Revised Ranger update

[Eric V]

Well, he did mention the ranger doing interesting things. That might be, uh, interesting to discuss.

But I'm really replying to say that I like reading about other posters' experiences at the table. And I find it kind of weird that you're dismissing somebody's experiences as not worth discussing.

I don't think that's what I was doing.

What I was doing was saying that just because he has, at his table, a ranger that does interesting things, it doesn't mean the ranger isn't worth revising. A lot of people think it's worth revising, and at one point WotC did too (preamble at the beginning of one of their UA articles on the ranger).

Having anecdotal evidence of one interesting ranger doesn't render obsolete the need to see the mechanics of the class given another pass.

Nor does the flavour of the class being strong obsolete the need to see the mechanics of the class given another pass; those are two completely separate issues. I believe the ranger is popular due to its strong flavour. When I compare it to other class, I -also- believe it to be subpar, mechanics-wise.

The idea of a revised ranger, therefore was appreciated.

 

[Prakriti]

For all those who wanted a revised Ranger, I suggest waiting about twenty years for 6E.

Until then, enjoy the game as it is. It's pretty close to perfect.

 

[Voort]

I got the new Ranger I wanted. It’s just a Rogue archetype now.

 

[Hussar]

Let's see, since 5e came out:

12 level Dragonlance campaign - 1 hunter ranger - damage dealing star of the group behind the fire based sorcerer.

9 level Ravenloft campaign - 1 hunter ranger - dealt damage equal to the raging great weapon barbarian most of the time.

9 level Primeval Thule Campaign - 1 beast master Ranger - campaign features no core casters - BM ranger deals damage at least equal to every other fighter type in the group.

So, frankly, I'm not sure what you folks are seeing. The ranger has been a pretty solid staple in our groups and fit in quite well.

And, really, if their polling is showing that the ranger is being played in multiple groups and is not the bottom choice, then, why fix it? Why not look at the actual bottom choices and fix those?

Or, better yet, give us a warlord. X)

 

[Gladius Legis]

I got the new Ranger I wanted. It’s just a Rogue archetype now.

That unfortunately only gets good at Lv. 13.

 

[Otterscrubber]

So just hopping on this thread and didn't even know there was a possibility of rangers being revised. But I have to agree that rangers as a concept are so popular that they get played even if they aren't really that great.

I wish I could be more specific, but when I play a ranger in any edition including 5e, something just feels like it's "missing" and that any other class would be more enjoyable to actually play. If I want to be a bow guy, then it's usually better to be a fighter who uses a bow, if I want to be a caster (even a hybrid one) there are better caster classes and if I want to be a melee class there are several other classes that are better or more fun. They don't really outdo any other class in just about any other area except in very niche circumstances. Then I spend my time playing one hoping these niche situations come up rather than playing a class that has more options in and out of combat in general. So I often feel like I didn't contribute as much during a session. It's kind of a general feeling and not very helpful as I can't put my finger on any one thing, but it's there.

Maybe I'm not playing it right but I've been playing since the mid 80s and I've always given rangers a try with different builds. Never quite makes me feel like I think it will.

 

[Blue]

There's always going to be a "last place". One class is always going to end up being the least popular or seen as the least powerful.
If they "fix" the ranger, then someone else just takes its place.

This is true but unfortunately irrelevant.

I can have a bunch of classes near each other in terms of balance, and one will be last place. I can have a bunch of classes all over the map in terms of balance and there will be a last place. Last place has nothing to do with it, it's tightness of grouping that promotes balance between classes.

Now, if you think the ranger is "close enough", that's relevant - that's a tight grouping. If someone thinks the ranger is nigh unplayable that's a very loose grouping. But being in last has little to do with it.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Doesn't look like an official warlord or companion/mount upgrade rules are in the cards.

I still think some general optional rules in an upcoming book could get us close enough until 6th edition.

(HD bumps for significant NPCs and a general 'free' action economy equivalent to the Mount action economy which includes the Beastmaster companion).

 

[MoonSong]

Let's see, since 5e came out:

12 level Dragonlance campaign - 1 hunter ranger - damage dealing star of the group behind the fire based sorcerer.

9 level Ravenloft campaign - 1 hunter ranger - dealt damage equal to the raging great weapon barbarian most of the time.

9 level Primeval Thule Campaign - 1 beast master Ranger - campaign features no core casters - BM ranger deals damage at least equal to every other fighter type in the group.

So, frankly, I'm not sure what you folks are seeing. The ranger has been a pretty solid staple in our groups and fit in quite well.

And, really, if their polling is showing that the ranger is being played in multiple groups and is not the bottom choice, then, why fix it? Why not look at the actual bottom choices and fix those?

Or, better yet, give us a warlord. X)

You lost me at the very first line, but then you won me over with the W word. Well played Hussar-Sempai, well played.

 

[Jester David]

This is true but unfortunately irrelevant.

I can have a bunch of classes near each other in terms of balance, and one will be last place. I can have a bunch of classes all over the map in terms of balance and there will be a last place. Last place has nothing to do with it, it's tightness of grouping that promotes balance between classes.

Now, if you think the ranger is "close enough", that's relevant - that's a tight grouping. If someone thinks the ranger is nigh unplayable that's a very loose grouping. But being in last has little to do with it.

But balance was never an issue. It wasn’t a question. They never ranked the class by their approximate DPR. How well the classes do in Excel math comparison.

They asked people how satisfied they were with the classes. Some of the unsatisfied people were likely unhappy because of balance. Others likely because it had spells. Others might not have liked the implementation compared to past rangers. And many likely just weren’t ranger fans to begin with.


But, at the end of the day, more people are playing the ranger than the other classes that are “better” in term of balance. And that’s what matters. It’s the “balance” that’s irrelevant,