Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A powerful class...

but it does not feel like a ranger. Somewhat like the playtest version of the sorceror. Cool ideas, but better used with a different class. I would call it seeker or scout.

The ambuscade, while interesting seems like too good on a multiclass assassin.
The skirmishing is just too good... sounds like a single enemy will never know where you are and just dies. An elven ranger will find the right situation to surprise the enemy. Enemy alone + elven ranger + rain = dead...

 

[Psikerlord#]

Thinking about it more, I do like it a lot. I want a ranger that is a wilderness commando with a pet. This is basically that. I would change one thing - swap out stealth skirmisher which I really dont like (too OP and doesnt make sense unless magical) to instead be herbalism/poultices ability that gives some spell like abilities on a limited basis - pass without trace, the stealth skirmisher thing maybe, limited healing, speak with animals, etc.

I would gladly play such a ranger.

Having said all that, I dont mind the original ranger. I just think the Beastmaster is a bit weak. If they just swapped the spirit companion for the pet in the beastmaster I'd also be happy.

 

[Quickleaf]

It's interesting, almost like they're trying to stretch in 2 directions at once with this design.

Going back to the original AD&D Ranger with 2 Hit Dice and Ambuscade.

Leaning toward more modern visions of the Ranger (Drizzt? anime?) with the Spirit Companion.

I don't think they've hit the sweet spot either mechanically or conceptually yet, but it certainly is an interesting attempt to bridge various eras of D&D. Mechanically, fixing the 2 Hit Dice and Ambuscade is easy enough.

However, conceptually, the Spirit Companion looks like a sub-class feature to me. For example, another sub-class might having spellcasting.

Will be interesting to see how they iterate this ranger design.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I agree that a Ranger is going to have a strong interest in the natural world. I just don't care for the idea that his abilities automatically come with the implicit baggage of being a "champion" of nature. There may be a high degree of correlation, but correlation does not imply causation.

I'm sure Aragorn would have been vexed by littering tourists. His powers didn't come from nature spirits, though. He was just a good steward of the land. His powers came from knowledge and study and could almost be considered more arcane than druidic (as far as you can make comparisons). While the Ranger class goes beyond Aragorn, you can't create a class that excludes him or makes building him problematic.

Mechanically, Rangers have become nature Paladins. Conceptually, that is not at all the origins of the class. The only way to really "fix" the Ranger is, IMO, to move the mechanics towards the original concept, not to move the concept towards the mechanics.

Overall, I really, really like where this UA is going. Really, my only issues are that I think you should be able to play a Ranger who doesn't have a pet and who does have a mystic tie to nature.

I don't get why Paladins with the Oath of the Ancients aren't natures paladins, given that they are... well... paladins. I like the ranger as someone who does their business in the wild, and masters tools of the trade accordingly. Sometimes this might be a little nature magic, but it doesnt mean they revere nature. The savage gnoll hunter who uses terrain to its advantage, throws down an entangle and brutally kills fluffy bunnies/people for food and profit is just as valid as a ranger as a druid with a bow.

 

[AverageCitizen]

I am glad to see that they are still brainstorming the ranger, but I really don't like this incarnation.

First, I don't like "the paladins of the forest" idea, because we already have forest paladins, and I don't think that the quintessential survivalist class should come with a baked-in alignment. Maybe some rangers are trappers or scouts. They shouldn't all be nature-lovers. I think the magic, even, could be take-it-or-leave-it.

Secondly, and most importantly, I hate the spirit companion mentality. It was everywhere in 4e, and it was one of my least favorite things about that edition. The concept is fine, I suppose, but with efforts like this and the 4e druid it is clear that they are using it as a convenient solution to the pet balance problem. It's not a creative story element, it is a solution to a mechanical problem, and it shows. I don't think anybody who is interested in the beastmaster ranger will find this a satisfactory solution, and I am worried because WotC seems to think that the BM is a lost cause. Or perhaps they don't want to revisit it because they are afraid of errata, and are trying to solve the problem while they forge new ground, conceptually, to avoid stepping on people's toes.

 

[lvl20dm]

I am glad to see that they are still brainstorming the ranger, but I really don't like this incarnation.

First, I don't like "the paladins of the forest" idea, because we already have forest paladins, and I don't think that the quintessential survivalist class should come with a baked-in alignment. Maybe some rangers are trappers or scouts. They shouldn't all be nature-lovers. I think the magic, even, could be take-it-or-leave-it.

Secondly, and most importantly, I hate the spirit companion mentality. It was everywhere in 4e, and it was one of my least favorite things about that edition. The concept is fine, I suppose, but with efforts like this and the 4e druid it is clear that they are using it as a convenient solution to the pet balance problem. It's not a creative story element, it is a solution to a mechanical problem, and it shows. I don't think anybody who is interested in the beastmaster ranger will find this a satisfactory solution, and I am worried because WotC seems to think that the BM is a lost cause. Or perhaps they don't want to revisit it because they are afraid of errata, and are trying to solve the problem while they forge new ground, conceptually, to avoid stepping on people's toes.

Agree completely on the spirit companion. It is just too gamey, particularly for this edition.

 

[Jester David]

Late at picking up my son, so I can't say much... but I don't think there's a single thing I like in this.
Okay, I imagine they're trying to be experimental and seeing what will fly, but that only works if they update and revise things with repeated feedback.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But that's a very modern idea.

??? It's been around for at least 300 years, if not longer.

Though I think that kind of ranger has it's place, and those who like it should be able to play them, I don't like the fact that the concept has been baked into the basic concept of the class. That makes it impossible (or at least a bit clunky) to play a ranger that is NOT that type.
To me, and I think to many others, the first image that comes to mind in relation to the ranger it that of Aragorn, and he is most definately a defender of civilization. I wouldn't want that idea to overshadow the whole class of course, there should be other options, but removing such an iconic character from the base of the class seems wrong to me.

I get that that's your iconic ranger. But the mountain man is my iconic ranger. Point is, people have different ideas of what it should be and you're no more right than I am, so having a mix of abilities pulled from all three is OK. I mean, I could say that not everyone likes Aragorn representing all rangers, so let's pull all ranger abilities that were inspired by him. There are many options and ways one could play a ranger, but the fact is is that the class was pulled from many different inspirations, none more important than the others. No class is going to be tailored to my personal tastes or to your personal tastes exactly.

 

[Barantor]

To me the Ranger class is one of three things, or a combination of any....

Protector of the Wild
Hunter and Tracker
Animal and Nature lover

To combine those into something that has a generic base (which is what all the classes pre-path are) and then have specialties in the forms of the path is the key to a class that has a baseline feel and then more specific options that the player can use as they progress.

Part of the problem with the base Ranger is it didn't delve or make the nature components unique enough to diverge it greatly from the Fighter, which when used with an outlander background had almost all the utility of the base Ranger bar spells.

Compare that to Paladin who definitely borrowed heavily from cleric but mixed with Fighter in a way that gave it unique flare and you can see the problem with Ranger.

I feel that the baseline existing hunter needed a little work with primeval awareness, favored enemy and natural explorer. Then add in more unique and balanced flair with both hunter (which needed the least changes) and beastmaster (whom few are fond of) then add another path which perhaps has more tracking and/or spell use.

The UA article 'Ranger' to me feels like a combination of fighter and some as-yet-unnamed Shaman type class.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Clearly the only solution is to go back to only having a fighter, magic user, cleric, and rogue class, and everything else is just a subclass from one of those.

Isn't that how these conversations go when you have a class that no one can agree on what it should be?