D&D 5E 70% standard and the Ranger options

[jodyjohnson]

During the D&D Beyond previews by Todd Kenreck both Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford mentioned the 70% approval metric they are shooting for when adding content to the game.

I haven't seen any discussion on this but it seems like that would have some repercussions on elements like the Ranger that have some broad agreement on deficiency as a class but a lack of consensus on what is wrong and how to fix it.

For example it seems like there are a number of people that don't like the Spellcasting and want a non-spell ranger, some that dislike the specificity (learned spells, favored terrain), some want it higher on the DPS scale, some have issue with the interaction with concentration and melee rangers, others with beastmaster pet survival/scaling, and a sizeable group are unhappy with the pet action economy.

But do 70% agree in any one of those as problems and beyond that how to 'fix' them? Personally I can say I only have issue with the Pet Action economy, scaling, and Concentration issues. I'd fix them by changing Concentration for everyone. Changing companion action economy for everyone. And introduce pet scaling specifically for the Beastmaster.

But 70% seems like a high bar for something which has had so many different 'solutions' offered by many authors and posters.

 

[Alexemplar]

Plus there's the fact that despite being the class that so many people seem disatisfied with, it was nonetheless the most popular class after classic Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard in the previously released character builder data.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, that's precisely why they have spent so much time and gone through so many iterations of alt-Ranger and are still working on it: they won't be satisfied until they hit that supermajority.

 

[Gadget]

You make some excellent points, it is really hard to pin down the Ranger in a large majority of the fan base. One thing I think WOTC is doing differently than in the past is that they are casting a wider net in their feedback. They are no longer listening with any particular interest to the 'hard core' groups such at enworld, as they might have done a little too much of in the past (though at the time they denied it, and have since admitted it). That might make their task a little bit easier, though of course their surveys are a little self-selecting towards the more enthusiast crowd simply due to the fact that this crowd is more likely to respond and take such surveys. But they seem to cast a wider net in that they use social media like twitter and facebook to gather feedback and gauge interest, rather than big enthusiast crowds like this site tends to be.

As for myself, I've never been a big fan of features such as favored enemy/terrain as anything other than 'ribbon' abilities. I'm just not impressed with that design feature. I've also never cared for the Beastmaster archetype, both stylistically and as practical gaming complication. It seems that Hunter's Mark is more of a class feature masquerading as a spell, but I can live with it. It would be nice if Rangers got an ability, similar to one that already exists in the game, of ignoring damage for concentration checks for that spell.

For the spellcasting feature itself, I kind of fell like the UA Fighter Scout subclass (that they did not pursue further) and the Rogue Scout subclass might be better options for a spelless Ranger. One trend I have liked about Ranger spell casting this edition (and Paladin spell casting) is that many (though not nearly all) of the spells are unique to their class and seek to replicate special abilities of the archetype through the spell system. This gives them a somewhat unique feel, and less of a Druid-light feel. Sadly, it seems that this trend is not continuing as more spells have become available and added to the Ranger list as an afterthought. Lastly, I would have Rangers behave like Paladins in that they 'know' their whole spell list and are limited only by their slots on what they can cast. This gives them the flexibility and utility that a resourceful special forces type would be expected to have in the fantasy milieu of D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know how to fix it but I can tell you the biggest issue.

Look at what a Fighter get's from level 6-11.
Look at what a Paladin get's from level 6-11.
Look at what a rogue gets from level 6-11.
Now look at what a ranger get's from 6-11. It's pretty bad, almost nothing works together well.

It's also worth separating bow rangers out from melee rangers.
Bow rangers are perfectly fine level 1-5. They have no issues. After level 5 they just don't get anything else that's any good. At least not when you are comparing their abilities gained in those levels to other classes abilities gained in those levels. Concentration and bonus action issues aren't bad for ranged rangers as they are ranged.

Melee rangers have a whole slew of additional problems (especially the iconic dual-wield rangers).
They have concentration problems. They have spell casting in combat problems for most of their spells, as they generally won't have a free hand for anything that requires somatic components (for example cure wounds). Anyone dual-wielding will run into bonus action problems (possibly intentional but this makes the ranger feel really clunky).

Any ranger that takes any feat or multiclass levels that grant a bonus action ability will find issues using the ability with as much bonus action stuff as he has to use.


Spell less ranger is just a preference and doesn't make or break the class. Beast master ranger as a subclass was borked from the beginning. However, all those problems are in addition to the problems every ranger is going to face. No good abilities past level 5 and lots of issues trying to play one in melee.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Look at what a Fighter get's from level 6-11.
Look at what a Paladin get's from level 6-11.
Look at what a rogue gets from level 6-11.
Now look at what a ranger get's from 6-11. It's pretty bad, almost nothing works together well.

If I exclude the Paladin the ability list looks pretty comparable.

If the Exploration pillar is ignored or very minimal in the campaign then it might lag behind the other 2.

 

[FrogReaver]

If I exclude the Paladin the ability list looks pretty comparable.

If the Exploration pillar is ignored or very minimal in the campaign then it might lag behind the other 2.

You must be rating favored enemies and favored terrain a lot higher than me. That's most of what the ranger gets in the levels we are talking.

 

[Raith5]

I think the 70% issue can be addressed by better thought out subclasses. I have never understood the spell casting ranger archetype: the idea of woodsman having to cast a spell to find plants or animals is just really strange. But I think spell casting can be an optional subclass element like the eldritch knight, but not as a core element to a class.

 

[ScuroNotte]

I agree. as written favored enemy and natural terrains are extremely poor and limiting in their offerings in my opinion. Do like the new natural explorer that was published, though the combat portion should be available later, maybe 6th level or later. I would also prefer expertise in survival

 

[ScuroNotte]

I think the 70% issue can be addressed by better thought out subclasses. I have never understood the spell casting ranger archetype: the idea of woodsman having to cast a spell to find plants or animals is just really strange. But I think spell casting can be an optional subclass element like the eldritch knight, but not as a core element to a class.

I think the most of the class core abilities need to be altered.

I do agree that spell casting should be optional. An other option for your suggestion is for non-spell casters to gain abilities at the empty level slots (levels 9, 13, and 17) and alter the sub-classes for the non-spell-caster. Easier transition I think