U58 Preview 2: Dark Hunter Ranger Archetype

[spifflove]

Respectfully:

1. Restore crit range
2. Restore evasion
3. Rogue weapons only
4. Add +2 str and char to capstone
5. Restore assassinate only for throwers

Thank you!

[Pandjed]

Not sure why evasion has to go. Just let people choose between using it vs medium armor. There are positives and negatives to each.

Because otherwise the Darkhunter will only trade off FE options for:

• Trapfinding (1)
• Trap Making (3)
• Trap Sense +1 (3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18) (same as rogue and barbarian)
• Sneak Attack 1d6 (1, 5, 10, 15, 20) (every 5 levels instead of every 2, means they get half of the sneak attack dice as Rogue does, 5d6 instead of 10d6)

I think that would be really unbalanced and people (myself included) didn't react with sheer joy about it. Though I'm sure only few of us were expecting that kind of change. But from first reading (will test later) the feedback was taken, but with a lack of direction for the tree. Changes without no clear design goal are bad, and while I do think, that some thoughts were spent here, I also think that a singular vision would work better, as in this case, it's not about what works and what not (oc it's important to players, but there are several other systems at worked that could be changed by themselves and therefore change effectiveness, like pets, building traps, sneak mechanics, etc), but what the identity of this class is supposed to be.
Be honest, if we hadn't the imbue change at the end of last year, most wouldn't care about Arcane Archer at all. :P

So, about the original prestige class, we get:

• Fluff: A hunter specialized in the underdark
• Needs the Blind-Fight feat and the Track feat (rangers get the latter for free)
• Is very perceptive about stonework
• Enhanced Darkvision
• Has Sneak Attack
• Can hide well at stone walls
• Death Attack like an Assassin

I think, using a prestige class with 5 levels is a kinda weak premise, as it'd be more like branching out of class than half of one. As a single enhancement tree to ranger: Sure, go ahead! Building an archetype of it... phew, difficult.

OK, but let's work with what we have and look at its current themes:

Wolf Companion: I love the idea of your companion using your imbue, but... the companion is just tagged on. Would it be part of the base class and replace a feat of the Dark Hunter, I'd be all for it, but as it currently stands, it's a tag on that tries to do great things with a pet, but isn't really build for it. I'd think about repurposing this work and put it into druid and artificer.
Also, the question would be, why an Underdark expert roams around with a trap-detecting wolf... seems like a very odd combination of words.

Sneak Attack: I'm honest here, cut them from the base class. Transferring them to the enhancement tree will make people complain, but otherwise people will find that DWS might be a much better fit for the inherent SA dice. I said before in version 1, DWS and DH are directly competing with each other in many things and having an archetype that's alright sundered from the get-go is a no-no. At least, if the SA dice are in the tree, people would take them and combine them with DWS, and it wouldn't feel like those dice are pushed into that archetype's portable hole for no reason.

Sneak mechanics: As long as there is no plan to make this tree replace DWS (which I think would be the better idea), just add the better sneakies there. I said it before, DWS is supposed to be our sneak tree.

Trapsetting and admixtures: I guess it's supposed to get the vibe of a hunter, who uses performance enhancing drugs, alchemical traps, and the like, but they don't really appear ihn the premise. Could be cool in itself, but there is a whole problem of not using alchemist spells in meaningful ways. I mean, if there were mutagen's and such in the tree or the spell list (replacing some plant stuff) it might be interesting and more worth than too much of the rogue.



But in the end, the lack of direction will make this a rather lackluster archetype in the longrun, with no real identity and the always tagged on "But the ranger at least got an archetype"-slogan.


Here the three directions I would suggest:

1. Also revisit DWS: You know, DWS isn't the best tree... well, it's mostly the worst ranger tree with some singular abilities people wants or feel the need to grab (like 21 pts for crit threat). You could take some stuff from DWS away, like favored enemy defense and the like (or put those bonuses together), add some more space and put your sneaky winners of DH into DWS tree. Then there are great ideas implemented and in addition, DH has more space left again.
This way, the bloated idea space of the DH gets some less stress. This could be implemented with the two other ideas, but it alone would make it less jarring to read from a player's perspective (mine).

2. Go all the way with the trapping: Discard the pet (add those enhancement to arti and druid), add more alchemical and mechanical feel to it. Death Attack will become Death Trap, give some alchemist spells into the spell list, give abilities that pay of a careful playstyle, a cunning one of waiting and seeing. Enhance the stealth of the DWS, instead of competing with it. Add more bonuses for longer stealth, add ways to get invisible or make a stealth check as a diplo check (old SD mechanic).

3. Go all out for the pet and rename the archetype Beast Master: Get rid of trapping and such, and do what D&D did since 4e: Binding rangers to beast much closer than any other class. Wolf at level 1, instead of TWF and Archery, gain a "beast-style" which increases beast stats and ranger when fighting with beast, Augment Summoning instead Manyshot, etc.
Yeah, the mechanics for it aren't good in higher diffs, but put a note on the door and read it every day when entering the office: Make beasts good fast!
Alternatively, it could go Falconry style, the beast more as a weapon instead of a thing with HP, though this would most likely take too long to code.



If the idea is just as skin-deep as "Ranger who does traps", this tree will never be good, because the premise is already lackluster and with little excitment.

[kpak01]

I could understand making Death Attack only work on a Favored Enemy which the Dark Hunter has, since there's multiple ways of adding extra FEs via Enhancements or . But restricting it to only those FEs which a Dark Hunter intrinsically gets is too, well, restrictive.

I agree. Instead of

• "all things you might have as favored enemies (even if you don't actually have them as favored enemies) but only from class"

should be

• "all things you actually have as favored enemies (regardless of source)"

I feel like the usefulness of a given ability shouldn't hinge on what content I'm running and what mix of monsters I'll be facing.

I don't agree with that as the reason, though. There are and always have been lots of abilities that are specific to certain enemies.

[kpak01]

I still don't like giving trapping away to Rangers, but at least toning down the better-at-assassinating-than-Assassins to Favored Enemy list, and making a trade-off to Medium Armor instead of Evasion gives a bit more distinctness from standard Ranger and a tiny bit less intrusion into Rogue's niche. I.e., I still think it's bad, but this version is less bad.

[Wahnsinnig]

Dark hunter was very interesting to me in the first preview and I was looking forward to trying it on one of my characters when it went live.

The latest changes has completely ruined it for me, medium armour and no evasion means it is not a ranger anymore.

I am very disappointed now.

[spifflove]

I like the idea of an above poster to add alchemical spells

[Splunge]

Adding medium armor proficiency and taking away evasion is an awful change for a ranger archetype. Two of the three normal trees have a bunch of enhancements that require light armor. You just killed a large chunk of those trees, including the tempest capstone.

Having the instakill only work for favored enemies is an interesting twist that makes your favored enemy choices more useful, but you got rid of most of the favored enemies. That's a bad combination. I'm also disappointed that it's melee only.

[Lotoc]

It's not like you wouldn't go shadowdancer with this sneak attack focused archetype in epics and just get evasion back anyway so losing evasion is only really a drawback 10-20 while it opens up having what is basically improved evasion vs traps in medium armor, meaning a wisdom focused DH isn't really penalized for having a resulting lower reflex save.
And just because you have medium proficiency doesn't mean you can't wear light armor, in fact I think it's kind of the standard for some builds (for example thief acrobat rogues and kensei fighters) to wear cloth for higher dodge cap and use of GMOF's epic strike.

[Natashaelle]

3. Rogue weapons only

No, also need at least Longbow, Longsword, Scimitar. Not Rangers without them.

[spifflove]

No, also need at least Longbow, Longsword, Scimitar. Not Rangers without them.

You can get those by playing elf. (Scimmy will cost a feat or they could just be included as an “orc weapon common in the under dark “ or they could allow it with elf enhancement)

I originally imagined thf but that makes no sense in the under dark. And anyone who has ever gone spelunking knows medium armor is a non starter.

Daggers, darts, short swords and hand crossbows are the weapons of the under dark.

[FixBows]

I just get the sense that they don't know what they want out of this archetype. I would say put it on hold until you can give it more time to develop and make it something people want to play.

[Aelonwy]

If it were a multi-selector choice of either evasion or medium armor proficiency, I could see the archetype still being interesting. But no choice? No. No I've lost ALL interest in rolling one on live at all.

[unbongwah]

• Core 3: Smoke Trap: Throw a smoke grenade at a target, if they fail a fortitude save (DC20 + Dex Mod + Assassinate + Trap DCs) they lose their immunity to sneak attack and 25% of their fortification for 25 seconds. (Cooldown: 12 seconds)
• Snap Trap: Toss a snapping trap at the targeted enemy. If they don't make a Fortitude Save (DC 20 + Dex Mod + Assassinate + Bonus Trap DCs) they are rooted in place by the trap's jaws.
• Death Attack: Stealth Melee Assassinate Attack: On Sneak Attack: Attempt to Assassinate a foe before you. If it is an enemy type that a Dark Hunter could have as a Favored Enemy (Vermin, Elves, Aberrations, Animals, Humanoids, and Monstrous Humanoids) then you attempt to snuff out its life, killing it instantly unless it makes a Fortitude save vs Death (DC 10 + Ranger Level + highest of Dex, Int, or Wis Mod + Assassinate bonuses). If it is a different enemy type, or it makes its Fortitude save, you instead mortally wound it, lowering its Physical and Magical Resistance rating by 10 and dealing an extra 1d20 Bleed damage per character level.

Couldn't this be consistent by having all of the DCs based on DEX/INT/WIS and not just Death Attack? It's weird to have to rely on DEX for an archetype which no longer gets Evasion.

EDIT: never mind, looks like the release notes just don't match the tooltips.

It's not like you wouldn't go shadowdancer with this sneak attack focused archetype in epics and just get evasion back anyway so losing evasion is only really a drawback 10-20

The Darkest Luck isn't available until level 26. Tabaxi Dark Hunter can take racial Evasion enhancement but 16 APs is a lot if you don't have a ton of racial PLs. You can also just splash rogue or monk 2, but part of the appeal of Dark Hunter for me is having a pure ranger-trapper; having to splash to gain back Evasion is a "our situation has not improved" moment for me.

[Kielbasa]

Magical Traps. Please let us throw these as if they were alchemist spells or grenades. Either that or their trigger radius needs to be much larger and the setup time needs to be much shorter.

Trapmaking is a very underutilized system in the game but it has a solid foundation that could be expanded upon and turned into something really fun and special.

I just want to glitter dust bomb all my enemies is that too much??

[Saekee]

What is cull the weak? Is that the same as Bleed the weak? What do you mean as the same bonuses if they are blind? How about instead, Your Bleed the weak scaling bonus to wounded opponents affects enemies that are vulnerable to sneak attack. This would then function on one that is bluffed, blinded, deception-struck, helpless, etc. Makes MUCH more sense.

I like the bonus imbue dice as this lets you stack stuff up in early heroics. 2 rogue can get you 3 bonus imbue dice, and now 3 ranger, so at level 5 you can fave 6 bonus imbue from these two classes to help navigate the pre-level 12 power differential.

Please give this build some kind of interesting crit profile. Swashes are ridiculously overpowered with their flexibility in this regard at LEVEL 3 and with minimum ap. Here we have a TWF melee build that needs some punch. I would make the crit range the standard threat range/multiplier, and add Deception to the weapon.

[newmart]

I read all the complaints and to summarize:

- Ranger and stealth need evasion and light armor!
- Overlap with DWS tree.
- Very restricted enemy list for assassination
- The pet finding traps in the dark is strange... This should be given to Articer's pet.

I really do believe that u should focus on the traps and remove the pet. Work all the tree around traps, caltrops, snares and improved trowing potions (from trapmaking) and maybe new druid spells transformed into traps

Or

Focus in the beast master aspect, removing sneak, taking medium armor "barbarian like" dual wield and beasts. The enhancements should focus on pet, including assassination via pet. Do not hurt adding a new Epic aniaml summon to magister since the ones we have are not thematic.

[Dandonk]

Dark Hunter seems to suffer from the general "have to invest heavily in two trees" problem that all rangers have. It really should be time to do something about that.

I personally don't really have an issue with it going medium armor and without evasion. If you really want evasion, you can go thingy-race, splash, or wait for epics.

The limited FE selection is going to hurt some, but in itself is not a complete bust.

The vial-throwing instead of cure spells has benefits and problems, but to me, it'll be annoying. Healing via vial-throwing is really really annoying in practice.

Pets are great in theory. But no amount of bonuses are going to help the 0 int AI they're saddled with. I'm not going to use it myself, at least for anything other than lever pulling.

Death attack is very very limited in useful targets for instakilling. Which means the actual utility of it for trash clearing is going to be minimal. It might be nice for some raid bosses, though, with the debuff.

All in all, I don't see me actually using the enhancement tree much. I'd probably go tempest + dws + horizon for trance, and have no points left for the signature tree of the archetype. I find that sad.

[R1ncewind]

Well two thing, the tree is not completely upgraded, at least the imbue dices are not there, and is not a txt thing because I checked and there are no imbue dices in the character sheet. Also the competence bonus is not there either, and probably a few other things too.. so...

[Kikifer]

The tree as other have pointed out seems to be confused about what it wants to achieve. Some abilities would be good for a ranged build (double shot, sneak attacks, snap trap) while other only benefit from melee. I would suggest making both play styles possible; potentially by offering multi selectors for either ranged or melee versions of the ability or providing both. This might provide it the throwing support it is themed to provide as well.

For example, have an option to have bleed the weak scale of either melee or ranged power. Add ranged version of death attack or an alternative for ranged builds. I do like the idea of a trap as suggest by others.

As it stands the three is spread to thin and tries to do to many things. I was excited by the idea of this tree, but I cannot see myself using this tree over any of the others that are available.

[Talan]

I really like the concept of the Class, and when first announced was looking to play it, although as a variant of Tempest. However, now I'm not sure I would play it. Key issues/ potential fixes from my perspective are:

1. Medium Armour: I get the trade-off with Evasion here which in principle is not unreasonable but, and purely a personal opinion, I don't like it. Both the DWS and Tempest Trees have abilities which require you to be in light armour. There is essentially a 21 minimum spend in DWS for any Ranger to gain the critical multiplier, so the lack of synergy sticks out here.

2. Wolf Companion: I love the fact that Ranger will have a pet option. However, this will die all the time, which could quickly become a frustrating liability. Deaths will be more frequent than for the Druid wolf, due to (correctly) lower healing abilities on the Ranger and less defensive buffs. Suggestions which I don;t think would imbalance anything:
- Wolf Hide (T1): Add additional Fortification per rank to the Wolf
- Lupine Instincts (T4): Add Healing Amp per rank to the Wolf, so that Ranger heals can better help keep it up... if vials ever land on target in combat.
- Rez Ability: Druids get to Rez their Wolf 3/ rest. The same ability could be added into the archtype. In the current D&D TTRPG (post Tashas) Rangers can essentially re-summon their companions every short rest.

3. Core 1: 5hp a Core feels weak. By contrast, Druids as full casters in their combat tree get 8hp a core.

4. Smoke Trap (Core 3): This is essentially a weaker version of the DWS Called Short ability (longer cool down and no damage), but I guess it will be on a separate timer and therefore still have a use.

5. Escape through the dark (Core 4): As there is no way of becoming invisible for the base class, or this archtype, I just don't get this as a Core ability at all. Would feel bad taking it. If it is intended for use with a specific item of equipment or multiclass combination can that be explained please? Even then it that would feel odd for a core ability, unless I am just missing something. Should this Core have an additional short duration invisibility ability (Shadow Cloak: 10 second invisibility on a 60 second cool down) or would that be too powerful?

6. Death Stalker (Core 5): An ability which will be tried out a few times for flavour and then be largely forgotten about. I'm not certain that a 5% damage boost is enough to encourage regularly sneaking. Difficult to know what if any number would incentivise that though.

7. Hunter in the Dark (Core 6): I assume that the reference to 'Cull the Weak' is referring to 'Bleed the Weak'? I understand the darkness flavour, but I don't understand why a Capstone ability would give bonuses to Blindness, which is not something either the base class or archtype inflicts. If going all the way in DH, and needing 21 APs taxed into DWS for crits, putting significant points into Falconry for AOE blindness does not seem likely. I suggest that either (i) an AOE blindness ability is added to this tree, possibly as a trap, or the this portion of the Capstone is changed to be something else.

8. Death Attack: I understand the purpose of the restrictions, but making a T5 ability so restrictive that in many adventures it will have limited use (unless the damage scales by melee/ ranged power?) seems unduly restrictive.

9. T3/4 Abilities generally: Whilst functional, Rangers already don't have the best enhancement trees. However, there is nothing in T3/ T4 DH that feels tempting to take over either Tempest or DWS. It would be worth considering what would encourage taking these options for what appears to be a melee focused archtype, especially over Tempest considering that Rangers have a minimum 21 AP tax into DWS, reducing build flexibility as unlike most melee classes Rangers core DPS abilities are split across several trees.

Given the addition of a pet, is there any chance of taking this opportunity to review Rangers spell lists and to consider adding Align Fang, Pack Presence (to reduce aggro on the Wolf and other companions) and Tenacious Pack (as a level 4 Ranger spell)?

As mentioned, I do really like the flavour of the DH (and introducing archtypes generally), which is why I an invested in providing feed-back. However, the medium armour focus, the core 4 and 5 abilities [too situational to be interesting] and pet survivability, as well a lack of reason to take the T3/ 4 abilities over those of another Ranger tree are my key areas of concern.