D&D 5E Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Gloom Stalker Subclass

[gyor]

I feel like you just described an NPC, not a PC class, really.

I disagree, not every PC has to be Good, I find evil for a good cause to be a perfectly valid, this PC believes murdering and torturing a Drow leader in the Drows own city, to intimidate them into leaving the Elf Gloom Stalkers Even homeland and it's loved ones alone. I can ironically see both a lot of Gloom Stalkers among underdark races, and among the followers of Sheverash, the Elven God of Vengeance, most specifically against Drow who the God hates with a disturbing intensity.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If Rangers didn't have spellcasting in the base class I'd be more excited about this.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like it. It is the "I will scout ahead" in the underdark kind of guy.
Usually you are in danger because there is usually nothing to hide behind like in the forest and you really can't trust your concealment.

 

[Azzy]

If Rangers didn't have spellcasting in the base class I'd be more excited about this.

In the "future of the ranger" thread, it sounds like instead of a revised class, per se, that when they eventually "revise" the ranger it will be more as optional features than replace those of the base class. With that in mind, and I don't want to generate false hope, that may include an option to remove the spell-casting aspect of the ranger. Of course, this supposition could be entirely wrong so don't take it fact.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Wouldn't a spellless ranger be the scout subclass of the fighter?

 

[Azzy]

Wouldn't a spellless ranger be the scout subclass of the fighter?

The Scout subclass now belongs to the Rogue, and it appears that not everyone is on board with that take.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The Scout subclass now belongs to the Rogue, and it appears that not everyone is on board with that take.

I thought there was a fighter scout subclass. Guess I was mistaken. That would seem to be the perfect spell-less ranger though. Proficiency in survival, fighting style, extra feats (sharpshooter for example), fighter durability and attacks, and scout subclass features (stealth and tracking)---all seem to fit the spell-less ranger archetype pretty well. IMO anyway

*Edit What I mean by extra feats, is that the fighter gets 2 extra, so the original 4 could be used to boost combat, and the other two can either be ASIs to help with exploration, or to choose feats to help with exploration (areas where the ranger is specialized at)

 

[mellored]

I thought there was a fighter scout subclass. Guess I was mistaken. That would seem to be the perfect spell-less ranger though. Proficiency in survival, fighting style, extra feats (sharpshooter for example), fighter durability and attacks, and scout subclass features (stealth and tracking)---all seem to fit the spell-less ranger archetype pretty well. IMO anyway

*Edit What I mean by extra feats, is that the fighter gets 2 extra, so the original 4 could be used to boost combat, and the other two can either be ASIs to help with exploration, or to choose feats to help with exploration (areas where the ranger is specialized at)

Scout was a fighter subclass for fighter in UA. They moved it to rogue.

 

[Parmandur]

If Rangers didn't have spellcasting in the base class I'd be more excited about this.

This class, based on UA, doubles down on the spell side: part of the schtick.

 

[Parmandur]

In the "future of the ranger" thread, it sounds like instead of a revised class, per se, that when they eventually "revise" the ranger it will be more as optional features than replace those of the base class. With that in mind, and I don't want to generate false hope, that may include an option to remove the spell-casting aspect of the ranger. Of course, this supposition could be entirely wrong so don't take it fact.

They've made it pretty clear the spelless ranger isn't happening: hence the Scout.

It tested rather poorly in UA, and the UA surveys showed spellcasting to be a central feature for folks.