Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hussar]

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.

That would be insanely powerful then. You've effectively granted Rangers an action surge every encounter. Actually it's stronger than that because I also would get two reactions and two bonus actions as well.

Combined with feats, this gets insane.

 

[Minigiant]

That would be insanely powerful then. You've effectively granted Rangers an action surge every encounter. Actually it's stronger than that because I also would get two reactions and two bonus actions as well.

Combined with feats, this gets insane.

The trade off is you can't tactically use this action as well. Its only on the first round and only if you arent surprised. You'll get all the chump and fodder if you're melee. Plus this ranger has few ways to boost their attack outside of feats and magic items. No spells and no hunter features is harsh.

 

[Mercule]

In 5E as in AD&D, a paladin is an instrument of their oath. They could be religious on top of that, but they don't have to be.

I would disagree, to an extent. It may not be explicit in 1E/2E/3E that a paladin should serve a god, but it is so strongly implied that it need not be explicit.

Regardless, it's not relevant to this conversation. Whether their oath or a deity, you're agreeing on the salient point -- a Paladin serves the source of his power.

A Ranger, on the other hand, makes the source serve him. That doesn't have to be anything sinister; it's probably very cooperative and benevolent. If the Paladin stumbles in his oath, his power can be taken from him. If a Ranger burns down a whole forest and starts grinding fey into pudding, though, his power remains his. It's not replaced by some darker force or some darker aspect of the same force. It's the same as always because the Ranger is the master, not the servant.

The other problem with making the Ranger some sort of nature Paladin is that there's a real case to be made for a spell-less, or even entirely martial, Ranger class. Whether or not you'd prefer to ditch spells and magic from the Ranger isn't important. The simple fact that the Ranger archetype can be separated from anything supernatural means that the whole Spirit Companion piece is misplaced as a core element.

Assuming the Ranger even has spells, the relationship between Ranger and Druid is more akin to the relationship between Wizard and Sorcerer. The Sorcerer is born to her magic even if practice is required to realize her potential, while even the most benevolent Wizard has to learn it by mental discipline and intellect. The Druid is granted power by faithfulness and communion, but the Ranger relies on himself to study and learn from nature.

 

[MoonSong]

I think you need to read that again. Lowest level spells are granted by "lesser servants of the cleric's deity." The religious relationship precondition is directly there. Otherwise by your logic, the cleric doesn't need a deity either until they get access to 5th level spells? That idea is just silly.

Either way, your claim that it was fancom that tied paladins to being tied to a deity except 4e is not accurate, since there is plenty of evidence that does tie them to a deity in 1e. They have to ask for forgiveness for their sins (a sin by definition is religiously tied), they have to tithe part of their wealth to religion, and their spell casting is granted by a deity or deity's direct servant. That alone is plenty of information to infer that paladins are holy warriors, and not something fans just came up with on their own. There are no less than three core aspects of a being a paladin that directly tie the class to religion, so saying that it's only the fans who created that relationship seems clearly implausible.

*edit* I'll also point out that if a paladin wasn't tied to religion, why would they be required to seek out a clergy member to confess sins? If it was only about being lawful and just, why couldn't they seek out any lawful good person? Why would it HAVE to be a member of a religion? A "sin" is a concept of religion. There are plenty of good and just atheists that can atone for mistakes and not consider them sins (because they don't believe in sin).

And why do they have to tithe to a religious institution if it's not about religion, but only good deeds? Why not donate to an orphanage? Why does it have to be a religious organization?

Sorry, but all the evidence there points to the fact that paladins are religious in some way. Otherwise those three requirements make no sense at all.

Religious<> Tied to a god. This is the distinction I want to make. Yes paladins need a good cleric -later a lawful good cleric- to atone, but it doesn't matter if it is Heroineous one time, Pelor another, etc. So they aren't tied to a particular god. And they have to donate to a religious <b>charity</b> of their choice, not the same as tithing to a church. It makes a lot of sense it is to a religious charity, as private charities can be misused -and paladins are lawful, their money should go to where it helps people instead of enriching noblemen-. And rangers pray for their spells too, does it make them servants of the gods? Paladins aren't defenders of the faith, they are paragons of good. (And unlike the cleric that is dedicated to a single deity, no such word of a paladin being dedicated to a single god)

Also if we are going to go to the origins, let's check the Greyhawk supplement, the original paladin. It had no spells, but could lay on hands and do lots of stuff. And on the subject of donations

They will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is necessary to maintain themselves, their men, and a modest castle. Gifts must be to the poor or to charitable or religious institutions

See? they are doing good deeds, not serving a god -no mention of gods anywhere-, they could fall, but not atone. The atonement with a cleric is a later inclusion, I guess so they didn't become unplayable.

 

[delericho]

I would disagree, to an extent. It may not be explicit in 1E/2E/3E that a paladin should serve a god, but it is so strongly implied that it need not be explicit.

This may be true in 1st and 2nd ed, but it's not in 3e. Indeed, because it's not the case, the FRCS made it explicit that Paladins (and indeed Clerics and, IIRC, Druids as well) have to pick a god, because that's a feature of that setting.

 

[Mercule]

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.

Yeah. My group uses the average HP rules, so the 2d6 is largely irrelevant other than for recovery Hit Dice. And... I love the recovery aspect of this variant, so I'm disinclined to poke it too much.

I don't think the per level hit points will be real-world issue for most cases. Most DMs I've seen have a "pity reroll" if you roll below a certain threshold, which is more likely to happen with the Barbarian than Ranger, thus pushing the Barbarian average up a bit. Even at tables where a "1" is played, the math says it should make minimal enough difference over the life of the character (8 HP by 20th level) that it won't be noticed.

 

[Remathilis]

This may be true in 1st and 2nd ed, but it's not in 3e. Indeed, because it's not the case, the FRCS made it explicit that Paladins (and indeed Clerics and, IIRC, Druids as well) have to pick a god, because that's a feature of that setting.

Eberron went the other way; paladin's serve their oath, not their god and lose power when they fail their oath. Clerics, otoh, can widely fail their church's tenets (even be an opposing alignment) and still receive cleric spells. So a paladin is bound more to his oath than a cleric is to his religion...

 

[delericho]

Eberron went the other way; paladin's serve their oath, not their god and lose power when they fail their oath. Clerics, otoh, can widely fail their church's tenets (even be an opposing alignment) and still receive cleric spells. So a paladin is bound more to his oath than a cleric is to his religion...

... in Eberron. And, indeed, in 3e.

I'm not entirely sure what happens if a 4e or 5e Paladin flagrantly violates his oath. Especially if the DM and the Player disagree on that point.

 

[ExploderWizard]

All I really want to do is see a party of rangers in action, when they all Hide in the new 2016 Chevrolet Ambuscade. The orcs will be confused.

"Thogg hear battle music, feel self roll initiative. But why?"

The trade off is you can't tactically use this action as well. Its only on the first round and only if you arent surprised. You'll get all the chump and fodder if you're melee. Plus this ranger has few ways to boost their attack outside of feats and magic items. No spells and no hunter features is harsh.

Gilbert "why am I not surprised" Gottfried the human variant ranger 1/ Fighter 2 with the alert feat is never surprised, and thus gets effectively an extra attack action every single combat. On top of that he gets action surge from the fighter class. So he gets to attack, initiative order happens-attack again, and then action surge to attack again.

I'm neutral on the hit dice. Not a fan of the spirit companion, really can't stand ambuscade and its blatant breaking of the action economy, and have roll my eyes at skirmisher's stealth. This is one of those mechanics that is just plain stupid because it operates in a manner that is impossible to explain logically. 3 rangers meet up with a hill giant in plain open terrain. Of course they all choose Og the giant as the creature that can't see ANY of them for some reason. Then they all attack with ambuscade- hey where did they come from? How did that hiding occur in that situation by mundane means? Just stupid.

 

[Paraxis]

That would be insanely powerful then. You've effectively granted Rangers an action surge every encounter. Actually it's stronger than that because I also would get two reactions and two bonus actions as well.

Combined with feats, this gets insane.

It can be insanely powerful.

Just to confirm yes you can move and take bonus actions. https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/641685715290484736

As it stands, you get movement and a bonus action on that turn ~ Mike Mearls