This is his pitched idea. Has anyone got any thoughts on if this is not Meta or if its a good start?
So am thinking at level 2 they gain the sub class and can add their proficiency bonus to the damage of their ranged attacks. That gives some extra damage for levelling. They also gain “Mark of the Stalkers”. Hunter’s mark no longer requires concentration, and for the duration you can move hunters mark even after the initial target dies.
At level 4 they gain “Stalker’s Fury”. Allowing them (no action required) to gain advantage on targets marked but their hunter’s mark.
At level 6 they gain “Stalkers Initiative”. Giving them advantage to both Stealth and Initiative and they gain a bonus to damage equal to their wisdom modifier.
At level 10 they gain “Stalkers Advantage” allowing them to gain an extra attack action on round one if attacking from “hidden”.
Why do they want to gain the subclass at level 2 instead of level 3, when every other ranger subclass starts?
Also, hunter's mark already allows you to transfer it to a new target if your original target dies. An enhanced version of this might be allowing the player to transfer it between targets before one dies for more flexibility. As far as concentration, that is a popular "fix" for ranger subclasses, but you wanna be careful anytime you remove concentration as a requirement for any spell because of how powerful that can be; you might want to decrease the amount of extra damage gained from the concentration-free version of the spell for balance purposes.
Nothing else seems glaringly wrong except maybe limit the amount of times they can gain advantage from hunter's mark to PB times per long rest or something.
It’s very overpowered. As charlestheplant said, subclasses come on at level 3, not 2. Subclass features happen at levels 3, 7, 11 and 15 for rangers. So 2, 4, 6, and 10 is really front loading the abilities. No concentration HM is far too strong. At level 13, rangers get HM where damage can’t remove it. But they still need to maintain it (can’t cast other concentration spells), so this person wants a better version of a level 13 ability at level 3?
Rangers don’t get a subclass feature at level 4. And the one your player is proposing is a class feature rangers get at 17.
An extra action — ever — is too strong.
This subclass is a hard no. Tell them to play a gloom stalker, that seems like what they’re going for.
It's a can of worms I would not allow for a host of reasons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
On top of the proposed subclass being an absolute cheesefest, if you allow it you'll have to allow the rest of the party to submit their own cheesetastic homebrew subclasses or open yourself up to justified accusations of favoritism. Do either of those options sound like a favorable outcome?
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.
If I were desperate for extra damage I might let them dump a spell slot into direct damage ala old paladin divine smite, one per round, as a free action. And I'd worry that it might be a bit too much, even knowing ranger damage currently not great in an optimized group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
As others have said this feels way too front loaded, why did you choose those levels? If you did agree your home brew Ranger is getting all their features by level 10 at which point the Rogue in the party has only just received their second feature at level 9. Some are way overpowered too, as Xalthu says you're basically bringing a level 17 feature forward from tier 4 play to the end of tier 2 when the Ranger will just stomp all over encounters. It would be a no from me
If the player has some key issue with the class that makes it feel underpowered - I'd be happy to address that, somehow. Say, with a magic item or free feat or some such. But I'd basically just straight-up refuse a player-made redesign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
This is his "finished" build. FYI I have certainly NOT allowed this. He said that its not "meta". I disagreed and like to have some other seasoned DM's for backup.
I appreciate all your feedback. Here is the subclass;
Level 2: You gain the Mark of the Stalker. Your Hunter's Mark no longer requires concentration and you gain extra damage equal to your proficiency bonus against the target marked by your Mark of the Stalker when using a ranged attack. If your target dies before the duration of Hunter's Mark finishes you may move this mark to a new creature using a bonus action. You also gain "Aimed Shot" Aimed Shot, you forego all your movement to take aim. Your attack deals an additional 3d6 damage of the same type used in the attack. However, until the start of your next turn your focus is disturbed, causing you to gain disadvantage to Wisdom saving throws.
Level 3: "Stalker's Advantage" You gain one extra attack action against the target marked by Hunter's Mark.
Level 4: "Stalker's Fury" You now gain advantage against the target marked by Hunter's Mark. You also gain advantage to Stealth and Initiative. You also gain an extra Ability Score Increase (ASI)
Level 6: You gain an extra Ability Score Increase (ASI) Level 8: You gain an extra Ability Score Increase (ASI)
Level 10: "Stalker's Embrace" Your training as a stalker has given you a greater affinity to the wild. You now gain expertise with survival, animal handling, perception and stealth. You also gain "Stalker's Recovery" allowing to call on nature to heal your wounds. As a bonus action you can roll1d8 and recover your wisdom modifier times by the amount rolled on the dice to recover that amount of HP (Example, your wisdom modifier is 3, you roll 5 on the dice; you recover 3 x 5 = 15hp) You may use Stalker's Recovery a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier and regain all uses after a long rest.
Level 12: "Frost or Fire Shot". You make ranged spell attack against the target and choose to fire a frost or fire arrow. Frost Shot - You fire a shot at the target causing 4d6 Frost damage to the target and each target in a 15ft radius. The area now also covers the area in ice until the end of your next turn. This area causes difficult terrain and any creature starting their turn in the area or entering it for the first time on their turn must use their reaction to make a dexterity saving throw against your spell save DC or fall prone. Fire Shot - You fire a shot at the target causing 4d6 Fire Damage to the target and each target in a 15ft radius. The area now also covers the area in fire until the end of your next turn. This area is engulfed in fire, causing all plants created by the plat growth spell or entangle to immediately end. Any creature starting their turn in the area or entering it for the first time suffer 2d6 fire damage
Level 16: You gain an extra Ability Score Increase (ASI)
Level 19: Your Stalker's Advantage now gets stronger, allowing you to instead gain an extra action instead of just an extra attack. This function's the same as Action Surge (Fighter) and you regain all uses after a short or long rest.
Level 19: Epic Boon
Level 20: "Stalker Form": You unleash the full wrath of the stalker, causing you to become incorporeal. For one minute, you have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage and can move through creatures freely. You do not provoke opportunity attacks, your speed becomes 60ft and you are also not affected by difficult terrain. When you activate the form you choose Fire or Frost form. Your attacks now deal the same damage of that form and you gain resistance to damage of that type (example if you choose Fire, all your ranged attacks now deal fire damage and you have resistance to fire damage). When you activate the form you also fire an additional shot, this extra shot deals and additional 1d8 damage and is guaranteed to be a critical hit).
I have no idea what the two of you mean by "meta", but it's irrelevant. You are correct to veto this. You don't need backup from other GMs. It's so far out of line that you can't even see the line from where it is.
As has been said above, D&D 5 subclasses are pretty rigidly designed. A ranger subclass gets features only at four specific levels.
They are also weak. Most of a character's juice comes from their class.
If you want to entertain the idea of letting this player have a custom subclass, I suggest not letting them design it. Have them tell you what the theme is, and then you design it. The "stalker" stuff doesn't really have much design space to work with. Fundamentally, it's "I want to ranger better". If that's their thing, then they can have Hunter or Gloomstalker and enjoy it. Maybe consider letting them swap out one subclass ability for something of similar power. (Do not trust them on what's similarly powerful. Again, get theme from them and return with an ability.)
The fire/cold thing has some unique flavor to work with, and something could be done with it.
(The problem, of course, is the actual theme is "I want to be vastly more effective in combat than all the other players".)
Also, if you do design it, explicitly state that you reserve the right to adjust it for balance after you see it in play. You might need to turn it up or down, but when you're live-testing new stuff, you must have this option.
This is his "finished" build. FYI I have certainly NOT allowed this. He said that its not "meta".
Of course it's not meta. A game's meta almost always involves optimizing within the rules, not inventing new overpowered mechanics. That said, the 'final' version is even more hilariously overpowered than the original.
Hard pass on this one. Others basically stated everything there needs to be said on the homebrew. In my mind the best approach is to always look at the closest existing subclass and then work from there.
I think this is maybe a point where you should just politely let the gaming group know that you won't be allowing any homebrew content in your game. At all.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is his pitched idea. Has anyone got any thoughts on if this is not Meta or if its a good start?
So am thinking at level 2 they gain the sub class and can add their proficiency bonus to the damage of their ranged attacks. That gives some extra damage for levelling. They also gain “Mark of the Stalkers”. Hunter’s mark no longer requires concentration, and for the duration you can move hunters mark even after the initial target dies.
At level 4 they gain “Stalker’s Fury”. Allowing them (no action required) to gain advantage on targets marked but their hunter’s mark.
At level 6 they gain “Stalkers Initiative”. Giving them advantage to both Stealth and Initiative and they gain a bonus to damage equal to their wisdom modifier.
At level 10 they gain “Stalkers Advantage” allowing them to gain an extra attack action on round one if attacking from “hidden”.
Why do they want to gain the subclass at level 2 instead of level 3, when every other ranger subclass starts?
Also, hunter's mark already allows you to transfer it to a new target if your original target dies. An enhanced version of this might be allowing the player to transfer it between targets before one dies for more flexibility. As far as concentration, that is a popular "fix" for ranger subclasses, but you wanna be careful anytime you remove concentration as a requirement for any spell because of how powerful that can be; you might want to decrease the amount of extra damage gained from the concentration-free version of the spell for balance purposes.
Nothing else seems glaringly wrong except maybe limit the amount of times they can gain advantage from hunter's mark to PB times per long rest or something.
That's great feedback thank you 👍
It’s very overpowered. As charlestheplant said, subclasses come on at level 3, not 2. Subclass features happen at levels 3, 7, 11 and 15 for rangers. So 2, 4, 6, and 10 is really front loading the abilities.
No concentration HM is far too strong. At level 13, rangers get HM where damage can’t remove it. But they still need to maintain it (can’t cast other concentration spells), so this person wants a better version of a level 13 ability at level 3?
Rangers don’t get a subclass feature at level 4. And the one your player is proposing is a class feature rangers get at 17.
An extra action — ever — is too strong.
This subclass is a hard no. Tell them to play a gloom stalker, that seems like what they’re going for.
It's a can of worms I would not allow for a host of reasons.
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
On top of the proposed subclass being an absolute cheesefest, if you allow it you'll have to allow the rest of the party to submit their own cheesetastic homebrew subclasses or open yourself up to justified accusations of favoritism. Do either of those options sound like a favorable outcome?
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.
If I were desperate for extra damage I might let them dump a spell slot into direct damage ala old paladin divine smite, one per round, as a free action. And I'd worry that it might be a bit too much, even knowing ranger damage currently not great in an optimized group.
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
As others have said this feels way too front loaded, why did you choose those levels? If you did agree your home brew Ranger is getting all their features by level 10 at which point the Rogue in the party has only just received their second feature at level 9. Some are way overpowered too, as Xalthu says you're basically bringing a level 17 feature forward from tier 4 play to the end of tier 2 when the Ranger will just stomp all over encounters. It would be a no from me
I'd just say no.
If the player has some key issue with the class that makes it feel underpowered - I'd be happy to address that, somehow. Say, with a magic item or free feat or some such. But I'd basically just straight-up refuse a player-made redesign.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Oh it gets better.....
This is his "finished" build. FYI I have certainly NOT allowed this. He said that its not "meta". I disagreed and like to have some other seasoned DM's for backup.
I appreciate all your feedback. Here is the subclass;
I have no idea what the two of you mean by "meta", but it's irrelevant. You are correct to veto this. You don't need backup from other GMs. It's so far out of line that you can't even see the line from where it is.
As has been said above, D&D 5 subclasses are pretty rigidly designed. A ranger subclass gets features only at four specific levels.
They are also weak. Most of a character's juice comes from their class.
If you want to entertain the idea of letting this player have a custom subclass, I suggest not letting them design it. Have them tell you what the theme is, and then you design it. The "stalker" stuff doesn't really have much design space to work with. Fundamentally, it's "I want to ranger better". If that's their thing, then they can have Hunter or Gloomstalker and enjoy it. Maybe consider letting them swap out one subclass ability for something of similar power. (Do not trust them on what's similarly powerful. Again, get theme from them and return with an ability.)
The fire/cold thing has some unique flavor to work with, and something could be done with it.
(The problem, of course, is the actual theme is "I want to be vastly more effective in combat than all the other players".)
Also, if you do design it, explicitly state that you reserve the right to adjust it for balance after you see it in play. You might need to turn it up or down, but when you're live-testing new stuff, you must have this option.
Of course it's not meta. A game's meta almost always involves optimizing within the rules, not inventing new overpowered mechanics. That said, the 'final' version is even more hilariously overpowered than the original.
Hard pass on this one. Others basically stated everything there needs to be said on the homebrew. In my mind the best approach is to always look at the closest existing subclass and then work from there.
I would suggest that the player get a better grasp on how to balance subclass material with what's already out there.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I think this is maybe a point where you should just politely let the gaming group know that you won't be allowing any homebrew content in your game. At all.
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.