Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[Greg K]

I am not a fan of this new variant. I don't like spirit companion as a default option.

The problem with the 5e ranger, in my opinion, is that the designers don't learn their lesson. They keep trying to force spellcasting or supernatural/mystical elements upon the class. We saw this back in 3e. The designers presented an option in Complete Warrior that removed spells, but kept mystical abilities that duplicated some spells. For many people, it was unsatisfying, because when those players said that they want a ranger without spells, they meant a ranger without mystical abilities. So, in Complete Champion which came late in the 35 cyle, there was another variant without spells and mystical abilities that received bonus feats (and WOTC was very late to the party in presenting this option considering that it had been done by others in 3.0) .

Now, in my opinion, spells and mystical abilities as elements are fine as options. However, as with animal companions, they are not something everyone wants in a rather class and should, therefore, not be hard coded into the class for all rangers. They should be something that players can ignore/opt out of for some other class option such as increased focused on combat style and/or using terrain for those that want a non-mystical hunter or guardian of the borderlands type of character.

To this end, I think [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] in an above post was kind of on the right track. Then again, I have felt from the beginning that several of the classes need more decision points. One place I disagree with Minigiant is placing poultice under Path of War. I can easily see the Path of Secrets using it as well as many outdoors man in fiction are shown to use it including the stealthy hunter types. I would, however want to see the path or archetype start at first level and, possibly, influence armor proficiency. Whether the character should be proficient in Light armor or be proficient in Medium armor is another point of contention. Some people want the Ranger to be the light armored wilderness warrior they see in certain media. Others want 1e's armored Guardian/Protector patrolling the borders of civilized lands for which Medium armor is appropriate.

The key is to build the ranger as a wilderness expert, but with flexibility for DMs an players to tailor the class to the archetype they envision for the campaign rather than the designers trying to force a single vision of spells or mystical abilities.

 

[Jhaelen]

Why is everyone freaking out about the 2d6 HP being better than the 1d12. Sure it might have an average that is .5 higher than the d12, but the 2d6 is on a bell curve which is skewed towards the average of 7. The barbarian is going to roll a 12 more often than a ranger, granted he will also roll 1 one more than the ranger...

Umm. This is actually the biggest argument against the Ranger getting 2d6 hp: It will give the Ranger consistently high hit points. No other class has this kind of 'protection' from bad hit point rolls.

One of the first optional rules I adopted back in 3e was granting average hit points every level. I was incredibly glad 4e did away with rolling for hp entirely. There's no easier way to f*** ** a perfectly fine character than having a streak of bad hit point rolls.

 

[AverageCitizen]

I'm not sure why they moved away from the horde-breaker/giant-slayer decision point being cast as favored enemy like it was in the playtest. That seemed like a great solution to me.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Umm. This is actually the biggest argument against the Ranger getting 2d6 hp: It will give the Ranger consistently high hit points. No other class has this kind of 'protection' from bad hit point rolls.

One of the first optional rules I adopted back in 3e was granting average hit points every level. I was incredibly glad 4e did away with rolling for hp entirely. There's no easier way to f*** ** a perfectly fine character than having a streak of bad hit point rolls.

Perhaps they're assuming that people will still take the average. With the generous rounding that 5e does on average HP increases, 1d12 and 2d6 both give 7 per level, which just means 2d6 has better recovery. To give the same effect and to avoid the problem you point out, they could just let you re-roll your d12 hit dice when you use it at the end of a rest if you don't like the result.

 

[CapnZapp]

The Ranger has enough power at low levels.

It is at level eight or so (take or give) that they no longer provide benefits that keep up.

This playtest fixes the wrong end. Give us a couple of combat boosting class features at mid to high level, and the Hunter Ranger is fine.

The Beastmaster: Wotc simply needs to accept that what people want is a combat pet, and that this WILL break the action spotlight if it's to be satisfactory. So why not fix it simply by slapping a sidebar onto it saying "optional use with DM approval only" and then removing the stupid stranglehold there is on the animal companion: give it an action of its own, give it better defenses, and for the sake of the gods: let it level up with its master!

 

[Paraxis]

Where are people getting you can't move, gain a bonus action, or use your reaction with Ambuscade?

When you roll initiative, you gain a special turn that takes place before other creatures can act. On this turn, you can use your action to take either the Attack or Hide action.

"Move" isn't an action it is just something you can do on your turn.

Ambuscade gives a special turn and it limits what Action you can take to Attack or Hide, that means you get all your extra attacks if you have that class feature, if you attack with your main weapon while using two weapon fighting you would trigger a bonus action attack, it means you get to move, what you can't do is cast a spell, ready, dash, dodge, help, search, activate a magic item....and so on.

It is a normal turn with limits on what your Action can be.

 

[CapnZapp]

Except... they're not weak in the aggregate, and aggregate is what the spell gives you. Conjure Animals is extremely strong. Have you seen what a dozen flying snakes (Conjure Animals V = 16 animals) can do as they fly by? Blindsight and a +6 attack for 3d4+1 damage with flyby. Even the basic 3rd level spell will murderize giants. Sure, a single hit will kill a snake (although Flyby + decent AC + blindsight + darkness can make them quite hard to hit), but meanwhile the spellcaster and his buddies are killing you.

If anyone in my game ever wants to play a beastmaster ranger, I plan to just tell him that there is no restriction on the beast's actions, but he gets the proficiency bonus to attack/damage/AC/saves if and only if the ranger PC is spending his action directing the beast per the PHB. At any other time, it just has regular stats for the kind of beast it is, plus inflated HP. That is somewhat stronger than the PHB ranger but won't cause any balance problems, because the Hunter ranger already gets Conjure Animals and three or more attacks per round (counting Horde Breaker and sometimes Volley). The main benefit is that it prevents the beast from standing around idiotically at inappropriate times.

Good stuff

 

[Minigiant]

I am not a fan of this new variant. I don't like spirit companion as a default option.

The problem with the 5e ranger, in my opinion, is that the designers don't learn their lesson. They keep trying to force spellcasting or supernatural/mystical elements upon the class. We saw this back in 3e. The designers presented an option in Complete Warrior that removed spells, but kept mystical abilities that duplicated some spells. For many people, it was unsatisfying, because when those players said that they want a ranger without spells, they meant a ranger without mystical abilities. So, in Complete Champion which came late in the 35 cyle, there was another variant without spells and mystical abilities that received bonus feats (and WOTC was very late to the party in presenting this option considering that it had been done by others in 3.0) .

Now, in my opinion, spells and mystical abilities as elements are fine as options. However, as with animal companions, they are not something everyone wants in a rather class and should, therefore, not be hard coded into the class for all rangers. They should be something that players can ignore/opt out of for some other class option such as increased focused on combat style and/or using terrain for those that want a non-mystical hunter or guardian of the borderlands type of character.

To this end, I think @Minigiant in an above post was kind of on the right track. Then again, I have felt from the beginning that several of the classes need more decision points. One place I disagree with Minigiant is placing poultice under Path of War. I can easily see the Path of Secrets using it as well as many outdoors man in fiction are shown to use it including the stealthy hunter types. I would, however want to see the path or archetype start at first level and, possibly, influence armor proficiency. Whether the character should be proficient in Light armor or be proficient in Medium armor is another point of contention. Some people want the Ranger to be the light armored wilderness warrior they see in certain media. Others want 1e's armored Guardian/Protector patrolling the borders of civilized lands for which Medium armor is appropriate.

The key is to build the ranger as a wilderness expert, but with flexibility for DMs an players to tailor the class to the archetype they envision for the campaign rather than the designers trying to force a single vision of spells or mystical abilities.

The issue with having spells as a option is that you then have to create class features for all the iconic ranger stuff the spells did:

• Healiing
  • HP healing
  • Poison detection
  • Restoration
• Tracking assistance
  • Detection
  • Divination
• Tracking avoidance
  • Anti scrying
  • pass without trace
• Getting along with nature
  • Animal spells
  • Plant spells
• Combat Buffs
  • Offense
  • Defense
  • Speed
  • Mobility

The problem is PAGE SPACE!!!
It's easier and cheaper to reuse druid and wizard spells than to create a new subsystem just for rangers.

 

[Herobizkit]

We need three "variants" of Ranger - one that focuses on "magic", one that focuses on "fighting" and one that focuses on "stealth".

The Hunter is the perfect fighting archetype. Grab two swords or focus on your bow and go murder your enemies.

The new UA Ranger has some strong cases for a stealth-focused archetype. Reminds me a lot of the 4e Essentials Thief with its skirmish/move and attack powers.

The new UA Ranger also has a strong case for a magic-focused archetype (Shaman-like Spirit Animal); arguably, this type of Ranger could be better served by the Druid class, but why not have a Druid-heavier Ranger?

As for the Beastmaster Ranger... I'm not sure there's a workable solution that will please everyone. If there were a way to give the BM... uh... Simple weapons/light armor but give him "two-weapon fighting" split between himself and his animal, that might do.

 

[Dragonsbane]

So why not fix it simply by slapping a sidebar onto it saying "optional use with DM approval only" and then removing the stupid stranglehold there is on the animal companion: give it an action of its own, give it better defenses, and for the sake of the gods: let it level up with its master!

If it did those very things, it would be removed in my game certainly. I am playing a Pathfinder game where the druid companion tiger is more powerful in combat that the rest of the party. No 2 PCs for players in my game anymore.