Here it is folks. A full 20 levels from the mothership. I thought the Ranger was fine, but I'm interested to dive into this.
Favored Enemy returns, I'm not a fan.
Natural Explorer at lvl1 is nuts.
The new animal companion will again provide action economy advantage, not a fan but a lot of people wanted this. The traits listed are kinda humorous in how noble they are. The ranger doesn't get Extra Attack, but they can get the beast to attack twice (in addition to their own attack).
Hunter Conclave is the OG ranger, which I liked. Looks unchanged, though I haven't done a side-by-side check.
Deep Stalker is a UA archetype, also brought back.
---
I think Ranger may be a tempting dip now. Additionally, classes that get Extra Attack and want to multiclass into Ranger for 5 or more levels are served well by the new Companion, since they won't end up with Extra Attack redundancy (unless I'm missing some clause).
Natural explorer needs to bring back favored terrain. It would work well if it was limited to certain terrain types.
Overall, I believe I like these changes, but I'll have to compare the original and revised ranger side by side.
All I can say at this point is, I'm calling this version the italic ranger. ;)
Hmm.
Natural Explorer-
It should probably specify that the ranger ignores nonmagical difficult terrain.
Advantage on initiative rolls seems like a bit much to hand out at level 1. Many people will be dipping Ranger for that!
Primeval Awareness- I like this! Being able to communicate with animals is fun, and the sensing ability is actually useful now.
Hide in Plain Sight- The ranger is now a ninja. Well, it's a lot better than the old Hide in Plain Sight.
I like that the archetypes are called "Conclaves" now.
The beastmaster changes all seem pretty solid, although it's a bit of a bummer to have the animal companion choices reduced. What happened to the snakes and giant crabs? :)
I just started playing a level 15 hunter ranger in an ongoing campaign (I was recruited to replace one of my roommates, who can't commit to the group anymore, and take over her character). I might ask the DM if I can try playing him with these revised rules, test out how it goes.
I'm in to tie Natural Explorer to favored terrain, but would give new terrain at level 5, 9, 13 and 17, as except for level 5, they are virtually dead level. Also with 3 favored terrain befor level 10, it should allow enough versatility for the ranger to be able to use Natural Explorer, without having the ability always on. And it fits thematically the rangers being a wilderness expert. I also consider bringing back the "expertise" on Int or Wis skill check for skills you are proficient with.
Natural Explorer looks crazy powerful for a 1st level ability. Very dip-able.
I think the ranger should be able to change its favored enemy after a short or long rest. I like the damage bonus, if only because every other martial class gets a special attack of some kind.
I like all the changes, but honestly, the ranger in my RotRL game was one of the most useful characters. Great skills, potent in combat, and lots of clutch spells. He used cure wounds to heal my cleric above 0 hit points, which let me heal a bunch of other PCs above 0 hit points. He's used spike growth very effectively at battlefield control. Hunter's mark is a great damage boost, as is the Hordebreaker ability. Pass Without Trace was great for exploring, escaping, and establishing ambushes.
I'll have to re-read the Beast Conclave to judge its balance, but I think it fills a niche. Some players really like to maximize their action economy. I know I feel like I'm wasting something when I don't get to use a bonus action. I love when I get to use a reaction. So I really see the appeal of the Beast Companion.
I think the animal companion list should include some flyers and swimmers, too.
I think the ranger should be able to change its favored enemy after a short or long rest. I like the damage bonus, if only because every other martial class gets a special attack of some kind.
I think that Hunter's Mark fills that role. While it's a spell, it allow to mechanically illustrate the advantage a ranger have against a target he focus on while being able to change it's focus to another target.
Favored enemy shouldn't be changed every rest, as they represent a life dedication to deal with a type of creature.
I think the ranger should be able to change its favored enemy after a short or long rest. I like the damage bonus, if only because every other martial class gets a special attack of some kind.
I think that Hunter's Mark fills that role. While it's a spell, it allow to mechanically illustrate the advantage a ranger have against a target he focus on while being able to change it's focus to another target.
Favored enemy shouldn't be changed every rest, as they represent a life dedication to deal with a type of creature.
I can see that. But since rangers only get 1 or 2 favored enemies, it's possible for them to pick one they rarely, or even never, encounter. The PC's DM should give them some guidance on their selection, but that doesn't always happen, or sometimes the campaign goes in a different direction, and then the ranger loses out on a major class feature.
Maybe an option to re-train their Favored Enemy whenever they level up?
Hunter's mark is such a useful and ubiquitous spell, it should almost be a class feature, like the paladin's Divine Smite. But then College of Valor bards wouldn't be able to take it....
The latest UA Ranger need to choose a Favored Enemy from the following list: beasts, fey, humanoids, monstrosities or undead. Then at 6th level they get to choose a second favored enemy from this list:aberrations, celestials, constructs, dragons, elementals, fiends, or giants.
Let's be honest, the Favored Enemy types are quite large enough to have the ranger be able to use its ability more than once in a while.
The Greater Favored Enemy will happen less often. Maybe, the ranger should be able to select a second Favored Enemy in addition of getting Greater Favored Enemy
I do like how they bundled all the humanoids together. It always seemed weird to me that goblinoids fought totally different than orcs, but purple worms, griffons, and stirges' behavior were all considered similar.
My experience with the ranger in 1-5 play is that it already hits hard with just Colossus Slayer.
Now if the Ranger goes TWF style with Quarry and Favored Enemy applying, they'll be hard to match for slaying prowess.
---
On my initial look, I didn't notice that the Ranger gets Advantage on saving throws vs. spells/abilities used by a Greater FE. That's huge, especially against a choice like Aberration, Dragon, or Fiend.
Fortunately that protection doesn't extend against their initial FE, or picking Humanoid would make them ridiculous mage slayers.
I've seen a ranger (human, hunter, archery, with Lucky and Sharpshooter, I forget his background) go from level 1 to 14, and he was very good and very versatile at all levels. He got a little bored with shooting arrows eventually, but he had some other tricks up his sleeves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, again with the "Favored Enemy". It's a dumb mechanic and here's why: There's no guarantee that you'll come across your favored enemy in any specific session or even campaign. It was a dumb idea in 3.5 and it's a dumb idea even now.
There was a guy over on the now-defunct WotC boards who created a "Favored Enemy" mechanic that was both unique AND applicable to many more situations. If I remember correctly you could pick a lot of monsters but they worked also within the setting. For example if you pick Kobolds as your favored enemy you'd get good at fighting smaller targets (kobolds, goblins, human children, etc.) AND you were particularly good at disabling / finding traps because Kobolds love building traps. If you picked Dragons then you were adept at fighting flying things (dragons, wyversn, drakes, manticores) and had resistances to elemental effects. If you picked Giants then you were good at Fighting large bi-pedal monsters (Trolls, Giants, Golems, etc) and the list continues. Not only did it make fighting specific monsters better but it made the circumstances that you face with similar monsters better. Think of it, If I pick Beasts and the party encounters a 4-legged undead creature that was perhaps once a beast then I suddenly lose my bonus against a creature that is exactly the same except that it's unliving? Just sounds silly and at best, will be used occasionally.
Given that all humanoids is now a choice, I wonder what sort of campaign you'd be in where you don't get significant mileage from that choice.
Given that all humanoids is now a choice, I wonder what sort of campaign you'd be in where you don't get significant mileage from that choice.
It's the only choice that will likely see the most mileage in any given campaign, which makes it the "Go-To", something 5e has done a pretty good job paring down until now. Now specific campaigns, like the Curse of Strahd, will see a good mix of both Undead and humanoids and maybe monstrosities here or there but that's knowing the genre going in. I still don't see anyone picking fey or beasts the majority of the time outside specific character personalities.
And then there's Celestials which have been the antagonist for how many published campaigns? None that I recall. As for selections like Dragons, sure it's helpful since they're powerful and scary but to make a permanent choice of a feature when you might fight a handful over a 20-level character span...I just don't see it.
Given that all humanoids is now a choice, I wonder what sort of campaign you'd be in where you don't get significant mileage from that choice.
Giantslayer or Storm King's Thunder. Then again, if you don't pick giants in those cases, you might not be reading the player's guide carefully enough.
I personally thought the hunter ranger was pretty decent up to level 5 or so. I'm running a half orc ranger(hunter) right now and am pretty happy with. I was planning on going ranger to level 5, but after that there wasn't much that I saw appealing about the class, so the plan was to multi-class into barbarian or fighter. However, now that they have made these changes I might reconsider- though I probably will still end up going ranger/barbarian.
I agree with posters who said that giving out advantage on initiative rolls at 1st level is a little much. I think that should be saved for sometime after level 5. That might offer a bit more incentive to stay with ranger a little longer.
I kind of like the damage boost for favoured enemy. That was a tradition from previous editions (2e, 3e, pathfinder) that I always liked, and I was a little disappointed it wasn't included in 5e.
The 7th level defense hunter ability can be good. The one that gives disadvantage to opportunity attacks against you is really great if you need to re-position away from something that is beating on you.
EDIT:
And the great utility spells are worth sticking to ranger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, again with the "Favored Enemy". It's a dumb mechanic and here's why: There's no guarantee that you'll come across your favored enemy in any specific session or even campaign. It was a dumb idea in 3.5 and it's a dumb idea even now.
I think it's an idea that you need to use in a certain way ("you" being the group).
I think the DM should provide the player with clear guidance as to what sort of enemies will make good choices (whether because they'll feature a lot or because they are crucial foes at significant plot points).
I think it would be unhelpful to make the player's choice of enemies to focus on and the DM's choice (of encountered enemies throughout a campaign) independently. Either the player should know which choices will be good and bad or the DM should tailor the foes to the choices made by the player. Doing otherwise would be like constructing a desert campaign for the aquatic themed party who want to sail the high seas.
Given that all humanoids is now a choice, I wonder what sort of campaign you'd be in where you don't get significant mileage from that choice.Giantslayer or Storm King's Thunder. Then again, if you don't pick giants in those cases, you might not be reading the player's guide carefully enough.
Giants are 6th level choice anyway.
Ugh, again with the "Favored Enemy". It's a dumb mechanic and here's why: There's no guarantee that you'll come across your favored enemy in any specific session or even campaign. It was a dumb idea in 3.5 and it's a dumb idea even now.I think it's an idea that you need to use in a certain way ("you" being the group).
I think the DM should provide the player with clear guidance as to what sort of enemies will make good choices (whether because they'll feature a lot or because they are crucial foes at significant plot points).
I think it would be unhelpful to make the player's choice of enemies to focus on and the DM's choice (of encountered enemies throughout a campaign) independently. Either the player should know which choices will be good and bad or the DM should tailor the foes to the choices made by the player. Doing otherwise would be like constructing a desert campaign for the aquatic themed party who want to sail the high seas.
Sure, but that still doesn't mean it's limiting. Look at the paladin for example: the class had been, up til 4e, only about smiting evil. Anything outside of evil didn't count. Ever. That was a bad mechanic that the developer fixed. The Favored Enemy should be applied more broadly so it's utilized more because the DM isn't going to count every monster in a given campaign to figure out what option a player should go with. Espe in sand-box style adventures where monsters are often generated randomly.
I guess it's a matter of preference as to how often stuff like that should come up. I'd prefer it to be less often (I like the old version of smite better too, to be honest - the "smite whoever you feel like" approach of 5E isn't an improvement to someone with my tastes).
Let me see what changes for the Beast Master/Beast Conclave:
Gain access to: Ape, black bear
Lose Access to: Axe beak, blood hawk, giant centipede, giant crab, giant frog, giant poisonous snake, giant rat, giant wolf spider, mastiff, reef shark (as well as baboon, badger, bat, crab, deer, eagle, flying snake, frog, goat, hawk, hyena, jackal, lizard, owl, poisonous snake, pony, quipper, rat, raven, scorpion, sea horse, spider, vulture, weasel which aren't exactly good beast companions, so not a big loss)
Multiattack is still gone, and I understand the reason, but that means mostly giant badgers just an inferior option, because they deal less damage than panthers and wolves and don't get any extra effects like pounce or the wolf's tripping ability. And on top of that the badger's HP and AC are altogether lower than either of the other two. Black bears also lose out on potential but being a higher CR they are at least tougher and the bear's damage can compare to the wolf's. Mules and giant weasels aren't great either, but they are lower CR, so no surprise.
Though there is the sidebar on expanding options.
Ignoring the expanded options, i'd say your choice is between ape, black bear, wolf or panther, if you want to maximize your combat effectiveness. Black bears being strong and tough, panthers better for an alpha strike and skirmishing around (pounce with the extra damage from proficiency bonus is nice, especially with favored enemy), wolves as a combat buddy, giving you and your allies advantage by tripping enemies and apes for the fact that they are almost as strong and slightly tougher than the bear and trade speed for a ranged attack.
I kind of like my options here.
It looks like the action for an action trade is gone, so they threw out the idea aboud preservation of action economy altogether. As a matter of fact giving you even more attacks with the Coordinated Attack and Storm of Claws and Fangs. Though you do lose extra attack from the old ranger, which is now available only to the other two conclaves. Also when fighting a legendary creature, the companion adds a turn to the round, so depending on the size of the party it might be responsible for the monster to get an additional legendary action.
I like the addition of traits and flaws, giving the companion some personality of its own.
So a huge boost to the beast master, especially given the improvements to the base class, I have a feeling they overshot it though, I would have to see the new version in action I think.
Ugh, again with the "Favored Enemy". It's a dumb mechanic and here's why: There's no guarantee that you'll come across your favored enemy in any specific session or even campaign. It was a dumb idea in 3.5 and it's a dumb idea even now.
As far as I can tell, the favored enemy had always been a part of the ranger class. From OD&D and 1e, it was selected for you: giants and things in that class. In 2e, you could pick which class of monsters you got a bonus in, but it was based on DM approval. 3e kept it up with options for different monsters, but it was player choice.
4e looks like they took it away. Since 5e is supposed to bring back the feel of the older editions, I can see why they brought it back.
Looking back at the older editions, the ranger is supposed to be good at stealth in wilderness areas, have extra hot and damage against certain types of creatures, be good at archery and two weapon fighting, have access to some spells, and may have an animal companion. That's the classic ranger according to the older editions.
Having a favored enemy was definitely a part of it.
Ugh, again with the "Favored Enemy". It's a dumb mechanic and here's why: There's no guarantee that you'll come across your favored enemy in any specific session or even campaign. It was a dumb idea in 3.5 and it's a dumb idea even now.
Which is why i think prewritten adventures/campaigns and GMs who are starting a homebrew campaign should always tell players which types of monster will be prevalent and which will be rare to completely absent.
Favored enemy to me was always more of a flavor choice with some mechanical impact, than a primary class ability.
I generally like the changes to the ranger, but I find that so much is given as automatically successful abilities. A bit like the Cleric who rarely has to rely on Healing, this ranger will rarely have to rely on Survival...
I do like the new beastmaster however. I understand the logic behind the former iteration, but it was frustrating for a beastmaster to see the wizard control its familiar independently, see the necromancer control its zombies independently, see the druid control his summons independently, and see the fighter control its figurine of wondrous power independently...
'findel
Yeah, our ranger (hunter) got a Horn of Valhalla, and in maybe 4 major battles, he had an couple platoons he was controlling independently!
I think the favored enemy groups are so broad now, it's hard to miss.
With any world info, you can probably make a good guess. Without any info, Humanoid and Undead are good blind picks.
I'm trying to imagine a snake sailing toward an enemy, like an orc, deliver a bite, that actually manages to inject poison, and then just fly on.
I also like the changes to the Ranger in general but not the way they do favored enemy really. I am thinking about kind of reversing it and making the bonus to armor class and/or saves against attacks by that creature type.
Good to have some free neo-playtest 5e "rangering" stuff. ;)