Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mephista]

Thoughts on the Ranger, one more time:

A large problem I consistantly see with the Ranger write ups is that, at some point, the writers are trying to compare it to another class. Before, we were comparing the Ranger to the Druid. The write up even suggested that the Ranger uses Druid magic. Which is sad, because even the paladin doesn't use cleric magic, he uses his own. In this case, we're looking at a skirmisher-y nature-y paladin.

The writers have some very good ideas. Its rough around the edges, but this is a playtest document looking for feedback, not something perfectly fine tuned. But my problem is that, thematically, we're still butting our heads up against not defining the Ranger according to his or her own unique identity. With the exception of the Sorcerer and Mystic, each class has a unique identity that no one else shares. Each has unique niches that no one else touches. An outdoors-y survivalist spirit-totem user is easily covered by the Barbarian. That's not a unique niche. And, until we find that unique niche, we're always going to have this same problem.

 

[machineelf]

The thing that jumped out at me that I dislike about this class variant is that it is still magical. It can call upon some magical animal spirit. Look, I like magic in D&D. But there needs to be a clear delineation between classes that can use magic and classes that cannot. In my view, the ranger class should always be a martial class that has unique tracking and survival skills. The class shouldn't have magic. There are enough caster classes, and I love playing a caster, but there need to be plenty of non-caster martial classes. Making the Ranger have magic ability of any kind just ruins the class for me. I'm not really happy with this choice.

 

[steeldragons]

Just for shameless self-promotion, I will direct those disinclined to visit the Homebrew forum to check out my stab at rewriting the ranger...and while I haven't given this latest attempt by WotC a thorough once over yet, this thread leads me to believe I will not be pleased and will continue to work with what I already have. Maybe some of you will enjoy it more/better as well... Comments always welcome (but make them there, please, so as not to further derail this thread).

Rehashing the Ranger "Final" version is post #37.

Shout out to co-conspirator (at least for a spell-less ranger base), fellow class-creator/homebrewer, and most consistent and challenging critiquer, @Quickleaf 's excellent take on the ranger as well. Whether you like mine or not, definitely also worth a look-see.
Quickleaf's Rangers (and some Fighter) archetypes

Not to worry, , a thorough review of [my opinions on] the latest "new" ranger is imminent (perhaps tomorrow if not later today).

Happy Friday, all.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The thing that jumped out at me that I dislike about this class variant is that it is still magical. It can call upon some magical animal spirit. Look, I like magic in D&D. But there needs to be a clear delineation between classes that can use magic and classes that cannot. In my view, the ranger class should always be a martial class that has unique tracking and survival skills. The class shouldn't have magic. There are enough caster classes, and I love playing a caster, but there need to be plenty of non-caster martial classes. Making the Ranger have magic ability of any kind just ruins the class for me. I'm not really happy with this choice.

I disagree in this edition everyone has a spellcasting option because spells are how you do things

 

[Sacrosanct]

After watching the character creation demo for Sword Coast legends (start at 16 min mark or so), it seems as if the UA ranger is being pulled from the video game ranger. I noticed that beast master summon companion ability they briefly show in the video seems awfully close to how it's described in the UA article, as far as the companion being a battle-summoned beast only

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZDk6qgO3Po



Warning though, the first PC they are creating is a FRACKING DRIZZT CLONE!

 

[Minigiant]

The thing that jumped out at me that I dislike about this class variant is that it is still magical. It can call upon some magical animal spirit. Look, I like magic in D&D. But there needs to be a clear delineation between classes that can use magic and classes that cannot. In my view, the ranger class should always be a martial class that has unique tracking and survival skills. The class shouldn't have magic. There are enough caster classes, and I love playing a caster, but there need to be plenty of non-caster martial classes. Making the Ranger have magic ability of any kind just ruins the class for me. I'm not really happy with this choice.

I feel the complete opposite.

The idea of a lone warrior in the wildnerness with no one to help him except maybe a beast or a fey ally not eventually picking up magic just doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight and the gun in d&d is a spellcaster. D&D was originally designed for the group to eventually have a caster and if 5th edition continues the trend then that's that.

If the stereotypical ranger is a soloist who join a group for some reason, he needs to be a serviceable fighter, rogue, cleric, and mage. There could be a nonmagical option for low magic setting where you don't need magic.

But as long as we still ask "Who's playing the mage? Who's running the healer?" The default ranger needs magic, something that acts like magic, or something that trumps it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I disagree in this edition everyone has a spellcasting option because spells are how you do things

Funny, because we used skill checks a whole lot more than any spells. So in that regard, skills are how you do things.

 

[steeldragons]

The thing that jumped out at me that I dislike about this class variant is that it is still magical. It can call upon some magical animal spirit. Look, I like magic in D&D. But there needs to be a clear delineation between classes that can use magic and classes that cannot. In my view, the ranger class should always be a martial class that has unique tracking and survival skills. The class shouldn't have magic. There are enough caster classes, and I love playing a caster, but there need to be plenty of non-caster martial classes. Making the Ranger have magic ability of any kind just ruins the class for me. I'm not really happy with this choice.

While I agree with this sentiment, like 95%, I would draw the line at not having any magic in the class at all. 5e's subclass structure is the perfect way to institute these sorts of archetype/preference disagreements and a magic-using ranger is not at all out of the ordinary or expectations of many players.

Whole-heatedly, I agree the edition is sorely imbalanced with caster-over-noncaster class options and that should have been more carefully considered. Whole-heartedly, the ranger should be a non-magical base with multiple non-magical options. But a subclass, or even two of three (but no more than "half", I'd say), with some kind of spell-ability or other magical "powers" would not be so terrible. But, as with Rogue, Fighter and, alright I'll throw in Barbarian (though they are at 50/50), the ranger's class structure should not have included more than one [or no more than half] of its subclasses with magical ability...and definitely none of them reliant on magic from level 1.

Given what statements have recently been made re: "Rangers are the Paladins of Nature"...which I think is a crock, but regardless, it gives us the mind-frame/-space (with which I disagree and think a completely "wrong" jumping off point) from which the designers were working. And so, if you want to make Rangers the Paladin's "naturey/wild[erness] kid [or twin] brother", then they would be throwing in magic powers and spells from very early on. I GET why they keep doing it...I just don't like it/think they are working off of a flawed premise. So they can do another dozen versions...if they don't alter their premise, they will continue to miss the mark for...it seems...many if not most ranger-lovers.

[Aside: How/why they didn't feel the Bard should have been the obvious "Arcane half-caster kind/twin brother" to the Paladin is equally beyond me.]

I disagree in this edition everyone has a spellcasting option because spells are how you do things

And I'll disagree right back atcha . There are plenty of class mechanics and other system elements (e.g., backgrounds, feats, etc...), that let characters "do things" with no need for spells/that aren't magical. The ranger, in particular, is a class/archetype [that should be] RIFE with skills and abilities that need not require spell-working whatsoever.

 

[Mephista]

The thing that jumped out at me that I dislike about this class variant is that it is still magical. It can call upon some magical animal spirit. Look, I like magic in D&D. But there needs to be a clear delineation between classes that can use magic and classes that cannot. In my view, the ranger class should always be a martial class that has unique tracking and survival skills. The class shouldn't have magic. There are enough caster classes, and I love playing a caster, but there need to be plenty of non-caster martial classes. Making the Ranger have magic ability of any kind just ruins the class for me. I'm not really happy with this choice.

I'm sorry, but I really think that ship has sailed. A pure martial ranger is either going to end up as a woodsy fighter, a woodsy barbarian, or a woodsy rogue. Even in 4e, where we started with a pure martial Ranger, its only was just to be a twin striking dervish, striking an opponent multiple times for huge damage while skirmishing. That's the Fighter's raison d'etre now, leaving a pure martial Ranger as (effectively) a Fighter subclass. And, even in 4e, we slid more and more into magical abilities for the Ranger as time went on.

I don't think that a purely martial Ranger class is a viable design. Yes, back when the Ranger was a Fighter subclass in 1st edition, he didn't really have magic. But that's still a subclass. In 2nd and 3rd edition, the Ranger had magic. 4th edition, originally lacked magic, but gained it with pretty much every turn, and its 4e niche has been taken by the Fighter. Rangers is WoW, GW2, PF, DoA, and more have access to magic.

TL;DR So, to me, asking for a purely martial Ranger is asking for a Fighter subclass. That's what it was in 1e, and that's the only real time its arguably been without magic.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes, back when the Ranger was a Fighter subclass in 1st edition, he didn't really have magic. .

Yeah it did. 1e rangers could cast druidic and magic user spells. Magic and Rangers have been together since day 1. Literally. I posted this earlier, but it's the very first iteration of the ranger

View attachment 70213