D&D 5E It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, the wilderness being boring is absolutely a choice a DM/group is making, not some unavoidable reality.

 

[Lanefan]

Say that to my players. Exploration can easily be bypassed. Either by flying, teleporting or even plane hopping. The higher you are, the easier it has always been, is and always will be.

Flying is the biggest culprit here; but at least when they're flying you can still chuck an occasional random encounter at 'em.

Teleport isn't as much of an issue as they still have to get there the hard way once (teleporting to an unknown place is, or IMO should be, very risky!), and scrying an unknown place is (or should be) very difficult if not impossible. Even then, I highly recommend using the 1e version of teleport that had a small but not-zero severe risk attached - I find this does a lot to cut down on frivolous teleports.

Planeshift - well, I did have to nerf that one as there's no risk attached; my nerf being that you can only arrive on a plane at one of:

a) your previous point of first introduction to that plane (which as a side effect means you can always planeshift to your birthplace)
b) a previously-visited temple to your own deity
c) ground consecrated to your own deity
d) if your destination is your deity's home plane you'll arrive wherever the deity decides to put you
e) if your deity for some reason wants you to arrive somewhere specific not covered by the above, that's where you'll arrive.

 

[Lanefan]

That's okay, I'm the DM, so I just load the players into an airship to transport them between the interesting places.

Heh - in the game I play in, we stole our own airship and flew it halfway round the world. And even then we had random encounters!

Our biggest (pun intended!) problem now is hiding the bloody thing...

 

[Lanefan]

You are making a rather impressive boatload of assumptions here...

Er, yes, that's because D&D is about being heroic.

That's one. D&D can be about being heroic but by no means does it have to be.

And heroes don't die from starvation in the wilderness.

That's two. Admittedly it'd be rare to die of starvation, but running dangerously short on supplies during an overland (or over-sea) journey is a trope as old as the hills - why deny it?

If the plot says "the next plot point is across the Bog of Extreme Mud" the party is going to succeed in crossing the Bog of Extreme Mud.

That's three. If the plot wants to take them across the BoEM and they don't make it, either they die in there (in which case the plot becomes irrelevant anyway), or they find another way to get to the plot that bypasses the BoEM and instead sends them through the Forest of Infinite Scariness, or they turn back and find another plot to engage with.

That is irrespective of what skills they have or how they roll. Because "the party dies in the bog" does not make a good story or an entertaining game.

"The party dies in the bog" is exactly as entertaining as "The party dies in the dungeon" or "The party dies when their airship crashes"; and the story's just as good as well. The point of the bog is resource attrition (and in older editions, hit-point attrition) to in theory make them weaker when they reach the plot on the other side.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you can't make a giant bog interesting...I guess yeah go ahead and modify the ranger or leave it out of your games and just run urban and dungeon based games.

I think the vast majority of DMs can make a giant bog interesting, though, with a very small amount of help.

 

[GreenTengu]

Fixing the Ranger requires doing something that the WotC designers are not willing to do so long as the game is still in 5E....

And that is to admit that earlier books, books that they are still selling and making money from, were wrong and that a serious overhaul is needed to fix this issue.

So long as the game remains in 5E and they are making money off those books-- they are never going to do that, they absolutely cannot do that even if one of the 6 or so people who remain on the D&D team, some of whom are personally responsible for those earlier mistakes and-- even years later-- absolutely do not want to admit to and fix their mistakes, less it lower their worth in their own career as game designers....

They just aren't going to do it. The classes that suck in 5E are always going to suck in 5E. The races that suck in 5E are always going to suck in 5E.

It's just never, ever going to change. And until people stop buying 5E-- there is going to be no 6E in which such changes can be made.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Fixing the Ranger requires doing something that the WotC designers are not willing to do so long as the game is still in 5E....

And that is to admit that earlier books, books that they are still selling and making money from, were wrong and that a serious overhaul is needed to fix this issue.

So long as the game remains in 5E and they are making money off those books-- they are never going to do that, they absolutely cannot do that even if one of the 6 or so people who remain on the D&D team, some of whom are personally responsible for those earlier mistakes and-- even years later-- absolutely do not want to admit to and fix their mistakes, less it lower their worth in their own career as game designers....

They just aren't going to do it. The classes that suck in 5E are always going to suck in 5E. The races that suck in 5E are always going to suck in 5E.

It's just never, ever going to change. And until people stop buying 5E-- there is going to be no 6E in which such changes can be made.

Variant features are a pretty easy way to fix the class.

The ranger just needs options for exploration that are less situational for groups that don’t get any use out of NE and FE, and more survivable beast options for the BM. That’s it. There’s more that could be done, but that’s all it needs.

 

[GreenTengu]

Variant features are a pretty easy way to fix the class.

The ranger just needs options for exploration that are less situational for groups that don’t get any use out of NE and FE, and more survivable beast options for the BM. That’s it. There’s more that could be done, but that’s all it needs.

Honestly-- the Ranger Animal Companion rules, due to relying on the Monster Manual's interpretation of various animals, is fundamentally broken. Unless you choose a wolf as your companion-- you are naughty word out of luck. Too much of your class entirely revolves around the attack assigned to the particular animal companion.

Choose something like a hawk or owl-- you are just utterly screwed. Your extra bonus attacks will do all of 1 damage forever.

Choose a hyena and, simply because WotC based the hyena stats on one adventure they wrote involving Gnolls, even though you have an animal that is in real life larger, stronger and more vicious than a wolf-- your extra attacks will be garbage compared to if you chose the only animal in the entirety of the monster manual that was specifically written up with the only intention in mind to be the companion of a Beastmaster Ranger... the wolf.

And let's not even talk about making a chose that is the equivalent of simply cutting one of your own arms off by choosing a fully aquatic animal like a shark or something.

The whole fundamental concept of the Beastmaster Ranger was utterly dead on arrival simply based on the fact that, despite their willingness to devote a good third of the rulebook to rules on various spells that only a couple classes could use, they were not willing to devote 2 pages to writing up standardized stats for animal companions/familiars that would increase with your level and would have standardized stats based on which of 3-5 types your companion qualifies for.

If you are a level 15 Ranger, then regardless of whether you have a badger, wolf or bear companion, it ought to fight exactly the same. If you have an eagle or bat then maybe it works just a little different to compensate for the fact that it can fly giving you more non-combat use. If you have a mongoose or cat or lizard, then it should still be somewhat functional in combat, but has much better non-combat use. And if you chose something super situational like a dolphin or seal that can't help you ought on most terrestrial adventures, that too ought to be accounted for.

But the whole "choose something from the monster manual-- by the way, we made a singular choice ridiculously better than any other you could choose" is just stupid.

Without that being fixed-- the Beastmaster Ranger is just utterly garbage. And even once fixed, it is only one semi-difficult step towards actually making it viable.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The whole fundamental concept of the Beastmaster Ranger was utterly dead on arrival simply based on the fact that, despite their willingness to devote a good third of the rulebook to rules on various spells that only a couple classes could use, they were not willing to devote 2 pages to writing up standardized stats for animal companions/familiars that would increase with your level and would have standardized stats based on which of 3-5 types your companion qualifies for.

If you are a level 15 Ranger, then regardless of whether you have a badger, wolf or bear companion, it ought to fight exactly the same. If you have an eagle or bat then maybe it works just a little different to compensate for the fact that it can fly giving you more non-combat use. If you have a mongoose or cat or lizard, then it should still be somewhat functional in combat, but has much better non-combat use. And if you chose something super situational like a dolphin or seal that can't help you ought on most terrestrial adventures, that too ought to be accounted for.

Yes! This is what I wanted!

 

[Asisreo]

Honestly-- the Ranger Animal Companion rules, due to relying on the Monster Manual's interpretation of various animals, is fundamentally broken. Unless you choose a wolf as your companion-- you are naughty word out of luck. Too much of your class entirely revolves around the attack assigned to the particular animal companion.

Choose something like a hawk or owl-- you are just utterly screwed. Your extra bonus attacks will do all of 1 damage forever.

Choose a hyena and, simply because WotC based the hyena stats on one adventure they wrote involving Gnolls, even though you have an animal that is in real life larger, stronger and more vicious than a wolf-- your extra attacks will be garbage compared to if you chose the only animal in the entirety of the monster manual that was specifically written up with the only intention in mind to be the companion of a Beastmaster Ranger... the wolf.

And let's not even talk about making a chose that is the equivalent of simply cutting one of your own arms off by choosing a fully aquatic animal like a shark or something.

The whole fundamental concept of the Beastmaster Ranger was utterly dead on arrival simply based on the fact that, despite their willingness to devote a good third of the rulebook to rules on various spells that only a couple classes could use, they were not willing to devote 2 pages to writing up standardized stats for animal companions/familiars that would increase with your level and would have standardized stats based on which of 3-5 types your companion qualifies for.

If you are a level 15 Ranger, then regardless of whether you have a badger, wolf or bear companion, it ought to fight exactly the same. If you have an eagle or bat then maybe it works just a little different to compensate for the fact that it can fly giving you more non-combat use. If you have a mongoose or cat or lizard, then it should still be somewhat functional in combat, but has much better non-combat use. And if you chose something super situational like a dolphin or seal that can't help you ought on most terrestrial adventures, that too ought to be accounted for.

But the whole "choose something from the monster manual-- by the way, we made a singular choice ridiculously better than any other you could choose" is just stupid.

Without that being fixed-- the Beastmaster Ranger is just utterly garbage. And even once fixed, it is only one semi-difficult step towards actually making it viable.

You're misrepresenting the Beastmaster in your rant.

While its true some options are more powerful than others, it should be intuitive enough that Rangers who want their beast to dominate in combat should choose from the pool of CR 1/4. Of these, there is quite a few good ones.

First off, Wolves aren't even the most damaging companion. That would go to the Giant Poisonous Snake which out-damages even the Ranger themself up until, what? Level 11?,

There are also several strong combat beasts that aren't always about damage like the Pteradon, Giant Frog, Giant Badger, Boar, and Giant Crab.

If you choose anything with a CR less than 1/4, you're basically using it for out-of-combat uses. And those uses can be plentiful.

Regular Hawks, while a beastmaster's companion, have a PP of 21 relying on sight. Owls have darkvision up to 120ft and are tiny, being able to fit through really small gaps for scouting. Ravens can take simple sounds and imitate them, allowing you to trick someone or gain info on what the Raven hears when it scouts. Giant Wolf Spiders get a +9 to stealth at level 3, giving them higher stealth than even a rogue with expertise at that point.

Even if your beast isn't optimized for combat, they can still contribute quite a bit outside of combat. And the drawback for doing so? The base Ranger's damage, as if you didn't have them in combat anyways.