Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[Minigiant]

When were you given the title of 'True Fan'? Did you have to go to a special school to get it? How are the graduation rates? Did they give you a diploma you can hang on your wall?

Class of 2008. Ranger U of Place I can't disclose.

My point is i really don't see the effort. Not that there wasn't. The team probably tried hard and put in the hours.

But it felt misplaced and the results for the ranger looks like it was by appearances. The satisfaction marks on the class display some of this. The lack of feedback on the class during the play test shows some of this.

The ranger was gonna be tricky to pull off but it was possible. I figured that out before the test started. However one had to to see the forest though the trees to see it all. All other sights would lead to a lot of unhappiness somewhere.

 

[Forged Fury]

For something truly weird, how about: 1d10 HPs/Level, but 2d6 Hit Dice per level. Keeps the feel that they recover quickly, but doesn't place them competing with barbarians with raw HP.

 

[Ristamar]

"Sure but you could do that with any multiclassing that grants multiple attacks, or any feat that grants a bonus action attack, etc.. You still need to gain the surprise, which is the hard part."

Which is somewhat incorrect. Multiple attacks from "extra attack" or a bonus attack from an offhand weapon occur during the assassin's turn, so they can only apply sneak attack once despite having multiple attacks. Ambuscade is a separate turn, thus the double SA damage/crit can occur an additional time in the same round (once during Ambuscade turn, once during regular). That is what makes it different (2 crit sneak attacks vs 1), whereas you implied its the same.

Yeah, that's the general idea. With surprise they could get two Assassinate attacks, plus two iterations of any extra attacks they may have, plus a potential Action Surge with another Assassinate attack and more extra attacks.

That's a heck of a lot of damage before the fight even really starts.

 

[Vael]

I need to digest this a bit more, but an initial thought ... I really wish we'd get more than 5 levels to playtest. There's this strong focus on DnD at low levels, to, IMO, the detriment of high level play. I get not wanting to put out a full 20 level class, but 8 to 10 levels might give us a better grasp how this class will function.

 

[Mercule]

2d6 for hit dice is a poorly thought out choice. There's no good reason it shouldn't be a d12. It only complicates the hit dice recovery mechanic.

I guess I'm the only one who actually likes it

Actually, I love it. I think it's a very well thought out decision. 1E Rangers (IME) tended to have slightly higher hit points than Fighters. They started to balance out in the mid-levels, but got a couple extra levels worth at name level. That really formed my impression of Rangers as being incredibly tough. Not as crazy tough as Barbarians, maybe, but still better than a Fighter. The fact that a Ranger heals better during a short rest is perfect, IMO. Really nails one of the critical themes of the class.

The overall power level of the alternate class remains to be play tested, but I love the 2d6, conceptually.

On to design themes:

Rangers are the ultimate survivors. They can wander a barren wilderness alone for months, living only on what they find.

Perfect. This is the number one defining trait of the Ranger class.

Rangers are skirmishers. They avoid direct confrontation in favor of sudden, deadly attacks that leave an opponent without the chance to make an effective counterattack.

Secondary, but very strong trait. Survival is easiest if you make the most of skirmishing and mobility.

Rangers are champions of the natural world. They are typically good aligned, and their link to nature gives them supernatural abilities. They are the paladins of the forest.

Say what? This is orthogonal to the Ranger. If anything, the Ranger has a stronger tie to humanity than to nature. The original concept was that they existed to protect the civilized (i.e. PC) races from the foes that lurked beyond the frontier -- that's why they had to be good.

Discard this theme wholesale. Don't try to salvage it. It doesn't have any place in the Ranger class.

The mechanics of the Spirit Path abilities (Guardian's Shroud, et al.) look fine, conceptually (I reserve judgement on the power), as does the general breakdown of what paths exist. Just get rid of the Spirit Companion, though. Some Rangers may have pets, but it isn't a core aspect of the class.

Better yet, just decouple the Path abilities from the fluff of a spirit. Create one more Path ("Beast"?) and give it a permanent pet or otherwise more options/utilities with its pet. Just get pets and the weird spirit thingy out of the core class.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Say what? This is orthogonal to the Ranger. If anything, the Ranger has a stronger tie to humanity than to nature. The original concept was that they existed to protect the civilized (i.e. PC) races from the foes that lurked beyond the frontier -- that's why they had to be good.

Discard this theme wholesale. Don't try to salvage it. It doesn't have any place in the Ranger class.
.

Not necessarily. Now, I admit that the "protector of the wood" fits more with a druid than a ranger, but for me, a core inspiration of the ranger is the mountainman. I grew up in Alaska and eastern Oregon, so growing up in the woods in a hunter/tracker culture is what I know. And I can promise you, that culture was very big on protecting the woodlands and nature. In fact, it was a very common gripe to hear complaints about cityfolk coming into the woods to shoot the first animal they see, or to leave garbage everywhere. So in that regard, living in harmony with nature and protecting it against the encroachment of civilization does fit with the ranger.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[DEFCON 1]

I will say that I personally do not have any issue with the 4E Shaman styled character being subsumed under the Ranger umbrella. Same way I didn't have an issue with the Warden being subsumed under the Paladin. The thematic identity of the class or sub-class always is more important to me than the class name it's released under.

 

[Benji]

Hm. If you're unconscious, I'm pretty sure you lose your concentration.

I'm glad someone else noticed this. I was re-reading it to check I'd got it right.

I'm split on this. I really don't like the 'spirit animal' concept but I do like the rules and can totally see why the choices were made but it irks me because so much good RP stuff is lost if the animal is barely present in the real world. And no doubt when the next questionnaire rolls around it'll be 'How do you like spirit animal 1-5?' I'm not sure that's gonna cover my reaction well. Maybe they could have a rubbish animal they could 'power up' occasionally? I might make that canon in my games.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

But that's not specific to assassin...any rogue can get double sneak attack with it.

The assassination part we were discussing is. Other rogues don't get another round of auto crits on those attacks. The Ranger 1/Rogue X's Ambuscade attack is weapon + Y sneak attack. The Ranger 1/Assassin X's ambuscade attack is 2weapon +2Y sneak attack. That ambuscade goes first, regardless of the assassin's initiative vs the target, is further icing on the cake.