Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: The ranger, revised... overcompensation?

[Saeviomagy]

My issues with the new one are that at first level it's getting way more than anyone else. Other classes are looking at ribbons, small amounts of healing, extremely limited spells or small damage bonuses.

Rangers are potentially looking at advantage on many attacks, bonus damage on most attacks, plus a huge pile of abilities that grant automatic success at meaningful tasks. That's a problem if you're starting at low level, and it's a bigger problem if multiclassing is allowed.

 

[Greybeard_Ray]

Reconstructing my previous thoughts...

I was participating in the (now lost) "9000 pages" of discussion on the UA: Ranger, Revised. I'd like to try to address the 'concerns' of some of you regarding this re-imagining of the 5e Ranger.

First off, it is attempting to re-balance the Ranger class, ESPECIALLY the BeastMaster/Beast Conclave subclass. Yes, there are some very potent abilities available at first level. HOWEVER, virtually all of them were present in the original PH version, with some minor re-wordings. The change from "Favored Terrain" (pick one) to "Natural Explorer" (All Wilderness) brings the class back to its origins.

I can see a 'sticking-point' on Favored Enemy (Humanoids), but just using the wording of the PH version ("race(s) of humanoid (such as gnolls ...") should eliminate any worries about uber-killer Rangers.

For those of you who are (relatively) new to D&D, the first 3 bullet points of the revision;

• You ignore difficult terrain.
• You have advantage on initiative rolls.
• On your first turn during combat, you have advantage on attack rolls against creatures that have not yet acted.

are essentially a return to the earliest days of Basic/Expert...AD&D/2nd Edition rules, where the Ranger was very rarely surprised, almost always surprised others, and generally got a whopping bonus to his first attack (via surprise).

[For those that weren't there, back in the day, you had to ROLL to determine if you were surprised, AND if you surprised them... And Rangers had absurd result numbers (only surprised 16%, surprised others I recall @ 50%)] And that "advantage on attack rolls" does NOT guarantee a hit, it just increases the chance. I personally feel this new incarnation is nowhere near as 'imbalanced'.

The remaining bullet points in Natural Explorer are EXACTLY the same as Favored Terrain, except for the removal of "specified terrain". Including "...can’t become lost except by magical means."
So, if the DM wants the group lost, just find a "magical means" appropriate for the story. Personally, I'm not fond of making my players feel like their characters are incompetent (even at lower levels) by saying "Roll to see how badly you get lost..."

Next, regarding Favored/Greater Favored Enemy: make sure you read it carefully. Especially Greater; the list REMOVES Humanoid as an option at 6th Level. Yes, you gain +4 to damage to ALL enemies; NO, you only get advantage on saves vs. Greater Enemies. This harkens back to 3.5e, without the cumulative stacking of bonuses on saves. AND, it compensates (a little) for the "Beast Conclave's" LACK of EXTRA ATTACK.

I don't see this revision as being over- or under-powered. I think it re-dresses some inadequacies of the original PH "Beast Master". I've been playing this game since 1974 (yes, the first year it was out), and I've seen every variation, twist, tweak, re-write and revision they've put EACH class through. I honestly believe this is the 5e equivalent of the original intent for the Ranger...

given that it was really a cross between Aragorn & Tarzan, anyway.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, we can’t even go a full two days before rangers return. Ah well.

One thing I remember never getting a clear and final answer on was the “ignore darkvision” language on the deep stalker. It seemed to say that for you darkness counts as darkness for the purpose of hiding instead of dim light. But the language is very strange, and it leads to some rather odd moments because it is a hard ability to remember for a DM.

I wonder if this wasn't intended to buff assassin a little. Currently all the conditions needed for auto-crits to happen seems too circumstantial IMO. I don't think I've actually ever played with anyone as an assassin. Everyone goes arcane trickster.
Maybe the could just give a + to initiative, rather than advantage if the boost is too much?

I’ve actually had almost the complete opposite situation. I’ve never seen any one keep playing an Arcane Trickster or theif for that matter, but I almsot always have at least one assassin on the team. I do houserule actual surprise rounds, and even then they don’t often get the big crit, but they are often looking to get it.

Currently I’ve got a party of 2 Assassins, a SCAG Swashbuckler, Wizard, Sun Soul Monk and a PHB Beastmaster



Also, thinking about what some people were saying. I think I wouldn't mind seeing Primeval awareness and natural explorer switch places. Or maybe chop them up and switch parts. I think that would still feel good and give you some things to do that make a lot of sense for a ranger.

 

[CapnZapp]

IMO, they just need to put the combat buffs of natural explorer into Primeval Awareness instead. That's all it needs, IMO.

If you by that mean moving those level 1 benefits til later, then yes, that is what I mean too.

 

[CapnZapp]

I was participating in the (now lost) "9000 pages" of discussion on the UA: Ranger, Revised. I'd like to try to address the 'concerns' of some of you regarding this re-imagining of the 5e Ranger.

First off, it is attempting to re-balance the Ranger class, ESPECIALLY the BeastMaster/Beast Conclave subclass. Yes, there are some very potent abilities available at first level. HOWEVER, virtually all of them were present in the original PH version, with some minor re-wordings. The change from "Favored Terrain" (pick one) to "Natural Explorer" (All Wilderness) brings the class back to its origins.

I can see a 'sticking-point' on Favored Enemy (Humanoids), but just using the wording of the PH version ("race(s) of humanoid (such as gnolls ...") should eliminate any worries about uber-killer Rangers.

For those of you who are (relatively) new to D&D, the first 3 bullet points of the revision;

• You ignore difficult terrain.
• You have advantage on initiative rolls.
• On your first turn during combat, you have advantage on attack rolls against creatures that have not yet acted.

are essentially a return to the earliest days of Basic/Expert...AD&D/2nd Edition rules, where the Ranger was very rarely surprised, almost always surprised others, and generally got a whopping bonus to his first attack (via surprise).

[For those that weren't there, back in the day, you had to ROLL to determine if you were surprised, AND if you surprised them... And Rangers had absurd result numbers (only surprised 16%, surprised others I recall @ 50%)] And that "advantage on attack rolls" does NOT guarantee a hit, it just increases the chance. I personally feel this new incarnation is nowhere near as 'imbalanced'.

The remaining bullet points in Natural Explorer are EXACTLY the same as Favored Terrain, except for the removal of "specified terrain". Including "...can’t become lost except by magical means."
So, if the DM wants the group lost, just find a "magical means" appropriate for the story. Personally, I'm not fond of making my players feel like their characters are incompetent (even at lower levels) by saying "Roll to see how badly you get lost..."

Next, regarding Favored/Greater Favored Enemy: make sure you read it carefully. Especially Greater; the list REMOVES Humanoid as an option at 6th Level. Yes, you gain +4 to damage to ALL enemies; NO, you only get advantage on saves vs. Greater Enemies. This harkens back to 3.5e, without the cumulative stacking of bonuses on saves. AND, it compensates (a little) for the "Beast Conclave's" LACK of EXTRA ATTACK.

I don't see this revision as being over- or under-powered. I think it re-dresses some inadequacies of the original PH "Beast Master". I've been playing this game since 1974 (yes, the first year it was out), and I've seen every variation, twist, tweak, re-write and revision they've put EACH class through. I honestly believe this is the 5e equivalent of the original intent for the Ranger...

given that it was really a cross between Aragorn & Tarzan, anyway.

Thank you.

However, a sizeable chunk of the discussion isn't about that it is actually overpowered, but gets too much too fast.

Your commentary on cherry-picking a level of the new ranger would be appreciated.

(And yes, we all know the devs have tweeted about it: essentially saying the UA ranger is before taking multiclassing into account)

 

[CapnZapp]

So, we can’t even go a full two days before rangers return. Ah well.

One thing I remember never getting a clear and final answer on was the “ignore darkvision” language on the deep stalker. It seemed to say that for you darkness counts as darkness for the purpose of hiding instead of dim light. But the language is very strange, and it leads to some rather odd moments because it is a hard ability to remember for a DM.

Assuming the devs don't participate in enworld threads, I would not have assumed getting a clear and final answer out of the discussion. That is something only the devs can settle.

 

[Charles Rampant]

On the side topic of Assassins and Arcane Tricksters: I've had one of each in my games. The latter is very good, but other than casting Invisibility it can be hard for that character to really shine, since in combat he'll be doing all the usual Rogue stuff instead. It is better for out-of-combat, for sure. In contrast, the Assassin character did quite poorly. I think that this was because the party just refused to do stealth en masse, and the player never bothered to scout ahead. So in every combat, he asked whether he had surprise or was hidden, and I was like, "How? You're walking into a well-lit room alongside a guy in full plate..." So I think that you definitely need to take the effort to leverage that class ability, rather than just assuming that it always works.

 

[Greybeard_Ray]

Thank you.

However, a sizeable chunk of the discussion isn't about that it is actually overpowered, but gets too much too fast.

Your commentary on cherry-picking a level of the new ranger would be appreciated.

(And yes, we all know the devs have tweeted about it: essentially saying the UA ranger is before taking multiclassing into account)

Capn, I don't follow much of the social media stuff, except when referenced (& Linked) in threads like this. However, I have read a few, and my impression is that the Dev's are collectively not very collected. Either that, or they are deliberately obtuse and obfuscating (not that I'd put THAT past them...)

As to 'cherry-picking' levels, and multi-classing in general, I have a simple statement for all of you:

GET OVER IT!

Multi-classing has been a part of the mechanics of this game since the first hardback. The Bard class originally required that you take several levels of Fighter, then levels of Wizard, then levels in Thief (not Rogue, Thief [that was the class-name, back then]). So, after investing [12? 13? ... can't remember] levels playing "this that and the other", you finally got to call yourself a Bard. And then got stuck in the back of the group, to guard the Wizard... and buff the party.

In terms of cherry-picking, every single [not-primary-caster] class has something worth a one-level dip. Pure casters require a heavy investment in being "pure". Let's examine the first level abilities gained, by class:

Barbarian: Rage, Unarmored Defense
Bard: Spellcasting, Bardic Inspiration
Cleric: Spellcasting, Divine Domain
Druid: Druidic, Spellcasting
Fighter: Fighting Style, Second Wind
Monk: Unarmored Defense, Martial Arts
Paladin: Divine Sense, Lay on Hands
Ranger: Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer
Revised Ranger: Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer (revised versions)
Rogue: Expertise, Sneak Attack, Thieves' Cant
Sorcerer: Spellcasting, Sorcererous Origin
Warlock: Otherworldly Patron, Pact Magic
Wizard: Spellcasting, Arcane Recovery

Yes, I know you know them, but look at them collectively. What I see is: 2 features; one strong (or very strong), and one (maybe/kinda/sorta/semi-/mixed) debatable.

Yes, there are features worth 'cherry-picking' on this list: Rage, Unarmored Defense (either), Fighting Style, Expertise, Sneak Attack, and yes, the Revised Natural Explorer. Are they worth a level dip? That's up to the PLAYER. Are any of them game-breakers? Not in the 2-years I've been playing THIS edition (out of 42 years total) [Before you say it, yes, I'm old. Hence the 'Handle']

Are players going to want to Multi-Class/Level Dip? Yes. Is it game-breaking? If YOU think it is, don't allow it in your game. [But for the LUV UV GAWD, try it, first, okay?] Are there going to be Munchkin/Min-Max/PowerGamer character designs? Of course there are, those types are "now, and will always be {/SpockVoice}" a part of this game.

</blow-hard mode OFF>

 

[Pauln6]

Yes, multi-classing does not generally involve overpowered builds. 5e overall seems to be very well balanced.

That said, in the case of the revised ranger, I agree that it is not overpowered overall but rather that it grants features, that other sub-classes don't get until much higher levels, at level 1. The simple solution is to dilute or remove them from level 1 and spread them out over just a level or six so that those players don't feel quite so cheated and multi-classing synergies are diluted enough to bring it back in line with other options.

 

[PrimevalSeeker]

Overall this new iteration of ranger seems like a great improvement over the current one. However, the only thing I don’t like is favored enemy. Getting rid of situational and restrictive abilities such as favored terrain was a huge step towards the right direction, so why keep favored enemy, as a main class feature no less. I don’t think that favored enemy adds so much to the overall image of being a ranger.

Mechanically, the skill part of favored enemy could be replaced by a class feature that gives some bonus to tracking ALL creatures to the ranger and as for the damage part there already exists the hunters mark spell so the +2 & +4 bonus isn’t needed.

The new natural explorer and primeval awareness are great and they are not overpowered, especially for pure ranger characters. To avoid one level dips they could split the features of natural explorer into several abilities and merge other features with other existing abilities. For example, ignoring difficult terrain could be merged with fleet of foot (lvl 8) and advantage to initiative and advantage to the first turn against creatures who haven’t taken an action could merge to form a separate feature given at a later level, maybe switch places with primeval awareness (lvl 3) or replace greater favored enemy (lvl 6).

Regarding the deep stalker subclass I don’t like its connection to the Underdark and I would prefer if it had a more generic “wilderness” stalker theme or simply called “stalker conclave” as it is already mentioned somewhere in the UA. This is for those who want to play a ranger that specializes in stealth, but without the caverns/Underdark/underground theme.

Finally, all ranger subclasses could give thematically appropriate bonus spells and not just the stalker.