Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I got to the party too late, and I'm not feeling like reading 11+ pages of replies, so here's my independent thoughts on the article.

I like how they are thinking outside of the box, but I think they've gone too far outside of the box.

On to the specifics.

2d6 HD. Bad. No need for a totally new mechanic like this, and rangers shouldn't have bigger HD than fighters.
Armor Proficiences. Medium armor should be retained to allow them to go strength-based more effectively.
Ambuscade. Again, no need for a totally new mechanic like this.
Skirmisher's Stealth. This is too messy. I can already feel vast debates on how/when this works/applies--and that's assuming the final cleaned up and revised text--not just this preliminary draft. The concept itself is problematic.
Spirit Path. This is fine. I would have gone with something a bit different, but I won't complain about this idea as a defining ranger feature if they go with it. If these are intended to replace spellcasting though, they are much too weak.

The biggest problem here is that there are new features that change how the game works. Never before seen class features (like Spirit Path) are what I want to see. Never before seen changes to the base system (like the wacky HD) are very unappealing and feel like they are messing with 5e D&D itself, rather than playing around with a class. Invasive rules interactions (like Ambuscade or Skirmisher's Stealth) are a weaker version of the HD problem, but they are going to lead to all sorts of adjudication problems better left out.

Suggestions: Eliminate the weird stuff--work within the standard 5e rules framework. Expand on Spirit Path, or give a special feature that expands Natural Explorer to grant supernatural benefits that have some source or connection to terrain affinities.

 

[Dausuul]

Rangers are limited to light armor only, don't get the barbarian bonus of unarmored AC bonuses, and don't get damage resistance. I don't think they're nearly as tanky as you are thinking they are.

I didn't say anything about rangers being "tanky" (ranger AC is typically equal to or slightly better than barbarian AC, but they have nothing that compares to barbarian damage resistance). I just said that them having more hit points than barbarians seems weird, and I would prefer to improve their hit points by giving them better recovery rather than a higher base. I like the idea that while the cleric is pumping cure spells into the rest of the party, the ranger can take care of his or her own wounds.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yea I agree with you too that it's a good start. I think the 2d6 will be ok because they don't get any other damage mitigation.

Unless they dip life cleric.

 

[MoonSong]

You forgot to add in "and the Warforged, and the Artificer, and the Favored Soul, and the Spell-less Ranger and the Mystic, they can't win."

Thus far every single UA article they've released with player options for playtesting has been defined as "the worst thing they've done" by somebody.

I don't know you, but from my side the favored soul was very well received, the only concerns were it oversahdowed the dragon sorcerer, more so after errata basically killed it. As the Storm sorecerer and the Rogue Swashbuckler. So not only bad receptions to UA stuff.

Since Sorcerer was the other "weak" class, I wonder what sort of playtestable changes it'll end up with.

I don't really know, but they should cannonize the sorcerer sources already. They really fix sorcerers, they aren't the problem, the other two were just bad. Now I would love to see a more generic alternate sorcerer that was in line with the original and felt gishy and more utility driven.

 

[Mistwell]

It provides the ability to go first, regardless of your rolled initiative. Even without surprise, Assassins get advantage vs targets that havent acted.

Yes, I know. I said that earlier - and also said lots of things give you advantage. You could get Barbarian and get advantage on attack rolls too, for instance, or Paladin, or a host of other things.

Plus, even if your DM is ruling surprise in the alt way discussed in this thread, you still get your assassinate strike even if they beat your initiative.

The only way you auto-crit is if you surprise them. This ability does not let you surprise them, it just gives you a special attack that comes before all other attacks which is not a surprise attack.

IMX, surprise isnt that hard to get if you work a bit.

Well if you find it not that hard, then sure this ability helps with it because then you can get two auto-crits off, each with sneak attack maxed. For me, I find it hard to get surprise.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't like this version of the Ranger either, quite many reasons...

1) More HP. Let's skip the fact that to me at first sight it felt like a bait ("We're buffing the Ranger! More HP, better ST, free herbalism!"). The last thing people have been complaining about the Ranger class is its HP. This is a totally unnecessary change. The choice of 2d6 is also inelegant, and unnecessary as well considering the minimal difference.

2) Two major saving throws instead of one major and one minor as everyone else. Why? Not a big deal for sure, but breaking a pattern just because is the kind of thing that gives a sloppy feeling to a design.

3) No spellcasting. I like Rangers with spells, but I can totally see the point of those who don't. The problem with this version is that it doesn't cast spells but it's still magical. So what's the difference? I don't believe that people who dislike spellcasting rangers just say so because they dislike the mechanics. This version practically casts "Summon bear/eagle/wolf" once a day + has an encounter-based semi-magical power.

4) A summon 1/day is not a companion. It's a combat buff. A companion is supposed to be a lot more than that. I don't care what Drizz't fans say.

5) Despite of the previous two points, I don't actually dislike the Spirit Companion idea itself, not at all. But I think it is too strong and too narrow to be the default for all Rangers. Seriously, the most common complaints about the Ranger identity are because a lot of people hate magical rangers, and a lot of other people hate pets, so you give the Ranger a magical pet? If the Spirit Companion was meant just for a subclass, then it would be ok.

6) Ambuscade might be the most acceptable addition but doesn't fully convince me because of how it's worded. It's a free attack (or hide attempt) at the beginning of a fight, unless surprised (in which case you are not surprised).

7) Skirmisher’s Stealth... considering how stealth and hiding in 5e are purposefully vague to let different groups handle the topic the way they want, this ability (which assumes a specific interpretation of such rules) really shouldn't appear anywhere, except maybe on a feat (which is easy to rule out), much less on the 2nd level of a base class.

Conclusion:

- As a replacement for the Ranger class, this is horrible.
- As a variant Ranger alongside the PHB default, I still dislike most of it and I don't think it solves any identity/conceptual problem.
- As a Ranger subclass (meaning to keep only the Spirit Companion, drop all other changes, and just put the Spirit Companion and improvements to it in place of subclass features) it can be quite good.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I didn't say anything about rangers being "tanky" (ranger AC is typically equal to or slightly better than barbarian AC, but they have nothing that compares to barbarian damage resistance). I just said that them having more hit points than barbarians seems weird, and I would prefer to improve their hit points by giving them better recovery rather than a higher base. I like the idea that while the cleric is pumping cure spells into the rest of the party, the ranger can take care of his or her own wounds.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. And yeah, it probably looks weird because it's not something we're used to seeing (the ranger with more hp than the barbarian). That's why I think you need to look at it from more of a macro view. Because of light armor and no resistance, the ranger won't last as long in toe to toe combat as the barbarian, fighter, or paladin will. He's basically just a rogue with more hit points. But even the rogue can reduce damage taken lol.


To the other complaints about it being broken due to level dipping, I can't stress enough how that's a game table issue, and not necessarily a class issue. Multiclassing is optional. That means you as the DM have total control of allowing these 'broken" multiclass builds. So it's one of the easiest fixes you could ask for. Especially if it's because of metagaming reasons, and not in-character reasons.

 

[MoonSong]

I don't necessarily disagree with that. And yeah, it probably looks weird because it's not something we're used to seeing (the ranger with more hp than the barbarian). That's why I think you need to look at it from more of a macro view. Because of light armor and no resistance, the ranger won't last as long in toe to toe combat as the barbarian, fighter, or paladin will. He's basically just a rogue with more hit points. But even the rogue can reduce damage taken lol.


To the other complaints about it being broken due to level dipping, I can't stress enough how that's a game table issue, and not necessarily a class issue. Multiclassing is optional. That means you as the DM have total control of allowing these 'broken" multiclass builds. So it's one of the easiest fixes you could ask for. Especially if it's because of metagaming reasons, and not in-character reasons.

Well, yes and no. Multiclassing is optional, but it is still part of standard D&D (so it is less optional and more common than say persistent injuries). Whatever new thing the designers create meant to eventually join standard D&D has to play well with everything else on standard, and that includes multiclassing and feats. Don't tell me AL DMs should be forced to fix a broken multiclass combo, just because the designers raised their hands and told "well it is optional, it is the DM's responsibility."

 

[snl99]

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... Maybe they could have a rubbish animal they could 'power up' occasionally?

This is what I was thinking. Having the companion around for only a minute a day loses a lot of role playing flavor. I would much rather see a PHB level companion that didn't require your action to act. Then you could have an Empower Companion ability for a limited time per day.

 

[Minigiant]

This is what I was thinking. Having the companion around for only a minute a day loses a lot of role playing flavor. I would much rather see a PHB level companion that didn't require your action to act. Then you could have an Empower Companion ability for a limited time per day.

Balance.

You really can't give a Player Character a PC-level-equivalent power companion with no restrictions on actions for very long. D&D combats are won and lost on the number of powerful actions made on each side. Soemthing has to give.

You have to give up something.

• Power. As in the conjure animals and conjure woodland beings spells. You keep all your actions and get to use them often but the actual beasts are weak.
• Action. As in the beastmaster's beast companion. The companion is strong and stays with you but uses your actions.
• Frequency. As in this new ranger. The spirit companions is strong and acts on their own but you can only use them a minute a day.
• It All. As in the hunter warrior with hunter's mark. No beast. All buttwhooping. All the time.