondary strengths to use.

plus my thoughts on rangers with magic, rangers would use magic but they are not beholden to it, rangers pick up whatever skills are useful and magic is a very useful skill but it is still only one tool in their toolkit, it should not be facilitating all the rest of their capabilities.

 

[Tigris]

mostly i think ranger ought to be designed like the warlock was with it's multiple customization avenues: pact boons, subclass and invocations, because part of what defines the ranger archetype in my eyes is it's versatile skillset, it's more of more martial counterpart to the bard: a jack of all trades with a few greater specialities within that pool of skills than something with a specific defined set, so a ranger class needs the versatility to let individual rangers dedicate themselves to specific facets within their branching skillset, this would be the primary use of ranger 'pact primal boons' and invocations, your primal boon gives you a small perk to one classic archetype: weapons, magic, skills or familiar, and your invocations let you pick more extra abilities and improvements to various areas of your general skillset (we all know how warlock invocations work i don't need to explain this really do i?)

then they get their favoured terrain and enemies back, i'm just going to quote myself from the hunter's mark thread here:


this multi layered design means that even if you pick one subclass or another that doesn't make it so that's your only area of skill, you've got secondary strengths to use.

plus my thoughts on rangers with magic, rangers would use magic but they are not beholden to it, rangers pick up whatever skills are useful and magic is a very useful skill but it is still only one tool in their toolkit, it should not be facilitating all the rest of their capabilities.

This for me just sounds way too complicated for a rather straightforward class. They can do different specializations with picking different skills and expertises. They are already way more complex than a fighter because of half casting.


Of course if one get rid of casting one could do some other "class feats" (which is what the invocations of warlocks are just with a different name) etc., but I am not sure one really needs much more than skills and expertises to be versatile.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What if they went through the list of Ranger spells and made more of them Ranger only, or at least Ranger and Druid only?

I think that instead the ranger needs new spells, but yeah that too

Because it cant.

The melee feat (Dual Weilde) is different from the ranged fear (Sharpshooter) which is different from the pet feat (eeer) or the Magic feat (War Caster).

You have to take GWM to boost great swords and Longbow while concentrating on bland buff like Hunters Mark and Greater Invis (gloomstalker).

Or take archer feats and melee spells.
Or take melee feats and archer spells.

Guy: What about general buff spells and feats?

They are gone, my guy. WOTC ignored ranger actual gameplay. But they eventually get there accidentally via spells.

Spells to me is the only viable option. Ranger carries too much breadth. A ranger can be.

1. An arctic survivalist
   1. Cold resistance
   2. Self heals
   3. Endurance
2. A monster hunting archer
   1. Archery
   2. Mobility
   3. Tracking
3. A roving dragon slayer
   1. Variable Resistance
   2. Anti Fear
   3. Stealth
4. A patrolling forest warden
   1. AOE
   2. General damage
   3. Perception
5. A mystic houndmaster
   1. Beast buffs
   2. Magical attack
   3. Animal Handling
6. A wandering blademaster
   1. Melee
   2. Language
   3. Intimidation
7. A lord of the conclave
   1. Defense
   2. Far communication
   3. Persuasion

Thats more than most subsystems allow. Except for spells.

You are wildly exagerating what is needed. Most of that list is fluff. Its skills, or spells that can serve several ends, or a fighting style, etc. Relatively small features that already coexist just fine, and would be even better supported inder the model i suggested, without locking you out of the others.

And when has the ranger ever been a "wandering blademaster"?

I’m having trouble parsing this.

I get that you are saying that you can’t imagine playing the version of the ranger I suggested. But my version still has subclasses (one of which starts choosing Druid and later wizard spells at 3rd level), so not sure where the no subclass part came from.

For me magic has never been a primary part of being a ranger and at best is a ribbon for some supernatural woodcraft and some defense.

Yeah
that is the disconnect, and IMO the only genuine identity issue of the ranger (all others being issues of execution or efficacy). To many of us, the only nonmagical ranger exists in nonmagical worlds. Or maybe a world where nature isnt magical and magic is all either temple or academy learned.

But if nature is magical, so too is the ranger. If the wilderness includes trolls and bulletes and shambling mounds, and sprites and dryads and treants, the ranger has magic as a vital tool in their kit, not a ribbon tacked on.

Which means thst for anyone who sees the ranger thst way, making it a subclass to gain spellcasting means you might as well be a monk who needs a subclass to fight without weapons or armor. It mwans thst one of the vital componants of the class requires you to not be abke to also be a beastmaster or a gloomstalker or whatever. If your subclass patches on a thing you consider vital, you effectively do not have one.

That make more sense?

 

[CreamCloud0]

This for me just sounds way too complicated for a rather straightforward class.

what says the ranger needs to be a straightforward class, and also? do you really consider the warlock too complex for DnD? this is basically just a bladepact warlock as a regular halfcaster rather than pact magic

They can do different specializations with picking different skills and expertises. They are already way more complex than a fighter because of half casting.

skill and expertise are generally quite useless for specialization, they barely let you do anything, and i'm of the opinion fighter needs a notable bump in complexity.

Of course if one get rid of casting one could do some other "class feats" (which is what the invocations of warlocks are just with a different name) etc., but I am not sure one really needs much more than skills and expertises to be versatile.

i don't want to get rid of the ranger's casting, though as stated, it should not be reliant on it either.

 

[el-remmen]

That make more sense?

Yep. But I definitely don't see it that way. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Merlecory]

then they get their favoured terrain and enemies back,

I really liked the DnD Next play test version of favored foe.
Choosing Dragons as your ff have you fearless (immune to fear, perfect for dealing with frightful presence and other foes) as well as evasion at later levels.

Choosing Giants as your ff let you reduce damage from a bit when the attached was large out larger. At higher levels, melee attacks that weren't within 5ft had disadvantage.

This version is both more thematic and less all or nothing.

 

[Minigiant]

You are wildly exagerating what is needed. Most of that list is fluff. Its skills, or spells that can serve several ends, or a fighting style, etc. Relatively small features that already coexist just fine, and would be even better supported inder the model i suggested, without locking you out of the others.

I listed a spell, skill, and fighting style for each.

And when has the ranger ever been a "wandering blademaster"?

The warrior who traveled from Elfland, Dwarven Hold, Human Empire, Dragonberg and everything in between. Speaking all those language, knowing all those cultures, having the trust that people follow him on the roads and through the wilderness.

"You know who walked Edmunds Pass? Ranger Pete. He is tough for a human. He can escor

 

[Minigiant]

I really liked the DnD Next play test version of favored foe.
Choosing Dragons as your ff have you fearless (immune to fear, perfect for dealing with frightful presence and other foes) as well as evasion at later levels.

Choosing Giants as your ff let you reduce damage from a bit when the attached was large out larger. At higher levels, melee attacks that weren't within 5ft had disadvantage.

This version is both more thematic and less all or nothing.

Some choices were significantly weaker.

Thats why when I suggested it back on the WOTC forums, I grouped the offense, defense, skill, and utilty of favored enemies together.