I probably would have made the Ranger the third Expert class. Maybe not have the Expertise feature, per say, but you specialize in surviving in the wilderness, and knowing things about certain kinds of monsters. That's basically the Survival skill, or identifying monsters with Nature/Religion/Arcana. Rather than picking specific types of monsters or terrain, you get bonuses to identifying any of them. Maybe some History checks to understand some "monster languages" such as orc or sylvan. The big issue here is just that I hate having to pick specific monsters or specific terrain, I prefer generalized abilities.
Fix the bow spells up a bit. They're vastly underpowered for the level you get them at and what they're supposed to do, and there's so few of them - compare to the variety of smite spells the paladin gets. I'd like to see more tricks and wilderness traps too.
Oh, and of course, fix the beastmaster subclass.
I do like the idea of tweaking the arrow spells. I'm surprised they didn't just create a generic Elemental Arrow shot that has certain side effects based on the element you choose.
How would you make favored enemy more generalize?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
I would do a little nerfing of the UA Ranger favored enemy but keep the categories.
REPLACE: ...gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with weapon attacks against creatures of the chosen type.
WITH: ...gain a +1 bonus to attach rolls with weapon attacks against creatures of the chosen type. (Greater Favored doubles this to +2, same additional categories as UA Ranger)
Then give the Ranger a spell that is NOT concentration that gives 1 minute of +1 bonus to damage rolls with weapon attacks against favored enemy and +1 bonus on saving throws against favored enemy. At higher level spell slots you up the bonus. This would at least cost actions or bonus actions and spell slots rather than a flat feature. Nice thing is that it would only be used when favored enemy is upon you. Still believe we need something close to the expanded list of favored enemy categories in the UA Ranger rather than the EXTREMELY limited PHB categories.
The +2 bonus to damage rolls and +4 with Greater Favored are a little over powered at lower levels but at higher levels they don't really signify. I don't have a problem incrementing the bonus by +1 per spell slot in my slow starting Ranger Spell in the higher level spell slots. Should make them interesting. Also you could make this a second level Ranger attribute instead of a special ranger spell by saying a Ranger can use an action (or bonus action?) and a spell slot etc... etc...
Ok after thinking this through here are my additions/changes to the UA Ranger Favored and Greater Favored enemy.
Small change for Favored Enemy Like I said before: Change: +2 bonus to damage rolls -with- +1 bonus to saving throws
Small change for Greater Favored Enemy: Change: damage rolls ... increases to +4 -with- saving throws ... are all increased to +1
Then add a second level feature (along with fighting style) that says:
Along with your ability to cast spells the ranger is able to gain special focus when favored enemy is present if he desires. Expend one action or bonus action along with one unused spell slot to gain + (spell slot level) to damage rolls against favored enemies. The effect lasts 1 minute.
What do you think? Mostly spitballing here. Fun to think about.
By making it about the skills you choose, rather than picking types directly. Its like... hmmm. Dwarves and gnomes get bonuses to roll History to identidy ruins or magic items, respectively. I would model off those two abilities, making it all about skill checks.
By making it about the skills you choose, rather than picking types directly. Its like... hmmm. Dwarves and gnomes get bonuses to roll History to identidy ruins or magic items, respectively. I would model off those two abilities, making it all about skill checks.
This sounds interesting. What would that look like for Rangers in general without stepping on the toes of Dwarf and Gnome racial abilities? Here's something I imagined:
1) You gain proficiency in the Survival skill. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses Survival.
2) When you make an ability check to identify and recall lore about a race or type of creature, you can add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, if that ability check doesn’t already include your proficiency bonus.
Is this what you also imagined?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
Decided that I won't redesign the Ranger, and instead I will actually build campaigns that are Ranger-oriented and cater to the Ranger's build and unique skillsets.
For example, I want to start a campaign in the Moonsea region where there are cities with neighboring coastlines, forests, and mountains. The ranger(s) could start on the coast for a series of adventures that provide Levels 1-5, while moving to the mountains Levels 6-10, and finally on to the forest (but then crossing between all 3 on occasion). Perception and Investigation checks would be extremely-arduous for these areas, gifting the Ranger powerful end-mission successes that include more than just wealth and magical items. After all, tracking down people and things in hard-to find, dangerous areas deserves extra rewards.
That is certainly gracious of you as DM. I imagine that any Rangers who join will highly enjoy having their core features put to use regularly. I also imagine that party members will certainly like having their Ranger shine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
After playing the UA Ranger for a while I have a few observations. First I must say that my understanding of the rules was incorrect when I assumed that I could cast spells with the additional 'attacks' generated level 5 and with deep stalker conclave level 3 (first turn of combat only.) Now that I understand the rules that differentiate a spell casting action vs an attach action I have come to appreciate that the UA Ranger really is not as over-powered as I believed. Here are my thoughts:
Natural Explorer should remain as UA Ranger is defined. Yes there is a temptation to multi-class but multi-classing is expensive and the rogue and fighter among others are still super multi-class powers that meet or exceed these options for the new ranger.
Primal Awareness the only change here is the one favored enemy choice of humanoid is still too broad. That allows this and the favored enemy itself to be too powerful. Still considering alternatives (like stack two different classifications of humanoids would be my first choice, limiting this power.)
Favored enemy. Limit the humanoid options as described in #2 and then make the added damage for favored enemy and greater favored to +1 and +2 and then add a +1 to ability checks and saving throws on favored enemies spells and abilities.
That would be my limitations. The rest give needed flavor to Ranger and make it interesting and playable. My DMs are not seeing these as problems and we are having a great time with the new characters. I'll share more as time goes on.
I appreciate you sharing your experiences and insights with the Ranger. I frequently observe people express that Favored Enemy should provide some type of combat boost for Rangers. SPecifically, boost damage and saving throw rolls aganst Favored Enemies.
I think you were the first to specifically address Humanoids as a Favored Enemy. From what I have read on this website the CR ratings for Humanoids tops off before players would reach level 14. I do like that in the Player's Handbook, you pick 2 types of Humanoids. With other creatures, you pick that creature type once and that is it. Can players select Humanoid as a Favored Enemy at multiple levels?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
I kind of like humanoids being a single category. Far too often, I've run into issues where I've seen the ranger denied their CR bonus because the enemy being tracked were, say, goblinoids or dark elves instead of orcs or humans. The stereotypical orc armies actually include a wide variety of different creature types in them; orcs are surprisingly cosmopolitan and welcoming in their ranks for anyone interested in joining in on their raids. And its not like there's a ton of ways that sapient, bipedal tool users can move through the wilderness between themselves - they all move roughly the same way.
I kind of like humanoids being a single category. Far too often, I've run into issues where I've seen the ranger denied their CR bonus because the enemy being tracked were, say, goblinoids or dark elves instead of orcs or humans. The stereotypical orc armies actually include a wide variety of different creature types in them; orcs are surprisingly cosmopolitan and welcoming in their ranks for anyone interested in joining in on their raids. And its not like there's a ton of ways that sapient, bipedal tool users can move through the wilderness between themselves - they all move roughly the same way.
That's a pretty solid point, yeah. That is something that holds 'em back for sure. With so many humanoids, picking two is kind of like a toss up. The UA version though to me feels like maybe just a tiny bit much with +2 damage to every single humanoid on hit. It's not the most busted thing I ever heard of, but still.
Ok what if, not the damage, but saying "I like to hunt humanoids," gave you more humanoid options like 3 or 4? Or what if, pick two humanoid types, and they cover subraces (eg. you pick elf and drow would count for that)?
Well, even with that, that's still a very wide range of possibilities for humanoids. Off the top of my head, that's human, tieflings, orc, elf (drow), goblin (includes hobgoblin and bugbears?), kobalds, lizard folk, gnolls. I can also think of grey dwarves, yuan-ti and dragonborn, but they are more uncommon. Anyways, so off the top of my head, that's at least eight humanoids that you can regularly expect to show up in just about any D&D game, and that's just off the top of my head. Meanwhile, in Princes of the Apocalypse? A quick glance at the monster section has me looking at humans, elves, tieflings, sahuagin, halflings, dwarves, and genasi, and that's before we get into the elementals. I will freely admit that the overwhelming majority are humans, but the fact that there is variety makes it pain in the arse to keep track of in the middle of combat.
Which brings me to another also like to point out a bit of a quirk with the monster entries in the game. Most of the time, these entries don't specify race - in fact, it specifically says "any race" in the MM. Its easy to assume human for these entries, but that's not necessarily true, and it brings us to the next question - how much do we really WANT in the way of granularity here? Do we really need, or want, to specify that a knight is a half-elf, a half-orc, a regular human, or some other humanoid race? And where do half-elf and half-orcs fall in terms of favored enemies anyways?
I mean, its cool and all to say that you want to specialize in hunting goblins and orcs, or you're an elf with a grudge against the drow. And if those races are a major focus of your campaign, then awesome. But if we're dealing with a story that's NOT humanoid based? Out of the Abyss takes you on a winding trapeze through the Underdark, and you run into frog people, drow, grey dwarves, undead mind flayers, demons, mushrooms, oozes and more. There's a very wide variety of antagonists that you meet that have nothing to do with actual fiends, and they're pretty episodic - one session with the grey dwarves, one session going through a fallen temple with some of the oozes and ropers, and then a session with the underground mushroom people, then the session with the gnoll pack, etc. The drow are pretty sustained as a long term antagonist, but only in dribbles; when you get to the main drow city, you also have to worry about the non-drow slaves as potential antagonists. Having to pick specific humanoids in this kind of game would be, in my opinion? Kinda silly and very easy to just forget about. Even after running the game, I'm not really sure what I'd suggest to a ranger for their favored enemies using the core class beyond fiends, and the UA ranger can't even take fiends as an option.
When I spoke of two humanoid groups I was not talking about choosing two from the list of humanoid subgroups. I was talking about splitting humanoids into two groups total. Like goblin/orc type humanoids and all other humanoids. Something like that. Then you would either choose one of those groups or one of the other groups listed in the UA Ranger.
Well, even with that, that's still a very wide range of possibilities for humanoids. Off the top of my head, that's human, tieflings, orc, elf (drow), goblin (includes hobgoblin and bugbears?), kobalds, lizard folk, gnolls. I can also think of grey dwarves, yuan-ti and dragonborn, but they are more uncommon. Anyways, so off the top of my head, that's at least eight humanoids that you can regularly expect to show up in just about any D&D game, and that's just off the top of my head. Meanwhile, in Princes of the Apocalypse? A quick glance at the monster section has me looking at humans, elves, tieflings, sahuagin, halflings, dwarves, and genasi, and that's before we get into the elementals. I will freely admit that the overwhelming majority are humans, but the fact that there is variety makes it pain in the arse to keep track of in the middle of combat.
Which brings me to another also like to point out a bit of a quirk with the monster entries in the game. Most of the time, these entries don't specify race - in fact, it specifically says "any race" in the MM. Its easy to assume human for these entries, but that's not necessarily true, and it brings us to the next question - how much do we really WANT in the way of granularity here? Do we really need, or want, to specify that a knight is a half-elf, a half-orc, a regular human, or some other humanoid race? And where do half-elf and half-orcs fall in terms of favored enemies anyways?
I mean, its cool and all to say that you want to specialize in hunting goblins and orcs, or you're an elf with a grudge against the drow. And if those races are a major focus of your campaign, then awesome. But if we're dealing with a story that's NOT humanoid based? Out of the Abyss takes you on a winding trapeze through the Underdark, and you run into frog people, drow, grey dwarves, undead mind flayers, demons, mushrooms, oozes and more. There's a very wide variety of antagonists that you meet that have nothing to do with actual fiends, and they're pretty episodic - one session with the grey dwarves, one session going through a fallen temple with some of the oozes and ropers, and then a session with the underground mushroom people, then the session with the gnoll pack, etc. The drow are pretty sustained as a long term antagonist, but only in dribbles; when you get to the main drow city, you also have to worry about the non-drow slaves as potential antagonists. Having to pick specific humanoids in this kind of game would be, in my opinion? Kinda silly and very easy to just forget about. Even after running the game, I'm not really sure what I'd suggest to a ranger for their favored enemies using the core class beyond fiends, and the UA ranger can't even take fiends as an option.
That was some intense but very insightful thoughts. I never fully realized how limiting Favored Enemy humanoid could be. On the flip side, it still seems like not picking any humanoids would lead to the Favored Enemy feat to not be used at all. You really would have to know ahead of time which creatures are worth pick for your campaign. Additionally, you also kind of need to know when they are worth picking. "Do I pick mind flayers at level 1 or should I wait until level 6?" is a question I can easily imagine somebody asking thmselves as they design their Ranger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
Fix the bow spells up a bit. They're vastly underpowered for the level you get them at and what they're supposed to do, and there's so few of them - compare to the variety of smite spells the paladin gets. I'd like to see more tricks and wilderness traps too.
More melee, weapon attack spells would be a very welcome addition in my mind. There really aren't that interesting spells that go well in that vein if you're going in as a Ranger.
That was some intense but very insightful thoughts. I never fully realized how limiting Favored Enemy humanoid could be. On the flip side, it still seems like not picking any humanoids would lead to the Favored Enemy feat to not be used at all. You really would have to know ahead of time which creatures are worth pick for your campaign. Additionally, you also kind of need to know when they are worth picking. "Do I pick mind flayers at level 1 or should I wait until level 6?" is a question I can easily imagine somebody asking themselves as they design their Ranger.
Its even a bit worse than that. You see, the later levels of Favored Enemy are supposed to be ones you've already encountered over the course of the story. Granted, its easily possible to go around that restriction, but many people will feel that such a thing should be followed. So, if you're playing Lost Mines of Ph***, and then switch to a new story after that one is done, one that the GM hadn't really thought ahead about, then picking "mind flayer" for your new favored enemy, when there's no encounter, no reason to suspect them from an in character perspective, is a bit odd. That's actually one of the main reasons why the core book Favored Enemy feature isn't a combat ability. All it did was give you ability to know things about specific monsters - handy, fun, but not a large impact on any of the three pillars. Having a specialty of "elementals" would likely be enough to cover any information about the Elemental Evils and the cults, and still have full use of your ability, and not waste anything, while at the same time not bogging anything down with extra calculations.
Its even a bit worse than that. You see, the later levels of Favored Enemy are supposed to be ones you've already encountered over the course of the story. Granted, its easily possible to go around that restriction, but many people will feel that such a thing should be followed. So, if you're playing Lost Mines of Ph***, and then switch to a new story after that one is done, one that the GM hadn't really thought ahead about, then picking "mind flayer" for your new favored enemy, when there's no encounter, no reason to suspect them from an in character perspective, is a bit odd. That's actually one of the main reasons why the core book Favored Enemy feature isn't a combat ability. All it did was give you ability to know things about specific monsters - handy, fun, but not a large impact on any of the three pillars. Having a specialty of "elementals" would likely be enough to cover any information about the Elemental Evils and the cults, and still have full use of your ability, and not waste anything, while at the same time not bogging anything down with extra calculations.
Do you see the same general applicability in selecting dragons, fiends, giants, and monstrosities as you do with selecting elementals?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
Do you see the same general applicability in selecting dragons, fiends, giants, and monstrosities as you do with selecting elementals?
Sort of? I mean, its kinda silly, imho, to have no information on kobolds or Cult of the Dragon if you specialize in knowing things about dragons. The kobolds are especially important, since so many dragons have them around, and then the kobolds build traps in the dragon lairs. Definitely related and consistently portrayed as such across different books.
On the other hand, fiend is a very, very broad category, mostly because many demon lords also serve as pseudo-gods for drow, gnolls, minotaurs, aboliths, oozes, fungi, and more. And monstrosities... really shouldn't be a favored enemy option, because its nothing more than a catch-all for monsters that don't fit anywhere else; owlbears, yuan-ti, and sphinxes don't really have anything in common other than having animal features, which is true of most monsters.
I like the UA Ranger, but I substitute the original Ranger's favored terrain rules. I also drop the "You can't become lost" feature of it, because I don't really like "you always succeed" type rules. Practically, with double proficiency bonus, the Ranger shouldn't be getting lost except in exceptional circumstances anyway.
My main complaint with the current Ranger (PHB or UA) is that they do not feel unique or special. Most of what a Ranger can do a Fighter, Paladin or Rogue can do better. And some of what a Ranger can do is very specialized. No other class has to fight a specific type of creature or be in a specific environment to use some of their abilities.
What do I want to see in a Ranger re-design?
A unique combat mechanic of some sort on par with smite or sneak attack (but different)
Special abilities that don't require a Ranger to be in a specific environment to use. Bear Grylls can survive in multiple environments so why can't the Ranger?
A suite of special abilities related to tracking. No one should be able to escape a high level Ranger for long.
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
How would you make favored enemy more generalize?
I would do a little nerfing of the UA Ranger favored enemy but keep the categories.
REPLACE: ...gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with weapon attacks against creatures of the chosen type.
WITH: ...gain a +1 bonus to attach rolls with weapon attacks against creatures of the chosen type. (Greater Favored doubles this to +2, same additional categories as UA Ranger)
Then give the Ranger a spell that is NOT concentration that gives 1 minute of +1 bonus to damage rolls with weapon attacks against favored enemy and +1 bonus on saving throws against favored enemy. At higher level spell slots you up the bonus.
This would at least cost actions or bonus actions and spell slots rather than a flat feature. Nice thing is that it would only be used when favored enemy is upon you.
Still believe we need something close to the expanded list of favored enemy categories in the UA Ranger rather than the EXTREMELY limited PHB categories.
The +2 bonus to damage rolls and +4 with Greater Favored are a little over powered at lower levels but at higher levels they don't really signify. I don't have a problem incrementing the bonus by +1 per spell slot in my slow starting Ranger Spell in the higher level spell slots. Should make them interesting. Also you could make this a second level Ranger attribute instead of a special ranger spell by saying a Ranger can use an action (or bonus action?) and a spell slot etc... etc...
Lot's of stuff ...
Change: +2 bonus to damage rolls
-with- +1 bonus to saving throws
Change: damage rolls ... increases to +4
-with- saving throws ... are all increased to +1
Lot's of stuff ...
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
Decided that I won't redesign the Ranger, and instead I will actually build campaigns that are Ranger-oriented and cater to the Ranger's build and unique skillsets.
For example, I want to start a campaign in the Moonsea region where there are cities with neighboring coastlines, forests, and mountains. The ranger(s) could start on the coast for a series of adventures that provide Levels 1-5, while moving to the mountains Levels 6-10, and finally on to the forest (but then crossing between all 3 on occasion). Perception and Investigation checks would be extremely-arduous for these areas, gifting the Ranger powerful end-mission successes that include more than just wealth and magical items. After all, tracking down people and things in hard-to find, dangerous areas deserves extra rewards.
That is certainly gracious of you as DM. I imagine that any Rangers who join will highly enjoy having their core features put to use regularly. I also imagine that party members will certainly like having their Ranger shine.
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
After playing the UA Ranger for a while I have a few observations. First I must say that my understanding of the rules was incorrect when I assumed that I could cast spells with the additional 'attacks' generated level 5 and with deep stalker conclave level 3 (first turn of combat only.) Now that I understand the rules that differentiate a spell casting action vs an attach action I have come to appreciate that the UA Ranger really is not as over-powered as I believed. Here are my thoughts:
That would be my limitations. The rest give needed flavor to Ranger and make it interesting and playable. My DMs are not seeing these as problems and we are having a great time with the new characters. I'll share more as time goes on.
Lot's of stuff ...
I appreciate you sharing your experiences and insights with the Ranger. I frequently observe people express that Favored Enemy should provide some type of combat boost for Rangers. SPecifically, boost damage and saving throw rolls aganst Favored Enemies.
I think you were the first to specifically address Humanoids as a Favored Enemy. From what I have read on this website the CR ratings for Humanoids tops off before players would reach level 14. I do like that in the Player's Handbook, you pick 2 types of Humanoids. With other creatures, you pick that creature type once and that is it. Can players select Humanoid as a Favored Enemy at multiple levels?
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
I kind of like humanoids being a single category. Far too often, I've run into issues where I've seen the ranger denied their CR bonus because the enemy being tracked were, say, goblinoids or dark elves instead of orcs or humans. The stereotypical orc armies actually include a wide variety of different creature types in them; orcs are surprisingly cosmopolitan and welcoming in their ranks for anyone interested in joining in on their raids. And its not like there's a ton of ways that sapient, bipedal tool users can move through the wilderness between themselves - they all move roughly the same way.
Well, even with that, that's still a very wide range of possibilities for humanoids. Off the top of my head, that's human, tieflings, orc, elf (drow), goblin (includes hobgoblin and bugbears?), kobalds, lizard folk, gnolls. I can also think of grey dwarves, yuan-ti and dragonborn, but they are more uncommon. Anyways, so off the top of my head, that's at least eight humanoids that you can regularly expect to show up in just about any D&D game, and that's just off the top of my head. Meanwhile, in Princes of the Apocalypse? A quick glance at the monster section has me looking at humans, elves, tieflings, sahuagin, halflings, dwarves, and genasi, and that's before we get into the elementals. I will freely admit that the overwhelming majority are humans, but the fact that there is variety makes it pain in the arse to keep track of in the middle of combat.
Which brings me to another also like to point out a bit of a quirk with the monster entries in the game. Most of the time, these entries don't specify race - in fact, it specifically says "any race" in the MM. Its easy to assume human for these entries, but that's not necessarily true, and it brings us to the next question - how much do we really WANT in the way of granularity here? Do we really need, or want, to specify that a knight is a half-elf, a half-orc, a regular human, or some other humanoid race? And where do half-elf and half-orcs fall in terms of favored enemies anyways?
I mean, its cool and all to say that you want to specialize in hunting goblins and orcs, or you're an elf with a grudge against the drow. And if those races are a major focus of your campaign, then awesome. But if we're dealing with a story that's NOT humanoid based? Out of the Abyss takes you on a winding trapeze through the Underdark, and you run into frog people, drow, grey dwarves, undead mind flayers, demons, mushrooms, oozes and more. There's a very wide variety of antagonists that you meet that have nothing to do with actual fiends, and they're pretty episodic - one session with the grey dwarves, one session going through a fallen temple with some of the oozes and ropers, and then a session with the underground mushroom people, then the session with the gnoll pack, etc. The drow are pretty sustained as a long term antagonist, but only in dribbles; when you get to the main drow city, you also have to worry about the non-drow slaves as potential antagonists. Having to pick specific humanoids in this kind of game would be, in my opinion? Kinda silly and very easy to just forget about. Even after running the game, I'm not really sure what I'd suggest to a ranger for their favored enemies using the core class beyond fiends, and the UA ranger can't even take fiends as an option.
When I spoke of two humanoid groups I was not talking about choosing two from the list of humanoid subgroups. I was talking about splitting humanoids into two groups total. Like goblin/orc type humanoids and all other humanoids. Something like that. Then you would either choose one of those groups or one of the other groups listed in the UA Ranger.
Lot's of stuff ...
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
"Time is money. Nobody knows how much time they have, but you can always count how much time you spent. So spend it wisely."
I like the UA Ranger, but I substitute the original Ranger's favored terrain rules. I also drop the "You can't become lost" feature of it, because I don't really like "you always succeed" type rules. Practically, with double proficiency bonus, the Ranger shouldn't be getting lost except in exceptional circumstances anyway.
I threw my hat in the Ranger re-design arena a while back - https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/homebrew-house-rules/5344-rate-my-homebrew-ranger
My main complaint with the current Ranger (PHB or UA) is that they do not feel unique or special. Most of what a Ranger can do a Fighter, Paladin or Rogue can do better. And some of what a Ranger can do is very specialized. No other class has to fight a specific type of creature or be in a specific environment to use some of their abilities.
What do I want to see in a Ranger re-design?
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats