D&D 5E [+]What Characters Are You Excited to Build?

[Rocker26a]

Something like a tuned up hunter is probably best bet for default Ranger.

What, give 'em something like the Hunter's features at the baseline?

 

[Charlaquin]

I played it early on in 5E before power creep and had higher states and a decent magic shortsword.

It's not as bad as the internet believes even at level 1.

I think people expect to much from stunning strike. Targeting con saves isn't great in 5E. I just used FoB instead and knocked them prone.

Rolled states not default array. Rolled well and picked a Monk.

Mostly because other players didn't understand the class. Wife point blank refused to play one until BG3.

They also come online later kinda similar to the fighter eg level 11-14.

Default array probably pass.

Ok, well regardless, the Monk is definitely getting big buffs in the revised PHB. That’s not an assessment of what I think should happen, it’s a report of what those of us who have read the UA have seen and had confirmed will happen.

 

[Rocker26a]

I am all for the Ranger having a different focus from the Paladin and as a result not being quite as potent in combat.

I tend to conceptualize Ranger as ideally being a mechanical and thematic counterpoint to Paladin. For example, where Paladin's signature is doing a big nova attack, Rangers act more as a rolling snowball with their damage, defined by a sense of momentum over the course of a fight. So ideally neither is strictly better, they're just different approaches that both have their niche. (Just yeah the vanilla mechanics do not support that idea much.)

I prefer them as more half-caster expert class rather than as skillful warrior class.

I definitely agree that Rangers should be among the Expert classes, they form a nice trinity with Rogues and Bards. They're the cool kids! I don't know that I'd say that means that they can't also be skillful warriors though, not necessarily mutually exclusive?

 

[Zardnaar]

Ok, well regardless, the Monk is definitely getting big buffs in the revised PHB. That’s not an assessment of what I think should happen, it’s a report of what those of us who have read the UA have seen and had confirmed will happen.

Don't get me wrong I don't mind buffs I just enjoyed it more than it's reputation online.

Think I ended up with a sunblade. Elf longswords, finesse

 

[Zardnaar]

What, give 'em something like the Hunter's features at the baseline?

Buffed hunter.

 

[Kurotowa]

Oh man I forgot how rad the UA shadow monk is! Yessss

With monks being good grapplers now, too, the bugbear shadow monk is just an absolute killer.

And you know who a Shadow Monk's best friend is? A Warlock with Devil's Sight and Hex. When the Monk has someone grappled inside their Darkness bubble, the Warlock can see through it to shoot while applying Disadvantage to attempts to escape the grapple. Why settle for a 1v1 when you can turn it into a 2v1.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What, give 'em something like the Hunter's features at the baseline?

I’ve suggested the same thing before. Cant speak for @Zardnaar but what I suggested to replace favored enemy was basically the features of the Hunter Ranger.

But, in the end I don’t love the idea because I do think that there should be a “basic” Ranger subclass. Idk maybe the Hunter gets all three options instead of the base class’ one of three.

I tend to conceptualize Ranger as ideally being a mechanical and thematic counterpoint to Paladin. For example, where Paladin's signature is doing a big nova attack, Rangers act more as a rolling snowball with their damage, defined by a sense of momentum over the course of a fight. So ideally neither is strictly better, they're just different approaches that both have their niche. (Just yeah the vanilla mechanics do not support that idea much.)

Thematically I can see Ranger and Paladin sharing space, sure. Mechanically I’d prefer to see them diverge a bit more than they currently do, but I get where you’re coming from.
I do like the snowball thing, and the Tasha’s Favored Foe ability has that a little, since the language of it means that you can reasonably conclude that each turn you can add another d4 to your damage, so round 1 is 1d4, round 2 is 2d4, etc.
I did the math back when it came out though, and it still doesn’t outperform Hunter’s Mark on average.

I’d love to see something where maybe you do wis mod extra damage per hit if the target is below half HP, so a Hunter could at least stack that with the “do an extra die of damage if the target isn’t at full HP” thing.

I definitely agree that Rangers should be among the Expert classes, they form a nice trinity with Rogues and Bards.

If only they’d move the bard further from “weird Jack of all trades wizard” and closer to the most knowledgable of the experts, and use reduced Spellcasting to expand the power of Bardic Inspiration and then give a level 1 or 2 choice between JoAT and a more “I sing and I know things” feature (like a minor legend lore type thing). Honestly I think the bard would have a better niche if they aimed a little more toward the mytho-historical Celtic and Germanic bards.

They're the cool kids! I don't know that I'd say that means that they can't also be skillful warriors though, not necessarily mutually exclusive?

Sure, my point is simply that I think the design focus should be skill and matching thematics and mechanics, with the warrior combat prowess less of a priority.

Of course my rewrite would give Rangers Jack of all trades rather than Bards having it, and focus more on features that make the whole party deadlier.

For instance, rather than favored enemy or Hunter’s Mark, Banes that reduce the potency of a type of monster or make it more vulnerable, like making it hard and painful for a creature to fly if they fail the save when you hit them. You know how to make it easier to kill dragons because you studied them, and you know how to craft Dragon’s Bane which makes the target’s breath weapon deal less damage and reduces its speed, especially with special movement types like flying. Troll’s Bane would shut down healing and regeneration and make the target take extra damage from fire and acid. Etc. useful against many creatures, but especially potent against one, and it makes the whole party more effective.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And you know who a Shadow Monk's best friend is? A Warlock with Devil's Sight and Hex. When the Monk has someone grappled inside their Darkness bubble, the Warlock can see through it to shoot while applying Disadvantage to attempts to escape the grapple. Why settle for a 1v1 when you can turn it into a 2v1.

Oh man I haven’t had that kind of fun since I played a 4e Gloom Pact Hexblade with boosts to the forced movement of him Pact Weapon attacks (a chain that let you move the target 1 square, which I had boosted to 3 or 4 squares, at-will, every time you hit) alongside an artificer and a wizard that both put up damaging zones, and a fighter with a polearm and “I punish you if you move away from me” stuff. Truly unfair to enemies.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh! Now that Assassin doesn’t suck, a Bugbear Assassin would be absolutely scary.

Poisoner feat, skulker at level 4 bc it’s on theme, maybe magic initiate to get a smite style spell and a blade cantrip?

Booming Blade, poison, Assassinate, drop bear ambush would certainly start things off with a bang!

 

[Kurotowa]

Oh! Now that Assassin doesn’t suck, a Bugbear Assassin would be absolutely scary.

Poisoner feat, skulker at level 4 bc it’s on theme, maybe magic initiate to get a smite style spell and a blade cantrip?

Booming Blade, poison, Assassinate, drop bear ambush would certainly start things off with a bang!

Poisoner's not worth it, and probably won't have the "Background" tag for 1st level feats that UA8 mentioned. Instead, take Alert. Alert is a double layer insurance that you get to go first on that all important first round. It both adds your Proficiency Bonus to Initiative, and lets you swap Initiative counts with another party member if you roll low and they roll high.