D&D 5E The Future of the Ranger

[Thurmas]

Actually, in PHB, the ranger gives up an action, or one attack if extra attack, to use the beast.

In new version, ranger only gets one attack while beast gets other attack. So if beast dies, you still have only one attack. Its actually worse.

You could also argue that it's better in the sense that it doubles your hitpoints. All the damage your pet just took could have been damage that you would have taken and been killed. Instead, the pet took all the damage and while you lost that attack, you do still have one attack, plus your other abilities, and your hitpoints. Still alive with one attack is better then dead with no attacks.

 

[CapnZapp]

Actually, in PHB, the ranger gives up an action, or one attack if extra attack, to use the beast.

In new version, ranger only gets one attack while beast gets other attack. So if beast dies, you still have only one attack. Its actually worse.

No its not.

Having to give up your action is abominable.

Having just the one attack is fine, assuming the class is otherwise attractive.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

That's because I am talking about the Ranger and you are talking about the Beastmaster.

I don't understand.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[thethain]

I really feel like this is saying "You aren't going to have two large pizzas! You are going to have a large pizza, you can just choose thin crust or hand tossed!"

It might make some difference to him in his heart. But it doesn't change the fact there will be Rangers running around with two different sets of abilities. And that many players will shorthand call using the variant options "Revised Ranger" or "Variant Ranger".

I DO suppose it is important to distinguish that it is not a separate class for the sake of people not multiclassing Ranger/Vranger.

But it really feels like the equivalent of saying "No these are LEGO Brand building blocks! Not LEGOs!" Something for the company person to care about, which has no impact on the product in the wild.

 

[Koren n'Rhys]

I don't understand.

I think his point is that the base class itself may be fine, but it's the Beastmaster subclass that so many people think is broken. Rather than issue a new class, why not just fix the subclass?

 

[Remathilis]

I compared the UA Ranger to the PHB one, and for the most part, their is less daylight between the two than it seems. Really, it seems more like a power-up than a re-tool, and some of its "power up" is a little too upped. I could see them providing an alternative way of doing Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy to allow for more combat-use (similar to the UA variants) and redo the animal companion from Beastmaster to be more like the UA one (with a slight change to account for the extra attack rangers already get). Ignoring the Enclave name change and Fleet replacing Land's Stride, there wasn't much different, just more-powerful.

I could also see a future product (be it a print of PDF) that gives some alternate options for other classes like sorcerer, druid, barbarian, or rogue to tweak the game without a ".5" book; more akin to Pathfinder Unchained. We'll see.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I could also see a future product (be it a print of PDF) that gives some alternate options for other classes like sorcerer, druid, barbarian, or rogue to tweak the game without a ".5" book; more akin to Pathfinder Unchained. We'll see.

EDIT: I misread you. Never mind. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I really feel like this is saying "You aren't going to have two large pizzas! You are going to have a large pizza, you can just choose thin crust or hand tossed!"

It might make some difference to him in his heart. But it doesn't change the fact there will be Rangers running around with two different sets of abilities. And that many players will shorthand call using the variant options "Revised Ranger" or "Variant Ranger".

I DO suppose it is important to distinguish that it is not a separate class for the sake of people not multiclassing Ranger/Vranger.

But it really feels like the equivalent of saying "No these are LEGO Brand building blocks! Not LEGOs!" Something for the company person to care about, which has no impact on the product in the wild.

The real question though, is if he is suggesting that you can take the features piecemeal. If so that would be pretty significant, being able to keep the old favored enemy or natural explorer, but changing it to use the new beastmpaster with coordinated attack is a significant boon for people who dont like every aspect of the new features.

It also suggests that we can have fixes for other classes without huge overhauls (like they could release a variant for the sorcerers spellcasting feature to make the much lauded spell point change, or introduce a variant blade pact)

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[Thurmas]

I compared the UA Ranger to the PHB one, and for the most part, their is less daylight between the two than it seems. Really, it seems more like a power-up than a re-tool, and some of its "power up" is a little too upped. I could see them providing an alternative way of doing Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy to allow for more combat-use (similar to the UA variants) and redo the animal companion from Beastmaster to be more like the UA one (with a slight change to account for the extra attack rangers already get). Ignoring the Enclave name change and Fleet replacing Land's Stride, there wasn't much different, just more-powerful.

I could also see a future product (be it a print of PDF) that gives some alternate options for other classes like sorcerer, druid, barbarian, or rogue to tweak the game without a ".5" book; more akin to Pathfinder Unchained. We'll see.

A 2019 5.5 book would not be unwelcome though, 5 years after the game was released. I think it would be a wise business move from a profits standpoint, as well as a good game move to freshen and fix some of the mechanics. There are more than just the Ranger and Sorcerer that need fixing. Probably every single class could have some minor tweaks to them to make them work better, or balance or just make them more fun. Not to mention the fixes that could be given to spells, or clarifications that could be given to game mechanics such as hiding. You could easily make the 5.5 book compatible with all the other books that have already been released.

That being said, an improved Ranger PDF before then would be fantastic. I've made my own version of the ranger that I really love, but I would like to see something official released.

 

[Mistwell]

Giving the pet its own action and not requiring you to sacrifice yours is not "the impression of fixing"

It is actually fixing.

And I can't see how you aren't shafted if you're forced to keep using the PHB Beastmaster.

So I guess I don't understand your post?


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I agree with the sentiment that the pet should just get it's own action. The guy playing the beastmaster in our game likes it well enough, but I think that change would have been appropriate.