You see a man in the woods boxing a bear. He screams out "Help the Bear".
I wanted to create a Ranger subclass to represent that often forgotten about fantasy archetype of the big strong man or woman in the wild that can square up with a bear or ogre without the need for fancy equipment. Someone like Minsc from Baldur's Gate, a musclebound friend of animals who will bust out of a Mimic barehanded and then suplex it with 0 effort. So here's the Barehanded Ranger:
Strong Arm. Your Unarmed Strike deals 1d8 damage if you aren’t wielding a weapon or holding a shield. This damage increases to 1d12 at Ranger level 11.
Do you get a bonus using the strength ability? So is it 1d8 +STR ability bonus? In addition, I would have more dice added so the amount is increasing more. 1d6 at 3rd, 2d4 at 6th 2d6 at 11. Keep raising the worst case or minimum amounts.
Wild Grit.While you are not holding a shield or wearing armor your Armor Class is equal to 13 plus your Strength modifier.
Where does the 13 come from? Why use strength bonus? Spread it out and combine different abilities. look at the Warlock and create a cantrip that uses mage armor, but you can add dex and con and maybe strength at a higher level? Maybe add Wisdom?
Overall change the maneuvers so all attacks use the fist not a weapon. You may want to add some sort of flurry of blows. These thoughts will all keep the PC to use fists instead of +X magical melee weapon.
Strong Arm. Your Unarmed Strike deals 1d8 damage if you aren’t wielding a weapon or holding a shield. This damage increases to 1d12 at Ranger level 11.
Do you get a bonus using the strength ability? So is it 1d8 +STR ability bonus? In addition, I would have more dice added so the amount is increasing more. 1d6 at 3rd, 2d4 at 6th 2d6 at 11. Keep raising the worst case or minimum amounts.
Wild Grit.While you are not holding a shield or wearing armor your Armor Class is equal to 13 plus your Strength modifier.
Where does the 13 come from? Why use strength bonus? Spread it out and combine different abilities. look at the Warlock and create a cantrip that uses mage armor, but you can add dex and con and maybe strength at a higher level? Maybe add Wisdom?
Overall change the maneuvers so all attacks use the fist not a weapon. You may want to add some sort of flurry of blows. These thoughts will all keep the PC to use fists instead of +X magical melee weapon.
Thanks for the feedback, but I think your suggestions are more so Disagreements about the design rather than improvements.
The point was to make the Subclass STRENGTH based. That's the entire fantasy, being a strong Ranger.
The reason it goes from 1d8 to 1d12 at Level 11 is to keep Unarmed balanced with weapons and line up with other increases in power. The 2024 Ranger lacks a power boost at the start of Tier 3 (Level 11) like other classes, so I wanted to give them something meaningful at that level, and 1d8 to 1d12 is menaingful when you're making 3 attacks.
The 13 + STR formula is meant to make sure the player does not have to invest into any ability for this Subclass other than STR. Other Unarmored features use 2 abilitiy scores, and it's never a good feeling. Sure the maximum would be 20 AC if it was WIS + STR or something like that, but this gives the player more freedom while keeping your AC in line with Heavy Armor.
I think your suggestion about making the maneuvers Unarmed only is decent, but it would just restrict the player's options so I didn't want to do that. Like, yeah I want the player to be Unarmed when using this Subclass, but they don't have to be. You could take Tavern Brawler and still use a weapon if you wanted to and the Subclass would work fine. It's all about giving the player options, not restrictions.
Adding a Flurry of Blows would kind of step on the Monk's toes a bit. I think the way I implemented Maneuvers makes this Subclass worse at using them than a Battle Master fighter, which keeps it from stepping on their toes. But just flat out giving Ranger Flurry of Blows would not feel right.
I'd encourage you to reread the Level 7 feature. You get a +1 to attack and damage rolls like with Magic weapons, and this scales all the way to +3. If you combine that with items like the Wraps of Power your Unarmed Strikes will have no problem keeping up with most Magic Weapons.
I think we disagree about what this subclass should be on a fundamental level, and that's ok. If you want to make a Ranger subclass that fulfills a similar Niche Fantasy I'd be happy to give it a try. Anyway, thanks for the feedback.
I'd just give standard Ranger the Unarmed Fighting Style.
They already get that fighting style in 2024. But if I was you, I'd go try to build a Ranger with that fighting style and see how it works out. It's terrible. Your damage is low and you can't use spells like Ensnaring Strike and Conjure Barrage, and you miss out on Weapon Masteries.
The only CLASS that can actually make fighting Unarmed work in 2024 is the Monk, and even they usually want to use a weapon for their Attack Action when they have a good magic weapon.
The 13 + STR formula is meant to make sure the player does not have to invest into any ability for this Subclass other than STR. Other Unarmored features use 2 abilitiy scores, and it's never a good feeling. Sure the maximum would be 20 AC if it was WIS + STR or something like that, but this gives the player more freedom while keeping your AC in line with Heavy Armor.
The 13 is an illogical number and makes no sense. How does a ranger start with a base of 13? The rules say you start with a 10. Having some sort of at will cantrip was a suggestion to make the starting number be 13 vice 10.
What is the logic to have strength as a bonus to AC? So do you ignore dex when figuring out the AC? Why would 99.9% of the subclasses all use dex as a bonus but not this one? Why is every ranger subclass and the basic all include a dex bonus? What/how would strength help with AC?
Adding a Flurry of Blows would kind of step on the Monk's toes a bit. I think the way I implemented Maneuvers makes this Subclass worse at using them than a Battle Master fighter, which keeps it from stepping on their toes. But just flat out giving Ranger Flurry of Blows would not feel right.
Adding something like flurry of blows allows for multiple fist attacks. Give this subclass an ability to get 3 punches in and not have to use a BA.
I think your suggestions are more so Disagreements about the design rather than improvements.
Correct, because if you have a bad design, then improvements don't help. You need a better design, that is how to improve this.
The point was to make the Subclass STRENGTH based. That's the entire fantasy, being a strong Ranger.
I understand that, but making a subclass that only depends on a single ability score is not matching any other subclass framework and will be unbalanced.
I think your suggestion about making the maneuvers Unarmed only is decent, but it would just restrict the player's options so I didn't want to do that. Like, yeah I want the player to be Unarmed when using this Subclass, but they don't have to be. You could take Tavern Brawler and still use a weapon if you wanted to and the Subclass would work fine. It's all about giving the player options, not restrictions.
That concept is great, but your premise of a strong subclass that does not use weapons is 180 degrees of your reply and a polar opposite.
The 13 + STR formula is meant to make sure the player does not have to invest into any ability for this Subclass other than STR. Other Unarmored features use 2 abilitiy scores, and it's never a good feeling. Sure the maximum would be 20 AC if it was WIS + STR or something like that, but this gives the player more freedom while keeping your AC in line with Heavy Armor.
The 13 is an illogical number and makes no sense. How does a ranger start with a base of 13? The rules say you start with a 10. Having some sort of at will cantrip was a suggestion to make the starting number be 13 vice 10.
What is the logic to have strength as a bonus to AC? So do you ignore dex when figuring out the AC? Why would 99.9% of the subclasses all use dex as a bonus but not this one? Why is every ranger subclass and the basic all include a dex bonus? What/how would strength help with AC?
Adding a Flurry of Blows would kind of step on the Monk's toes a bit. I think the way I implemented Maneuvers makes this Subclass worse at using them than a Battle Master fighter, which keeps it from stepping on their toes. But just flat out giving Ranger Flurry of Blows would not feel right.
Adding something like flurry of blows allows for multiple fist attacks. Give this subclass an ability to get 3 punches in and not have to use a BA.
I think your suggestions are more so Disagreements about the design rather than improvements.
Correct, because if you have a bad design, then improvements don't help. You need a better design, that is how to improve this.
The point was to make the Subclass STRENGTH based. That's the entire fantasy, being a strong Ranger.
I understand that, but making a subclass that only depends on a single ability score is not matching any other subclass framework and will be unbalanced.
I think your suggestion about making the maneuvers Unarmed only is decent, but it would just restrict the player's options so I didn't want to do that. Like, yeah I want the player to be Unarmed when using this Subclass, but they don't have to be. You could take Tavern Brawler and still use a weapon if you wanted to and the Subclass would work fine. It's all about giving the player options, not restrictions.
That concept is great, but your premise of a strong subclass that does not use weapons is 180 degrees of your reply and a polar opposite.
My guy, you don't seem to understand what a Subclass is. Not all Subclasses for a Class need to be the same or use the same Abilities. This one uses STR, not DEX, and there's nothing wrong with that in terms of fantasy or balance. That's just how the Subclass is built, and its to adhere to a fantasy you clearly have a very big problem with. I'd suggest just ignoring the Subclass and moving on buddy.
At this point you're just giving bad faith criticism about things you personally don't like, which is just harassment. Shove off mate.
You seem to be taking personal offense to the negative feedback you're receiving. Why post it if you're not capable of handling the criticisms for your, frankly, dumb idea?
You seem to be taking personal offense to the negative feedback you're receiving. Why post it if you're not capable of handling the criticisms for your, frankly, dumb idea?
Not all criticism is the same buddy. Talking about a feature you don't like is one thing, but attacking the entire fantasy of the class with illogical arguments just because you don't like it is just bad faith. He's allowed to see what I put out there, not like it, and walk away. I'm allowed to tell him to Fkoff.
But this doesn't apply to you. You just suggested going with a RAW fighting style, and while I responded that that fighting style is trash, I didn't take issue with your suggestion itself. Because it wasn't bad faith.
I'm going to give some honest, respectful feedback here. I'm gonna start with some general feedback, and move on to more specific feedback. I'll warn that, as this looks like a fairly early-draft subclass, a lot of this feedback is going to be critical.
First off, this subclass seems to have fallen into the classic trap of homebrew content, which is power creep. The subclass has a LOT of versatility, a LOT of extra power, a LOT of... just... stuff. Not only does this mean the subclass will almost certainly outpower comparable subclasses, but it's also super cluttered. I'd consider reigning in a lot of the power, and I'd do it by addressing the second broad criticism, which is:
Scope. I'm not sure what this subclass is trying to be. It's something like a Fightery Ranger, or a Rangery Monk, but then you have divided your focus to ensure that the class retains full fighter power, full monk damage, and full spellcasting potency - in fact, you gain spellcasting potency. It's all over the place, and it reads very Mary Sue. I'd narrow your scope to "strong ranger," and then decide what that looks like. Most meaningfully, I'd decide what you're willing to give up in order to play a "strong ranger."
Last of the broad criticisms is the MAD issue. While the idea of a strength-based ranger is interesting, in order to multiclass, you need to have Dexterity and Wisdom already. Which means, if you wanted to make this a Ranger/Fighter combo or something like that, you'd need all those stats AND Constitution, and it is a bit of a burden. One of the main reasons MAD subclasses (arcane trickster, eldritch knight, etc.) are attractive is because they're not attached to MAD classes. It's not a dealbreaker, but you're essentially locking players into playing either a single class or, at best, two subpar classes.
On to the specifics:
Superior Brawling: This is basically a watered-down combat superiority. I can't criticize it, I suppose, except that you watered it down by taking out most of the less desirable maneuvers, so it's not much of a watering down. And it's already another subclass's ability, so it doesn't feel terribly special.
Barehanded Fighting: I'll lead by saying I'm afraid I'm on everyone else's side about the AC boost. Thirteen feels like a really arbitrary number, and on top of that, it's not a particularly high number. I can achieve a 14 AC by wearing studded leather and holding a shield, so you're asking me to sacrifice one point of AC so that I can punch snakes while naked. I feel like you married yourself to the AC thing for the aesthetic, and not for any kind of functional bonus. I urge you to listen to everyone else's criticism and consider revisiting how that bonus is administered. Something that I'd probably cut is Magic Brawn. It feels like you're trying to have your cake and eat it to, and there do need to be tradeoffs. The unarmed damage being 1d8 at level 3 is... more or less in line with the monk, but I'd say the level 11 bump needs to be to 1d10. Monk doesn't get unarmed damage to 1d12 until level 17, it feels unbalanced for the subclass to be stronger than a dedicated class.
If I were making the class, I'd ditch Superior Brawling and focus on the unarmed combat. Maybe I'd pick a few interesting effects and a methodology for delivering them, but I'd narrow the focus considerably. There's so much going on here, and I'd declutter considerably.
Focused Brawling: Too much. Waaaay too much. First off, as much as it aggravates all of us, there is no Ranger subclass in both core and UA content that gives concentration-free Hunter's Mark, and for good reason: That's crazy OP, especially as Hunter's Mark grows higher in levels. To give it at any level is too much, to do it at level seven is, frankly, unhinged. I like the idea of being able to gain an extra attack against a creature you have marked, and I don't mind adding the weapon mastery properties to the attack. However, the weapon mastery properties overlap with Superior Brawling, and, frankly, it just points out again how unnecessary Superior Brawling feels. Last, the attack and damage bonuses are too much. Especially the attack bonuses - those add up in a way that is truly unbalancing, especially as you can get magic gear that further increases those bonuses. Consider doing what the Monk does and just making it so you can do force damage in place of your normal damage for the purposes of overcoming standard damage reduction.
Superior Preparation: I don't... this doesn't jive with Superior Casting at all, and... it just feels like there's a better way to recharge dice. Also, I maintain that Superior Brawling is unnecessary cruft, so... I dunno, I feel like this is too much.
Superior Casting: So are you a big, burly fighter ranger, or are you an enhanced spellcaster? Also, at level seven, you can trade spell slots for dice, and at level eleven, you can trade dice for spell slots? ALSO also, at level eleven, you have the following bonuses that you're handing out:
One new maneuver from Superior Brawling.
An ENORMOUS damage bump for your unarmed strike.
+1 additional attack and damage from Focused Brawling.
Superior Casting
This is a LOT to give out at level 11, and most classes are nowhere near this generous.
Barehanded Master: I like the idea of this. Extra attacks, a little extra oomph to those attacks, all good. That said, don't go creating a whole new condition when you're homebrewing a subclass. This can be easily adjusted with a little better wording, and, frankly, I don't mind balancing it a bit by upping the power level of the ability in exchange for some limited use.
My recommendations for what this class might look like it to balance it and narrow the scope a bit:
Level 3: Dump Superior Brawling. You're stealing the thunder from another subclass that doesn't really connect in any kind of meaningful way to your subclass anyway. Barehanded Fighting: I'd say you get 1d8 damage that bumps to 1d10 at level 11. I might even say it's 1d6 at level 3, 1d8 at level 7, and 1d10 at level 11, just to smooth the transition and make it a little more in-line with a monk's damage. I'd ditch the AC bump and Magic Brawn entirely. If you are desparate to make this a strength-based class, then I'd rephrase Wild Grit to say "You may use Strength, instead of Dexterity, to determine your bonus to Armor Class [and Initiative and/or Survival or Nature checks]. Also, you may use Strength, instead of Initiative, to determine your eligibility to multiclass (this part is tricky, because the character builder won't let you do this, and you'd still need dex to multiclass INTO this class, so... use your judgment here)." I'd also steal the Focused Brawling ability to get an extra unarmed attack against targets of your Hunter's Mark and put it here.
Level 7: If you dump Superior Brawling, there's no need for Superior Preparation. As a general rule, the subclass abilities that hover around level seven are more defensive in nature. As such, I'd lean in that direction. I'd throw a quickie mention that your unarmed strikes can deal force damage in place of regular damage if you'd like here, but then I'd focus on a defensive ability of some sort. I'd keep it monk-ish. Maybe you could say, if you're hit by an attack, you can spend a reaction to reduce the damage by one roll of your unarmed strike die plus your Ranger level. Meanwhile, your opponent must make a saving throw or [insert reasonable consequence here]. I'd say here that you can do it a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier, and you can spend a spell slot to use it if you're out of uses.
Level 11: This is usually where you'd augment one specific ability, and I say this is as good a place as any to really lean into the class's flavor. Maybe add something like a rage-lite here. Once per long rest, you can flex your burly muscles and give yourself advantage on strength-based ability checks, and strength saving throws, and your unarmed attacks crit on a 19-20, or something like that. Further, when you hit with one of your unarmed strikes, it has one of the Weapon Mastery effects from FocusedBrawling.Make it last one or ten minutes, and say you can recharge it by spending a spell slot of... I dunno, you'll need to playtest, but I'd say no lower than second level, probably third.
Level 15: I think this can be stronger. I'd say first off, keep the two attacks thing, that's perfectly good. But make the second ability akin to a Monk's stunning strike. Force a save, if they fail, they're paralyzed. Once per long rest, refresh with a third-level spell slot or higher.
It's a creative idea, but the reality is that it's an early draft. Early drafts are going to need work. The criticism you've been receiving doesn't appear to have been given in bad faith, and most of it is good advice. Homebrewing is hard, and it's easy to take criticism personally. Good luck out there!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You see a man in the woods boxing a bear. He screams out "Help the Bear".
I wanted to create a Ranger subclass to represent that often forgotten about fantasy archetype of the big strong man or woman in the wild that can square up with a bear or ogre without the need for fancy equipment. Someone like Minsc from Baldur's Gate, a musclebound friend of animals who will bust out of a Mimic barehanded and then suplex it with 0 effort. So here's the Barehanded Ranger:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subclasses/2636442-barehanded
If you've ever wanted to play that fantasy, or you just want an unarmed Ranger that doesn't suck, this is the Subclass for you.
Please give it a try. I hope you enjoy it.
I'd just give standard Ranger the Unarmed Fighting Style.
A few questions.
Under Level 3: Barehanded Fighting
Do you get a bonus using the strength ability? So is it 1d8 +STR ability bonus? In addition, I would have more dice added so the amount is increasing more. 1d6 at 3rd, 2d4 at 6th 2d6 at 11. Keep raising the worst case or minimum amounts.
Where does the 13 come from? Why use strength bonus? Spread it out and combine different abilities. look at the Warlock and create a cantrip that uses mage armor, but you can add dex and con and maybe strength at a higher level? Maybe add Wisdom?
Overall change the maneuvers so all attacks use the fist not a weapon. You may want to add some sort of flurry of blows. These thoughts will all keep the PC to use fists instead of +X magical melee weapon.
Thanks for the feedback, but I think your suggestions are more so Disagreements about the design rather than improvements.
The point was to make the Subclass STRENGTH based. That's the entire fantasy, being a strong Ranger.
I think we disagree about what this subclass should be on a fundamental level, and that's ok. If you want to make a Ranger subclass that fulfills a similar Niche Fantasy I'd be happy to give it a try. Anyway, thanks for the feedback.
They already get that fighting style in 2024. But if I was you, I'd go try to build a Ranger with that fighting style and see how it works out. It's terrible. Your damage is low and you can't use spells like Ensnaring Strike and Conjure Barrage, and you miss out on Weapon Masteries.
The only CLASS that can actually make fighting Unarmed work in 2024 is the Monk, and even they usually want to use a weapon for their Attack Action when they have a good magic weapon.
The 13 is an illogical number and makes no sense. How does a ranger start with a base of 13? The rules say you start with a 10. Having some sort of at will cantrip was a suggestion to make the starting number be 13 vice 10.
What is the logic to have strength as a bonus to AC? So do you ignore dex when figuring out the AC? Why would 99.9% of the subclasses all use dex as a bonus but not this one? Why is every ranger subclass and the basic all include a dex bonus? What/how would strength help with AC?
Adding something like flurry of blows allows for multiple fist attacks. Give this subclass an ability to get 3 punches in and not have to use a BA.
Correct, because if you have a bad design, then improvements don't help. You need a better design, that is how to improve this.
I understand that, but making a subclass that only depends on a single ability score is not matching any other subclass framework and will be unbalanced.
That concept is great, but your premise of a strong subclass that does not use weapons is 180 degrees of your reply and a polar opposite.
My guy, you don't seem to understand what a Subclass is. Not all Subclasses for a Class need to be the same or use the same Abilities. This one uses STR, not DEX, and there's nothing wrong with that in terms of fantasy or balance. That's just how the Subclass is built, and its to adhere to a fantasy you clearly have a very big problem with. I'd suggest just ignoring the Subclass and moving on buddy.
At this point you're just giving bad faith criticism about things you personally don't like, which is just harassment. Shove off mate.
You seem to be taking personal offense to the negative feedback you're receiving. Why post it if you're not capable of handling the criticisms for your, frankly, dumb idea?
Not all criticism is the same buddy. Talking about a feature you don't like is one thing, but attacking the entire fantasy of the class with illogical arguments just because you don't like it is just bad faith. He's allowed to see what I put out there, not like it, and walk away. I'm allowed to tell him to Fkoff.
But this doesn't apply to you. You just suggested going with a RAW fighting style, and while I responded that that fighting style is trash, I didn't take issue with your suggestion itself. Because it wasn't bad faith.
I'm going to give some honest, respectful feedback here. I'm gonna start with some general feedback, and move on to more specific feedback. I'll warn that, as this looks like a fairly early-draft subclass, a lot of this feedback is going to be critical.
First off, this subclass seems to have fallen into the classic trap of homebrew content, which is power creep. The subclass has a LOT of versatility, a LOT of extra power, a LOT of... just... stuff. Not only does this mean the subclass will almost certainly outpower comparable subclasses, but it's also super cluttered. I'd consider reigning in a lot of the power, and I'd do it by addressing the second broad criticism, which is:
Scope. I'm not sure what this subclass is trying to be. It's something like a Fightery Ranger, or a Rangery Monk, but then you have divided your focus to ensure that the class retains full fighter power, full monk damage, and full spellcasting potency - in fact, you gain spellcasting potency. It's all over the place, and it reads very Mary Sue. I'd narrow your scope to "strong ranger," and then decide what that looks like. Most meaningfully, I'd decide what you're willing to give up in order to play a "strong ranger."
Last of the broad criticisms is the MAD issue. While the idea of a strength-based ranger is interesting, in order to multiclass, you need to have Dexterity and Wisdom already. Which means, if you wanted to make this a Ranger/Fighter combo or something like that, you'd need all those stats AND Constitution, and it is a bit of a burden. One of the main reasons MAD subclasses (arcane trickster, eldritch knight, etc.) are attractive is because they're not attached to MAD classes. It's not a dealbreaker, but you're essentially locking players into playing either a single class or, at best, two subpar classes.
On to the specifics:
Superior Brawling: This is basically a watered-down combat superiority. I can't criticize it, I suppose, except that you watered it down by taking out most of the less desirable maneuvers, so it's not much of a watering down. And it's already another subclass's ability, so it doesn't feel terribly special.
Barehanded Fighting: I'll lead by saying I'm afraid I'm on everyone else's side about the AC boost. Thirteen feels like a really arbitrary number, and on top of that, it's not a particularly high number. I can achieve a 14 AC by wearing studded leather and holding a shield, so you're asking me to sacrifice one point of AC so that I can punch snakes while naked. I feel like you married yourself to the AC thing for the aesthetic, and not for any kind of functional bonus. I urge you to listen to everyone else's criticism and consider revisiting how that bonus is administered. Something that I'd probably cut is Magic Brawn. It feels like you're trying to have your cake and eat it to, and there do need to be tradeoffs. The unarmed damage being 1d8 at level 3 is... more or less in line with the monk, but I'd say the level 11 bump needs to be to 1d10. Monk doesn't get unarmed damage to 1d12 until level 17, it feels unbalanced for the subclass to be stronger than a dedicated class.
If I were making the class, I'd ditch Superior Brawling and focus on the unarmed combat. Maybe I'd pick a few interesting effects and a methodology for delivering them, but I'd narrow the focus considerably. There's so much going on here, and I'd declutter considerably.
Focused Brawling: Too much. Waaaay too much. First off, as much as it aggravates all of us, there is no Ranger subclass in both core and UA content that gives concentration-free Hunter's Mark, and for good reason: That's crazy OP, especially as Hunter's Mark grows higher in levels. To give it at any level is too much, to do it at level seven is, frankly, unhinged. I like the idea of being able to gain an extra attack against a creature you have marked, and I don't mind adding the weapon mastery properties to the attack. However, the weapon mastery properties overlap with Superior Brawling, and, frankly, it just points out again how unnecessary Superior Brawling feels. Last, the attack and damage bonuses are too much. Especially the attack bonuses - those add up in a way that is truly unbalancing, especially as you can get magic gear that further increases those bonuses. Consider doing what the Monk does and just making it so you can do force damage in place of your normal damage for the purposes of overcoming standard damage reduction.
Superior Preparation: I don't... this doesn't jive with Superior Casting at all, and... it just feels like there's a better way to recharge dice. Also, I maintain that Superior Brawling is unnecessary cruft, so... I dunno, I feel like this is too much.
Superior Casting: So are you a big, burly fighter ranger, or are you an enhanced spellcaster? Also, at level seven, you can trade spell slots for dice, and at level eleven, you can trade dice for spell slots? ALSO also, at level eleven, you have the following bonuses that you're handing out:
This is a LOT to give out at level 11, and most classes are nowhere near this generous.
Barehanded Master: I like the idea of this. Extra attacks, a little extra oomph to those attacks, all good. That said, don't go creating a whole new condition when you're homebrewing a subclass. This can be easily adjusted with a little better wording, and, frankly, I don't mind balancing it a bit by upping the power level of the ability in exchange for some limited use.
My recommendations for what this class might look like it to balance it and narrow the scope a bit:
Level 3:
Dump Superior Brawling. You're stealing the thunder from another subclass that doesn't really connect in any kind of meaningful way to your subclass anyway.
Barehanded Fighting: I'd say you get 1d8 damage that bumps to 1d10 at level 11. I might even say it's 1d6 at level 3, 1d8 at level 7, and 1d10 at level 11, just to smooth the transition and make it a little more in-line with a monk's damage. I'd ditch the AC bump and Magic Brawn entirely. If you are desparate to make this a strength-based class, then I'd rephrase Wild Grit to say "You may use Strength, instead of Dexterity, to determine your bonus to Armor Class [and Initiative and/or Survival or Nature checks]. Also, you may use Strength, instead of Initiative, to determine your eligibility to multiclass (this part is tricky, because the character builder won't let you do this, and you'd still need dex to multiclass INTO this class, so... use your judgment here)." I'd also steal the Focused Brawling ability to get an extra unarmed attack against targets of your Hunter's Mark and put it here.
Level 7:
If you dump Superior Brawling, there's no need for Superior Preparation.
As a general rule, the subclass abilities that hover around level seven are more defensive in nature. As such, I'd lean in that direction. I'd throw a quickie mention that your unarmed strikes can deal force damage in place of regular damage if you'd like here, but then I'd focus on a defensive ability of some sort. I'd keep it monk-ish. Maybe you could say, if you're hit by an attack, you can spend a reaction to reduce the damage by one roll of your unarmed strike die plus your Ranger level. Meanwhile, your opponent must make a saving throw or [insert reasonable consequence here]. I'd say here that you can do it a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier, and you can spend a spell slot to use it if you're out of uses.
Level 11:
This is usually where you'd augment one specific ability, and I say this is as good a place as any to really lean into the class's flavor. Maybe add something like a rage-lite here. Once per long rest, you can flex your burly muscles and give yourself advantage on strength-based ability checks, and strength saving throws, and your unarmed attacks crit on a 19-20, or something like that. Further, when you hit with one of your unarmed strikes, it has one of the Weapon Mastery effects from Focused Brawling. Make it last one or ten minutes, and say you can recharge it by spending a spell slot of... I dunno, you'll need to playtest, but I'd say no lower than second level, probably third.
Level 15:
I think this can be stronger. I'd say first off, keep the two attacks thing, that's perfectly good. But make the second ability akin to a Monk's stunning strike. Force a save, if they fail, they're paralyzed. Once per long rest, refresh with a third-level spell slot or higher.
It's a creative idea, but the reality is that it's an early draft. Early drafts are going to need work. The criticism you've been receiving doesn't appear to have been given in bad faith, and most of it is good advice. Homebrewing is hard, and it's easy to take criticism personally. Good luck out there!