Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

Re: 2d6 Hit Dice

Thinking about it, I think I would keep them 1d10 hit dice and then give them a class feature where they gain bonus Hit Dice for healing purposes. Say a number of d4's equal to their level. So a level 7 Ranger would have 7d10 HP, and could use 7d10 and 7d4 hit Dice for healing after a short rest. That's actually slightly better than 2d6/level for healing, but keeps the actual HPs down.

except everyone hates d4s

If you're gonna put the ranger back at d10, I'd again go back to level bonuses (for level dipping issues). Something like "when you roll a hit die to regain hit points, add the prof bonus equal to your ranger level to the die roll."

 

[KingsRule77]

Clearly a work in progress. Meanwhile my party's ranger is a default PHB type and seems to be just fine. Does good damage, has decent hp, versatile skills wise... Plus a few spells. Maybe it's his synergy with the rest of the party, but he has no complaints.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Re: 2d6 Hit Dice

Thinking about it, I think I would keep them 1d10 hit dice and then give them a class feature where they gain bonus Hit Dice for healing purposes. Say a number of d4's equal to their level. So a level 7 Ranger would have 7d10 HP, and could use 7d10 and 7d4 hit Dice for healing after a short rest. That's actually slightly better than 2d6/level for healing, but keeps the actual HPs down.

I don't see why they have to be d4s. I think that's unnecessarily cautious. Would it break the class for rangers to actually be really good at recovery, and have full d8s or d10s for their extra HD? (I'm inclined to think of the ranger as a touch more fragile than the fighter or paladin in a straight fight, so lean towards the d8 as their normal HD size.)

If you're gonna put the ranger back at d10, I'd again go back to level bonuses (for level dipping issues). Something like "when you roll a hit die to regain hit points, add the prof bonus equal to your ranger level to the die roll."

Huh? Your proficiency bonus doesn't equal your class level (except at 2nd level if you didn't multiclass).

 

[Sacrosanct]

Huh? Proficiency bonuses are independent of class level.

Normally yes, that's why I said tie it to ranger level. It addresses those concerns that people will level dip if you tie it to ranger level.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Clearly a work in progress. Meanwhile my party's ranger is a default PHB type and seems to be just fine. Does good damage, has decent hp, versatile skills wise... Plus a few spells. Maybe it's his synergy with the rest of the party, but he has no complaints.

He's a Hunter, right, not a Beastmaster?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Normally yes, that's why I said tie it to ranger level. It addresses those concerns that people will level dip if you tie it to ranger level.

Then don't call it a proficiency bonus. The whole point of the proficiency bonus mechanic is that you only have to remember one easy number that's the same for everything.

And for what it's worth, I really don't think people are going to dip a level of ranger just to get a bonus on their short rest rolls. It's a nice perk, not something we need to be balance-paranoid about. And if you're still concerned about tying recovery ability to ranger level, doesn't the idea of giving the ranger extra HD equal to their level do that much better anyway? With that mechanic, a 9th-level fighter or whatever who dips a level of ranger gets one extra HD, which is worth less than a bonus to all her HD rolls.

 

[Mercule]

Has anyone else noticed that double HD = double healing from the Healer feat? Nice.

It's also potent with the Durable feat.

 

[jrowland]

I don't see why they have to be d4s. I think that's unnecessarily cautious. Would it break the class for rangers to actually be really good at recovery, and have full d8s or d10s for their extra HD? (I'm inclined to think of the ranger as a touch more fragile than the fighter or paladin in a straight fight, so lean towards the d8 as their normal HD size.)

Not being cautious. They don't have to be d4's. I was just keeping the healing at the same scale as 2d6 (avg 7 + 2*con mod) which is about where 1d10+1d4 (avg 8+2*con mod) hit dice sits and keeps 1d10 for ranger HP as it currently is in PHB .

Could easily be 1d8/level for ranger HP and 2d8/level for ranger Hit dice. Certainly simpler, and less "stepping on Barbarian toes". I don't think clerics would mind at all if the Ranger can keep his own HP up.

 

[occam]

Ambuscade: Everyone is going to take a ranger dip. High level wizard/sorcerer + Ambuscade = unstoppable party.

Cast a Spell is not one of the allowed actions on the Ambuscade turn.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

These Are Not The Droids You're Looking For

No, the disagreement was with the statement that no edition other than 4e did the paladin have to be tied to a deity(s) and that it was a fancom only. And I'm saying that in 1e, they pretty much did. Not only in the class description itself, but with how clerical magic worked and how it was described--coming directly from divine granting. This was also reinforced by the many supplements that came out during that period. For example, a Dragon article in the mid 80s was all about flavors of paladins, and explicitly called them out as being servant to a higher divine power.

I didn't make the argument that in every edition they did have to be tied to a deity, which seems to be what you're arguing against.

Not only did I never say the thing you think we're disagreeing about (in bold, above), but I have explicitly disavowed portions of it multiple times. In particular, I never played 1E, nor 3E, and very little 4E, so I don't make generalizations about how things worked in "every edition except 4E". And I've said so.

I think you may have a disagreement with another poster, who did say something about "fancom" or something, but why are you using my posts to do it? If you're talking about 1E, I don't even have an opinion on that subject. Shouldn't you address the guy you're actually meaning to argue with and not the guy who's talking about something which apparently doesn't interest you as much, namely "paladins in 2E + 5E are not required to have 'a god'"?