D&D 5E What will the final revised Ranger look like

[CapnZapp]

So with that said, I expect the new version of the Ranger to be presented in a similar fashion to Sorcerous Origins or Warlock Pacts, both also taken at 1st level.

When choosing a Ranger at 1st level, you first choose a Ranger Path.

Nah, it will be a separate class that just happens to have the same name as the old one.

 

[CapnZapp]

My contention is that since both are available, both should still be attractive for players to play.

Nah, the old Ranger class will be left completely untouched, for backwards compatibility. It will mainly be used by players that 1) keep playing their existing Rangers and players that 2) haven't bought whatever book the new Ranger will be in, and still decide to create a Ranger character.

The point of the update is to make the new Ranger faster, harder, scooter. There is no reason to believe the old one must remain attractive in comparison. The purpose of the update is to make the old version pale in comparison.

If you're interested in an animal companion in some future, and you have access to the revised ranger book, picking the Beast Conclave ranger will and should be a no-brainer.

 

[CapnZapp]

And as a corollary to that observation, it's very doubtful that we'll see major changes to the direction of the class, like the removal of spellcasting or the addition of a mark feature. They are simply beyond the scope of what this project is trying to accomplish.

Thank the gods for that.

I'm sure you know it wasn't as simple as you make it out to be. That we won't see major changes to the direction of the class was certainly not a given. After all, the previous UA ranger experimented with some seriously funky mechanics.

As it turns out, that was fortunate, since it allowed the community to thoroughly reject that approach.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think we'll see basically what's in the UA article, but it'll be a few whacks with the nerf bat.

Very deserved such whacks too, I might add.

1) move up any killer features above the first two levels. Once you reach level 3, you will have access to everything that was in the UA, but others can no longer cherry pick just a single level. Once you decide to invest three levels of a class, you're immediately confronted with the tough choice to invest a fourth (for the ASI) and a fifth (for the Extra Attack)... and by that time, the excellent MC rules of 5E will have claimed another victory!
2) clarify what the invisible to darkness malarky really means
3) clarify a few details about how multiclassing affects beast features and the interaction between beast "extra attack" (not its name) and character extra attack

I mean, there's been a spell-less ranger in the wild for, what, more than a year now? And despite being a big fan of spell-less rangers personally, I ain't seen much response to it.

Sorry but until a class sees print in an official module (such as SCAG) its unreasonable to judge its (im)popularity based on any discussion of it (or lack thereof).

The subclass could be less discussed because it isn't popular, but a much more likely explanation (to me at least) is that it is less discussed because it's still only in the playtest/UA/inofficial stage.

 

[Helldritch]

I am not too thrilled about the new UA ranger. It's way too strong and too easy to cherry pick. I'll keep the original ranger for now but I will apply some of the beast master's change except it will start at third level and use the common pattern we all know.

I seriously doubt that this will be the final Ranger that we see in UA. There are a few things that need to be clarified as CapnZapp said. It is a nice attempt, but it is on the too strong side.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am not too thrilled about the new UA ranger. It's way too strong and too easy to cherry pick. I'll keep the original ranger for now but I will apply some of the beast master's change except it will start at third level and use the common pattern we all know.

I seriously doubt that this will be the final Ranger that we see in UA. There are a few things that need to be clarified as CapnZapp said. It is a nice attempt, but it is on the too strong side.

Perhaps I only see the glass as half-full rather than half-empty, but I am very thrilled about the new UA ranger, despite it's slightly too strong and currently too easy to cherry pick!

I am completely confident this is the final Ranger we will see in UA, and am hopeful it will be very recognizable when we finally see it in print, having no further major changes, and only a few things fixed and clarifed as I myself said. It is a nice attempt, because it is on the too strong side (compared to the original ranger, which needs to be left behind in the dust).

 

[Dualazi]

Well, I'm actually coming from this from the side that the current Ranger doesn't need fixing at all, but realize I'm in the minority on that. What I'd love to see is a new version that gives those who don't like the current version what they want, without making the old version obviously obsolete.

This in itself is impossible, as aside from usability issues (no way to revive the pet easily) one of the big complaints was just that it was a weak class overall. Anything to address this by nature requires the prior iteration to be left in the dust as far as effectiveness goes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Very deserved such whacks too, I might add.

1) move up any killer features above the first two levels. Once you reach level 3, you will have access to everything that was in the UA, but others can no longer cherry pick just a single level. Once you decide to invest three levels of a class, you're immediately confronted with the tough choice to invest a fourth (for the ASI) and a fifth (for the Extra Attack)... and by that time, the excellent MC rules of 5E will have claimed another victory!
2) clarify what the invisible to darkness malarky really means
3) clarify a few details about how multiclassing affects beast features and the interaction between beast "extra attack" (not its name) and character extra attack

I dunno that those are nerfs, but they're absolutely part of what I imagine more dev time will do to it.

Sorry but until a class sees print in an official module (such as SCAG) its unreasonable to judge its (im)popularity based on any discussion of it (or lack thereof).

The subclass could be less discussed because it isn't popular, but a much more likely explanation (to me at least) is that it is less discussed because it's still only in the playtest/UA/inofficial stage.

Sorry, but that's a rather limited view of how other tables play the game. "Officialness" or "Publishedness" doesn't seem to be a huge barrier to use in practice.

Before the Recent Crash, there was a poll up on which beyond-Core options you've seen use in a game for > 1 month. UA material and "other homebrew" material exceeded everything except, I think, the Swashbuckler, which pulled even with them. If there's some representativeness in that sample (which is debatable), it points to more D&D tables having seen something from UA or DM's Guild than have seen ghostwise halflings or winged tieflings or battlerager barbarians, despite those later options being "officially published" and the former options being decidedly not.

Based on that (limited, and imperfect) sample, I'd imagine that a lot of folks who want to use a spell-less ranger, folks are using it, or something like it, even if it's not in a hardcover. Not that this means that WotC shouldn't at some point publish those rules more broadly or something, just that we've seen more discussion about artificers and psionics than we have about these alt-ranger rules, so it seems that a lot of tables that need such rules already have the rules they need and they're working OK enough. If WotC wants to publish them more broadly, that points to the course being to not re-inventing the wheel. Maybe refining what exists in UA, but nothing as drastic as the OP suggests.

Heck, if they're going to re-publish the ranger anyway, sticking the text of that UA article (or something substantially similar) into the same book would certainly be welcome!

 

[CapnZapp]

This in itself is impossible, as aside from usability issues (no way to revive the pet easily) one of the big complaints was just that it was a weak class overall. Anything to address this by nature requires the prior iteration to be left in the dust as far as effectiveness goes.

Well, not impossible.

The original ranger will still be there waiting in the PHB.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like the new ranger in UA since it tries to just improve on what is already in the PHB and make it feel better.
In my opinion that is a good thing. I would even be happy with a lot less improvement.
Choose a more narrow terrain, choose a single enemy nd use downtime or an ability to get familia with enemies or terrains within short periods of time. Maybe a day or a week. Maybe add a later ability to adapt to terrain within a few minutes.