I'm very impressed with this! I like that the damage output is generally better, and you've definitely given the ranger(s) various abilities that remain thematic, but aren't nearly as narrowly situational. If the player in our group who was playing a ranger comes back to the group, I may suggest to the DM that he be allowed to consider rebuilding his character with one of these options! (Which would also let us do some playtesting to report back any unforeseen issues).
I think this alt Ranger I made is pretty good
1Mac
First Post
Thank you! I'm glad you like it. If you do ever get to play it, I'd welcome any feedback.
Xeviat
Hero
Comparing the Ranger to the Rogue is a fair comparison. I actually tend to make that comparison myself, and am sad they went the "warrior" rout for the Ranger.
So where does it stand? Lets just look at pure damage, without to hit chances. Both are TWFing shortswords.
1) Ranger 2d6+3 (10), Rogue 3d6+3 (13.5) = Ranger -3.5
2) Ranger 4d6+3 (17), Rogue 3d6+3 (13.5) = Ranger +3.5
3) Ranger 4d6+6 (20), Rogue 4d6+3 (17) = Ranger +3
4) Ranger 4d6+8 (22), Rogue 4d6+4 (18) = Ranger +4
5) Ranger 6d6+12 (33), Rogue 5d6+4 (21.5) = Ranger +11.5
7) Ranger 6d6+12 (33), Rogue 6d6+4 (25) = Ranger +8
8) Ranger 6d6+15 (36), Rogue 6d6+5 (26) = Ranger +10
9) Ranger 9d6+15 (46.5), Rogue 7d6+5 (29.5) = Ranger +17
11) Ranger 9d6+15 (46.5), Rogue 8d6+5 (33) = Ranger +13.5
13) Ranger 9d6+15 (46.5), Rogue 9d6+5 (36.5) = Ranger +10
15) Ranger 9d6+15 (46.5), Rogue 10d6+5 (40) = Ranger +6.5
17) Ranger 12d6+15 (57), Rogue 11d6+5 (43.5) = Ranger +13.5
19) Ranger 12d6+15 (57), Rogue 12d6+5 (47) = Ranger +10
This is ignoring everything else both classes get, yes. It's also ignoring that the rogue only has to hit with one of their two attacks to get most of their damage, while the ranger would have to hit with all 3. I'll run the numbers with a 65% chance to hit at the level 19 mark there ...
Ranger: 4d6+5 x3 *65% hit chance = 39.15
Rogue: 1d6+5 *65%; 1d6 *65%; 10d6 *(87.75% chance to hit at least once, 5.88% chance that the first or only hit will be a crit) = 41.1705
And TWFing wins on being awesome for the rogue. So it's not going to be a really big deal. Level 9 looks problematic, and so does Level 5. The rogue has some more stuff going for them. Good job on landing the end point pretty close!
So where does it stand? Lets just look at pure damage, without to hit chances. Both are TWFing shortswords.
1) Ranger 2d6+3 (10), Rogue 3d6+3 (13.5) = Ranger -3.5
2) Ranger 4d6+3 (17), Rogue 3d6+3 (13.5) = Ranger +3.5
3) Ranger 4d6+6 (20), Rogue 4d6+3 (17) = Ranger +3
4) Ranger 4d6+8 (22), Rogue 4d6+4 (18) = Ranger +4
5) Ranger 6d6+12 (33), Rogue 5d6+4 (21.5) = Ranger +11.5
7) Ranger 6d6+12 (33), Rogue 6d6+4 (25) = Ranger +8
8) Ranger 6d6+15 (36), Rogue 6d6+5 (26) = Ranger +10
9) Ranger 9d6+15 (46.5), Rogue 7d6+5 (29.5) = Ranger +17
11) Ranger 9d6+15 (46.5), Rogue 8d6+5 (33) = Ranger +13.5
13) Ranger 9d6+15 (46.5), Rogue 9d6+5 (36.5) = Ranger +10
15) Ranger 9d6+15 (46.5), Rogue 10d6+5 (40) = Ranger +6.5
17) Ranger 12d6+15 (57), Rogue 11d6+5 (43.5) = Ranger +13.5
19) Ranger 12d6+15 (57), Rogue 12d6+5 (47) = Ranger +10
This is ignoring everything else both classes get, yes. It's also ignoring that the rogue only has to hit with one of their two attacks to get most of their damage, while the ranger would have to hit with all 3. I'll run the numbers with a 65% chance to hit at the level 19 mark there ...
Ranger: 4d6+5 x3 *65% hit chance = 39.15
Rogue: 1d6+5 *65%; 1d6 *65%; 10d6 *(87.75% chance to hit at least once, 5.88% chance that the first or only hit will be a crit) = 41.1705
And TWFing wins on being awesome for the rogue. So it's not going to be a really big deal. Level 9 looks problematic, and so does Level 5. The rogue has some more stuff going for them. Good job on landing the end point pretty close!
1Mac
First Post
Man, I'm glad you ran the numbers on this. That really helps!
Xeviat
Hero
You're welcome. That's what I'm good at. I figure if things are within reasonably close bounds, and that cursory looks at them on the surface seem fair (like would I take A over B always, or does it seem like a choice), then I'm open to calling something balanced. Especially in a system like 5E, which isn't so tightly balanced (I loved 4E, but it was too tightly balanced for me to feel free to make too much of my own content), and has fairly forgiving death rules, you really just want to make sure things feel balanced.
My only worry is that it's going to "look" really strong compared to the fighter and paladin. The fighter has action surge and the paladin has smite, but those are "use activated" and are a little hidden. I can tell you their damage is going to certainly trounce the fighter and paladin. I'd consider giving them a d8 HD maybe.
My only worry is that it's going to "look" really strong compared to the fighter and paladin. The fighter has action surge and the paladin has smite, but those are "use activated" and are a little hidden. I can tell you their damage is going to certainly trounce the fighter and paladin. I'd consider giving them a d8 HD maybe.
1Mac
First Post
It's a fair concern. I would point out two things to those who might think it's too much: While the Quarry Ranger's (and rogue's) damage is more reliable, it's also very situational by design, whereas the paladin and BM fighter's damage powers can be used anytime. And secondly, those classes aren't supposed to do as much damage. They do modest damage while getting in the thick of it and remaining hard to kill. With medium armor and no shield if she's twf or archering, plus likely much lower Con than either paladin or especially fighter, I don't think the QR is in danger of stepping into the tank role even with d10 HD.
Xeviat
Hero
I'm not worried about them tanking. I'm worried about them dealing damage consistent with the Rogue while having more HP.
Also, medium armor with 14 Dex is equal AC to heavy armor until you can afford plate armor (where it pulls one ahead), unless the ranger is trying to keep up their stealth bonus.
Which gives me a side thought: why is is possible to build a ranger without the stealth and survival skills when they get so many class abilities that support or require those skills?
Also, medium armor with 14 Dex is equal AC to heavy armor until you can afford plate armor (where it pulls one ahead), unless the ranger is trying to keep up their stealth bonus.
Which gives me a side thought: why is is possible to build a ranger without the stealth and survival skills when they get so many class abilities that support or require those skills?
1Mac
First Post
Okay, but what you said before was that the QR might "look really strong compared to the fighter or paladin," so I was responding to that. For the reasons you indicate (no half-plate for stealthy rangers), plus the reasons I stated before, their AC and HP are not going to be at tank levels. I would also argue that quarry damage is even more situational than the rogue's. The ranger has to pick out a single quarry, maintain it basically until it's defeated, and only maximizes damage against favored enemies. The rogue can often easily get into sneak attack position and isn't obligated to focus on a single enemy, plus some of the newer archetypes loosen the requirements for sneak attack even more.
Your last question is a good one, and one that I considered, but the thing to remember is that there's a difference between not having a skill and not having proficiency in a skill. All rangers can make Survival and Stealth checks, and given the high Wisdom and Dex the class is likely to have plus various class abilities, they are likely to be pretty good at them even without proficiency. So I'd rather make it a choice as to how good at Survival, at the expense of other things, the ranger really wants to be. There's the risk of a design trap, but I don't think newbies are going to look at the survivalist class's skill list and overlook Survival; if anything, it's only those with a certain level of system mastery who are going to realize proficiency isn't necessary.
Your last question is a good one, and one that I considered, but the thing to remember is that there's a difference between not having a skill and not having proficiency in a skill. All rangers can make Survival and Stealth checks, and given the high Wisdom and Dex the class is likely to have plus various class abilities, they are likely to be pretty good at them even without proficiency. So I'd rather make it a choice as to how good at Survival, at the expense of other things, the ranger really wants to be. There's the risk of a design trap, but I don't think newbies are going to look at the survivalist class's skill list and overlook Survival; if anything, it's only those with a certain level of system mastery who are going to realize proficiency isn't necessary.
