Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Forged Fury]

That's a fair take, but in that case, this would seem to be an epic fail.

Based on design, it's really no more of an "epic fail" than Playtest Versions 1 through X of DnDNext. The post about this on reddit has somewhere around 260 comments with people pointing out problems, things they hate, and things they like. They're getting feedback on it which, as I understand it, is the entire point.

 

[martinlochsen]

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.

But that's a very modern idea. Though I think that kind of ranger has it's place, and those who like it should be able to play them, I don't like the fact that the concept has been baked into the basic concept of the class. That makes it impossible (or at least a bit clunky) to play a ranger that is NOT that type.
To me, and I think to many others, the first image that comes to mind in relation to the ranger it that of Aragorn, and he is most definately a defender of civilization. I wouldn't want that idea to overshadow the whole class of course, there should be other options, but removing such an iconic character from the base of the class seems wrong to me.

I also don't like the spirit guardian thing. It too much skews the flavor of the ranger in a certain direction, and it's included in all of the paths, so you can't escape it. Couldn't your animal companion just give you some sort of damage bonus? You've trained it to fight by your side, and as such it is an extension of your body just like your weapon. It could even absorb hitpoints perhaps. Would make it easier to upkeep as well, not needing a seperate sheet and such.

I like the Ambuscade, though. Not getting into any mechanical discussions, but flavourwise, that's the sort of thing that makes you feel fast and deadly, which is great for a ranger, I think.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I like this ranger. I like the 2d6 HP in conjunction with light armour. I love the spirit animal. The only thing I dont like is the stealth skirmisher thing - it doesnt make sense that the ranger simply cannot be found regardless or what he or others do. If that was explained as a magical thing, sure, but not a mundane thing.

Also, really wish they had included a herbalism kinda ability that was a spell-like ability. One of the herbalism opotions could have been the pass without trace spell or the stealth skirmish ability. That would have been perfect!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Arallu]

Ugh, leave the spirit animals to the druids =/. I miss the jack-of-all-trades, master of none Ranger that doesn't need to be min-maxed to 'feel' right, a dash of dual wield and a dash of archery, mix with some tracking and outdoorsy stuff. I don't want/need a companion (unless i get find a funky figurine /wink) and spells are an interesting utility I guess.
Also, jinking with combat initiative with Ambuscade seems detrimental to an encounter's speed.

 

[Mercule]

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.

I agree that a Ranger is going to have a strong interest in the natural world. I just don't care for the idea that his abilities automatically come with the implicit baggage of being a "champion" of nature. There may be a high degree of correlation, but correlation does not imply causation.

I'm sure Aragorn would have been vexed by littering tourists. His powers didn't come from nature spirits, though. He was just a good steward of the land. His powers came from knowledge and study and could almost be considered more arcane than druidic (as far as you can make comparisons). While the Ranger class goes beyond Aragorn, you can't create a class that excludes him or makes building him problematic.

Mechanically, Rangers have become nature Paladins. Conceptually, that is not at all the origins of the class. The only way to really "fix" the Ranger is, IMO, to move the mechanics towards the original concept, not to move the concept towards the mechanics.

Overall, I really, really like where this UA is going. Really, my only issues are that I think you should be able to play a Ranger who doesn't have a pet and who does have a mystic tie to nature.

 

[Forged Fury]

It's another thing to put out ideas which, in a few very short pages with not very hard-to-read rules, already had a number of glaring errors.

What actual errors do you see? I count two:

1) Spirit Companion is concentration based but somehow keeps going if you're unconscious.
2) Primeval Awareness requires spell slots, which they no longer have.

 

[lvl20dm]

I like the Hit Die and the concept of the "Ranger as Skirmisher" (which the PHB ranger also has). Ambuscade is problematic, I think, but I like what it and the Stealth ability are trying to do.

I do not like the Spirit companion or the "Paladin of nature" theme. This is too much of a departure from the legacy Ranger for me, and thematically the Spirit Companion is weird.

I still feel that the strongest concept to build on is "Ranger as Monster Hunter". The Ranger is a survivalist that uses skirmish tactics coupled with simple magic and wilderness knowledge/herbalism to kill monsters and fight hordes of savage humanoids. You can build this character out of the PHB now, but it doesn't have a unique "thing" that it can do (like the Barbarian's rage or the Rogue's cunning action).

 

[Minigiant]

I agree that a Ranger is going to have a strong interest in the natural world. I just don't care for the idea that his abilities automatically come with the implicit baggage of being a "champion" of nature. There may be a high degree of correlation, but correlation does not imply causation.

I'm sure Aragorn would have been vexed by littering tourists. His powers didn't come from nature spirits, though. He was just a good steward of the land. His powers came from knowledge and study and could almost be considered more arcane than druidic (as far as you can make comparisons). While the Ranger class goes beyond Aragorn, you can't create a class that excludes him or makes building him problematic.

Mechanically, Rangers have become nature Paladins. Conceptually, that is not at all the origins of the class. The only way to really "fix" the Ranger is, IMO, to move the mechanics towards the original concept, not to move the concept towards the mechanics.

Overall, I really, really like where this UA is going. Really, my only issues are that I think you should be able to play a Ranger who doesn't have a pet and who does have a mystic tie to nature.

Exactly.

The rangers problem was that mechanics were too weak and unique enough for the concept not that the concept was wrong.

Muddling of the concept just causes more problems.