D&D 5E The Revised Ranger, Revised...

[PrimevalSeeker]

It looks great!

Camouflage still feels like something everyone should be able to do, maybe the ranger can do it better, but it does not feel worth sacrificing a class lvl feature.

Also what could be an alternative to Natural Physician?

Edit: Forgot to say that I also like the fey spirit theme given to the animal companion.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Overall it seems fine, but I also don't like Ranger's being gated into Two Weapon style and Archery style.

What about roaming around in the wild would make a Ranger better at fighting with his offhand, verses say using a single weapon it two hands like say a Spear? What if the monsters he has specialized in hunting had thick hides so arrows would not be as effective as a big weapon swung in two hands?

I don't see it as an improvement over the fighting style options given in either 5e Ranger version we have so far.

Edit: I really like the Toolkit proficiencies. I forgot to add that. That is a really smart choice.

 

[Krestus]

I wonder a bit about getting both combat styles at the same time, and not having the other two choices any more. Do you really want all Rangers to carry two scimitars and a bow?

I've deliberated on this quite a bit and like the idea of doing both. Without feats thrown in, it doesn't really make you any more powerful, just allows you to play both roles if you decide to switch things up. The big downside being multi-class abuse to nab extra fighting styles, which is why I'm considering scrapping it and going back to "choose one." I think the other fighting styles are either just ways for min-maxxers to jack up stats, plus they step on the feet of other classes (paladins and fighters). Defense is not a fighting style- it's a quick way to maximize your AC in a flavorless way (IMO). The problem is, I can't really make the benefits NOT fighting styles, otherwise they would stack with fighting styles lol. Any suggestions would be helpful

Camouflage - I think it's way too weak for 10th level. I mean, a Druid gets Pass Without Trace at 3rd level, and that affects a whole group that moves. I'd give it to them much earlier, and even if you don't move it, I think the '5 minute' setup time is too long. The 1 minute time in the PHB seems fine to me.

I'd either give them Camouflage earlier, and then at higher levels make it as good as Wood Elf Mask of the Wild - or maybe allow them to camouflage others quickly as well or something like that.

Honestly, I've always hated these abilities, even in 3.5. Other people LOVE them, though the general consensus seems to be that they're too weak. I tried to make the idea viable without it being unbelievable. I like the idea of granting to others, but it seems like it would become annoying quickly and would be used prior to every encounter. The fact is, I can't scrap the basis of it because people like it. If it came earlier, the class would be very front-heavy. I suppose I could just make it more powerful, add in an extra bonus : /

thanks for the great feedback, btw! ideas are a-brewin

 

[Krestus]

aaa

 

[Krestus]

What about roaming around in the wild would make a Ranger better at fighting with his offhand, verses say using a single weapon it two hands like say a Spear? What if the monsters he has specialized in hunting had thick hides so arrows would not be as effective as a big weapon swung in two hands?

Nothing! You're right, but for whatever reason, the community at large wants two-weapon fighting to be the Ranger thing. Of course, they also want the archer role to be filled by the ranger as well. So, it's either pick one, or pick both. If there's a choice involved, I've considered adding others... but then you're stepping on the feet of the fighter and paladin.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Nothing! You're right, but for whatever reason, the community at large wants two-weapon fighting to be the Ranger thing. Of course, they also want the archer role to be filled by the ranger as well. So, it's either pick one, or pick both. If there's a choice involved, I've considered adding others... but then you're stepping on the feet of the fighter and paladin.

The only evidence I've seen that the community at large want's two weapon fighting to be a Ranger thing is a single Drow Ranger that's really a Fighter (honestly he never even casts spells) Heck, Minsc is a Ranger that uses Two Handers. However I will admit have just don't have the data to assume I know what the community at large wants.

Regarding not stepping on toes. It wouldn't be stepping on the toes of the Fighter or Paladin any more than the current 5e ranger offerings do. Also how is that the Ranger is stepping on the Fighters toes, but the Paladin is not?

Ultimately I think it would be easy just to give Archery style to all Rangers and then let them pick a Melee style than giving them two without a choice.

In my mind I would love to see Ranger's from different climates or environments, that specialize in hunting different preys have different styles of hunting/fighting. Fighting styles is only way way of implementing this, but it's probably not the only way, and may not be the best way.

It's like the different Witcher Schools in the Witcher Novels/Video Games The Bear School focused on Slow Strong Attacks, and Heavy Armor, while the Cat School Focused on Light Armor and Quick attacks, with the Wolf school being somewhere in between, and the Griffin School focusing on Spells, while the Manticore focused on Alchemy, and the Viper on poison.

The last thing I would want is all the Rangers looking and feeling very samey.

 

[Krestus]

The class just isn't easy to define. It's kind of odd to force it into this weird fighting style dichotomy, but because so many people want the class to be so many different things, you need to eventually pick some things for the class to be.

At the same time, you can't just make it a better, more versatile version of something that already exists. You can't give it everything and then some. Why would you be a fighter if you could just be a ranger with powerful two-hander abilities? Why be a paladin if you can just be a ranger with a shield and defense style and cure wounds? I understand those are stupid questions, at least in the case of the paladin- they have plenty more to offer, but the point stands. The ranger shouldnt be a completely customizable catch all rogue fighter paladin druid. Its also important to keep in mind that many specific abilities, like those associated with special schools and the like, fall under the realm of subclasses and character background

 

[ScuroNotte]

What's your opinion of the Ranger we have up on DMSGUILD. It is pay what you want. Would love feedback

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/193...chetypes-New-Sorcerer-18-New-magic-Items?sb=1

 

[BookBarbarian]

The class just isn't easy to define. It's kind of odd to force it into this weird fighting style dichotomy, but because so many people want the class to be so many different things, you need to eventually pick some things for the class to be.

At the same time, you can't just make it a better, more versatile version of something that already exists. You can't give it everything and then some. Why would you be a fighter if you could just be a ranger with powerful two-hander abilities? Why be a paladin if you can just be a ranger with a shield and defense style and cure wounds? I understand those are stupid questions, at least in the case of the paladin- they have plenty more to offer, but the point stands. The ranger shouldnt be a completely customizable catch all rogue fighter paladin druid. Its also important to keep in mind that many specific abilities, like those associated with special schools and the like, fall under the realm of subclasses and character background

Tying those things to subclass would be a fine way to go.

But ultimately I see no good justification for limiting the class to your chosen two styles. I see a pretty good argument for removing them from the class altogether and replacing them with a more meaningful way to interact with their chosen method of hunting.

Do you really think given what is currently in your version and adding the option to swap Two Weapon fighting for dueling or defense​ would make the class so OP that no one would play a fighter or paladin? You've designed it better than that.

 

[Krestus]

If you look at the very last page of the document, there's something called 'hunting tool proficiencies' or something along those lines. It's just an unfinished idea that I wanted as a catch-all instead of using Fighting Styles. If there's a good way to incorporate archery and the like with something like that (and it wont become over the top by dipping 1 level into fighter), I would love to do that instead. I don't think the inclusion of the other fighting styles as choices would be OP, I just think the ranger should 'feel' different from the other classes. I'd much rather just move away from fighting styles in general