D&D General What is the Ranger to you?

Tony Vargas said:

Why would your half-elf Warlord>Battle Captain>Legendary Monarch be casting spells?

Click to expand...

LOL because that was where "RANGER" came from silly

Garthanos said:

LOL because that was where "RANGER" came from silly

Click to expand...

Oh, right, I forgot about all the scenes with Aragorn's "Bear" companion, what was his name? Boromir?

Tony Vargas said:

Oh, right, I forgot about all the scenes with Aragorn's "Bear" companion, what was his name? Boromir?

Click to expand...

Thats Gilgamesh and his companion you are mixing up... they both do the long distance runner trope though so its a fair mix up.

CapnZapp said:

It's spellcasting is incredibly weak sauce. Compare paladin smiting. The ranger needs way more than known spells - had they been able to convert spell slots to bonus damage on top of their regular damage, that could mean that feature would be worthwhile.

As is, nah. Just remove it entirely and hope WotC deems that to be a significant loss, so they make either the attacks or the pet significantly stronger...

Click to expand...

No. Not only does a spell-less ranger survey poorly, it's completely unnecessary to do so, as anything other than an optional variant that stands alone. (ie, you drop it and get X ability set instead)
The ranger's spellcasting is perfectly normal. It shouldn't mimic the Paladin, nor should the class hyperfocus on DPR. The game isn't built for DPR CharOP powergaming, and that's a good thing.
The Ranger has too many of it's good spells with the concentration tag, and not enough known spells. Spellcasting doesn't need to carry the Rangers damage output to be a worthwhile feature. Every subclass gets damage boosts, and it gets Extra Attack. It's barely behind the other weapon users, and isn't even behind them at every tier.

CapnZapp said:

Sorry but you don't get to decide my issues are unimportant while yours are.

And I don't know what threads you're reading, but you have certainly missed a crap-ton of them, all saying the Beastmaster is essentially .

Click to expand...

I don't know what post you read that you think this is a counterpoint to.

And CharOp comparisons don't matter. Objectively. They're fun. That's it.

What the Ranger most definitely does not need, is MMearls faffing around with relatively unimportant details while missing the greater picture, which is that the class basically can't compete.

Which is my entire point: fix the basic effectiveness, don't worry which exact abilities you keep or drop, and the players will come

Click to expand...

No, they won't.

If he instead keeps pretending the class is basically fine, and somehow just needs pointless tweaking around, he could just as well forget about it.

Replacing one woodsman ability for another, or giving it one more slot in which to cast it's weaksauce spells, or arguing which ribbon ability is really a power ability will accomplish very little in the way that really counts: getting the class up to snuff compared to the others.

Click to expand...

This whole tirade is so patently absurd that I don't even know where to start. The ranger doesn't need any kind of overhaul, or to lose abilities in favor of a less interesting class with higher DPR. DPR is a small part of the game.

The ranger needs it's early features to contribute to success reliably, and to not be stuck with a number of spell options comparable to a paladin with a 12 charisma. Making Hunter's Mark not a concentration spell would help, or making some of the other attack spells not concentration. Before you even say it for the thousandth time, no, it isn't a problem that HM is a bonus action. You're not casting it every round, and it applies to every attack. It's fine.

Garthanos said:

And one where my Aragorn isn't casting spells.

Click to expand...

Absolutely a great optional variant. I mean, I think an "Aragorn" that isn't adjusted at all for being in a vastly higher magic setting works just fine as a righter or rogue, but a Ranger option to trade spells for maneuvers would be fine.

Garthanos said:

Thats Gilgamesh and his companion you are mixing up...

Click to expand...

yeah, we'll go with that.

Tony Vargas said:

Oh, right, I forgot about all the scenes with Aragorn's "Bear" companion, what was his name? Boromir?

Click to expand...

Yup and Legolas was the "Twink" companion.

BookBarbarian said:

Yup and Legolas was the "Twink" companion.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those elves, notorious powergamers.

Garthanos said:

And one where my Aragorn isn't casting spells.

Click to expand...

Well, for what it's worth, had I played a 5E Ranger, I wouldn't have bothered with casting many spells...

doctorbadwolf said:

No. Not only does a spell-less ranger survey poorly, it's completely unnecessary to do so, as anything other than an optional variant that stands alone. (ie, you drop it and get X ability set instead)
The ranger's spellcasting is perfectly normal. It shouldn't mimic the Paladin, nor should the class hyperfocus on DPR. The game isn't built for DPR CharOP powergaming, and that's a good thing.
The Ranger has too many of it's good spells with the concentration tag, and not enough known spells. Spellcasting doesn't need to carry the Rangers damage output to be a worthwhile feature. Every subclass gets damage boosts, and it gets Extra Attack. It's barely behind the other weapon users, and isn't even behind them at every tier.

I don't know what post you read that you think this is a counterpoint to.

And CharOp comparisons don't matter. Objectively. They're fun. That's it.

No, they won't.

This whole tirade is so patently absurd that I don't even know where to start. The ranger doesn't need any kind of overhaul, or to lose abilities in favor of a less interesting class with higher DPR. DPR is a small part of the game.

The ranger needs it's early features to contribute to success reliably, and to not be stuck with a number of spell options comparable to a paladin with a 12 charisma. Making Hunter's Mark not a concentration spell would help, or making some of the other attack spells not concentration. Before you even say it for the thousandth time, no, it isn't a problem that HM is a bonus action. You're not casting it every round, and it applies to every attack. It's fine.



Absolutely a great optional variant. I mean, I think an "Aragorn" that isn't adjusted at all for being in a vastly higher magic setting works just fine as a righter or rogue, but a Ranger option to trade spells for maneuvers would be fine.

Click to expand...

Now you're getting dangerously close to actively seeking out an argument with me. I've repeatedly said that while I might have preferences (much like everyone else) I have no real stake in what MMearls chooses to focus the class on. Just that whatever that focus is is a real improvement, so that the Ranger becomes actually best at *something*. Except that that something mustn't be "best at sucking all the fun out of woodland challenges". Which means that never getting lost or having an always-on fool-proof radar is not only not a power ability (it's a ribbon) but an incredibly uncool and unfun one at that.

Other than that I don't care to feed the parts of your post that comes across as trolling - your wilful ignorance of the abyssal suckyness of the Beastmaster, and your complacency in how much better the Paladin's abilities interact and augment each other. As the game's two main half casters, I see absolutely zero reason to let WotC get away with the Ranger being incredibly milquetoast compared to its "sibling".

So again, just faffing about, like every MMearls Ranger effort so far isn't gonna give us a Ranger that can compete with the other classes. That is why I feel it is time to actually cut away some features, to make MMearls feel better about actually improving the rest to a level where the Ranger gets a couple of niches it is actually best at. Better than any other class.

While the thread sure can't agree which ability is the most quintessential rangery one, you're the only one arguing the Ranger's main ability should be "Jack of all trades, master of none". Which I find quite absurd. Nothing suggests we should be content with the Ranger cemented as this edition's d20 Bard.

If Larian can pressure MMearls into admitting the Ranger is in need of an upgrade, we should obviously push for real improvement, and not play along with his little mind games, where he's basically talking himself into believing nothing drastic needs to be done.

If a change really IS coming (despite WotC shutting down the UA Ranger) join me in hoping for a *real* change!

CapnZapp said:

Now you're getting dangerously close to actively seeking out an argument with me. I've repeatedly said that while I might have preferences (much like everyone else) I have no real stake in what MMearls chooses to focus the class on. Just that whatever that focus is is a real improvement, so that the Ranger becomes actually best at *something*. Except that that something mustn't be "best at sucking all the fun out of woodland challenges". Which means that never getting lost or having an always-on fool-proof radar is not only not a power ability (it's a ribbon) but an incredibly uncool and unfun one at that.

Other than that I don't care to feed the parts of your post that comes across as trolling - your wilful ignorance of the abyssal suckyness of the Beastmaster, and your complacency in how much better the Paladin's abilities interact and augment each other. As the game's two main half casters, I see absolutely zero reason to let WotC get away with the Ranger being incredibly milquetoast compared to its "sibling".
!

Click to expand...

LOL okay zapp. You seem to have misunderstood my position on the Beast Master (it doesn’t need an overhaul, it just needs better HP scaling for the most part, and has plenty of room for more fun stuff like sharing spells from level 3), and are taking general disagreement as “trolling”, which is absurd to the point I don’t even take offense, it’s just weird.

You also seem seem to have forgotten what actual improvements I suggested. I never suggested making natural explorer do more powerful travel stuff. I suggested that it should have always on benefits that help in combat and active exploration. I also suggested favored enemy being a damage or accuracy improving feature, which requires no action to apply to a target if the target is a favored enemy, OR use mechanical concepts similar to what the Hunter does, where if you pick humanoids you get bonus damage against multiple targets, while fiends lets you ignore resistance, and giants lets you deal more damage to huge or larger targets, etc.

as for spells known, I honestly think it’s completely bonkers that you can’t see the benefit of knowing more than two spells at level 2. Maybe all you ever do as a paladin is divine smite, but most people actually cast spells, as well. One of the pain points for players is having crappy spell selection bc they “have” to take hunters mark and only get 1 other spell at level 3.

I also suggest making hunters mark not require concentration for rangers, which you ignored as if it doesn’t allow damaging weapon attack spell stacking.

The ranger doesn’t need anything cut, and that isn’t going to be on the table in all likelihood. Not because they won’t admit the ranger needs help. Mearls literally has admitted that. They won’t do it because they refuse to invalidate the phb, or provide something that makes new players feel like they have to have a secondary product in order to play a phb class. They are going to provide optional alternate versions of existing features, or things like “trade spellcasting for manuevers”. I’d rather just figure out the best way to homebrew without rewriting the class. The ranger’s 1-3 abilities are iconic, and need to stay. They don’t have to remain the same, but they gotta stay. If you want to rewrite the class, do so.

But you don’t need to push your concept of fixing the class on every single damn discussion about the ranger.