Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[DJCupboard]

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.

Sorry if this has been brought up, but this has become a very long topic.

How about keeping them at d10 for HP and HD, but giving them advantage on Hit Dice rolls at short rests (maybe in all healing)?

 

[Mistwell]

Probably worth clarifying that in 5e there is strictly no such thing as a 'Move Action', On your turn you get an 'Action' and you get to 'Move'.

Yes technically correct (which is the best kind of correct) but effectively it's a move action as people understand that phrase given their experience from prior editions and versions of the game. "On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action." What I don't understand is why this special ability says you can take an "action" but does not mention "move" but you can still move with it. It doesn't seem to grant an extra turn, just an extra action - which can be used for the attack action or the hide action. The only movement involved with taking an action is the dash action, "When you take the Dash action, you gain extra movement for the current turn. The increase equals your speed, after applying any modifiers," or you can take actions which impact your movement like disengage. But, movement is distinct from actions - so why would you get to move if you get an action?

[Edit - Ah, I see it now. I read it wrong. You get a TURN. "you gain a special turn...On this turn, you can use your action to take either the Attack or Hide action."

It is a full extra "special" turn. During that turn, if you use your action, that action can only be used to attack or hide. But, you still get all the other things involved with a turn, like movement, and a bonus action, and free things like interacting with an object or talking. The only thing with a restriction is the action, which can only be used for one of two things rather than the full array of options one might have for an action.]

 

[jrowland]

Sorry if this has been brought up, but this has become a very long topic.

How about keeping them at d10 for HP and HD, but giving them advantage on Hit Dice rolls at short rests (maybe in all healing)?

You could, but you run the risk of "sadvantage", you know, when you roll both low. The advantage method would usually be a slight improvement over straight d10. Better to just let them add level, twice con mod, prof bonus, or some other bonus.

 

[Ahrimon]

Why not take a page from the Warlock and give the Ranger 2 decision point? This would allow the most options.

Level 1 (possibly level 2) choose between spell ranger, the spell less ranger, and this new super tough ranger.
Level 3 Hunter, beastmaster, spirit animal, etc

I believe that someone posted a more comprehensive breakdown like this earlier in the thread that I can't find right now.

I still think the beastmaster needs a little love. I like the idea of making it a bonus action to allow the animal to attack but it can move on it's own regardless. Add in the rangers proficiency bonus to AC, attack, and saves and a bonus to HP would be good IMO.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Howzabout this?

Skirmish
Starting at Nth level [my gut says 3rd], you have learned to use your mobility and knowledge of terrain to better avoid attacks. An attack against you is made with disadvantage if it is an opportunity attack, if you have cover from the attack, or if during your last turn you moved at least 15 feet from where you started. [You cannot skirmish while wearing medium or heavy armor?]

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Sorry if this has been brought up, but this has become a very long topic.

How about keeping them at d10 for HP and HD, but giving them advantage on Hit Dice rolls at short rests (maybe in all healing)?

You could. It'd be weaker. So the question is: is just giving them extra HD too strong?

 

[Eric V]

The thing is

A free willed beastmaster beast might not look too bad. But allowing the ranger to get Weapon/Weapon/Beast instead of WeaponBeastBeast each turn can get bad fast. It becomes a virtual free attack each turn without giving up your 2 sharpshooter bow shots or relying on positioning or targeting like the hunter does. It could easily catch a DM off gaurd.

So, the math seems to tell me that the beastmaster ranger does about the same damage output as the hunter, but not the necromancer. No sarcasm intended, is that about right?

 

[Gadget]

Upon further reflection, I have refined how I feel about this new Ranger, all the additional comments have helped.

2d6 Hit Dice. Serves to make the Ranger a tough and resilient survivalist and does not, contrary to the often voiced opinion, make them more buff, or tanky than the Barbarian. Both are offered an average option of (7) hit points per level, the Barbarian's has merely been rounded up. With only light armor and no Rage/damage mitigation, it is a nice way to show endurance and a good nod to the old AD&D Ranger that got 2d8 HD at first level. Like it.

Ambuscade - Conceptually, I like the idea of what they are trying to accomplish with this feature and it seems like the kind of thing you want a tough skirmisher to have. Mechanically, I don't like the one level multi-class bait, and the power level is extremely questionable, to say the least. Someone up thread suggested taking a leaf from the wilderness Rogue of 3.5 and using similar mechanics, that might be an option. Verdict: ehhh.

Skirmisher's Stealth - Once again, I kind of like what they are trying to do with the concept, but I'm starting to get a little bit squeamish about treading on the Rogue/Assassin Shadow/Monk. Mechanically, I'm more worried about not only the balance, but the whole foundation of the stealth rules it is built upon. Not sure

Spirit Animals - I think this might make a decent sub class for the Ranger, perhaps it would benefit from following in the Totem Barbarian's footsteps and allow the Ranger to pick and choose between the various animals at different levels. But as a shot at getting the Ranger 'right', I thought the spelless ranger they offered earlier was a better attempt. I'm not sure the whole 'Spirit Shaman' vibe is not better in a different class, or that such a subclass is that high on the list Ranger sub classes we need or want. It almost seems like a pseudo-replacement for the Beastmaster variant to give the pet more bite ( see what I did there?) while trying to make it more balanced. The abilities granted still feel kind of arbitrary. Verdict - not so good

I am beginning to think that they could take some of the features from this variant (2d6 hit dice, light armor, two good saves), the hoard breaker, colossus slayer options from the Hunter Ranger, the poultice ability from the spelless ranger, maybe a reworked ambuscade/skirmisher ability, jettison this whole 'nature paladin' thing, and you could have a Ranger I would really like.

That being said, I do not mind having a spell casting Ranger, perhaps as a subclass. The Ranger has been a spell caster in every edition of D&D except 4e, so I don't see it as too much of a problem; it is a nice way to give the Ranger some outdoors flavored utility and power with a tried and true sub system of the game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Apparently it is legal to use Ambuscade + Commander's Strike to cause other characters to attack during your special extra turn. Which makes zero sense, and shows why ad hoc rules changes are a terrible idea. There are always unintended consequences.

 

[Wik]

I don't want to slog through a whole swatch of material, but I'm liking what amounts to a pretty strong first draft.

The GOOD:

1. Ambuscade is great because it replicates the early D&D ranger's ability to avoid becoming surprised. And getting an extra turn on the first round of combat is pretty awesome... rangers dominate the earlier rounds, but will be overshadowed by other classes later on. Huge plus in my mind.

2. Ranger doesnt' have spells! This is great for me. Spell-less rangers are where it's at.

3. Hit dice are larger, so that the ranger has the best short rest healing in the game... which is as it should be. Plus, 2d6 hit dice just feels so right. But that might be my 1e showing.

THE BAD

1. Rangers aren't proficient in medium armour. I liked it when Pathfinder let them do it.

2. Skirmisher's Stealth is kind of 4e-y. I like the idea, sort of, but meh. Also, do we need another stealth class? Isn't that the rogue's thang?

3. Saving Throws are too good. What's wrong with the current ranger's strength and dexterity?