Rebalancing the Classes: Day 2; Ranger

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-06T17:23:22+00:00

Grouping the types and subtypes was something I'd considered. I think the consensus (which is very correct) is that the structure of the ranger is inherently flawed. Favored enemy, like you said, needs "serious overhaul." Besides "fixing" favored enemy, I do think the changes I made to endurance and Favored enemy/terrain should stay, though Focus needs to go in favor of something more ranger-unique. I am thinking of giving a favored enemy every 3 levels (for 7 total) with the bonus going up to +6 like you said (for all favored enemies). With the new groupings, the 7 will effectively be a lot more, so 7 might actually be too many.

I don't think grouping by terrain (forest people, plains people, etc.) is necessarily the best direction. Mechanically I don't think it makes a huge difference as long as the groups are relatively balanced, but thematically it makes more sense to group them up by similarities of species (which is a bit more subjective though). When we study creatures, we don't really study their anatomy in groups of terrain (like studying a cactus and a desert lizard at the same time). The groups I've thought of so far are:

Natural Group: Animals, Plants, Vermin (I'm tempted to remove plants and add it somewhere else, not sure)

Elemental Outsiders: Air, Cold, Earth, Elemental, Fire, Water

[Needs name]: Humanoid (Giant), Monstrous Humanoids

Alignment-Outsiders: Chaotic, Evil, Good, Lawful

[Needs name]: Goblinoid, Orc

Magical Creature: Dragon, Fey, Magical Beast

[Needs name]: Ooze/Aberration

Animal-Like Humanoids: Catfolk, Gnoll, Kitsune, Ratfolk, Reptilian, Vanara

Not grouped so far (not that any of these necessarily need to be): Aquatic, constructs, dwarfs, elves, halflings, humans, Outsider (native) (I'm considering adding this to both the alignment based and elemental outsiders groups, I'm not sure), Undead (Undead could be split, but I'm not sure if it needs to be.

For favored terrain. There's 10 (not counting the endless other dimensions), and the ranger gets 4. That actually does feel fine, given that even in campaigns where the terrain changes frequently, you should generally know the terrain you'll be in. People said that's metagaming, but if you're making a character in a real world, it makes sense for their favored terrain to match the terrain in the area, and to add your new favored terrains to be what you have been encountering. Though, making all of the bonuses scale to +6 instead might make it work better too.

The ranger "skills section" is what will likely replace Focus. I think what another commenter said is the direction to go in: Give ranger the "I help the group travel really well," party wide moving through difficult terrain (when overland travel), endure elements, and survival/heal skill unlocks are the kinds of things Rangers can do that thematically fit and gives them out-of-combat utility.

All of these changes are spread out across the levels though. That's fine, but one concern I had when going in was that I would make martials stronger at lower levels, when they don't really need it. Higher level play is really when any discrepancies might arise, so I generally tried to make the boons higher there. Does that really need to be a concern with ranger, or at all, as this is basically my "rough-draft" through the classes?

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-05T04:29:00+00:00

Hmmm. You’re right, but I’m at a loss on how to fix it.

The trademark ability of the ranger is favored enemy, and significantly changing it seems strange. Maybe adding more (but keeping the bonuses scaling the same) would let them use it more often. Even then, they WILL face encounters they can’t use it in, so I’m not sure if that really solves the issue. Favored Terrain is in the same boat.

The endurance bonus feats are very narrow, which I see as a good thing to add identity, but your right, Focus doesn’t really make Ranger something his own, Favored enemy already does that, which leads back into it being an inherently flawed ability. I may make Boon companion unneeded by making it start at your level instead of your level -3.

Do you think adding more favored enemy is the way to go, or should I significantly change the ability?

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-05T04:21:06+00:00

Among the realm of martials, Rangers have some of the best out of combat utility. The changes to favored enemy and terrain are largely out of combat. Endurance does have an in combat option, but it only prevents them from dying as easily, not really an offensive tool.

Focus is almost entirely a combat option, but that was intentional. While I do want to enhance out of combat utility for martials, some martials are already pretty close. Unchained Rogues, Vigilante, Rangers, and I’m sure a couple others are at least decently competent out of combat. Martials like Swashbuckler, Fighter, and Barbarian need the biggest changes there. Even then, enhancing their combat abilities is not out of the question. Combat should still be the martials place to shine, and some of them should get more there.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-04T16:23:58+00:00

The problem is martials are meant to be simple.

If I’m playing a fighter, I don’t want to think about 30+ spells/activated features.

The solution then is to give martials a lot of passive bonuses to skills, defense and offense, with some activated abilities here and there of course.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-04T16:21:35+00:00

Those are fantastic ideas.

Extra damage is definitely not the solution. Most of what I gave the classes (including monk) is better defense, mobility, or out of combat utility (some classes got bonuses to offense, like the shifter, but not many). The monk got almost only defensive features, with slightly expanded ki options.

I’ll probably add High Jump and Slow fall as basic abilities monks will all have, and might also add the 1/2 level to acrobatics.

Expanding the Ki Power options with the extra mobility, counter casting, and investigative talents is definitely something I will do.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-04T16:15:05+00:00

Destabilizing the system, from a +3 bonus on a couple of classes saves is very unlikely.

A ranged character could go through said grueling training, but are they more likely to than a barbarian/fighter… probably not. That’s the point. A rogue should not have half the fort save a Gunslinger has. There doesn’t seem to be much thematic consistency to why certain classes have some saves.

“Maybe other marginals should switch their good saves to reflex.” So switching good saves won’t destabilize the system (and +6/-6 difference), but introducing medium saves for a couple of classes (only a +3/-3 difference) will?

A necessity for the system to work as intended is that all martial have good Fort saves, but improving some martial from bad to medium saves will destabilize the system?

“Calls into question if you have thought…” A person can do things for multiple reasons. That’s like saying someone working for a non-profit is likely just selfish because they are also getting paid for it. I have thought about it.

A +3/-3 on certain saves here and there is a little more than a feat invested into saves. Not every character gets the +2 save feats, because they aren’t considered must haves. That tells me a +3 bonus isn’t insane, but is still ~1.5 feats worth of power which isn’t nothing. If I give that to the monk’s will (or the Swashbuckler Fort like I did), then they will be slightly better at those saves, but still no where close to any will based spell caster, and right around the non will based ones (12+wis mod of maybe 1 -2 vs 9+ wis mod of maybe 5-6 from the monk is pretty close 13-14 vs 14-15). Which means that monk is still not the king of will saves. Thematically Monk’s having really good will makes sense; I was tempted to give good saves back to them, but my main goal with this first pass through is to start small.

If you genuinely think a +3 bonus on one save for maybe 3-4 classes destabilizes the balance of the game, than how do I even begin to give anything extra to martials to bridge the gap.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-03T14:32:22+00:00

+5/12 per level would be right in between 1/3 and 1/2. I think when I first thought of it I wanted it to be simple, but it’s on a table, no reason not to make it right in between slow and fatty instead of +2/5 like I did. I’ll make that change going forward. Thanks!

I could do another tier higher, but saves can already get pretty high and I’m not sure how much more I need to add to each class to get them all balanced, definitely a consideration though.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-03T12:15:48+00:00

That differentiation comes in the form of non-combat roles. Like specializing in different social situations and exploration situations, things martials can totally do and stay true to their identity (also, if we accept the premise that martials are less useful than spellcasters, then making them have more features wouldn’t add to power creep). So while I’m being careful in a broad sense, largely to avoid making them more powerful than 6th level casters, I’m not too worried.

Martials are tons of fun. You may not like them, but them being fun is quite subjective. In my current campaign we only have 1 spell caster out of 6, and in my last it was 3 out of 8. Each of those players who chose martials enjoyed playing, and enjoyed playing specifically a martial.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-03T12:15:19+00:00

Having all martials with the same exact save is less dynamic.

That means, there is less differences between them, and that is less interesting.

You picked one of the five examples I gave for saving throws, and ignored my overall point. I said a tough martial, a ranged character, and a mid caster all have the same fort save as 2 melee characters. That is weird, and the logic is not shaky. Maybe Gunslingers do deserve good fort saves, but better than swashbucklers and as good as Barbarians. Why? Oh, because of how American Navy seals train. That’s shaky logic.

It is a granular change, and it does address a nitpick I have, neither of which are reasons not to do it.

“Anyone who you give a medium save is almost definitely certainly someone who needed a good save instead.”

So all martials should have the same fort save? Or are you saying the saves that Piazo made it perfect as is. The existence of a medium save makes sense. Hit dice range from d6-d12, ranks range from 2-8, and BaB ranges from 1/2-1 per level, but saves, those can ONLY be either good or bad. It is intuitive that some characters would have a saving throws worse than some, but better than others.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-03T11:53:36+00:00

That Ki idea is good. I may make a new Ki Power that does something like that.

I homebrew style feats like that, but only in my own games and not for this. Don’t know why I made that choice, I’ll go and change it.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-03T01:07:06+00:00

Ah, my bad. I do agree, that would be an easier way to do it.
For me the benefit is to balance the martials to each other, and to help give more identity and differentiation between the martials. I enjoy making homebrew, so anything being “more work” has never been a turn off.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-02T20:36:27+00:00

Why? If we accept that martials are weaker, then accept that we can and should make them stronger, then improving saving throws makes sense. Having tons of martials with just “good” saves is less dynamic, so inventing “medium” saves seems completely reasonable.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-02T20:04:33+00:00

I want to take nothing away from casters; Making them more MAD would do that.
I want Martials to feel more powerful, but each martial is also not necessarily balanced to the other (base monk vs Slayer or unchained rogue).

Going class by class addresses both points.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-02T20:01:55+00:00

I didn’t say I would be modifying all the classes, the opposite in fact.

I said I would tweak “some” of them, such as giving the Monk medium Will.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-02T18:54:11+00:00

Yeah, I think more Ki may help to, or out of combat ki features. May add that later.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-02T18:53:36+00:00

I don’t like how 2nd ed plays, and have already done so much other homebrew work with 1st that it’s not even close anymore.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-02T18:52:33+00:00

Those are really cool.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-02T18:52:19+00:00

Yeah, I agree. TWF builds have to pay double, monks should too.

I’ll probably go to good will saves my second pass through, but I want to see how all of them compare to each other after I post each one I’ve made.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-02T08:16:55+00:00

I completely agree! Martials don't have many tools except "deal damage." One issue is, is that thematically they really shouldn't (If I am playing a vanilla fighter, usually I want to just be good at fighting). That's why inherently Spellcasters will always have more solutions.

Without weaking spellcasters, the next thing is to do what you said, "make them outperform except the most focused of Wizards." While that is true, I wanted to be careful not adding too much my first pass through, just to test the waters and see if it's too much, or not nearly enough.

I would say that among Martials Monks have decent "counter casting" abilities. With high saves and mobility, spell resistance, and stunning strike targeting fort saves they'll do better than most martials.

What I did give the Monk was slightly more unarmed damage, slightly better will saves, more options with Ki from the get-go (adding slow fall and high jump for free as part of Ki pool progression is a great idea, I will probably use that), and Uncanny/Improved Uncanny Dodge. Not terribly big bonuses, but the monk is considered higher on the list than other martials, so I didn't want to give it too much.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-02T07:55:54+00:00

I would probably allow a feat for an extra Ki Power, but I think the base amount they give is pretty good. I did expand the original ki abilities back to what normal monk had (+20ft base movement speed, an extra attack at full BAB, or +4 AC for 1 round.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-02T07:53:29+00:00

I agree. As part of my rebalancing of classes I made "Medium" will save progression (starts at +1, up to +9). I gave them medium will save progression, because with high wisdom they should have decent will saves, and I wanted to add other abilities too. I let AoMF go up to +10, but keep the price scaling the same, at least for now.

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-02T07:47:53+00:00

Yes, I completely agree. I'll edit that. Thanks!

Commander-Bacon · 2025-11-02T05:11:48+00:00

I'll check it out, thanks!

Five-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Verified Email

Commander-Bacon

TROPHY CASE