The group I joined a year ago has been using the UA Ranger, Revised as canon. Being the new guy (and new to 5E as well), I of course had to throw a monkey wrench into this:
What about the Ranger subclass options in XGTE? Were those written with the PHB as the assumed "chassis" or with the UA Ranger?
One of the folks at the table said that Mearls/Someone at WOTC had come out and said that the UA Ranger was now canon, but XTGE seems to throw cold water on that claim with the sidebar caveat on one of the first few pages (sorry, I'm posting during lunch at work and don't have digital copies of the books). The sidebar basically says XGTE incorporates some UA material but if it's not there in the pages, it shouldn't be considered canon.
Considering how substantially different the UA Ranger chassis is compared to the PHB one is, I have to assume this sidebar means the UA Ranger remains UA, not canon.
To the best of my knowledge (and search via google) the UA Ranger is NOT canon. I think that they are still thinking about the Revised Ranger but I am not sure where it is at in their development structure.
The XGTE subclasses were made with the PHB Ranger in mind. They've talked about how they believe they went too far with Revised Ranger, so that is considered dead in the water, it's not going to happen. I would recommend if using RR with an XGTE subclass you take a look at their UA articles for any recommendations -- I know for one that Horizon Walker in UA advised adding in Extra Attack at level 5, as the subclass was balanced to PHB Ranger, not RR.
Thanks, all. Confirms what I thought. Folks in our group have all agreed to use the PHB/XGTE version as canon, but allowing use of the UA Beastmaster (though with PHB Primeval Awareness) for those who want to run that specific subclass.
Why does WotC take such a command and control approach to the ranger? It’s a candid question and it would be amazing to get a candid answer! There is so much aggro around the ranger core class and beast master. The economic concept of a ‘Pareto’ improvement, where it is possible to make someone better off without making anyone else worse off, seems within grasp. A set of alternate class features that allow those of us who wish to (a) enjoy a better ranger fantasy not restricted by situation specific features like favored enemy and natural explorer and (b) enjoy and better action economy and ‘bond’ with beast companion could very easily be applied and made available in DDB. Just think, you would not have to oversee so many threads with paying DDB subscribers endlessly complaining ;-).... and since these would be alternate class features, the folks who today really enjoy PHB version as is could keep on doing so! #easywin #lowhangingfruit
The group I joined a year ago has been using the UA Ranger, Revised as canon. Being the new guy (and new to 5E as well), I of course had to throw a monkey wrench into this:
What about the Ranger subclass options in XGTE? Were those written with the PHB as the assumed "chassis" or with the UA Ranger?
One of the folks at the table said that Mearls/Someone at WOTC had come out and said that the UA Ranger was now canon, but XTGE seems to throw cold water on that claim with the sidebar caveat on one of the first few pages (sorry, I'm posting during lunch at work and don't have digital copies of the books). The sidebar basically says XGTE incorporates some UA material but if it's not there in the pages, it shouldn't be considered canon.
Considering how substantially different the UA Ranger chassis is compared to the PHB one is, I have to assume this sidebar means the UA Ranger remains UA, not canon.
Has there been an official announcement?
To the best of my knowledge (and search via google) the UA Ranger is NOT canon. I think that they are still thinking about the Revised Ranger but I am not sure where it is at in their development structure.
Mike Mearls talks about it here.
The XGTE subclasses were made with the PHB Ranger in mind. They've talked about how they believe they went too far with Revised Ranger, so that is considered dead in the water, it's not going to happen. I would recommend if using RR with an XGTE subclass you take a look at their UA articles for any recommendations -- I know for one that Horizon Walker in UA advised adding in Extra Attack at level 5, as the subclass was balanced to PHB Ranger, not RR.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersUnearthed Arcana is Playtest content.
The Revised ranger from Unearthed Arcana is expired playtest content and is not "canon" nor part of the official rules.
Some people choose to continue using it and that's ok, but it's no more official than your own homebrew.
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!"🔊
Thanks, all. Confirms what I thought. Folks in our group have all agreed to use the PHB/XGTE version as canon, but allowing use of the UA Beastmaster (though with PHB Primeval Awareness) for those who want to run that specific subclass.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersSounds like a good compromise. :)
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!"🔊
Why does WotC take such a command and control approach to the ranger? It’s a candid question and it would be amazing to get a candid answer! There is so much aggro around the ranger core class and beast master. The economic concept of a ‘Pareto’ improvement, where it is possible to make someone better off without making anyone else worse off, seems within grasp. A set of alternate class features that allow those of us who wish to (a) enjoy a better ranger fantasy not restricted by situation specific features like favored enemy and natural explorer and (b) enjoy and better action economy and ‘bond’ with beast companion could very easily be applied and made available in DDB. Just think, you would not have to oversee so many threads with paying DDB subscribers endlessly complaining ;-).... and since these would be alternate class features, the folks who today really enjoy PHB version as is could keep on doing so! #easywin #lowhangingfruit
---
Don't be Lawful Evil