D&D 5E 5th edition Ranger: Why does every class have to have it's own schtick?

TheLoneRanger1979 said:

So we would add them if we had a class with 2HD i guess? I mean, not just for recovery, but for HP per level?

Click to expand...

For balance purposes, almost certainly not. There's no class that doubles its Dex to AC or whatever, after all. Doubling gets absurd very fast. And Constitution already has a disproportionate impact because of its cumulative effect.

TheLoneRanger1979 said:

Second question, why would you like to avoid the above mentioned power curve in 5E?

Click to expand...

Because characters should not vary in relative strengths and weaknesses over the long term. It's weird and metagamey -- how on earth do the characters conceptualize that the Rob the Ranger used to be tough, but now Fred the Fighter is tougher? If they're the same people with the same basic abilities, how did that happen? It also mechanically incentivizes abandoning characters at low points on the curve in favor of characters at high points. And it just feels bad for many players to show up to sessions knowing that they're going to be worse at what they used to be good at.

Why are you interested in keeping it?

TheCosmicKid said:

Why are you interested in keeping it?

Click to expand...

For flavor mostly. I like unconventional ways of distinction between classes. It's easy to compare a class by how much damage per round it deals, or effective the healing provided is, or how much utility you can squeeze out of its skill repertoire. But this "dynamic" hit die? It certainly sounds unique enough. The effects are still measurable of course, but it does provide some peculiar dilemmas as you level up. I do realize that many people would be quite upset by this (i mean, just look at the ranger discussion we are having over spells), but to me personally, it's all in good fun.

Still, on the other hand, if i stay true to my previous statement that i like my rangers (mostly the martial, non casting variant) to be the toughest guys around, then i must admit, from a mechanical POV, a more consistent hit die progression is preferable. Probably a 2d6 across the board, as 2d8 would be much too powerful, especially for HP.

TheCosmicKid said:

For balance purposes, almost certainly not. There's no class that doubles its Dex to AC or whatever, after all. Doubling gets absurd very fast. And Constitution already has a disproportionate impact because of its cumulative effect.

Click to expand...

I would call Constitution's impact on hit points very proportionate: a +1 bonus will give a fighter (or other d10 class) a 17% hp increase (if they take fixed hp). That's pretty much the definition of proportional.

Staffan said:

I would call Constitution's impact on hit points very proportionate: a +1 bonus will give a fighter (or other d10 class) a 17% hp increase (if they take fixed hp). That's pretty much the definition of proportional.

Click to expand...

Disproportionate to other ability scores, I meant. The effect of Dexterity on AC isn't cumulative with level.

TheCosmicKid said:

Disproportionate to other ability scores, I meant. The effect of Dexterity on AC isn't cumulative with level.

Click to expand...

Dexterity's effect on AC itself doesn't vary by level. However, since it affects probabilities, it always does retain the same proportional power. Every point of Dex bonus will reduce damage taken by the same percentage, regardless of whether you're level 5 or 15. In the same manner, each point of Constitution bonus will increase your hit points by the same percentage, regardless of being level 5 or 15.

Well, that's not quite true - since you get max hp at level 1, the effect there of Constitution is a bit lower, so it rises a bit with level.

What is disproportionate, however, is the effect of Strength/Dexterity on attacks - increasing your stat increases both the chance to hit and the damage done per hit.

Honestly I don't see a need or reason to change it. I love the Ranger exactly as it is. Hunter works very well and in my experience does excellently in and out of combat. Definitely has advantages in melee and range over fighters when it comes to dealing with crowds.
Beastmaster, while harder mechanically, isn't awful with a good dm. By the RAW it's kinda rough but it is serviceable. There are plenty of sub-classes like this(Eldritch knight, berserker, and wild magic come to mind) they are not strictly inferior, just harder to play and more dm-dependant to be viable.

I also don't see the big deal between 1d10 vs 2d6, you have 1 more hp/level on average/fixed. That doesn't paint the picture of that much tougher really :/ if you want to be tough have a high con, your class only adds/subtracts 60 (d12vsd6). Whereas your con adds up to 100, feats/race can net you 60 more.

As far as spells vs martial, personally I like the idea of them being nature spell-casters. In a multiverse that has nature magic, the people who spend most of their time in the woods would probably work some of it out. More if they are totally focused on it(druids) but Rangers would definitely practice and utilize this sort of thing. Any advantage would be used to conquer and protect their environs.

I would like a cool new sub-class or two, two does feel pretty limited.

If I had to be nit-picky my only issue with the ranger at present is it's lack of level 1 impact. Flavor-wise you get quite a bit at level one, but 0 mechanical boost. I'm not sure what kind of boost would be appropriate my "fix" would be adding a +1 to hit against your favored enemies, not big but something to show your expertise. This bonus could even grow as you level, I would do slowly personally, maybe +2 at 9 and +3 at 17. At current I don't really even really care about the favored enemy or terrain parts of ranger, it's cool, but it's not why I'm taking levels in the class.

Klaus said:

You'd still be free to choose whichever weapon you want, and the Fighting Style you want. These would just be additional benefits.



I could just say that green dragons deal poison damage, but instead I'll say that Rangers are wilderness warriors, and there are hundreds of poisonous creatures out there. Not to mention bad water, poisonous plants, etc.



All still apply, and this would be an *option* to the spellcasting ranger. Consider it a complexity dial: you can take the easy, pre-selected package, or go with the full, choose-your-own-spells version.



More options than (pick one from each column):

- Spellcasting or spell-less?

- Two-weapon, Duelist, Defense or Archery?

- Hunter (Colossus Slayer, Horde Breaker, Dragon Hunter) or Beastmaster?

That's 2 x 4 x 4 = 32 options.

Click to expand...

It works as a prepackaged version.

For a more customizable version. The better way for a martial ranger is to pick one of the more subtle spells of each level in the rangers repertoire and have a lesser version be permenamt.

2nd level: +5ft speed
5th level: Speak with herbivores or carnivores
9th level: Resist any 2 elements
13th: ????
17th: Bonus action to attack with a weapon.


Something like that. Something about a ranger who never get speak with animals just feels... off... to me.

There could be an alternative direction to go with the ranger - party buffing. Having a ranger in the party makes the party better. For example:

2nd level- can't get lost, party travels faster overland in the ranger's terrain, maybe disadvantage on random encounter checks (DM rolls twice taking the no-encounter result).
5th level - party gains bonuses to stealth, party regains additional HP when short resting
9th level - resistances and neutralize effects ability (similar to lesser restoration) on long rests
13th level - ????
17th level - ????

Then you have three subclasses - the casty ranger with spells similar to an EK, but using a ranger spell list; a beatstick ranger with several non-magical combat bonuses i.e. Colossus slayer, Volley, that sort of thing; and the pet ranger who gets lots of stuff to do with having a (or perhaps several) pet(s).

So, the base Ranger is all about traveling in the wild. Give the ranger a new favoured terrain every three or four levels and his bonuses apply to more areas. Seems like it would cover most of a Ranger's schtick to me.

Onslaught said:

Something about a ranger who never get speak with animals just feels... off... to me.

Click to expand...

I just use the regular language rules and have languages for various broad categories of animal -- your character can learn Cat, or Rodent, or Songbird, or whatever. They're considered "secret languages", though. It's not like every peasant knows how to talk to his plowhorse.

TheCosmicKid said:

I just use the regular language rules and have languages for various broad categories of animal -- your character can learn Cat, or Rodent, or Songbird, or whatever. They're considered "secret languages", though. It's not like every peasant knows how to talk to his plowhorse.

Click to expand...

Doesn't make sense if the speak with animal spell exists in that world. The spell would to useful for any ranger who doesn't range in a hot or cold desert. Every ranger would work towards it. Just to useful.

That's also why I like that favored enemy gives you a language now. Doesn't make sense to hunt gnolls and not know when one says "I see a guy in that bush. Let's eat him then kill him."