My goal was to make a revised Ranger class that is able to do a 1 for 1 swap out with PHB base ranger, outperform the Unearthed Arcana Ranger, and the options offered by Tasha’s. While still being compatible with all existing subclasses that have already been published.
Please let me know what you think because it took me a while to get here and feel free to ask question and I’ll answer them as quickly as my life schedule allows.
**Still working on the Hunter spell list and subclass revision and might add some alternate beast master options**
If you make a concentrationless hunter's mark as a class ability you need to remove hunter's mark the spell from the game. The main interaction with other classes is figuring out a spell for the Vengeance Paladin. Otherwise I don't mind. Others might object to it using your bonus action. I am not as annoyed with that.
I completely don't understand your quarry duration loot table.
I don't think Hunter/ Beast Master need expanded spells, and the drake warden is an example where WotC decided to forgo added spells. I think the pet subclasses aren't supposed to get them by design.
For clarity add in something to the level 18 ability that if blind fighting is your fighting style you can switch at this level.
If you make a concentrationless hunter's mark as a class ability you need to remove hunter's mark the spell from the game. The main interaction with other classes is figuring out a spell for the Vengeance Paladin. Otherwise I don't mind. Others might object to it using your bonus action. I am not as annoyed with that.
I completely don't understand your quarry duration loot table.
I don't think Hunter/ Beast Master need expanded spells, and the drake warden is an example where WotC decided to forgo added spells. I think the pet subclasses aren't supposed to get them by design.
For clarity add in something to the level 18 ability that if blind fighting is your fighting style you can switch at this level.
Thanks for the input been trying to get this together for a while. As for what you pointed out;
“Quarry stacking with hunters mark”, I’ll add a note saying the Ranger can not select or prepare the spell since it has been made a class feature.
“Quarry duration”, i based the Quarry duration on the hunter’s mark spell duration with exception of the 1 minute and 72 hours intervals. It original ranges from 1 hour with a 1st spell then up to 24 with a 5th level I felt the hunters mark originally spell should have just gone from 1 minute to 72 hours but that’s just me. But adding a note will clear this up.
“Beast master and Hunter expanded spells”, I felt the Ranger got robbed when it came to expanded spells compared to other half casters like Paladin and especially artificer since the battle smith subclass also get a pet so it seems fine.
“18th level ability making the blind fighting styles go to waste”, I’ll will have the initial range gained by the 18 level ability be extended by an additional 10 ft if the player want to invest 18 levels for it.
Thanks again for the input I be taking notes a will make the changes. Also I take it you like everything else?
I am relatively happy with the changes post Tasha's and have played with them. My main remaining complaint is making Rangers a spells known caster. You fix that. Your gift of expertise in survival and one other skill is maybe a bit much, but not game breaking. Expertise in survival certainly allows for mechanical ways to manage some of the ribbon abilities in the orginal PHB Ranger. Its a bit much for multiclassing since you can stack a level of rogue on it and now you can step on the Scout's toes. Overall its pretty good.
Although you have a typo in there; "You prepare the list of ranger spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the paladin spell list. "
I am relatively happy with the changes post Tasha's and have played with them. My main remaining complaint is making Rangers a spells known caster. You fix that. Your gift of expertise in survival and one other skill is maybe a bit much, but not game breaking. Expertise in survival certainly allows for mechanical ways to manage some of the ribbon abilities in the orginal PHB Ranger. Its a bit much for multiclassing since you can stack a level of rogue on it and now you can step on the Scout's toes. Overall its pretty good.
Although you have a typo in there; "You prepare the list of ranger spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the paladin spell list. "
Thanks for scoping that typo. Also I feel the Scout rogue is just an off shoot of what the rangers base feature could have been and that it steps on the rangers toes lol. But with the scout getting free proficiencies in both nature and survival then with expertise thrown on top; doing something akin to that for the Ranger seemed simple. I just did not want the player to be locked into the nature and survival skills this my reasoning for survival and another skill of their choice.
Thanks again for the input regardless scope. Let me know if anything else come to mind.
One of the "problems" with the base ranger is people cannot agree what "recalling information" means. for it to be a good mechanic it has to be quantifiable. I lean towards it works on most intelligence checks some people don't.
You closed off the pet death loophole which is probably good but there are other things that would cause some people a "crisis of narrative faith.". the idea that a pet could be trained in Archana or history for one. A giant dragon fly with uncanny dodge for another. Share spells allowing beasts to cast even some spells will cause fights.
The 8 hour ritual to summon a new pet means the ranger won't get at rest. The wording of the original says 8 hours bonding which could potentially take place during a long rest. I would say make the ritual 10 min or an hour and the new beast shows up 8 hours later.
I also do not really like your version of share spells. it is both really potent for some options but discourages other ranger options. a beast and a ranger could both have conjure woodland beings up for example. but things like stone skin fall flat(not that it was a good choice any way) or steel wind strike or even basic healing .
Zac, the scout rogue, although a great subclass for a great base class, has nothing on a ranger doing ranger things. Expertise is nice, but a ranger gets that and way more when their natural explorer is running. Much more. And magic/spells alone eclipses any 10%-20% bump a scout gets on two set skill checks. The travel (outdoor and dungeon scale) rules are laid out in the game. A deep understanding of these rules require reading of several parts over 2 books, but it’s there. Scout rogues are very good at doing one thing. Making a skill check. Characters can only do one thing when traveling, but traveling requires many things done at once. Rangers can do several things at once. And party movement speed is more than doubled. Travel rules very clearly show a scout’s shortcomings and highlight a ranger’s superiority regarding travel and exploration.
One of the "problems" with the base ranger is people cannot agree what "recalling information" means. for it to be a good mechanic it has to be quantifiable. I lean towards it works on most intelligence checks some people don't.
You closed off the pet death loophole which is probably good but there are other things that would cause some people a "crisis of narrative faith.". the idea that a pet could be trained in Archana or history for one. A giant dragon fly with uncanny dodge for another. Share spells allowing beasts to cast even some spells will cause fights.
The 8 hour ritual to summon a new pet means the ranger won't get at rest. The wording of the original says 8 hours bonding which could potentially take place during a long rest. I would say make the ritual 10 min or an hour and the new beast shows up 8 hours later.
I also do not really like your version of share spells. it is both really potent for some options but discourages other ranger options. a beast and a ranger could both have conjure woodland beings up for example. but things like stone skin fall flat(not that it was a good choice any way) or steel wind strike or even basic healing .
Thanks for the input it is really appreciated. As for what you pointed out;
"People cannot agree what "recalling information" means"; You bring up a great point I'll work on something for that.
"You closed off the pet death loophole which is probably good but there are other things that would cause some people a "crisis of narrative faith.". the idea that a pet could be trained in Archana or history for one. A giant dragon fly with uncanny dodge for another. Share spells allowing beasts to cast even some spells will cause fights."; I'll add a short list of what skills the companion can take to keep it simple as for the giant dragonfly and like creatures the restriction on what beast you can pick being "no larger than Medium and that has a challenge rating of 1/2 or lower" takes care of that. if the creature meets the perquisites and the GM is good with it, I see no issue.
"The 8 hour ritual to summon a new pet means the ranger won't get at rest. The wording of the original says 8 hours bonding which could potentially take place during a long rest. I would say make the ritual 10 min or an hour and the new beast shows up 8 hours later."; I'll be sure to work-in the resurrection with the long rest system so the player isn't punished for picking this subclass.
"I also do not really like your version of share spells. it is both really potent for some options but discourages other ranger options. a beast and a ranger could both have conjure woodland beings up for example. but things like stone skin fall flat(not that it was a good choice any way) or steel wind strike or even basic healing."; Fair point but to make the most out of a situation where both the player and there companion are casting conjure woodland beings that's 2 of 3 4th level spell slots that the ranger so it's not free, yes you could multiclass for more and higher spell slots but multiclassing isn't always guaranteed. To make the most out of this combo the GM would have to allow you to pick the fey being conjured and then there are CON checks needed to maintain concentration if the ranger and/ or the companion take damage. Then there's the fact the spell components required to cast spells, you'd have to find and companion that is able to speak or sing to some degree for the verbal component, perform "hand" gestures for somatic components, and last hands or appendages as articulate as a hand would be needed for the material part. I fell the stars would have to align and then the GM would have to ok it like everything else. Other than that I'm still work shopping the subclass and comin up with other ideas.
Thanks again for the input I'm taking notes a will make the adjustments. How was the rest of the class features?
Zac, the scout rogue, although a great subclass for a great base class, has nothing on a ranger doing ranger things. Expertise is nice, but a ranger gets that and way more when their natural explorer is running. Much more. And magic/spells alone eclipses any 10%-20% bump a scout gets on two set skill checks. The travel (outdoor and dungeon scale) rules are laid out in the game. A deep understanding of these rules require reading of several parts over 2 books, but it’s there. Scout rogues are very good at doing one thing. Making a skill check. Characters can only do one thing when traveling, but traveling requires many things done at once. Rangers can do several things at once. And party movement speed is more than doubled. Travel rules very clearly show a scout’s shortcomings and highlight a ranger’s superiority regarding travel and exploration.
Thanks for the input it is really appreciated. As for your entire post, I agree the ranger is the best of the best when natural explorer is up and running and the ranger spell list helps push pass what a scout could achieve. However, there is a very sharp drop off when natural explorer is not running and the scout rogue takes the lead. I choose to replace natural explorer because it hand waves a lot of challenges that come with the exploration pillar of the game and a "me vs them" type of GM, unfortunate story progression, or dungeon crawl could make the entire feature useless. Everything that natural explorer feature hand waves could more than often be accomplished by a scout rogue with the outlander background with a few exceptions i.e. like move stealthily at a normal pace or allowing the groups movement not being impeded by difficult terrain to name a few. Also the rangers spell due fill in the gaps but why not make the gap less of an issue and I think its accomplished with the replacement i presented.
Thanks again for the input I'm taking notes. What do you think about the revision as a whole?
Well, I appreciate your level response. However a scout rogue has expertise in two skills. That’s it. Compared to a ranger not in a favored terrain, that is a 10% to 20% advantage for the scout with those two skills. I hear what you are saying. But nothing is hand waved by a ranger with natural explorer.
The exploration rules in the game and 6 mile hex travel as explained in the game blend beautifully with natural explorer. Two skill expertise don’t even come close. The question is, does the table use the rules for travel? Enough tables don’t for it to be thought of as the fault of the ranger.
Well, I appreciate your level response. However a scout rogue has expertise in two skills. That’s it. Compared to a ranger not in a favored terrain, that is a 10% to 20% advantage for the scout with those two skills. I hear what you are saying. But nothing is hand waved by a ranger with natural explorer.
The exploration rules in the game and 6 mile hex travel as explained in the game blend beautifully with natural explorer. Two skill expertise don’t even come close. The question is, does the table use the rules for travel? Enough tables don’t for it to be thought of as the fault of the ranger.
Thanks for the reply.
I again agree with you and to answer your question I think tables use the exploration pillar to move between combat and social encounters without fully diving into what can be fully achieved through exploration. As for the scout rogue you say it has a 10% to 20% advantage when the ranger is outside of its favored terrain but that is where my issues are with the class. You only get three choices and there are so many biomes where favorite terrain is useless and I prefer to put forward a feature that's still some what loyal to the exploration pillar while still allowing for some customization a other scaling benefits that are always applicable than a feature like favor terrain that gives me a 3 out of many chances to shine. I'm curious to know what would you do?, because leaving favored terrain as it currently is presented in the Player's Hand Book does not fit the idea of what my iteration of the ranger should be.
Thank you and looking for forward to any further input you may have to offer.
Out of the biomes, or terrains, only a few are truly worth natural explorer. Coast and grassland for example have such ludicrously low DC for things like navigation, foraging, and perception that a character can easily succeed even without proficiency in those skills. We are talking about DCs of 5 and 10. Other more common biomes that might warrant being a ranger choice would be mountain, forest, swamp, desert, and underdark. Even these biomes will have skill DCs more like 15. Maybe 20 for foraging in the desert, or navigation in the underdark. A skill check of DC 15 with only proficiency in the skill and a moderate stat bonus is very common in 5E. These DCs are so low that having expertise in them, let alone a specific background, is overkill. I find it odd that players with a specific class, subclass, and background all so they can be better at rangers at succeeding at a DC 15 foraging survival check. At level 4 expertise is a +2 bonus. At level 10 that is a +4 bonus. That’s 10% and 20% respectively. The ranger has three biomes at this point. There isn’t one official or third party module that features more than 4 biomes that are traveled or explored. And the majority of these published modules end about levels 10-13. The benefit that scouts get, although better in appearance by frequently if use, I don’t think having a +11 bonus to a single nature or survival check while traveling to succeed in a DC 5 or 10 is worthy of a subclass choice. And it certainly doesn’t beat out a ranger, something that all rangers can do, by the way, regardless of background or subclass. Making those checks, staying alive, and moving fast against a ticking clock, is what natural explorer succeeds at, and the entire group benefits.
Then, rogues are no different than any other character while traveling other than having expertise in 2 skills. Meaning, when traveling, a creature can do only one activity, and that might be a skill check. Using their passive perception counts as this one thing! So a scout rogue can’t track and remain perceptive. A scout rogue can’t be stealthy and remain perceptive, even at half speed, because the group also has to move extra slow to move stealthily. A ranger in a favored terrain auto succeeds navigation checks (that’s the one hand wave that happens), gets their travel activity, and gets to still remain perceptive. A ranger can also be stealthy at normal speed. And the ranger increases the speed of the entire group by 100%.
The problem with natural explorer is that you only get 3. Thankfully they are somewhat frontloaded all coming online by L10. The easiest fix (especially for L11-20) is to increase the number and frequency. You get 1 at L1and then add 1 at each multiple of 5 (5, 10, 15, 20). The other change I would make there is to remove coastal and replace it with marine which would allow shoreline, surface and subsea expertise. Grasslands are more difficult than most folks think because they are so open. Game is harder to approach and foes can spot you from far away unless you know how to stay out of sight.
Is that a problem though? Many adventures feature only one or two dangerous or difficult to traverse land types. This level of survival and nature expertise isn’t needed when traveling an open road or across a grass covered hills scape. The ranger should be using this class ability for the most treacherous land(s) the party will need to cross or survive in. For a huge proportion of adventures (like 90%+) that is one or two landscapes.
Any terrain could be dangerous travel. Out running a storm. Line of sight works two ways and can both be good or bad.
That being said I think a fair interpretation of " Related" results In a bonus often enough to make the dm want at least a couple of challenge options.
If all else fails there are still spells like enhance ability, locate creature and more.
Out of the biomes, or terrains, only a few are truly worth natural explorer. Coast and grassland for example have such ludicrously low DC for things like navigation, foraging, and perception that a character can easily succeed even without proficiency in those skills. We are talking about DCs of 5 and 10. Other more common biomes that might warrant being a ranger choice would be mountain, forest, swamp, desert, and underdark. Even these biomes will have skill DCs more like 15. Maybe 20 for foraging in the desert, or navigation in the underdark. A skill check of DC 15 with only proficiency in the skill and a moderate stat bonus is very common in 5E. These DCs are so low that having expertise in them, let alone a specific background, is overkill. I find it odd that players with a specific class, subclass, and background all so they can be better at rangers at succeeding at a DC 15 foraging survival check. At level 4 expertise is a +2 bonus. At level 10 that is a +4 bonus. That’s 10% and 20% respectively. The ranger has three biomes at this point. There isn’t one official or third party module that features more than 4 biomes that are traveled or explored. And the majority of these published modules end about levels 10-13. The benefit that scouts get, although better in appearance by frequently if use, I don’t think having a +11 bonus to a single nature or survival check while traveling to succeed in a DC 5 or 10 is worthy of a subclass choice. And it certainly doesn’t beat out a ranger, something that all rangers can do, by the way, regardless of background or subclass. Making those checks, staying alive, and moving fast against a ticking clock, is what natural explorer succeeds at, and the entire group benefits.
Then, rogues are no different than any other character while traveling other than having expertise in 2 skills. Meaning, when traveling, a creature can do only one activity, and that might be a skill check. Using their passive perception counts as this one thing! So a scout rogue can’t track and remain perceptive. A scout rogue can’t be stealthy and remain perceptive, even at half speed, because the group also has to move extra slow to move stealthily. A ranger in a favored terrain auto succeeds navigation checks (that’s the one hand wave that happens), gets their travel activity, and gets to still remain perceptive. A ranger can also be stealthy at normal speed. And the ranger increases the speed of the entire group by 100%.
I see your point so I'll ask the question; what would be a good alternative to natural explorer? Outside of just adding more levels in which the ranger gains an additional terrain selections.
Thank you and looking for forward to any further input you may have to offer.
The problem with natural explorer is that you only get 3. Thankfully they are somewhat frontloaded all coming online by L10. The easiest fix (especially for L11-20) is to increase the number and frequency. You get 1 at L1and then add 1 at each multiple of 5 (5, 10, 15, 20). The other change I would make there is to remove coastal and replace it with marine which would allow shoreline, surface and subsea expertise. Grasslands are more difficult than most folks think because they are so open. Game is harder to approach and foes can spot you from far away unless you know how to stay out of sight.
Thanks for the input it is really appreciated.
What do you think would be a good alternative to natural explorer? Outside of just adding more levels in which the ranger gains an additional terrain selections. Also, what do you think about the revision as a whole?
Out of the biomes, or terrains, only a few are truly worth natural explorer. Coast and grassland for example have such ludicrously low DC for things like navigation, foraging, and perception that a character can easily succeed even without proficiency in those skills. We are talking about DCs of 5 and 10. Other more common biomes that might warrant being a ranger choice would be mountain, forest, swamp, desert, and underdark. Even these biomes will have skill DCs more like 15. Maybe 20 for foraging in the desert, or navigation in the underdark. A skill check of DC 15 with only proficiency in the skill and a moderate stat bonus is very common in 5E. These DCs are so low that having expertise in them, let alone a specific background, is overkill. I find it odd that players with a specific class, subclass, and background all so they can be better at rangers at succeeding at a DC 15 foraging survival check. At level 4 expertise is a +2 bonus. At level 10 that is a +4 bonus. That’s 10% and 20% respectively. The ranger has three biomes at this point. There isn’t one official or third party module that features more than 4 biomes that are traveled or explored. And the majority of these published modules end about levels 10-13. The benefit that scouts get, although better in appearance by frequently if use, I don’t think having a +11 bonus to a single nature or survival check while traveling to succeed in a DC 5 or 10 is worthy of a subclass choice. And it certainly doesn’t beat out a ranger, something that all rangers can do, by the way, regardless of background or subclass. Making those checks, staying alive, and moving fast against a ticking clock, is what natural explorer succeeds at, and the entire group benefits.
Then, rogues are no different than any other character while traveling other than having expertise in 2 skills. Meaning, when traveling, a creature can do only one activity, and that might be a skill check. Using their passive perception counts as this one thing! So a scout rogue can’t track and remain perceptive. A scout rogue can’t be stealthy and remain perceptive, even at half speed, because the group also has to move extra slow to move stealthily. A ranger in a favored terrain auto succeeds navigation checks (that’s the one hand wave that happens), gets their travel activity, and gets to still remain perceptive. A ranger can also be stealthy at normal speed. And the ranger increases the speed of the entire group by 100%.
I see your point so I'll ask the question; what would be a good alternative to natural explorer? Outside of just adding more levels in which the ranger gains an additional terrain selections.
Thank you and looking for forward to any further input you may have to offer.
There in lies the rub. I can’t answer that question. I like the ability, so I’m super biased, and not a reliable source. Many players seem to hate limitations or situational abilities (which is odd to me because that, and problem solving, is the entire point of the game, along with storytelling and tactics), so you could have natural explorer work in all natural terrains.
Out of the biomes, or terrains, only a few are truly worth natural explorer. Coast and grassland for example have such ludicrously low DC for things like navigation, foraging, and perception that a character can easily succeed even without proficiency in those skills. We are talking about DCs of 5 and 10. Other more common biomes that might warrant being a ranger choice would be mountain, forest, swamp, desert, and underdark. Even these biomes will have skill DCs more like 15. Maybe 20 for foraging in the desert, or navigation in the underdark. A skill check of DC 15 with only proficiency in the skill and a moderate stat bonus is very common in 5E. These DCs are so low that having expertise in them, let alone a specific background, is overkill. I find it odd that players with a specific class, subclass, and background all so they can be better at rangers at succeeding at a DC 15 foraging survival check. At level 4 expertise is a +2 bonus. At level 10 that is a +4 bonus. That’s 10% and 20% respectively. The ranger has three biomes at this point. There isn’t one official or third party module that features more than 4 biomes that are traveled or explored. And the majority of these published modules end about levels 10-13. The benefit that scouts get, although better in appearance by frequently if use, I don’t think having a +11 bonus to a single nature or survival check while traveling to succeed in a DC 5 or 10 is worthy of a subclass choice. And it certainly doesn’t beat out a ranger, something that all rangers can do, by the way, regardless of background or subclass. Making those checks, staying alive, and moving fast against a ticking clock, is what natural explorer succeeds at, and the entire group benefits.
Then, rogues are no different than any other character while traveling other than having expertise in 2 skills. Meaning, when traveling, a creature can do only one activity, and that might be a skill check. Using their passive perception counts as this one thing! So a scout rogue can’t track and remain perceptive. A scout rogue can’t be stealthy and remain perceptive, even at half speed, because the group also has to move extra slow to move stealthily. A ranger in a favored terrain auto succeeds navigation checks (that’s the one hand wave that happens), gets their travel activity, and gets to still remain perceptive. A ranger can also be stealthy at normal speed. And the ranger increases the speed of the entire group by 100%.
I see your point so I'll ask the question; what would be a good alternative to natural explorer? Outside of just adding more levels in which the ranger gains an additional terrain selections.
Thank you and looking for forward to any further input you may have to offer.
There in lies the rub. I can’t answer that question. I like the ability, so I’m super biased, and not a reliable source. Many players seem to hate limitations or situational abilities (which is odd to me because that, and problem solving, is the entire point of the game, along with storytelling and tactics), so you could have natural explorer work in all natural terrains.
Now I understand and as a means to accommodate the others who share your view point I could add a variant class feature that allows you to keep the original natural explorer with an expanded amount of favorite terrains. Because when the Ranger is up and running it’s second to non. What do you think about the revision as a whole?
I really appreciate the back and forth as it gives me a greater perspective on what to dive deeper into and adjust.
Thank you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MvWOIBBDI8r9mPDPZcS
also made a post on reddit
My goal was to make a revised Ranger class that is able to do a 1 for 1 swap out with PHB base ranger, outperform the Unearthed Arcana Ranger, and the options offered by Tasha’s. While still being compatible with all existing subclasses that have already been published.
Please let me know what you think because it took me a while to get here and feel free to ask question and I’ll answer them as quickly as my life schedule allows.
**Still working on the Hunter spell list and subclass revision and might add some alternate beast master options**
If you make a concentrationless hunter's mark as a class ability you need to remove hunter's mark the spell from the game. The main interaction with other classes is figuring out a spell for the Vengeance Paladin. Otherwise I don't mind. Others might object to it using your bonus action. I am not as annoyed with that.
I completely don't understand your quarry duration loot table.
I don't think Hunter/ Beast Master need expanded spells, and the drake warden is an example where WotC decided to forgo added spells. I think the pet subclasses aren't supposed to get them by design.
For clarity add in something to the level 18 ability that if blind fighting is your fighting style you can switch at this level.
Deleted
Thanks for the input been trying to get this together for a while. As for what you pointed out;
“Quarry stacking with hunters mark”, I’ll add a note saying the Ranger can not select or prepare the spell since it has been made a class feature.
“Quarry duration”, i based the Quarry duration on the hunter’s mark spell duration with exception of the 1 minute and 72 hours intervals. It original ranges from 1 hour with a 1st spell then up to 24 with a 5th level I felt the hunters mark originally spell should have just gone from 1 minute to 72 hours but that’s just me. But adding a note will clear this up.
“Beast master and Hunter expanded spells”, I felt the Ranger got robbed when it came to expanded spells compared to other half casters like Paladin and especially artificer since the battle smith subclass also get a pet so it seems fine.
“18th level ability making the blind fighting styles go to waste”, I’ll will have the initial range gained by the 18 level ability be extended by an additional 10 ft if the player want to invest 18 levels for it.
Thanks again for the input I be taking notes a will make the changes. Also I take it you like everything else?
I am relatively happy with the changes post Tasha's and have played with them. My main remaining complaint is making Rangers a spells known caster. You fix that. Your gift of expertise in survival and one other skill is maybe a bit much, but not game breaking. Expertise in survival certainly allows for mechanical ways to manage some of the ribbon abilities in the orginal PHB Ranger. Its a bit much for multiclassing since you can stack a level of rogue on it and now you can step on the Scout's toes. Overall its pretty good.
Although you have a typo in there;
"You prepare the list of ranger spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the paladin spell list. "
Thanks for scoping that typo. Also I feel the Scout rogue is just an off shoot of what the rangers base feature could have been and that it steps on the rangers toes lol.
But with the scout getting free proficiencies in both nature and survival then with expertise thrown on top; doing something akin to that for the Ranger seemed simple. I just did not want the player to be locked into the nature and survival skills this my reasoning for survival and another skill of their choice.
Thanks again for the input regardless scope. Let me know if anything else come to mind.
One of the "problems" with the base ranger is people cannot agree what "recalling information" means. for it to be a good mechanic it has to be quantifiable. I lean towards it works on most intelligence checks some people don't.
You closed off the pet death loophole which is probably good but there are other things that would cause some people a "crisis of narrative faith.". the idea that a pet could be trained in Archana or history for one. A giant dragon fly with uncanny dodge for another. Share spells allowing beasts to cast even some spells will cause fights.
The 8 hour ritual to summon a new pet means the ranger won't get at rest. The wording of the original says 8 hours bonding which could potentially take place during a long rest. I would say make the ritual 10 min or an hour and the new beast shows up 8 hours later.
I also do not really like your version of share spells. it is both really potent for some options but discourages other ranger options. a beast and a ranger could both have conjure woodland beings up for example. but things like stone skin fall flat(not that it was a good choice any way) or steel wind strike or even basic healing .
Zac, the scout rogue, although a great subclass for a great base class, has nothing on a ranger doing ranger things. Expertise is nice, but a ranger gets that and way more when their natural explorer is running. Much more. And magic/spells alone eclipses any 10%-20% bump a scout gets on two set skill checks. The travel (outdoor and dungeon scale) rules are laid out in the game. A deep understanding of these rules require reading of several parts over 2 books, but it’s there. Scout rogues are very good at doing one thing. Making a skill check. Characters can only do one thing when traveling, but traveling requires many things done at once. Rangers can do several things at once. And party movement speed is more than doubled. Travel rules very clearly show a scout’s shortcomings and highlight a ranger’s superiority regarding travel and exploration.
Thanks for the input it is really appreciated. As for what you pointed out;
"People cannot agree what "recalling information" means"; You bring up a great point I'll work on something for that.
"You closed off the pet death loophole which is probably good but there are other things that would cause some people a "crisis of narrative faith.". the idea that a pet could be trained in Archana or history for one. A giant dragon fly with uncanny dodge for another. Share spells allowing beasts to cast even some spells will cause fights."; I'll add a short list of what skills the companion can take to keep it simple as for the giant dragonfly and like creatures the restriction on what beast you can pick being "no larger than Medium and that has a challenge rating of 1/2 or lower" takes care of that. if the creature meets the perquisites and the GM is good with it, I see no issue.
"The 8 hour ritual to summon a new pet means the ranger won't get at rest. The wording of the original says 8 hours bonding which could potentially take place during a long rest. I would say make the ritual 10 min or an hour and the new beast shows up 8 hours later."; I'll be sure to work-in the resurrection with the long rest system so the player isn't punished for picking this subclass.
"I also do not really like your version of share spells. it is both really potent for some options but discourages other ranger options. a beast and a ranger could both have conjure woodland beings up for example. but things like stone skin fall flat(not that it was a good choice any way) or steel wind strike or even basic healing."; Fair point but to make the most out of a situation where both the player and there companion are casting conjure woodland beings that's 2 of 3 4th level spell slots that the ranger so it's not free, yes you could multiclass for more and higher spell slots but multiclassing isn't always guaranteed. To make the most out of this combo the GM would have to allow you to pick the fey being conjured and then there are CON checks needed to maintain concentration if the ranger and/ or the companion take damage. Then there's the fact the spell components required to cast spells, you'd have to find and companion that is able to speak or sing to some degree for the verbal component, perform "hand" gestures for somatic components, and last hands or appendages as articulate as a hand would be needed for the material part. I fell the stars would have to align and then the GM would have to ok it like everything else. Other than that I'm still work shopping the subclass and comin up with other ideas.
Thanks again for the input I'm taking notes a will make the adjustments. How was the rest of the class features?
Thanks for the input it is really appreciated. As for your entire post, I agree the ranger is the best of the best when natural explorer is up and running and the ranger spell list helps push pass what a scout could achieve. However, there is a very sharp drop off when natural explorer is not running and the scout rogue takes the lead. I choose to replace natural explorer because it hand waves a lot of challenges that come with the exploration pillar of the game and a "me vs them" type of GM, unfortunate story progression, or dungeon crawl could make the entire feature useless. Everything that natural explorer feature hand waves could more than often be accomplished by a scout rogue with the outlander background with a few exceptions i.e. like move stealthily at a normal pace or allowing the groups movement not being impeded by difficult terrain to name a few. Also the rangers spell due fill in the gaps but why not make the gap less of an issue and I think its accomplished with the replacement i presented.
Thanks again for the input I'm taking notes. What do you think about the revision as a whole?
Well, I appreciate your level response. However a scout rogue has expertise in two skills. That’s it. Compared to a ranger not in a favored terrain, that is a 10% to 20% advantage for the scout with those two skills. I hear what you are saying. But nothing is hand waved by a ranger with natural explorer.
The exploration rules in the game and 6 mile hex travel as explained in the game blend beautifully with natural explorer. Two skill expertise don’t even come close. The question is, does the table use the rules for travel? Enough tables don’t for it to be thought of as the fault of the ranger.
Thanks for the reply.
I again agree with you and to answer your question I think tables use the exploration pillar to move between combat and social encounters without fully diving into what can be fully achieved through exploration. As for the scout rogue you say it has a 10% to 20% advantage when the ranger is outside of its favored terrain but that is where my issues are with the class. You only get three choices and there are so many biomes where favorite terrain is useless and I prefer to put forward a feature that's still some what loyal to the exploration pillar while still allowing for some customization a other scaling benefits that are always applicable than a feature like favor terrain that gives me a 3 out of many chances to shine. I'm curious to know what would you do?, because leaving favored terrain as it currently is presented in the Player's Hand Book does not fit the idea of what my iteration of the ranger should be.
Thank you and looking for forward to any further input you may have to offer.
Out of the biomes, or terrains, only a few are truly worth natural explorer. Coast and grassland for example have such ludicrously low DC for things like navigation, foraging, and perception that a character can easily succeed even without proficiency in those skills. We are talking about DCs of 5 and 10. Other more common biomes that might warrant being a ranger choice would be mountain, forest, swamp, desert, and underdark. Even these biomes will have skill DCs more like 15. Maybe 20 for foraging in the desert, or navigation in the underdark. A skill check of DC 15 with only proficiency in the skill and a moderate stat bonus is very common in 5E. These DCs are so low that having expertise in them, let alone a specific background, is overkill. I find it odd that players with a specific class, subclass, and background all so they can be better at rangers at succeeding at a DC 15 foraging survival check. At level 4 expertise is a +2 bonus. At level 10 that is a +4 bonus. That’s 10% and 20% respectively. The ranger has three biomes at this point. There isn’t one official or third party module that features more than 4 biomes that are traveled or explored. And the majority of these published modules end about levels 10-13. The benefit that scouts get, although better in appearance by frequently if use, I don’t think having a +11 bonus to a single nature or survival check while traveling to succeed in a DC 5 or 10 is worthy of a subclass choice. And it certainly doesn’t beat out a ranger, something that all rangers can do, by the way, regardless of background or subclass. Making those checks, staying alive, and moving fast against a ticking clock, is what natural explorer succeeds at, and the entire group benefits.
Then, rogues are no different than any other character while traveling other than having expertise in 2 skills. Meaning, when traveling, a creature can do only one activity, and that might be a skill check. Using their passive perception counts as this one thing! So a scout rogue can’t track and remain perceptive. A scout rogue can’t be stealthy and remain perceptive, even at half speed, because the group also has to move extra slow to move stealthily. A ranger in a favored terrain auto succeeds navigation checks (that’s the one hand wave that happens), gets their travel activity, and gets to still remain perceptive. A ranger can also be stealthy at normal speed. And the ranger increases the speed of the entire group by 100%.
The problem with natural explorer is that you only get 3. Thankfully they are somewhat frontloaded all coming online by L10. The easiest fix (especially for L11-20) is to increase the number and frequency. You get 1 at L1and then add 1 at each multiple of 5 (5, 10, 15, 20). The other change I would make there is to remove coastal and replace it with marine which would allow shoreline, surface and subsea expertise. Grasslands are more difficult than most folks think because they are so open. Game is harder to approach and foes can spot you from far away unless you know how to stay out of sight.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Is that a problem though? Many adventures feature only one or two dangerous or difficult to traverse land types. This level of survival and nature expertise isn’t needed when traveling an open road or across a grass covered hills scape. The ranger should be using this class ability for the most treacherous land(s) the party will need to cross or survive in. For a huge proportion of adventures (like 90%+) that is one or two landscapes.
Any terrain could be dangerous travel. Out running a storm. Line of sight works two ways and can both be good or bad.
That being said I think a fair interpretation of " Related" results In a bonus often enough to make the dm want at least a couple of challenge options.
If all else fails there are still spells like enhance ability, locate creature and more.
I see your point so I'll ask the question; what would be a good alternative to natural explorer? Outside of just adding more levels in which the ranger gains an additional terrain selections.
Thank you and looking for forward to any further input you may have to offer.
Thanks for the input it is really appreciated.
What do you think would be a good alternative to natural explorer? Outside of just adding more levels in which the ranger gains an additional terrain selections. Also, what do you think about the revision as a whole?
Thanks again for the input I'm taking notes.
There in lies the rub. I can’t answer that question. I like the ability, so I’m super biased, and not a reliable source. Many players seem to hate limitations or situational abilities (which is odd to me because that, and problem solving, is the entire point of the game, along with storytelling and tactics), so you could have natural explorer work in all natural terrains.
Now I understand and as a means to accommodate the others who share your view point I could add a variant class feature that allows you to keep the original natural explorer with an expanded amount of favorite terrains. Because when the Ranger is up and running it’s second to non. What do you think about the revision as a whole?
I really appreciate the back and forth as it gives me a greater perspective on what to dive deeper into and adjust.
Thank you.