Glad someone mentioned fey wanderer. To me, they cover the three pillars of adventure. They can do a fair bit of damage with their third level ability, and can use misty step to get out/in of combat quickly. Fey wanderers also have some good RP potential, with adding wisdom modifier and a creature not being able to see/hear you. Finally, exploration is covered by their last ability and misty step, allowing them to travel quickly and without being seen/heard. Overall, a very good subclass that should get some more love.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
Glad someone mentioned fey wanderer. To me, they cover the three pillars of adventure. They can do a fair bit of damage with their third level ability, and can use misty step to get out/in of combat quickly. Fey wanderers also have some good RP potential, with adding wisdom modifier and a creature not being able to see/hear you. Finally, exploration is covered by their last ability and misty step, allowing them to travel quickly and without being seen/heard. Overall, a very good subclass that should get some more love.
maybe it should, but also the 7th level feature working on all charisma checks, including stuff like counterspell might be exploitable
misty step is rather nice but perhaps not as good as you describe it, it is not something exclusive to the fey wanderer since horizon walker also gets it and it is still optional, you must decide to pick the spell with your limited available spells instead of using it on some other 1st or second level spell like healing spirit, pass without trace, absorb elements or possibly in the future summon beastial spirit, rangers dont prepare spells for some reason and it might have an detrimental effect in this case
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
man I hope so .. any good homebrew for this variant?
how powerful are the homebrew tools in dnd beyond, can you even create variant rules that let you replace active class features?
Not quite. I did make a homebrew version of the Monster Slayer that added the CFV options, but the originals were also still there cluttering things up. They couldn’t do them before because the old character sheet couldn’t handle the code. Now that the new sheet is almost ironed out, those CFVs shouldn’t be too far behind.
that is awesome -- one of my favorite characters I DM for is a Ranger and they are great thematically but this change would make them so much more equal to the other classes
So I've been thinking about the easiest (and most likely) 5e Ranger fix we could see. This would mean adding as little as possible without requiring any revision to the PHB or other Ranger subclasses (XGtE). I think that variant features are interesting, but adds a level of complexity to the game for players that starts to trespass on 3.5e "builds" where players will end up looking up the best possible combination of features and ignore the other options.
So I am working on the idea of Favored Enemy, specifically swinging it into a more exciting and engaging feature for the player. I think that the best fix would something similar to the additional options published for the Totem Barbarian, where we are adding benefits and options for an already existing feature. I would phrase it something like...
"Many Rangers specialize in hunting and tracking a certain enemy. Alternatively, some Rangers do not specialize in specific enemies, but instead hone their skills against more general Threats. Whenever you would normally select a Favored Enemy from the Favored Enemy list found in this feature, you can instead select a type of Threat from the following list, receiving the benefits listed instead of benefits found in the Favored Enemy feature."
You then could list specific general enemy archetypes (Magical Threats, Large Threats, Unholy Threats) that encompass multiple enemy types. For example, Unholy Threats is meant to represent Fiends and Undead, and instead of getting Adv on Tracking and Int checks + 1 Language vs Undead, you instead can't have your max hp reduced... as an example.
So I've been thinking about the easiest (and most likely) 5e Ranger fix we could see. This would mean adding as little as possible without requiring any revision to the PHB or other Ranger subclasses (XGtE). I think that variant features are interesting, but adds a level of complexity to the game for players that starts to trespass on 3.5e "builds" where players will end up looking up the best possible combination of features and ignore the other options.
So I am working on the idea of Favored Enemy, specifically swinging it into a more exciting and engaging feature for the player. I think that the best fix would something similar to the additional options published for the Totem Barbarian, where we are adding benefits and options for an already existing feature. I would phrase it something like...
"Many Rangers specialize in hunting and tracking a certain enemy. Alternatively, some Rangers do not specialize in specific enemies, but instead hone their skills against more general Threats. Whenever you would normally select a Favored Enemy from the Favored Enemy list found in this feature, you can instead select a type of Threat from the following list, receiving the benefits listed instead of benefits found in the Favored Enemy feature."
You then could list specific general enemy archetypes (Magical Threats, Large Threats, Unholy Threats) that encompass multiple enemy types. For example, Unholy Threats is meant to represent Fiends and Undead, and instead of getting Adv on Tracking and Int checks + 1 Language vs Undead, you instead can't have your max hp reduced... as an example.
if we are already going to go for further options in terms of favoured enemy, i think it might be nice to give favoured enemy benefits against certain classes, like you have been trained to hunt down and destroy other rangers, rouges, sorcerers and creatures with innate magic, or clerics (only the evil ones of course) and that might give you certain features and mechanics
also give favored enemy a few more benefits, if you know a lot about them it is only fair that when you see an lair effect like the thick bushes near an green dragon lair or the reality warps that happens when a beholder dreams, you are able to make an nature check and on a success you know what creature this lair belongs to, what other effects are comming from their lair, and approximately were the lair is located, thus giving you an sizable utillity/ exploration benefit, and also let you thwart the "false appearance" trait posessed by many elementals constructs and monstrosities, if he has truly fought these beasts since day one he should be able to at least sometimes detect the presence of an mimic in the room
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Also, the extra types just makes it more complicated. Just give the overall ability a couple more benefits. You can survive extreme cold/heat, the creatures can't evade you when you are tracking them. In favoured terrain, you could create camp, and live comfortably. Or you can create camp in hard places, like up trees or in snow drifts. Just slightly more powerful utility benefits rather than combat ones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
Artificers and Rangers should be similar. Not really in mechanics, but in how they're used in the party. The ranger is supposed to be a utility class, like the artificer. If it's supposed to be utility based, they should actually be good at utility. They should be good at buffing the party, helping other people journey through the woods, make enemies less effective in combat. Rangers shouldn't be combat focused in my opinion, they should be utility based. Sure, there should be subclasses that are combat-based, like the Artificer, but the main class powers should be focused on utility.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It's not weak, it's awesome. For one the ranger I've run in my home game has came up with the fact that casting hunters mark and then attacking with 2 hand axes with the multiattack feature and the hunter sub classes colossus slayer deals MASSIVE damage, and it makes me fall asleep because of all the dice rolling. You also get limited healing, but still better then nothing, especially when the cleric got knocked out. The subclasses for the ranger are pretty god, especially the ones in XGE ( I would rather that the arcane archer was a ranger subclass tough. ) I find that playing a ranger/monk is a good combination.
Overall, you never know how good the ranger is until you've played it.
It's not weak, it's awesome. For one the ranger I've run in my home game has came up with the fact that casting hunters mark and then attacking with 2 hand axes with the multiattack feature and the hunter sub classes colossus slayer deals MASSIVE damage, and it makes me fall asleep because of all the dice rolling. You also get limited healing, but still better then nothing, especially when the cleric got knocked out. The subclasses for the ranger are pretty god, especially the ones in XGE ( I would rather that the arcane archer was a ranger subclass tough. ) I find that playing a ranger/monk is a good combination.
Overall, you never know how good the ranger is until you've played it.
Have you been doing Colossus Slayer wrong? It's 1d8 extra damage, once a turn, to a creature that has to be damaged already. It's not great. Gloomstalkers, Monster Slayers, and Horizon Walkers are much better on the damage front.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It's not weak, it's awesome. For one the ranger I've run in my home game has came up with the fact that casting hunters mark and then attacking with 2 hand axes with the multiattack feature and the hunter sub classes colossus slayer deals MASSIVE damage, and it makes me fall asleep because of all the dice rolling. You also get limited healing, but still better then nothing, especially when the cleric got knocked out. The subclasses for the ranger are pretty god, especially the ones in XGE ( I would rather that the arcane archer was a ranger subclass tough. ) I find that playing a ranger/monk is a good combination.
Overall, you never know how good the ranger is until you've played it.
Have you been doing Colossus Slayer wrong? It's 1d8 extra damage, once a turn, to a creature that has to be damaged already. It's not great. Gloomstalkers, Monster Slayers, and Horizon Walkers are much better on the damage front.
Just how does the hunters damage compare to the XgtE subclasses? I haven't seen any type if in depth analysis
Colossus Slayer stacks up against the Xanathar's Guide level 3 Ranger abilities fairly well. Dread Ambusher gives an extra attack and an extra D8 on the damage, but only during the first round of combat. Planar Warrior is good and is the only one to get buffed, but it only works on a target within 30 feet of you and requires that you burn your bonus action every round, so that precludes using two weapon fighting. Slayer's Prey actually does less damage than Colossus Slayer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Artificers and Rangers should be similar. Not really in mechanics, but in how they're used in the party. The ranger is supposed to be a utility class, like the artificer. If it's supposed to be utility based, they should actually be good at utility. They should be good at buffing the party, helping other people journey through the woods, make enemies less effective in combat. Rangers shouldn't be combat focused in my opinion, they should be utility based. Sure, there should be subclasses that are combat-based, like the Artificer, but the main class powers should be focused on utility.
100% this^ common misconception about rangers. But they are utility based. (Thats why they get pass without a Trace)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch me on twitch
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Glad someone mentioned fey wanderer. To me, they cover the three pillars of adventure. They can do a fair bit of damage with their third level ability, and can use misty step to get out/in of combat quickly. Fey wanderers also have some good RP potential, with adding wisdom modifier and a creature not being able to see/hear you. Finally, exploration is covered by their last ability and misty step, allowing them to travel quickly and without being seen/heard. Overall, a very good subclass that should get some more love.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
maybe it should, but also the 7th level feature working on all charisma checks, including stuff like counterspell might be exploitable
misty step is rather nice but perhaps not as good as you describe it, it is not something exclusive to the fey wanderer since horizon walker also gets it and it is still optional, you must decide to pick the spell with your limited available spells instead of using it on some other 1st or second level spell like healing spirit, pass without trace, absorb elements or possibly in the future summon beastial spirit, rangers dont prepare spells for some reason and it might have an detrimental effect in this case
but that said it is a nice subclass, very nice
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Can you use variant on dnd beyond
no
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Not yet. Should be relatively soon though.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
man I hope so .. any good homebrew for this variant?
how powerful are the homebrew tools in dnd beyond, can you even create variant rules that let you replace active class features?
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Not quite. I did make a homebrew version of the Monster Slayer that added the CFV options, but the originals were also still there cluttering things up. They couldn’t do them before because the old character sheet couldn’t handle the code. Now that the new sheet is almost ironed out, those CFVs shouldn’t be too far behind.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
that is awesome -- one of my favorite characters I DM for is a Ranger and they are great thematically but this change would make them so much more equal to the other classes
So I've been thinking about the easiest (and most likely) 5e Ranger fix we could see. This would mean adding as little as possible without requiring any revision to the PHB or other Ranger subclasses (XGtE). I think that variant features are interesting, but adds a level of complexity to the game for players that starts to trespass on 3.5e "builds" where players will end up looking up the best possible combination of features and ignore the other options.
So I am working on the idea of Favored Enemy, specifically swinging it into a more exciting and engaging feature for the player. I think that the best fix would something similar to the additional options published for the Totem Barbarian, where we are adding benefits and options for an already existing feature. I would phrase it something like...
"Many Rangers specialize in hunting and tracking a certain enemy. Alternatively, some Rangers do not specialize in specific enemies, but instead hone their skills against more general Threats. Whenever you would normally select a Favored Enemy from the Favored Enemy list found in this feature, you can instead select a type of Threat from the following list, receiving the benefits listed instead of benefits found in the Favored Enemy feature."
You then could list specific general enemy archetypes (Magical Threats, Large Threats, Unholy Threats) that encompass multiple enemy types. For example, Unholy Threats is meant to represent Fiends and Undead, and instead of getting Adv on Tracking and Int checks + 1 Language vs Undead, you instead can't have your max hp reduced... as an example.
if we are already going to go for further options in terms of favoured enemy, i think it might be nice to give favoured enemy benefits against certain classes, like you have been trained to hunt down and destroy other rangers, rouges, sorcerers and creatures with innate magic, or clerics (only the evil ones of course) and that might give you certain features and mechanics
also give favored enemy a few more benefits, if you know a lot about them it is only fair that when you see an lair effect like the thick bushes near an green dragon lair or the reality warps that happens when a beholder dreams, you are able to make an nature check and on a success you know what creature this lair belongs to, what other effects are comming from their lair, and approximately were the lair is located, thus giving you an sizable utillity/ exploration benefit, and also let you thwart the "false appearance" trait posessed by many elementals constructs and monstrosities, if he has truly fought these beasts since day one he should be able to at least sometimes detect the presence of an mimic in the room
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Also, the extra types just makes it more complicated. Just give the overall ability a couple more benefits. You can survive extreme cold/heat, the creatures can't evade you when you are tracking them. In favoured terrain, you could create camp, and live comfortably. Or you can create camp in hard places, like up trees or in snow drifts. Just slightly more powerful utility benefits rather than combat ones.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
Added utility effects would fit the ranger's theme quite well, too.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Artificers and Rangers should be similar. Not really in mechanics, but in how they're used in the party. The ranger is supposed to be a utility class, like the artificer. If it's supposed to be utility based, they should actually be good at utility. They should be good at buffing the party, helping other people journey through the woods, make enemies less effective in combat. Rangers shouldn't be combat focused in my opinion, they should be utility based. Sure, there should be subclasses that are combat-based, like the Artificer, but the main class powers should be focused on utility.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yep. I agree. People often look at min/maxing for combat. But there are so many different ways to min/max.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
It's not weak, it's awesome. For one the ranger I've run in my home game has came up with the fact that casting hunters mark and then attacking with 2 hand axes with the multiattack feature and the hunter sub classes colossus slayer deals MASSIVE damage, and it makes me fall asleep because of all the dice rolling. You also get limited healing, but still better then nothing, especially when the cleric got knocked out. The subclasses for the ranger are pretty god, especially the ones in XGE ( I would rather that the arcane archer was a ranger subclass tough. ) I find that playing a ranger/monk is a good combination.
Overall, you never know how good the ranger is until you've played it.
Have you been doing Colossus Slayer wrong? It's 1d8 extra damage, once a turn, to a creature that has to be damaged already. It's not great. Gloomstalkers, Monster Slayers, and Horizon Walkers are much better on the damage front.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Just how does the hunters damage compare to the XgtE subclasses? I haven't seen any type if in depth analysis
Colossus Slayer stacks up against the Xanathar's Guide level 3 Ranger abilities fairly well. Dread Ambusher gives an extra attack and an extra D8 on the damage, but only during the first round of combat. Planar Warrior is good and is the only one to get buffed, but it only works on a target within 30 feet of you and requires that you burn your bonus action every round, so that precludes using two weapon fighting. Slayer's Prey actually does less damage than Colossus Slayer.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
100% this^
common misconception about rangers. But they are utility based. (Thats why they get pass without a Trace)
Watch me on twitch