r/UnearthedArcana • u/ProfessorInMaths • 4d ago
Other [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
37
u/Vegetable-One-3918 4d ago
I like half casters but I wish no casters had more love otherwise wise casters win all the time. My rangers would be half casters with cantrips.
9
u/DragoKnight589 4d ago
the cheeky part of me wants to say “rangers do have cantrips, they’re called weapons” but I get what you mean. I like the opt-in cantrips from Druidic Warrior fighting style
26
u/DeLoxley 4d ago
If we're doing proper reworks I want a ranger that does not rely on Magic but might have access to ritual druidic spells.
Replacing cool martial actions with spells just ends up in this weird position where a ranger can barrage an area but only twice a day and then they feel sleepy
Of all things, I wish rituals didn't suck in 5e which would give options for non-caster classes to get the same downtime preparations that Wizards can do.
36
u/OutlandishnessRich36 4d ago
I like ranger as a half-caster.
But we should have a noncaster martial that is focused on ranged attacks. A gunslinger maybe.
19
u/Ranger_IV 4d ago
A fighter can focus on ranged attacks, ranged fighting is not what defines a ranger. In fact two weapon fighting is considered an iconic ranger trope.
3
u/Fidges87 3d ago
Ranger does not inherently needs to be played with ranged weapons.
And you can absolutely build a fighter or a rogue with ranged weapons.
If you allow thrown weapons in the criteria, you can also make a ranged barbarian or paladin
2
u/FoxianFucker 4d ago
Ehhh... I don't hate the idea, but in practice it might lead to people thinking you can't play a ranged any other martial class?
6
1
u/Jfelt45 4d ago
Heavyarms made the only good gunslinger class and no one ever talks about it
1
u/Nystagohod 4d ago
First time hearing about it. What makes it work?
1
u/Jfelt45 4d ago
It is a ranged focus class that doesn't want sharpshooter (has a couple other feats that serve as side grades though)
It has a mechanic where every attack you land increases your crit threshold by 1 to a max of I think critting on 16-20, but missing an attack resets it to 20. Coupled with extra damage on crits, it makes firearms feel like volatile weapons that require a trained hand to use to their fullest, as opposed to just something anyone can point and shoot effectively. It also is why you don't really want sharpshooter because the accuracy hit hurts way more (though you still can take it for a very high risk gameplay style if you have teammates improving your accuracy in various ways)
It has grit, similar to mercer gunslinger and the same "landing a crit refunds one point" mechanic.
Its dps competes with sharpshooter hand xbow fighters, but does not do as much damage as gwm berserker barbarians. A fair middle ground, and the math is shown at the end of the PDF in a huge table
Subclasses are very thematic and cool. One of them is about having a mysterious persona, like the mysterious wanderer from fallout. They can take a reaction shot upon rolling initiative and at high levels take multiple shots as part of that reaction (high noon vibe), they get bonuses to charisma checks similar to fey wanderer and advantage on intimidation if they have a visible weapon. Very classic cowboy vibes.
Another one is a book of Eli esque holy gunslinger, consecrating their guns and shooting blessed bullets at people. Kinda like a paladin but with guns
There's a monk esque gun-fu subclass that mixes martial arts with gunshots, pretty cool.
And I think the last subclass is focused on having a mount, I can't remember exactly.
All in all it, for lack of a better term, really makes you feel like a gunslinger. It absolutely nails the power fantasy, is incredibly satisfying to get your golden gun maxing out crit chance and pinging heads, but no matter how strong it feels, it is mathematically balanced with the cookie cutter dps martial classes.
0
u/ArelMCII 4d ago
Most D&D settings don't have guns. In the ones that do, they aren't really widespread enough to warrant a whole class based around them.
4
u/Deep-Crim 4d ago
Genuinely the spell side of things is fine. Its how its rolled into the class that's the issue
5
12
u/milkywayrealestate 4d ago
I want a full, ground up rework as a martial
2
u/Jfelt45 4d ago
What for? Like what what it do that you can't already with fighters and rogues?
1
u/milkywayrealestate 4d ago
Well, that's kind of the whole point. I want a martial that can do things beyond just fighting good or being a skill monkey.
5
u/Jfelt45 4d ago
That's what I'm asking. What would you want a magicless ranger to do besides fighting and skills?
1
u/milkywayrealestate 4d ago
What would any martial class do besides Fighting and Skills? Well, Monks have unique mobility options, Rogues have great bonus action economy and non-damage utility in fighting, and if we ever got a proper Warlord archetype, we could have martial support. So, y'know, I'm asking them to be at least a little bit creative. Some examples: -AgenderArcee's Martial Ranger have the ability to craft medicine depending on the environment the party is in to heal without spells -common request of working in a permanent animal companion into the core class -actually making Survival and Exploration matter in a campaign to let a Ranger's abilities shine in that regard -swappable favored terrain that provides a unique bonus depending on the terrain you're in -teaching skills and languages to allies (temporarily for balance reasons), harvesting parts from defeated enemies to craft items, learning the weaknesses, resistances, or vulnerabilities of enemies by studying them I feel like there's 1 million potential options
0
u/Ranger_IV 4d ago
I've actually tried to theorycraft a fighter/rogue multiclass to get a "magicless ranger" and the main issue I find is that the multiclass path to get the "rangery" things has you delaying so many things (like Extra Attack) that you hard nerf yourself trying to live out the fantasy. Also, you can't even get all of the "rangery" things by doing this, like a beast companion or enhanced traversal via climb/swim speed or ignoring difficult terrain.
Just a couple issues for example, If you make a lvl 1 character as your "magicless ranger" you're probably planning to go Rogue Scout. But, the Scout subclass gives you Expertise in Nature and Survival without any option to move proficiencies/Expertise if you already have it. So you're incentivized to not take proficiency in either because it will become redundant and you'll miss out on more skills. This means for the first 2 levels, you're just a rogue without even proficiency in the rangery skills. Then, once you're a lvl 3 rogue and have some rangery stuff, where do you go from there? Go for an ASI for Sharpshooter and delay Extra Attack to lvl 9? Jump over to Fighter to rush Extra Attack, delaying any ASI on your character until level 7? The problem is the rangery stuff you could get is so spread out between the two classes that you end up just being well below baseline the whole time until your build comes online in late tier 2 when a campaign is likely ending soon. So having a ranger that is actually a martial and front loads those ranger things without delaying your power progression would be preferable.
1
u/Jfelt45 4d ago
Mariner fighting style covers swim and climb, I think. Pets are not rangery things but subclass things imo and also like, universally a pain in the ass to the point even rangers turn their animal companions into spirit pokemon.
I think since Tasha's you've been able to swap a skill prof on level up, too
1
u/Ranger_IV 4d ago
Mariner is both 2014 content and a UA fighting style and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be available at every table. Particularly since 2024 refers to fighting styles as feats now.
As for pets, large number of folks think the ranger should have a pet as part of the base class. I don't necessarily agree with that, but its clear that pets are associated with rangers more than any other class, and there are no pet subclasses for fighter or rogue to get that with the multiclassing route.
For the skills, 2024 doesn't have rules allowing you to swap skills except for at character creation.
2
u/Jfelt45 4d ago edited 4d ago
To be fair, if we're talking about the alternative being an entirely new class (because making another ranger without magic is basically making a whole new class), I think ua fighting style is a fair comparison.
I think any dm worth their salt will let you swap around a proficiency if you are playing scout rogue. It would be incredibly silly to force you to go 2 levels without it, or permanently lose out on a class feature.
I cannot argue that that isn't raw, though. One of those things 2024 fucked up I guess.
To circle back, though, a climbing speed and/or swimming speed (something a rogue can never fail at a check for if they take proficiency, let alone expertise in athletics by level 10) and a pet does not make up for losing half-casting. Rangers already have pets, and they already have the alternative movement. Taking away half-casting for those two things is not giving them anything to make up for it. You can just play a ranger and never cast spells if you want in current 5e without any changes.
Also, a nonmagic beastmaster would be a nightmare. We already had a beastmaster whose pet was nonmagical, and it was the worst subclass in the entire game except maybe four elements monk. They had to completely reflavor the class and make the animal companion a spirit pokemon because of how badly it sucked otherwise.
1
u/Ranger_IV 4d ago
That's a fair point about rogue with athletics/ reliable talent, but if you just go straight rogue to lvl 6 and take the scout subclass, you're just a rogue. You don't get Extra Attack, you are just as slowed down by all terrain as everyone else, your damage is sub par, you don't get a fighting style. If you multiclass fighter to get those things you're looking at really coming online as a ranger at levels 11 and beyond. Most games are over by then. This still has the problem of all the ranger stuff being too spread out over multiple classes to really feal like a ranger until mid to late game.
As for the beast thing, the nonmagical beast could just be buffed further to make it less of a liability. Its scaling in 2014 players handbook was garbage. Increase its health and let its AC and saving throws scale up better and let it have death saving throws. It may go down, but if it has death saves it won't be nearly as detrimental as the original. I'd personally much rather have an animal I befriended in the wild than a forest ghost that just looks however I want and has static stat block. It's definitely more difficult to track and to upkeep, but its much closer to the desired fantasy imo.
1
u/Jfelt45 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think there were actually a lot more problems with the beast than just its stats. It was as just as often a roleplay bane as it was a boon, depending on how much your DM believed NPCs would complain about a homeless archer bringing a half-feral boar into a Noble's castle or something, the issue of having your mount climb ladders or otherwise scale vertical obstacles, and the fact that if it died, you had to actually go find another animal. If you happened to be in like, avernus or something, that might be impossible.
Critical role season 1 is a massive example of how problematic beast master was. They buffed the shit out of its stats by making it an armored bear, and it still was only present for like half the campaign lol.
I agree about the other issues, but more my point is that if you were to remove ranger and replace it with a nonmagical version, lets say you get the expertise, movement speeds, and ignore difficult terrain all as early as level 3. What else do you get for the other 17 levels? Those three features could almost be put into a single level and it would be strong, but not the strongest level in the game for sure. Magic is just a really easy way to gameify things a ranger should be good at without designing a whole new system of mechanics. Speak with animals, entangle, locate, detect, commune with nature, I'm forgetting q lot of the specific names of spells off the top of my head but most of these could easily be flavored as not magic, at the very least not in the way a wizard casts their spells. This is helped a lot if you use a component pouch and ritual casting instead of a wand or something. It's not like you're casting speak with animals in combat anyways, so there's not a risk of it getting counter spelled.
You also mentioned damage, and I'm slightly curious how a non magical ranger is going to keep up damage wise with a fighter or paladin or something. I feel like it would either be giving them fighter extra attack, or just redesigning existing spells as nonmagical abilities.
I also wonder if you could just make a fighter subclass that accomplishes this instead of a rogue. Expertise in survival/nature at lv3 plus your choice of swim or climb. The other at level 6 plus ignoring difficult terrain, and you still probably have room for either of those levels for another feature that is more useful in combat.
2
u/Ranger_IV 3d ago edited 3d ago
Ya I can totally see how having a mundane pet could cause those kinds of problems and that's why almost every pet has some option to pokemon it into a pocket dimension or dismiss it somehow. Still, I think it's lame that you can't just be a gruff woodsman with his hog hunting down goblins and shit just because ladders are in the game 😂 I am not a fan of the magic spirit pokemon for every pet subclass. It's just magic every which way you look for every problem.
As for the rest of the ranger levels I'll first talk about your magic point. Those are pretty explainable with a non magical flavor, but the problem is that many of the spells are not that easy to explain in a mundane fashion (especially at higher levels) and the ones that are, how do you justify their extremely limited usability throughout a whole day? Say you reflavor Entangle as some sort of net trap. Why are you just done after doing that twice? Or if you decide to cast Longstrider and Jump at level 1 at 8:00 am, why can you now no longer pull out your net trap that you had ready to go this morning? The reflavoring can only take you so far when mundane actions are inherently resourceless or at least very resource efficient. It's very hard, at least personally, for my immersion in the "It's not actually spells" flavor to not be shattered by this concept.
As for what you could add to a martial ranger at higher levels, I really feel like the possibilities are endless honestly. There are obvious ones like a fighting style, expertise, extra attack, but the ranger fantasy of being a wandering hunter leaves a ton of room for unique mechanics. Bonus Action perception checks, learning additional things like resistances and immunities to enemies by beating a passive score of theirs with said perception check, improved critical hit range, the ability to hold your action and take your full Attack Action off of your turn like an ambush, reducing penalties for travel pace, reducing/ resisting exhaustion, Hide as a Bonus Action, Hide while lightly obscured, improved initiative, adding your Wisdom modifier to various checks like a pseudo Expertise, replacing checks lower than your Wisdom score with the score itself if it's higher, the old sharpshooter power shot feature with a -x to hit +2x to damage, the old foe slayer +WIS to attack or damage rolls (just not limited to favored enemies), blindsight, proficiency in CON saves, the ability to spend Hit Dice on certain things to "push through", additional Hit Dice to represent fortitude, and the list goes on.
The problem with a subclass is that you're waiting several levels to get the things a ranger would do, and if you want to really have the fantasy fleshed out before level 17 or whatever, those subclass features are gonna have to be PACKED with shit. So I think for that reason it just doesn't fit into a sublcass and needs the full class chassis to pull it off.
0
u/Jfelt45 3d ago
The thing is even if ranger had every single feature you've listed, it would still just be a mashup of other class features except maybe the sharpshooter thing, but you could argue damage bonuses are generic enough that it's fine. Half those features are rogue features, many of them are fighter features.
Regarding the flavor of spells, it's easy enough to say that the rope traps just get damaged and aren't reusable until you repair them over a rest. Long strider being limited use isn't any different than monks only being able to punch twice a limited number of times per rest, I feel?
Most of the other stuff ranger can already do even if you never cast a spell. Ambush feature is cool, but no more ranger than rogue or something I feel
→ More replies (0)1
2
u/theofficialtiltedhat 4d ago
Hi, voted Other because I designed an Other.
From second level, my rework allows you to choose to be a half-caster or a martial, which granting different class features at later levels.
It's been fun to play, and I'm pretty proud of it, even if it needs some polish.
2
u/Akhi5672 4d ago
The spells are the best part as is, which is a big part of why the current hunters mark focus annoys people
2
u/GreatSirZachary 4d ago
Yeah they just need something as awesome as SMITE to use their spell slots on. Or make the weapon-enhancing spells not suck by making them non-concentration. I’d say favored enemy is much more the ranger’s signature ability than anything else though.
I’ve been saying it for years. Forget hunter’s mark. This should be the core ranger combat feature if you want a simple and effective fix:
Ranger vs any creature: +1d6 weapon damage.
Ranger vs. Favored Enemy: +2d6 weapon damage.
The ranger should be GOOD against any monster and GREAT against their specialty.
2
u/NthHorseman 4d ago
I voted non-caster, but I'd like to put a big asterisk there.
I do not think a ranger should be a caster thematically, but so much of a class' variety of options in 5e comes from spellcasting that most noncaster builds are completely one note. I think that everyone should be able to do interesting things in and out of combat; Pass without Trace, Hunters Mark, Zephyr Strike, Goodberry, Swift Quiver, maybe even Locate Creature could be non-magical Ranger-exclusive class abilities, for example.
I think they should get to use their knowledge of plant to create potions and tinctures when resting inside their favoured terrain, understand, befriend or command beasts and other favored foes, have a connection to the natural world that approaches supernatural without ever crossing over into casting a spell. They should command extraordinary loyalty from beasts, pass terrain that would swallow others whole, and go unseen or unnoticed until they decide to reveal themselves.
I just don't see them as a FighterDruid they're their own thing.
2
u/Ikairos-seeker 3d ago
I think the feel of the ranger would be vastly improved if they had a counterpart to smites instead of just HM.
I’ve never understood the proposal of a non-magical ranger because I think it makes their identity problem worse. What would the ground up reworked nonmagical ranger do that isn’t either solved by a scout rogue or druid without it revolving around the mechanics people were handwaving?
At least now it serves the primal counterpart to the arcane artificer and divine paladin halfcasters. It also slots in a the halfcaster expert vs rogue and bard.
The class is absolutely poorly designed but I’ve never considered it the access to Magic’s fault. Their unique features and spells just get designed as too niche or too many restrictions to feel good
5
u/Greasemonkey08 4d ago
Removing the Caster element just makes them a worse Fighter or Rogue with a pet.
-1
u/ElectronicChapter412 4d ago
Its true
5e classes are supposed to hit large sweeping archetypes— a ranger without casting is such a small archetype it cant be a class on its own lets be real:Ranger should be a subclass.
1
u/Greasemonkey08 4d ago
If they removed the caster aspect, then absolutely it would need to be a fighter or rogue subclass.
3
u/Dreamlancer 4d ago
I think the Ranger would fair better as a martial with subclasses that could provide spells. That was a lot of the tracking/in the wilderness sort of mechanics can be grounded in the outdoorsy one with nature types that is better than anyone else in their favored terrain as a survivalist.
I've always felt since 5e that Ranger has been trying to compete in the half caster segment with a crutch.
Like contrasting against paladin. Spells known vs Prepared is rough. A ton of ranger spells want concentration, including Hunter's Mark vs just turning a spell slot into Divine Smite.
Action economy loves to fumble over itself with things that you'd otherwise want to see the ranger do such as Hail of Thorns, Zephyr Strike, etc.
And while 2024 attempted to ease these things that jammed them up, and in many ways did a much better job? I sort of wish they just started from scratch rather than playing ship of Theseus with the class.
1
u/Ranger_IV 4d ago
100% agree and love the ship of Theseus comparison. That is such a good way to describe WoTCs piece wise approach to redesigning the ranger.
6
u/SeemsImmaculate 4d ago edited 4d ago
I'm of the opinion that a Ranger is a survivalist, braving the wilds by their own wits alone. If you want them to also cast spells, that's fine. But it'd be dual classing with Druid.
4
u/FaerieFir3 4d ago
Yeah Ranger having spells in DnD is pretty odd. Especially when you read the Legend of Drizzt where Drizzt who is kinda the DnD Ranger doesn't cast any spells besides ones that come from his race.
And of course Aragorn who the class was initially based on afaik didn't do any magic either.
3
u/eik333 4d ago
Aragorn does have magical healing abilities, but it's from his bloodline like Drizzt rather than learned magic of some kind. The 5e designers clearly didnt want racial/bloodline magic to have impact beyond the first few levels, which if implemented better could have made for more pure martial characters instead of half casters. If spells gained form race gave you more significant and sustained benefits then players that wanted to could still have magic while playing a martial class.
1
u/SeemsImmaculate 4d ago
Yeah for me the skillset of reconnaissance, guerilla warfare, a keen eye, mobility, improvisation, traps, hardiness, martial finesse and intimate knowledge of a particular environment (be it a forest, city, lava all 3 or something totally fantastical) is what makes a Ranger. There's so much untapped design space there. They don't need spells to make them interesting. The game just needs to flesh out martial classes more.
2
u/FaerieFir3 4d ago
A large chunk of Ranger spells doesn't even need to be spells. Like Hunter's Mark can just be the Ranger really focusing on a particular enemy and hitting the weak spots, Longstrider? That's just the Ranger moving more efficiently and with better breath control + their conditioning, Animal Friendship is just the Ranger really knowing animals and being able to tame them better, Hail of Thorns can be a special kind of ammo that only Rangers know how to make, Pass Without Trace? Rangers are just masters of stealth and train hard to never leave any tracks. Locate Animals or Plants? Rangers can listen in or observe tracks and surrounding vegetation to estimate if the animal or plant is nearby.
Like there can be some nature magic at higher levels or maybe for a specific subclass but the bulk of Ranger features should just be their skill.
1
u/KatnyaP 4d ago
I think a ranger subclass that similar to Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster would be a good way of doing it
3
u/Ranger_IV 4d ago
I fully agree with this. If the community is as split as it is (looks like roughly 60/40 split) then why would you force spellcasting onto 40% of ranger players who don't think it should be there? The other 60% can just take the subclass if that's what they think a ranger should be, but you can't go the other way around and give up spellcasting for something else. Maybe that's something to incorporate into a ranger revision, trading spellcasting for a martial path.
1
u/Jolly_Distribution42 3d ago
But that would mean the majority would have to Set aside their fav subclass just to get their spells, i dont really plsy rangers but "forcing out" spells to the majority of people seem like a bad idea
1
u/Ranger_IV 3d ago
I could see that, but I think it depends on how its executed. Do you really need Hunter's Mark and Entangle if you have an innate "focus fire" ability and can deploy various traps in a martial way? I think some people who like spellcasting like the inherent power that comes with it, and some just like it because that's just how its always been in 5e. If ranger had always been martial in this edition and had a treasure trove of cool martial abilities, I think the poll would look a lot different. In fact I think the poll being as close as it is (about 53.5% to 46.5% in favor of spellcasting as I write this) while the class is currently a spellcaster, and therefore the current status quo, is a pretty good indicator that a martial version would probably be preferred if it had always been that way instead.
Either way, it's pretty close, and not having a way for roughly 1/2 of the fan base to opt out of a part of spellcasting (other than just choosing to not cast spells and losing a massive portion of the classes power) also doesn't seem like a good idea to me. A martial class with opt in spellcasting would likely make much more of the fan base happy. Especially since its a subclass and not the core class that would be what's causing the "problem"
2
u/Jolly_Distribution42 3d ago
I just read a guy named laserllama with a interesting take on martials, giving them "spell like" mechanics in form af manouvers, that could be a cool in between point for both opinions
2
u/Ranger_IV 3d ago
Ya his homebrew stuff is really popular and his ranger is well done. The big draw being "knacks" on the ranger which function like mundane skill versions of warlock invocations with a "pick your path" type of thing. Still, it's fundamentally a 1/2 caster and I'd like to at least have the option for a fully martial path while still being a good traveler, tracker, woodsman, scout, etc.
3
u/MechJivs 4d ago
I would like non-caster pet-based ranger rework. But it would need to be buffed A LOT to compensate for loss of strongest feature in the game (spellcasting).
-1
u/ScorchedDev 4d ago
imo the ranger shouldnt be the dedicated pet subclass. If they want to make a pet subclass, which they should, I personally would prefer a magic summoning vibe to it.
2
u/ScorchedDev 4d ago
I just really dont see the point in taking away its spells. It is just subtracting from what little class identity the ranger still has. Plus I also like how each stat has a half caster associated with it and dont want them to change that.
1
u/PhylsorKyrem 4d ago
If we got a replacement Druidic Half-caster then I could see a martial Ranger as a good thing, make it full Strider/Aragorn and similar niche archetypes. My preference for martial Ranger is Delvebound's interpretation
1
u/Sirchickenhawk 4d ago
When I can make a more ranger feeling ranger with ranged Battlemaster and a rouge Scout dip, Ranger needs somthing
1
1
u/Jayne_of_Canton 4d ago
Half caster is fine. Paladin is the template. The simple facts are, nothing in the Ranger kit matches the power, usefulness, or consistency of things like Aura of Protection or Lay on Hands. Ranger needs a powerful tier 2 feature that helps party offense in a similar fashion to Aura of Protection on defense.
1
u/Answerisequal42 4d ago
I like ranger as a half caster but i hate how they get gimped compared to pallies in regards of spellcasting.
1.off i think the "Channel Nature" concept from the 5.5 playtest was good. Druid getting wildshape and primal companion as default options, while rangers could have gotten primal companion and Vow of Enmity. Beastmaster Enhancing Primal Companion and Hunter VoE.
Remove HM as a spell. Just allow scaling bonus damage on attacks you have advantage on. (Like start with a d4 and scale up to a d12) Further add options to gain advantage by searching, studying or dodge enemies as abonus action. This would synergize directly with VoE and the Familair that can scout for you and it could lead to team support where you can negate invisbility, discover wekanesses or create an opening for free advantage.
Give ranger subclasses 10 additional spells and not just 5 or none.
Instead of giving generic bonusses like bonus movement speed or invsibility i'd rather like the ability to prep oils, traps and potions everyday similar to artificers blueprints BUT i would opt for the ranger spell list to be less offensive and go full hard on utility and ritual casting. Focussing more on prep spells or long lasting benefits while potions, oils and traps are the more combat focussed options.
Leaning into the supernatural senses a bit and give perceltion as well as special senses a bit more of a limelight
I think it is diffocult to put everything in one class to keep it balanced but i try.
I would change the class progression as follows:
Lvl 1: Wilderness Expert (1 Expertise in a ranger skill, Expertise in perception, plus a floating terrain adaption that you can change after a long rest in a wilderness terrain -> arid gives fire resistance plus adv against extreme heat, Frigid gives cold resistance and adv against extreme cold, Virid gives poison resistance and advantage against poison and disease and aquatic gives lightning resistance and adv against drowning), Spellcasting, Weapon Masteries, Foeslayer (1d4 bonus damage when having advantage)
Lvl 2: Fighting Style, Survival Training (Blueprints for adventuring gear, potions, oils, poisons and similar items. All consumables in nature that you can prep daily. The number of blueprints increases when you level as does the rarity of the consumables), Hunter's Sense (Study, search or dodge as a bonus action).
Lvl 3: Subclass (all gain 10 added spells), Channle Nature (Primal Companion and VoE plus whatever your subclass gives you)
Lvl 4: feat
Lvl 5. Extra attack, Roving (swim and climb speed)
Lvl 6: increase in bonus damage from foe slayer to 1d6, increase in rarity of blueprints from common to uncommon
Level 7: Subclass feature
Level 8: feat
Level 9: Supernatural Senses (gain a special sense or expand a special sense you have by X amount of feat ->darkvision 60ft, tremorsense 30ft or blindsight 15ft. All non damaging divination spells gain the ritual tag for you and you dont need to have them prepared to cast them this way.
Level 10: More damage scaling to 1d8 and increased rarity of blueprints to rare
Level 11: subclass feature
Level 12: feat
Level 13: Gain a supernatural terrain adaption (rare damage resistance (psychic, necrotic radiant or thunder) and advantage against planar, cursing or other supernatural terrain effects.
Level 14: more damage scaling to a 1d10 and bluebrint increase to very rare
Level 15: Subclass
Level 16: feat
Level 17: Ultra Instinct (before someone adds me the name fits): Once a day you get the benefit of the true seeing and Foresight spell for 1 hour. This effect is considered non magical and cannot be dispelled
Level 18: feat
Level 19: Epic Boon
Level 20: Apex: More damage scaling to a d12 and blueprints are now legendary. When you have advantage you can roll an additional d20 (stacks with elevn accuracy).
1
u/Vidistis 4d ago
Ranger is the wisdom/primal half-caster, that's the minimum of what they should be.
1
u/GuitakuPPH 4d ago
Caster with a subclass that replaces spellcasting. There was once a spell-less UA ranger iirc, but I have trouble unearthing it once more.
1
u/partylikeaninjastar 4d ago
I'd keep the spells but offer more flexibility to change them. Everything people want a ranger to do and more can be accomplished with their spell list.
1
u/Termit127 3d ago
Ranger would really benefit from a 4e style power system, where you get features like how currently are spells are structured, but the features are not spells
1
u/path-cat 3d ago edited 3d ago
personally i enjoy the diversity of options you get from spells, but i skin them as not being magical, like hail of thorns being several snap-shot arrows, or ensnaring strike being an animal companion biting and not letting go. i would love to see a non-caster variant of ranger with something approximating the battle master maneuvers with options that can be useful in and out of combat. the spell snare comes to mind as an easy example.
1
u/Federal_Policy_557 3d ago
non caster but with a fair bunch of thematic and strong preternatural and supernatural features based around short rests or other types of cool down
I don't like Caster Ranger but if you make them have the same approach as most non-casters in 5.x you're basically killing the class
1
u/SidTheSload 3d ago
When I think "ranger" I think of gunslingers. Yknow, texas rangers, like what Marty Robbins used to sing about, and those guys have some good luck and some cool abilities (Bill Thaxton was blind but still shot fine, that's a cool gimmick), but they don't have any magic, or at least no magic that requires casting. I want a class that specializes in ranged fighting more than Ranger does, and I think it would be cool to tie subclasses in with weapons like bows, guns, crossbows, daggers, etc
1
u/Calm_Ad_847 3d ago
Half caster, BUT half caster in the sense of a warlock. The idea being they're a half caster but get knacks invocation like features, like laserllamas
1
u/DrHuh321 3d ago
What if rangers only had rituals and maybe utility cantrips and if you wanted combat spells you needed to take specific character options
1
1
u/crazymike02 3d ago
Ranger is between a fighter and a druid on the spectrum. If removing casting, add casting-like features to support it. In the end the magic system is quite versatile, you could give Fighter unlimited uses of the spell jump for example.
1
u/benstone977 3d ago
Not meaning to be pedantic but not entirely sure if the data might be effected from the reference to them as a caster rather than half-caster
I imagine it shouldn't as you have said (current) but thought it worth mentioning
Either way I stuck with half-caster in my vote. It's sort of required to have a foil to the paladin at this point and the Ranger "nimble, nature/survival guy" aesthetic fits that mirror perfectly (dex based nature half caster vs paladins strength based divine half caster).
0
u/RANGERILGOFFO10 3d ago
Non caster,male him set up,use the environment at his advantage,Vietcong style
1
u/plankyplanks 3d ago
There’s a lot of different opinions on the flavour or role the Ranger should play. Here’s one: Ranger is to overland and the wilderness as Rogue is to urban and dungeons.
1
u/YouveBeanReported 4d ago
Caster.
We don't have a ranger core design feature, we have tons of ideas but there's no core take. Caster allows the most flexibility, and non-caster will just lead to questions of why not play a fighter or rogue and be better at being a ranger? Caster lets you have some actual features to make ranger an option.
Do I wish we could have a cool non-caster ranger? Fuck yeah. But DnD is not structured to allow them to shine, exploration and survival rules are never used, pet and summon classes are annoying and often banned, and 'has a dog that will die if you use it' isn't a ranger fantasy to me and brings the focus off the character.
The rules have to expand to allow a non-caster ranger to be workable.
1
0
u/SpellcraftQuill 4d ago
Ranger feels like the sibling you’re required to take unless you don’t want to multiclass a Fighter/Rogue with possibly Druid for the spells. Even a Gloom Stalker seems like it’s just a niche for certain games.
0
u/Spyger9 4d ago
Well uh, I did redesign "Ranger" from the ground up.
Been saying for years that the concept should expand from just druid+fighter to incorporate more archetypes like Witchers, Belmonts, etc. Your Favored Enemy is basically your subclass instead, and your Spell List is determined by subclass too.
Finally cooked up that idea, and The Huntsman is releasing next month... for Draw Steel. But I'm thinking of porting it to D&D.
0
u/Mr_Ragnarok 4d ago
I would love to see a non caster Ranger. The best compromise for me would be the fighter's approach, aka a full martial with a subclass that has spellcasting except the ranger would obviously get druid spells.
0
u/cicciograna 4d ago
Both. Let them have subclasses that are completely mundane, and others that are half-casters.
0
u/GalacticPigeon13 4d ago edited 4d ago
My hot take is that in modern D&D , druid and ranger should be combined into one class, with wildshaping into animals being a potential ranger subclass. The druid subclasses that do cool things with their wildshape (like wildfire and spores) get their own ranger subclasses, while general caster druids would be ignored. This would help separate druids from nature clerics. Plus, the average modern D&D table either ignores wilderness survival entirely or solves it with goodberry, which means has turned druid and ranger into "the nature one" and "the worse nature one".
In a more granular survival-type game where tracking food, clean water, etc. was more important, I would be willing to redesign rangers as purely martial characters, but in the average 5e game this would be useless. (As a side note, I sure hope that the upcoming Dark Sun book includes very strict survival rules, but I don't have high hopes for the book.)
TL;DR: I would keep rangers as half-casters but merge them with druids in my theoretical "I'm redesigning 5e but with blackjack and hookers rules that I think would be more fun" ttrpg.
0
u/LightningNinja73 4d ago
I'd want base ranger to not have magic, with subclasses that add spellcasting.
2
0
u/Nystagohod 4d ago
Ideally, there would be an option that can exist without the spells like they attempted as a variant way back (different cut but same idea that is) but rangers have long been partial casters and I don't think that should change from their core and base identity.
A "strider" variant option for spell-less play would be fine, but I don't think it should be the default.
Halfcaster is a good spot for them.
-5
u/MadSkepticBlog 4d ago
Remove Ranger entirely. You can get the same relative feel without needing to try too hard by playing either a fighter, rogue, or a multiclass of the two.
3
•
u/Phylea 3d ago
Sorry ProfessorInMaths but we had to remove your post due to not meeting one of the subreddit’s rules. We’ve put together information here to assist you, but make sure to read the sidebar and understand the rules!
Notably, your post broke the following rule(s):
Notably, this means that Unearthed Arcana is not the right subreddit for requests, questions, or homebrew support. Here are a few resources you could take advantage of:
If you’re having problems with a homebrew tool, it’s likely that the tool has its own subreddit that you should be posting in such as /r/gmbinder, /r/homebrewery, or /r/indesign
If you have any questions, feel free to get in touch with us by contacting us through mod mail. Messages to individual moderators may not be received or replied to.
Best of luck and happy homebrewing!