By request: Workshopping another Ranger

[Moxxmix]

It would actually be a nice bit of consistency to just have the entire feature to be based on the terrain's iconic dragon. I think it's a nice bit of trivia, and makes sure that when the biggest, baddest thing in a region attacks you, you have the appropriate resistance up.

I'm actually kinda in love with the idea, honestly.

.. Like, really in love with the idea.

"Aww man, but the terrain resistances feel weird. I mean, how does that even work?"
"Ah you see, it's designed so the Hunter always has resistance to that terrain's dragon type. The hunter is aware of who's on top of the food chain, and has no intention of becoming the prey"

That's the most metal reasoning behind a class feature I've heard, and I designed a barbarian subclass that can use a hit dice to give a Greataxe the thrown property, so I've seen my fair share of badass class features.

Hmmm...

Dragon	Environment	Damage Type
Black	Swamp	Acid
Blue	Barren - Desert/Steppe/Badlands/Coast	Lightning
Green	Forest	Poison
Red	Mountains/Underground	Fire
White	Arctic/Mountaintop	Cold
Brass	Desert	Fire
Bronze	Coast	Lightning
Copper	Grasslands	Acid
Gold	Lakes/Rivers	Fire
Silver	Mountaintop	Cold

Then translating to the other table...

Environment	Resistance Option 1	Resistance Option 2	Dragon Resistance
Arctic	Cold	Force	Cold
Coast (Sea)	Lightning	Bludgeoning	Lightning
Desert	Fire	Radiant	Fire
Forest	Poison	Piercing	Poison
Swamp	Acid	Poison	Acid
Grassland	Thunder	Fire	Acid
Underground	Necrotic	Psychic	Fire
Urban	Psychic	Slashing	N/A

There's a decent, though not complete matchup. Grassland and Underground diverge (and duplicate other environment elements), and there's no corresponding value for Urban.

Aside: The first resistance option is the best match for the dragon, and the second resistance option is more derived from the environment itself. Though, again, not quite matching up in the last three environments.

[Kane0]

Okay so I've updated Terrain Adaption as suggested. The only thing that might catch a Ranger out is the odd rogue Copper dragon living in mountainous terrain.

Edit: Also the only double-ups of damage types are Fire, Cold and Poison, makes sense as those are the three most common types outside of the physical three.

[Moxxmix]

Okay so I've updated Terrain Adaption as suggested. The only thing that might catch a Ranger out is the odd rogue Copper dragon living in mountainous terrain.

Edit: Also the only double-ups of damage types are Fire, Cold and Poison, makes sense as those are the three most common types outside of the physical three.

I notice you combined Grasslands and Forest into Plains/Forest, and also added "Highland", which I assume means areas that are vaguely to very mountainous. While this diverges from the PHB officially recognized environments, it feels more appropriate, and I think is a reasonable choice.

[paladinn]

I'm currently doing the lazy thing and adjusting the ranger spells then putting them on the druid list.

Hello sir.. At the risk of being a downer, I have to say that I wouldn't be in favor of something like this. There are some spells on the current ranger list that should Not be druid spells, if they are spells at all. Cordon of Arrows, Lightning Arrow, Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley and Swift Quiver all build on a ranger's presumably taking the Archery fighting style, which is not an option for a druid.

I think one of the issues I have with 5e classes in general, especially those that have come after the PHB, is the tendency to cram as much "stuff" into a class as possible. In some cases, more isn't always more.

Just my $.02

[Kane0]

Hello sir.. At the risk of being a downer, I have to say that I wouldn't be in favor of something like this. There are some spells on the current ranger list that should Not be druid spells, if they are spells at all. Cordon of Arrows, Lightning Arrow, Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley and Swift Quiver all build on a ranger's presumably taking the Archery fighting style, which is not an option for a druid.

I think one of the issues I have with 5e classes in general, especially those that have come after the PHB, is the tendency to cram as much "stuff" into a class as possible. In some cases, more isn't always more.

Just my $.02

Because druids don't get proficiencies with bows I think it's something of a self-correcting problem. Gives some incentive to be an elven druid at least, and the entire point of the Warden is to add in spellcasting, blend it into the features the base class already has and not much else. I don't see how a druid shouldn't have those spells, there is precedent with what they already have.
A handful of unique spells I don't think justifies a whole new list, no other 1/3 caster gets their own list even the half casters lists are just stripped down versions of another with those handful sprinkled in.

However, I am guilty of just taking the easiest route on this one. I actually really like PF2s themed spell lists approach, it really streamlines things.

[paladinn]

Because druids don't get proficiencies with bows I think it's something of a self-correcting problem. Gives some incentive to be an elven druid at least, and the entire point of the Warden is to add in spellcasting, blend it into the features the base class already has and not much else. I don't see how a druid shouldn't have those spells, there is precedent with what they already have.
A handful of unique spells I don't think justifies a whole new list, no other 1/3 caster gets their own list even the half casters lists are just stripped down versions of another with those handful sprinkled in.

However, I am guilty of just taking the easiest route on this one. I actually really like PF2s themed spell lists approach, it really streamlines things.

I remember in 1e and BECMI, paladins just used the cleric list, and rangers used the druid (and MU) list. The lists were limited when 2e rolled around.

Part of me still prefers rangers and paladins to be spell-less. But then a lot of class features can be handled via spells. That was the BECMI route.

I guess outside of Hunter's Mark, which you're replacing with the Quarry feature, I don't find most of the ranger spells to be spell-worthy.

[Bjarkmundur]

I guess outside of Hunter's Mark, which you're replacing with the Quarry feature, I don't find most of the ranger spells to be spell-worthy.

I mostly agree. Keep it simple, just use the druid list as is, at least for the forum version of this rework.

[Jaxby]

Eh. EK/AT uses the Wizard list and I see no problem with them ignoring the school restrictions. I've argued in thread about that in the past.

I mostly agree. Keep it simple, just use the druid list as is, at least for the forum version of this rework.

I'm not saying, that I'm against using the druid list per ce. I think it's a nice way of doing it. I do want to add the ranger spells though. Zephyr Strike, Flame Arrows etc., in the reduced power lvl form that was previously described. I think those spells are realy cool for the ranger. I hadn't understood, that you would simply add them to the druid spell list. Seeing as the druid and ranger then share the same pool, I have no qualms with that solution.

Is "Coast" an appropriate environment on its own? And "Sea" is missing. .... Coast comes from the PHB. There's also "Undersea", which is definitely a more unusual environment, but isn't too hard to mesh with sea/coast.

I always figured, that coast covered all the marine environments. I think they just called it coast since most societies associated with the ocean lives at the coast and not actually in the sea.

And then there's the question of when environments overlap. What about a city on the coast (eg: Waterdeep)? What about elven tree cities? Are they urban or forest? Dwarven cities carved out of the mountains? Are they underground? .... Despite the obvious desire for an urban environment type, it gets rather complicated to see how to rule on what counts as urban.

I don't see this as becoming a big problem as long as the DM and the ranger are reasonable. The DM should just decide what makes sense to him. And then be clear about which bonus the ranger will get if resting in a certain area. After all, the DM decides which monsters (and which damage types the monsters have) the players are going to encounter. So if you have urban-like encounters planned, tell the ranger, that this counts as an urban area.

Maybe allow the flexibility explicitly? Give a couple options per environment, and let you pick one? It may be too much complication on the the subclass that is intended to be less complicated, but perhaps something like: ....

I started out thinking that all these charts with several damage types were getting complicated, but after reading the current feature it actually looks pretty cool. It stays thematic due to change on long rest/environment, but also gives the players some choices.

[Bjarkmundur]

Since you can only, have kné quarry at a time you could have the hunter mini cap include

Your Quarry duration is increased to 24 hours or until you mark another creature, whichever comes first. In addition, you always have means of discerning the route which your quarry has taken since being marked. If your quarry is on another plane you instead know which plane it has relocated to.

Something something

[Moxxmix]

Minor note, but I realized that you'd put Extra Attack and Expertise in your table, but not in the list of skills below. Since I was mainly only reviewing the features as described, and not the table, I was thinking you hadn't given ranger Extra Attack. Can you make sure to include all features in the prose section as well as on the table?

[Bjarkmundur]

I was thinking you hadn't given ranger Extra Attack.

Also, do you want to give the base class Extra Attack, or do you want to use the design space to instead have the subclasses grant a big thematic combat feature. It would effectively have the same power level as extra attack, but would allow you to make it more in line with the subclass. Just a thought.

Hunter: Extra Attack
Beastmaster: Combined Attack

If the design guideline is 'something that changes your attack action and is in line with extra attack's power level' the warden could nature-augment his attack.

[Kane0]

Since you can only, have kné quarry at a time you could have the hunter mini cap include

Your Quarry duration is increased to 24 hours or until you mark another creature, whichever comes first. In addition, you always have means of discerning the route which your quarry has taken since being marked. If your quarry is on another plane you instead know which plane it has relocated to.

Multi-mark is also another idea, for example having up to three Quarries each one lasting one hour.

Minor note, but I realized that you'd put Extra Attack and Expertise in your table, but not in the list of skills below. Since I was mainly only reviewing the features as described, and not the table, I was thinking you hadn't given ranger Extra Attack. Can you make sure to include all features in the prose section as well as on the table?

Also, do you want to give the base class Extra Attack, or do you want to use the design space to instead have the subclasses grant a big thematic combat feature. It would effectively have the same power level as extra attack, but would allow you to make it more in line with the subclass. Just a thought.

Ah yes, added those in.
I could but I think you lose the simplicity (look at Artificer's version of Extra Attack, to me it just feels wrong). If we need to curb beast power we can do it the same way shoves work (by replacing one of your attacks). Syncs with TWF and other things that trigger on the attack action better too IMO.

Edit: Things are looking really good now! I've cleaned up some items including the wording of Nature's Boon, we just need the level 14 Hunter defensive ability and I think we can hit the polish and playtesting stage!

[Moxxmix]

Doing a review of how the class scales by tier.

Tier 1: Quarry, Trailblazer, Nature's Boon, Keen Eye, and subclass. You get a bit of extra damage in Quarry, movement and guide aspects in Trailblazer, Search as a bonus action with Keen Eye, and the basic feature of the subclass.

It does not feel front-loaded. You get a decent breadth of features for both combat and exploration, which are the primary pillars for the ranger. It's broad enough to allow an easy start for most concepts, without the guessing games of Favored Terrain/Enemies.

Tier 2: Extra Attack, Expertise, Quarry defense, Nature's Boon improvement, and two subclass features (first utility, then combat). You get your standard boost to combat at the start of the tier, with Extra Attack, and another boost at the end of the tier, where you might want the boost for the endgame of the tier. The other features are a mix of utility, defense, and exploration, making sure the ranger retains relevance throughout.

Feels decently balanced.

Tier 3: Quarry reroll, Feral Senses, Unfettered Movement, subclass defense feature. Basically, lots of defense tools, to make it easier to survive as the game difficulty likely starts ramping up. Not much in the way of flash. Also gets two ASIs in this tier, at the beginning and the end, which can provide the more flashy options if desired, since stats have likely been solidified.

Tier 4: Opens with a boost to utility (Greater Nature's Boon), then adds subclass capstone (primarily offense) and class capstone (heavy offense), plus the usual ASI. Overall, this is the big final push. Defense needs were all solidified in tier 3, so this is primarily offense with a bit of utility. Seems appropriate for the tier.

~~~~

Since Quarry is supposed to work with spellcasting, trying to imagine, say, a Sorcerer 6/ Ranger 7 build. Level 3 spells and sorcerer 6 subclass feature, along with ranger's Extra Attack and level 7 subclass feature.

Looking at various multiclass combos at level 13 (because it's a convenient combo of level 7 subclass feature for ranger and level 6 subclass feature for other classes).

Warden 7 / Divine Soul 6 - More support focused
Gloomstalker 7 / Shadow Sorcerer 6 - All the ambushes
Hunter 7 / Shadow Sorcerer 6 - I am the night!
Hunter 7 / Vengeance Paladin 6 - Basic Batman
Beastmaster 7 / Storm Sorcerer 6 - NPC only, probably, but fun on the seas.

What happens with Ranger/Druid?

Hunter|Beastmaster 7 / Moon Circle 6 - CR2 Wild Shape, not including flyers. Likely improved speed. Beast form attacks are magical. Extra Attack applies? Gives up some ranger features for a ton of temp HP, plus easy climb/swim movement options.


Aside: Interesting to note that Land druids get a Mountain terrain option. So the designers knew the terrain type, but didn't include it in all places. Coast terrain for druid also grants Water Breathing as a bonus spell, supporting the idea that Coast includes sea/underwater.


Not seeing anything that feels broken with multiclassing. There's some interesting combos, but subject to the usual multiclassing problems of leveling up to critical points.

[Kane0]

One that jumps to mind is MCing out of Warden Ranger 10 to get essentially two attacks and a free quickened spell with damage bonus, like a straight up better version of EK's War Magic tactic.

[Moxxmix]

Edit: Things are looking really good now! I've cleaned up some items including the wording of Nature's Boon, we just need the level 14 Hunter defensive ability and I think we can hit the polish and playtesting stage!

Well, looking at what Hunter has:

Quarry (6) - Reduce damage taken, or increase saving throw against attack by quarry target.
Terrain Adaptation (7) - Resistance against one damage type.

Notably, both Beastmaster and Warden's level 7 ability is pure utility — either ritual casting or summoning beasts. Hunter takes the utility spot at level 7 and uses it for defense, though it's a more general form, and not for specific events.

Plundered options at level 14:
Evasion (half damage instead of full damage, or no damage instead of half damage, for dex saves)
Uncanny Dodge: Half damage on a single attack

The question is, how does a Hunter's defense work? What would a Hunter do to protect himself in a fight? What would a Lone Ranger or Batman do that hasn't already been accounted for (eg: armor, cover, ambush/hide, etc)?

Base class provides counters to invisible attackers and movement reduction at levels 13 and 15. Beastmaster and Warden use reactions to gain resistance to the attack (essentially Uncanny Dodge variants). My first instinct is something tied to Quarry (because the Hunter is more target-focused than the others), but that already has the level 6 feature that is similar. +1d10 to a saving throw is better than advantage, and -1d10 is a pretty good chunk of damage removed, even if it might not be half of higher-damage attacks.

Perhaps a party support defense? Harry the quarry with attacks to prevent it from being able to focus on other targets?

Your quarry has disadvantage on attacks made against creatures other than you.

That may be overpowered on boss fights, though. Bear Totem barbarian has a similar feature, but it's limited to within 5', and the creature needs to see or hear you, and not be immune to fear. Battlemaster fighter has the Goading Attack maneuver which does the same thing, but is not limited by weapon type. Instead, it requires a saving throw, and only lasts one turn. Ancestral Guardian barbarian gets the feature at level 3. It requires hitting the target with an attack, but notably does not limit it to melee attacks. It's difficult to combine with the barbarian's preferred two-handed weapons and extra attacks without being in melee, though.

So, the option is certainly there, and I could see a Hunter using this tactic to maintain the quarry's attention. It comes in a bit late, but I think it fits in well with the other tier 3 defense options. Since the Quarry effect only lasts one turn at a time, and has to be renewed each turn...

Maybe something like:

When you mark a creature as your quarry, you may force that creature to have disadvantage on attacks made against creatures other than you, until the end of your next turn. You can use this feature up to a number of times equal to your Wis modifier (minimum 1), and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.

This leaves it as the somewhat more powerful version, but limited in uses per day.

[Kane0]

Notably, both Beastmaster and Warden's level 7 ability is pure utility — either ritual casting or summoning beasts. Hunter takes the utility spot at level 7 and uses it for defense, though it's a more general form, and not for specific events.

Oh that's actually a good point, we could probably put a utility feature in there if level 7 took defense. Also makes sense because levels 13 and 15 both have combat features.

Hmm. Level 14 is definitely past the stage where parties will be roughing it in the woods and rolling survival to track things, perhaps something to keep it relevant around the casters with access to 7th level spells.

[Bjarkmundur]

Things are looking really good now! I've cleaned up some items

Wow, that last clean-up was huge!
Ca we split the Quarry, Quarry Improvement and Improved Quarry text box into three different entries? I think it reads better; seeing the abilities the base class gains chronologically. It's a nit pick, for sure xD

[Jaxby]

Multi-mark is also another idea, for example having up to three Quarries each one lasting one hour.

I think it makes sense to improve in the quarry feature in some way as a capstone, since the hunter is Ranger+. However, making it "you can mark 3 creatures as one" doesn't feel like a big bonus for the ranger. Firstly, he has to attack each creature to mark them, going against the "stay on one target" philosophy. Then, I'm not sure the ranger would want to spread his attack out over 3 targets, even if they were all marked. Thirdly, the lvl 10 feature (the area attack) already marks several targets, should you wish to do that. Which means, that grouped enemies will get marked and then hit with the aoe attack again next turn.

So I think increased duration makes sense, but since that alone is a bit weak for a capstone, maybe there should be an additional effect.


When it comes to the utility feature, I was thinking, that since the ranger at that time is already good at traveling, and traveling is made a bit superfluous by the casters, maybe focus on the "arrival" instead. As in; your group flies/teleports you in and you have now arrived. What gives the ranger an edge here?! Does he emmidiately know something about the location based on his experience with previous travels? Does he have a bad feeling about this, giving him some kind of advantage?

[paladinn]

When we began this thread, many on the forum were saying the the ranger lacked focus. No one knew what the ranger's "thing" was. I suggested that, if the class doesn't have a "thing", it could be folded into the fighter class as a subclass. Since 3x, and maybe since 2e, the ranger has seemed to have 3 "foci": the stealthy fighter/rogue hybrid, the junior druid, and the animal guy. We have separated those foci into ranger subclasses with the hunter, the warden and the beastmaster. Thishas been all well and good; but I still come back to my question: What is the ranger's "thing"?

A lot of great thought and work have gone into this effort. To my mind, the greatest development has been the Quarry feature to replace the sad Favored Enemy. But I still don't think it's sufficient to be the ranger's "thing".

I would like to propose cloning the fighter Eldritch Knight subclass and modifying as follows:

1. Use the same fighter progression and spell progression, using the Druid spell list (of course)

2. Natural Explorer just becomes a given, since much of it is ribbons anyway

3. At level 3, instead of "Weapon Bond", have a choice between Beast Bond or Land Bond. Allow whatever Beastmaster or Primeval Awareness features (and Land's Stride) would work. Let the features develop as one levels up.

4. Have Quarry kick in at level 7 instead of War Magic. Allow a Quarry improvement at 10.

5. At 15, instead of Arcane Charge, have a combination of Hide in Plain Sight and Vanish, and maybe Feral Senses.

6. At 18, use whatever replacement for Foe Slayer you come up with.

That gets you most if not all of the distinguishing features of rangers, while also giving more attacks and ASI's. And we're not trying to invent more features to justify a class' existence.

Peace!

[Bjarkmundur]

Have Quarry kick in at level 7?
Are you suggesting a complete rewrite?
If so, make the current version available somewhere as Mark 1, so I can use it for my game!

What is a ranger's thing?
Well he is a competent fighter that harries his foe with a relentless barrage, until there is only one left standing. If the ranger knows who you are, he will find a way to defeat you. With each minute spent fighting you, he is learning how to defeat you. The ranger is the epitome of the self-sufficient survivor. When outmatched, he becomes invisible, indistinguishable from his surroundings. When the fight draw long he has healing to help him survive. Whether it is a glorious battle in the mountain tops or against a terryfing Kraken in the middle of the sea; the Ranger does not slow down. He commands his weapon, he commands the animals, and he commands nature itself, as the subclasses serve as a sliding scale between the Martial and Nature domains.

The Fighter is strong. The Barbarian is strong. The Ranger isn't strong, he's good. To the Ranger, every match up is a favorable matchup. The Fighter has to hack, and the Barbarian conjures all his might. To the Ranger, the same creature appears weak. Same goes for the elements. The Barbarian can tread water for hours, but the Ranger instead opts to have the sea's current bring him back to shore on their own.

Now, what is Batman's thing?

[paladinn]

Have Quarry kick in at level 7?
Are you suggesting a complete rewrite?
If so, make the current version available somewhere as Mark 1, so I can use it for my game!

What is a ranger's thing?
Well he is a competent fighter that harries his foe with a relentless barrage, until there is only one left standing. If the ranger knows who you are, he will find a way to defeat you. With each minute spent fighting you, he is learning how to defeat you. The ranger is the epitome of the self-sufficient survivor. When outmatched, he becomes invisible, indistinguishable from his surroundings. When the fight draw long he has healing to help him survive. Whether it is a glorious battle in the mountain tops or against a terryfing Kraken in the middle of the sea; the Ranger does not slow down. He commands his weapon, he commands the animals, and he commands nature itself, as the subclasses serve as a sliding scale between the Martial and Nature domains.

The Fighter is strong. The Barbarian is strong. The Ranger isn't strong, he's good. To the Ranger, every match up is a favorable matchup. The Fighter has to hack, and the Barbarian conjures all his might. To the Ranger, the same creature appears weak. Same goes for the elements. The Barbarian can tread water for hours, but the Ranger instead opts to have the sea's current bring him back to shore on their own.

Now, what is Batman's thing?

I'm not doing anything to affect what Kane0 and y'all have done. Just thinking "out loud". Sorry to alarm you.

I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm not doing anything to affect what Kane0 and y'all have done. Just thinking "out loud". Sorry to alarm you.

I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

Sorry about the freak-out xD.
This is your class :D

[paladinn]

Sorry about the freak-out xD.
This is your class :D

Not anymore.. I'm out

[Jaxby]

When we began this thread, many on the forum were saying the the ranger lacked focus. No one knew what the ranger's "thing" was. I suggested that, if the class doesn't have a "thing", it could be folded into the fighter class as a subclass. Since 3x, and maybe since 2e, the ranger has seemed to have 3 "foci": the stealthy fighter/rogue hybrid, the junior druid, and the animal guy. We have separated those foci into ranger subclasses with the hunter, the warden and the beastmaster. Thishas been all well and good; but I still come back to my question: What is the ranger's "thing"?

Do you mean mechanically/combat role or do you mean fluff-wise? Beacuse I feel like all those have been answered in many different ways, many overlapping, in the thread that spawned this one. And I realy think we have a pretty good class going here, both mechanically and considering the fluff-choices behind those mechanics.

As has also been mentioned before, all classes can be distilled into fewer, if you generalize the features you are looking for more. Or spread out into many classes, if you want to get more specific about the features.
A 1 class system could be; "the class needs to be an adventurer", and many classes if its something like; "an asian flavoured martial artist, that can also use weapons, but is based on his fists, and has a deep connection with an internal energy". Personally I quite like the amount of classes we have now.

As the Hunter is the Ranger+, I think it is fair to say, that this is the essence of the Ranger as written here. The Experienced Hunter. The other two subclasses build on "the hunt" by having a hunting dog or having spells to help with the hunt.
The hunter is a very distinct figure in almost all mythologies and cultures, which is why I don't think it is unfair that it gets its own primary class.

There are also so many different ways of hunting that it lends itself well to the dnd subclass system. There are the inuit hunters tracking through the icy wastes of the polar reaches. There are the stone age mammoth hunters relying on pitfalls and strategy. There are the native american forest hunters prowling through the undergrowth. And then there are the more modern big game hunters in Africa and the English Aristocracy in their finest clothes, releasing the hounds. And that's just from real life. Then you got your batmen, your witchers, your Drizzies.

Basically, if you go back 10.000 years, there was only one of the current classes around in real life, and that was the ranger. Not that we should compare a high fantasy medieval setting to the actual stone age :)

[paladinn]

You guys have fun. I'm not into group-think

[Moxxmix]

Mechanically we think of ranger/monk/barbarian as derived from fighter, however thematically/historically it's probably more accurate to say that ranger and barbarian were the prototypes, and fighter and monk were the refinements (with the fighter being more military, and the monk being more philosophical).

Barbarian and ranger are raw and primal. The barbarian gets mad and hits stuff; the ranger hunts down the animals needed for food. They are not derived from the fighter; rather, the fighter is derived from them, while incorporating more organization and formalized training. The fighter is a class that evolves only in a post-governmental world. A Cavalier, or a Battlemaster, or a Samurai, requires the hierarchical structure that comes from government, rulers, military, and armies. The monk takes it a step further, in that it requires personal enlightenment rather than just following the orders for regimented training.

Barbarians and rangers don't exist within those regimes; they come from a time before that, when society was just barely forming into something coherent. The barbarian unleashes strength and resilience in a time where armor didn't exist (or was, at best, leather coverings), and it was an effort to compete with the physical power of most threats. The ranger is the one who hunts for food, tracks down threats to the tribe, and enforces punishment of those who break the tribe's taboos (thinking that simply running away will let them escape such punishment). They represent the two of the three basic ways of dealing with threats in a primal world — strength, or cunning. (The third being magic.)

Ranger is often associated with the wilderness, but I don't believe it's because ranger is the "nature boy"; rather, it's because the ranger archetype hails from a time before civilization and cities. The ranger is a hunter; he doesn't fit inside the structures that the fighter is defined by.

It's like saying that cleric and sorcerer and warlock and druid are all just reflavored wizards, and we should put them all into a single class. Even without the mechanical differences (which are not intrinsic; they are added after the fact), those variations on magic users are just conceptually very different things. The studious magician vs the pious magician vs the natural magician vs the magician that made a Faustian deal vs the magician that inherited his power — the mechanics are just the fluff that allows you to express your character in ways that are different, but the classes are there to allow you to express entire categories of ideas.

Just as the physical classes evolve as barbarian/ranger > fighter > monk, the magical classes evolve as shaman > cleric/druid > warlock > wizard. Certain classes spring up for other reasons than direct evolution, such as the sorcerer coming into existance by mixing bloodlines with magical creatures (likely first originating in the time of the shamans). But once again, mechanical subsetting works in the opposite direction to conceptual evolution.

I will admit that the lack of strongly unique mechanics is a problem. Like with the magician examples, you want each class to work differently enough that the actions you perform are relatively unique at the table. In that sense, I agree with paladinn. However I disagree with the apparant sentiment that the mechanics are the prerequisite for a class; the mechanics are merely the implementation of a class. The class itself is defined by a more fundamental identity.

A class is both "a place to collect unique mechanics" and "a place to collect broad categories of character concepts". The two classes which fail hardest are ranger and sorcerer. In both cases it's because, while the classes definitely provide space for character concepts, the mechanics often feel inadequate to support those concepts. The sorcerer mechanics do not feel related to the character concepts the class is supposedly tuned for, and the ranger mechanics short-circuit much of the ability to actually realize many character concepts.

So paladinn's criticism is legitimate, though I strongly disagree with his proposal to fold ranger into fighter. That has issues with balance, design space, watered down concepts, and the irony that the fighter itself has no "thing" with which to distinguish itself any more than ranger does.

To get a better view of class separation, I put together a table to look at concepts and mechanics.

Class	Concept	Mechanic	Examples
Barbarian	Primal Warrior	Rage	Conan
Bard	Entertainer	Inspiration	minstrels
Cleric	Priest	Holy magic, Channel Divinity	clergy
Druid	One With Nature	Shapeshifting
Fighter	Combatant	~	soldiers
Monk	Enlightened Warrior	Martial Arts	Bruce Lee
Paladin	Holy Warrior	Smite	Lancelot
Ranger	Primal Hunter	~	Aragorn, Batman
Rogue	Cunning Thief	Sneak Attack	Grey Mouser
Sorcerer	Innate Magic	Metamagic
Warlock	Faustian Deal	Pacts	Dr. Strange
Wizard	Magic Scholar	Spellbook	Harry Potter
Extra
Artificer	Magical Crafter	Construct	Girl Genius
Psion	Psionics	Psionics	Jedi
Shaman	Primal Magician	~	Voodoo, Witchcraft, Shamanism

Primals: Barbarian, Ranger, Druid, Shaman
Power of Gods: Cleric, Paladin, Warlock
Power of Man: Bard, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Artificer
Internalized: Monk, Sorcerer, Psion


Now, fighter doesn't really have a "thing". Bard's "thing" (Inspiration) is also kind of weak on its own, but it's used in a lot of unique ways in its subclasses. Rogue's Sneak Attack is similar, except instead of it being a generic thing that subclasses can repurpose, it's more about letting subclasses give new ways of making use of it. If you want to solidify Quarry as the primary "thing" for ranger, it should probably be expanded on as a more generic tool that can be used in interesting ways per subclass.

[Galithar]

Do you mean mechanically/combat role or do you mean fluff-wise? Beacuse I feel like all those have been answered in many different ways, many overlapping, in the thread that spawned this one. And I realy think we have a pretty good class going here, both mechanically and considering the fluff-choices behind those mechanics.

As has also been mentioned before, all classes can be distilled into fewer, if you generalize the features you are looking for more. Or spread out into many classes, if you want to get more specific about the features.
A 1 class system could be; "the class needs to be an adventurer", and many classes if its something like; "an asian flavoured martial artist, that can also use weapons, but is based on his fists, and has a deep connection with an internal energy". Personally I quite like the amount of classes we have now.

As the Hunter is the Ranger+, I think it is fair to say, that this is the essence of the Ranger as written here. The Experienced Hunter. The other two subclasses build on "the hunt" by having a hunting dog or having spells to help with the hunt.
The hunter is a very distinct figure in almost all mythologies and cultures, which is why I don't think it is unfair that it gets its own primary class.

There are also so many different ways of hunting that it lends itself well to the dnd subclass system. There are the inuit hunters tracking through the icy wastes of the polar reaches. There are the stone age mammoth hunters relying on pitfalls and strategy. There are the native american forest hunters prowling through the undergrowth. And then there are the more modern big game hunters in Africa and the English Aristocracy in their finest clothes, releasing the hounds. And that's just from real life. Then you got your batmen, your witchers, your Drizzies.

Basically, if you go back 10.000 years, there was only one of the current classes around in real life, and that was the ranger. Not that we should compare a high fantasy medieval setting to the actual stone age :)

I agree with most of this. And being the one that created the previous thread I can tell you that there was never any agreement on what a Ranger was.

But this right here, your post, describes perfectly what THIS Ranger is. It is the epitome of a Hunter. Something that has never come through from the PHB or any WotC rewrite is an identity that actually brings the class together. Many people SAID that the Ranger was a lot of the things you described in this post, but the truth was that the class didn't actually match what they were saying. And this does. This is my favorite rewrite that I've seen for the Ranger and I have to give props to those that helped create it.

Because of this I will firmly and confidently admit that (with a rewrite like this) the Ranger can actually stand on it's own in a 5e game.

Kane0 and those that helped him with this have created a class that has an identity in both the mechanics and the narrative. Something that (at least without play testing) is balanced and full of good features from level 1 to level 20.

My appreciation goes out to you and I will certainly be using this (or maybe a slightly modified version to make it to my preference a bit more) as a choice for my players in my next campaign.

[paladinn]

I agree with most of this. And being the one that created the previous thread I can tell you that there was never any agreement on what a Ranger was.

But this right here, your post, describes perfectly what THIS Ranger is. It is the epitome of a Hunter. Something that has never come through from the PHB or any WotC rewrite is an identity that actually brings the class together. Many people SAID that the Ranger was a lot of the things you described in this post, but the truth was that the class didn't actually match what they were saying. And this does. This is my favorite rewrite that I've seen for the Ranger and I have to give props to those that helped create it.

Because of this I will firmly and confidently admit that (with a rewrite like this) the Ranger can actually stand on it's own in a 5e game.

Kane0 and those that helped him with this have created a class that has an identity in both the mechanics and the narrative. Something that (at least without play testing) is balanced and full of good features from level 1 to level 20.

My appreciation goes out to you and I will certainly be using this (or maybe a slightly modified version to make it to my preference a bit more) as a choice for my players in my next campaign.

As one of those who helped Kane0 in the early days of this thread, I agree that it is way better than what's in the PHB (or even XGtE). I think that, as I've gone over the development process, it just strikes me as an example of what I take issue with in 5e as a whole. Every level has to give something new and shiny, and we need to cram as much into the class as possible. I guess that comes with living in the video game age. A grognard like me appreciates something simpler at times.

That said, kudos to Kane0 and all. I do look forward to reading how the playtesting goes.

[Kane0]

Thanks guys, I do believe this has been a very fruitful project and it would not have been done without your input.

I've touched up the final parts of the Hunter, I think that's everything filled in and ready for playtesting feedback!
I will also be putting a copy in my houserules/homebrew thread for recordkeeping.

[paladinn]

Thanks guys, I do believe this has been a very fruitful project and it would not have been done without your input.

I've touched up the final parts of the Hunter, I think that's everything filled in and ready for playtesting feedback!
I will also be putting a copy in my houserules/homebrew thread for recordkeeping.

Glad I could help inspire. Maybe I should be a bard :)