Title: "How many people NEED Wotc to allow the UA Revised Ranger to be added NOW for their active groups"
Hopefully WotC uses this information
Can you explain what it is you feel the UA Revised Ranger needs to be added to? Do you mean the core D&D game, or D&D Beyond?
Unearthed Arcana is playtest rules and whilst Wizards have said a few times that they want to rework the Ranger class in some way, there hasn't been anything published yet.
There have been a few statements of intent from WotC on this recently.
The revised ranger has a ton of differences from the player's handbook version. There have been so many changes to the Ranger class that they literally took the class back to formula. I believe because of this, D&D beyond should have that available, much like having the two types of human characters, both regular and variant.
I understand that WotC wants to finalize their work. Perhaps in the meantime, D&D beyond can add the capability to allow us to add classes and feats, much like the already existing ability to create magick items and spells.
I do. I'm tired of having to explain to DM's that WoTC admitted they messed up the original Ranger and that this would should be used instead. If they don't let me use it for wahtever stupid reason I'm forced to play a straight Rogue, which just isn't as fun. COME ON WIZARDS MAKE IT CANON!
Yeah, at least if they allowed us to add feats outside of normal level progression (which is standard, since it talks about training for them in the PHB/DMG), we could add it ourselves. But since they don't, those of us using Revised Ranger are SOL for using D&D Beyond.
Yeah, at least if they allowed us to add feats outside of normal level progression (which is standard, since it talks about training for them in the PHB/DMG), we could add it ourselves. But since they don't, those of us using Revised Ranger are SOL for using D&D Beyond.
Everything you mention the lack or absence of in that post is planned.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
My only grief with the revised ranger is the vague and open ended "humanoid" option for favored enemy. So many enemies count as humanoid, that's way too good. If you pick the dueling fighting style and humanoid favored enemy, you're talking about just doing 4 extra damage every hit for most encounters, aside from certain campaigns.
So when I run for my table, I house rule that you can use revised ranger, but picking out from the favored enemy list works more like the PHB version. Instead of having every single humanoid, you specify two.
I do. I'm tired of having to explain to DM's that WoTC admitted they messed up the original Ranger and that this would should be used instead. If they don't let me use it for wahtever stupid reason I'm forced to play a straight Rogue, which just isn't as fun. COME ON WIZARDS MAKE IT CANON!
The original Ranger class is fine. It's the Beast Master subclass that has problems.
While I do like that they reserved some of the enemy types for higher levels, the Ranger never needed extra damage against favored enemies. Hunter's Mark already adds an extra 1d6 to every weapon attack. Hunters can get an extra 1d8 per round on top of that from Colossus Slayer, and get Multiattack at 11th level to compete with a Fighter's additional Extra Attack.
Likewise, the changes to Natural Explorer and Primeval Awareness were a bit much.
I wouldn't get too cozy with the current Revised Ranger, because it's not a finished product and the final version of the class features might get toned down.
The Revised Ranger... well, Iuse it, and honestly its very nice. The abilities of the core ranger aren't necessarily BAD per say, but they're not the most flexible either. Its never nice to pick out some terrain and never having ti come up in play after the first few sessions.
In my group, we don't like having to pick specific races or situations, we like having more general features that, while individually weaker, have a larger chance of coming up in play. Its not a question of power, per say, but just of the overall feel of the class.
If WotC had play-tested the ranger some more and we had to vote between the PHB version and the UA version, I would have opted for the Unearthed Arcana Ranger. However, since it's too late for that, I am glad that they have NOT made the UA Ranger canon. The main issue with the PHB ranger are the subclasses, not the core class. So I like the direction of just releasing more subclasses. In past editions of D&D there was so much bloat in classes and it gets very confusing to have two canon versions of the same class. I think it's much better to have one Ranger that is canon so there is no confusion and the rest can all be fixed via new subclasses.
In past editions of D&D there was so much bloat in classes and it gets very confusing to have two canon versions of the same class. I think it's much better to have one Ranger that is canon so there is no confusion and the rest can all be fixed via new subclasses.
The problem is people want a version of the Beast Master that's not so weak. Releasing new subclasses doesn't fix that. Releasing a new "different" subclass that's basically a better Beast Master won't fool anyone either.
The approach Jeremy and Mike currently have in mind is to release alternative versions of some of the class features that you can take instead of the ones in the Player's Handbook. I'm guessing it's going to be similar to how SCAG handled the variant tiefling and half-elf racial traits.
The approach Jeremy and Mike currently have in mind
Can you provide a link to where that was said by Mike & Jeremy? I'd love to read / watch / listen to it. I guess what this thread demonstrates is that the community is not unanimous in their opinion and perhaps that is why the UA Ranger did not appear in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Jeremy speaks about HERE at about 29 minutes into the podcast which is where I am basing my information. He also specifically addresses Beast Master as you mentioned. As long as there are not two different versions of the Ranger class, I'm happy. Alternate Archetypes or whatever are fine.
I am very happy with the PHB ranger, especially the Beastmaster. It is fun to play, and you can use the beast's abilities to really be the master of exploration and survival. That is what the ranger is supposed to be.
If WotC had play-tested the ranger some more and we had to vote between the PHB version and the UA version, I would have opted for the Unearthed Arcana Ranger.
The UA version of the Ranger is still available for play-test and Mike and Jeremy have indicated that a new version is on the way as a selection of alternative class features rather than a replacement class framework. I'm in favour of this approach because it removes any confusion about which version of the Ranger is the official version, allows each player to replace the class features they dislike while keeping the ones they like (i.e. choose the replacement Favoured Enemy while keeping the original Natural Explorer or vice versa.) and sets a precedent that can be applied to other classes that increases the number of customisation options (especially if the ACFs are different but not strictly better).
The main issue with the PHB ranger are the subclasses, not the core class. So I like the direction of just releasing more subclasses.
The only subclass people have any significant issue with is the Beast Master. The Hunter is perfectly playable as are the Monster Hunter, Horizon Walker and Gloom Stalker. As InquisitiveCoder points out, just releasing a new, different Beast Master subclass won't fix the problems with the original version, while alternative class features that address the subclass's weaknesses would.
Additionally, there are issues with the features of the core class, while not as severe as the weaknesses of the Beast Master they do exist and should be addressed. Specifically, Foe Slayer is commonly acknowledged as being very weak for a level 20 feature and the spell slot cost for Primeval Awareness is generally not worth it. I would also add from my experience of playing a PHB Ranger that while Favoured Enemy and Natural Explorer are fine as they are as 1st level abilities, having level 6 be another Favoured Enemy and Natural Explorer option is too weak, especially since you don't gain any more spell slots or spells known. IMO Ranger's could use an alternative choice at level 6 to promote continued progression in the class rather than multi-classing out.
The UA Dark Stalker gains darkvision up to 90ft or a 30ft increase if you already have it, while the XGtE Gloom Stalker gains it to 60ft or a 30ft increase.
The Gloom Stalker also gains Wisdom mod to Initiative and +1d8 damage on the first turn bonus attack.
The Gloom Stalker gets Fear as a bonus spell at 9th level, while the Dark Stalker gets Glyph of Warding
At 7th level, the Iron Mind feature of the Gloom Stalker allows proficiency in Int or Cha saves if you already have proficiency in Wis saves, so the ability is not wasted if you have multi-classed into Ranger or picked up Resilient (Wisdom).
It should also be noted that the Dark Stalker subclass features in two UA articles: Light, Dark, Underdark! and The Ranger, Revised. The only modification to the subclass between these two articles was the moving of Extra Attack at 5th level from the core class to the subclasses.
Title: "How many people NEED Wotc to allow the UA Revised Ranger to be added NOW for their active groups"
Hopefully WotC uses this information
Can you explain what it is you feel the UA Revised Ranger needs to be added to? Do you mean the core D&D game, or D&D Beyond?
Unearthed Arcana is playtest rules and whilst Wizards have said a few times that they want to rework the Ranger class in some way, there hasn't been anything published yet.
There have been a few statements of intent from WotC on this recently.
Am I missing something. When I choose UA to be allowed in my classes when creating characters I expect UA contend. Is Revised Ranger UA content or not? If it is then allow it to be selected when I choose to allow UA content in character creation. If this is not the intent of UA content then we have a naming collision and need to either rename the option in the character creation or rename the Revised Ranger as 'Early' UA. What am I missing?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lot's of stuff ...
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hopefully WotC uses this information
Let the Mists surround you...
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersPun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
The revised ranger has a ton of differences from the player's handbook version. There have been so many changes to the Ranger class that they literally took the class back to formula. I believe because of this, D&D beyond should have that available, much like having the two types of human characters, both regular and variant.
I understand that WotC wants to finalize their work. Perhaps in the meantime, D&D beyond can add the capability to allow us to add classes and feats, much like the already existing ability to create magick items and spells.
Let the Mists surround you...
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersAh, understood - I'm very familiar with the situation and the Ranger class in general (always loved Rangers).
Adding homebrew classes is likely quite a long way off.
Adding homebrew subclasses is likely happening reasonably soon.
Adding homebrew feats.... I don't think you have too long to wait there.
I know it's a pain to find that you can't use Revised Ranger on D&D Beyond, as much of the community has accepted it as superior to the PHB version.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Yeah it is definitely superior, pretty much makes it a viable two to three level dip class also.
I do. I'm tired of having to explain to DM's that WoTC admitted they messed up the original Ranger and that this would should be used instead. If they don't let me use it for wahtever stupid reason I'm forced to play a straight Rogue, which just isn't as fun. COME ON WIZARDS MAKE IT CANON!
Yeah, at least if they allowed us to add feats outside of normal level progression (which is standard, since it talks about training for them in the PHB/DMG), we could add it ourselves. But since they don't, those of us using Revised Ranger are SOL for using D&D Beyond.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
My only grief with the revised ranger is the vague and open ended "humanoid" option for favored enemy. So many enemies count as humanoid, that's way too good. If you pick the dueling fighting style and humanoid favored enemy, you're talking about just doing 4 extra damage every hit for most encounters, aside from certain campaigns.
So when I run for my table, I house rule that you can use revised ranger, but picking out from the favored enemy list works more like the PHB version. Instead of having every single humanoid, you specify two.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The Revised Ranger... well, Iuse it, and honestly its very nice. The abilities of the core ranger aren't necessarily BAD per say, but they're not the most flexible either. Its never nice to pick out some terrain and never having ti come up in play after the first few sessions.
In my group, we don't like having to pick specific races or situations, we like having more general features that, while individually weaker, have a larger chance of coming up in play. Its not a question of power, per say, but just of the overall feel of the class.
And, yeah, beastmaster needs help.
I gave my ranger the option of using the UA, and he chose the vanilla version, so not needed, I guess.
If WotC had play-tested the ranger some more and we had to vote between the PHB version and the UA version, I would have opted for the Unearthed Arcana Ranger. However, since it's too late for that, I am glad that they have NOT made the UA Ranger canon. The main issue with the PHB ranger are the subclasses, not the core class. So I like the direction of just releasing more subclasses. In past editions of D&D there was so much bloat in classes and it gets very confusing to have two canon versions of the same class. I think it's much better to have one Ranger that is canon so there is no confusion and the rest can all be fixed via new subclasses.
Feats - Hermit Crab & Superhero Landing
Item - Alertness & Skeleton Key
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Can you provide a link to where that was said by Mike & Jeremy? I'd love to read / watch / listen to it. I guess what this thread demonstrates is that the community is not unanimous in their opinion and perhaps that is why the UA Ranger did not appear in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Jeremy speaks about HERE at about 29 minutes into the podcast which is where I am basing my information. He also specifically addresses Beast Master as you mentioned. As long as there are not two different versions of the Ranger class, I'm happy. Alternate Archetypes or whatever are fine.
Feats - Hermit Crab & Superhero Landing
Item - Alertness & Skeleton Key
I am very happy with the PHB ranger, especially the Beastmaster. It is fun to play, and you can use the beast's abilities to really be the master of exploration and survival. That is what the ranger is supposed to be.
The UA version of the Ranger is still available for play-test and Mike and Jeremy have indicated that a new version is on the way as a selection of alternative class features rather than a replacement class framework. I'm in favour of this approach because it removes any confusion about which version of the Ranger is the official version, allows each player to replace the class features they dislike while keeping the ones they like (i.e. choose the replacement Favoured Enemy while keeping the original Natural Explorer or vice versa.) and sets a precedent that can be applied to other classes that increases the number of customisation options (especially if the ACFs are different but not strictly better).
Speaking of subclasses, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the UA stalker subclass and the Xanathar stalker subclass the same?
They are more or less the same but not identical.
It should also be noted that the Dark Stalker subclass features in two UA articles: Light, Dark, Underdark! and The Ranger, Revised. The only modification to the subclass between these two articles was the moving of Extra Attack at 5th level from the core class to the subclasses.
Lot's of stuff ...