D&D 5E Ranger's favored enemies and spells.

[Salamandyr]

What makes the ability especially good against dragons?

OK, I presume you have the packet, and I'm not sure how much we're able to quote in rules form, so...in general

1. More dakka
2. More damage against large and larger creatures
3. Usable at range, so a really good option to have when fighting something that can easily keep out of range of melee, like dragons.

Basically, it's exactly the kind of ability that a lightly armored dragonslayer would want to have in his "quiver".

What it's not though is something so powerful that if, after a couple of rounds the dragon lands right next to you and you have to pull out your greatsword and chop its head off, you're incredibly gimped.

 

[Dausuul]

OK, I presume you have the packet, and I'm not sure how much we're able to quote in rules form, so...in general

1. More dakka
2. More damage against large and larger creatures
3. Usable at range, so a really good option to have when fighting something that can easily keep out of range of melee, like dragons.

Basically, it's exactly the kind of ability that a lightly armored dragonslayer would want to have in his "quiver".

What it's not though is something so powerful that if, after a couple of rounds the dragon lands right next to you and you have to pull out your greatsword and chop its head off, you're incredibly gimped.

What? Are we looking at the same ability here? We're talking about two attacks per round as opposed to one. If halving your damage output doesn't count as "gimped," I'm not sure what does.

 

[Salamandyr]

Two attacks per round with a lower damage weapon.

Addendum: looking at it a little closer, I think Hunter's Volley as written is a little too strong. It allows doubling up damage using a high damage weapon, as opposed to largely light weapons the way two weapon fighting does. Because I'm going to assume you're using a longbow.

Right now, that's too good. There's no other way I know of to get two attacks with a d10 damage weapon (well, there's the multiattack ability most classes have but that's different).

So I'd be happy to see that nerfed to be no more powerful than Slayer's Hands, whose damage is not out that of line with a greatsword.

But it's still an appropriate dragonslayer ability, and being too much on the strong side aside, it doesn't "demand" you only play one way.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That dragons may have an impulse to fly out of weapon range when actually threatened, in which case having a way to reach a dragon in the air is very useful?

That's a reason they'd like to use a ranged attack once in a while, but not a reason that they'd worry about a rapid-fire of two arrows in specific. Why not an attack that disables flight for a time, or an ability that lets them cling to a big creature when it moves away? What is it specifically about dragons that makes a double ranged attack a good thing to use against them in particular?

1. More dakka
2. More damage against large and larger creatures
3. Usable at range, so a really good option to have when fighting something that can easily keep out of range of melee, like dragons.

Why not just "make another attack?" Why make it have to be ranged? Why not pump up the damage bonus to +whatever against Large creatures instead of having to make the second attack? The alternative to this ability isn't nothing, it's an ability that is better suited to the story of "I kill dragons" than making multiple ranged attacks is. Which might be "Do a bunch of extra damage and also if the creature can fly, it can't fly for a round."

There is nothing about "I shoot two arrows at it" that makes me think the character is fighting a dragon.

Hunter's Veil suffers the same problem.

Alternatively, Uncanny Dodge makes sense: you avoid breath weapons easily. Slayer's Momentum, too: you deal extra damage because dragons are big and have piles of HP. Even the "more damage to a Large creature" makes sense. But there's nothing about "I shoot it twice" or "I can hide" that makes particular sense with what we know about dragons. The Horde Breaker is overall much better, making a lot of sense in terms of fighting multiple creatures - even Slayer's Hands is fine: extra attacks for extra critters. But Pack Awareness is also in the same camp.

The abilities need to relate to the creatures more closely. "I shoot it twice" makes sense for a creature that tends to fight at range (I'm thinking a "Mage Slayer" path for thwarting spellcasters), or for a more thematic animal hunter style (Ranged attacks are typical hunting weapons). "I prevent surprise" makes sense for a creature good at surprise (a hunter of predators, for instance). "I can hide" makes sense for a creature good at seeing precieving you. Heck, they'd all make much more sense as a "Hunter of Beasts" path than they do in their current camps.

There's not much about fighting dragons that you'd think "What would be really good is multiple ranged attacks." While you might want to launch a ranged attack when the dragon flies, dragons aren't stereotypically fighting you on the wing, so it's kind of a corner case.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

There's not much about fighting dragons that you'd think "What would be really good is multiple ranged attacks." While you might want to launch a ranged attack when the dragon flies, dragons aren't stereotypically fighting you on the wing, so it's kind of a corner case.

Perhaps not stereotypically, but a well-played dragon should do a majority of fighting on the wing, since flight is one of its significant advantages against most opponents, and dragons are supposed to be intelligent. Smaug was a well-played dragon; the DM apparently forgot he's given Bard's player an arrow of dragon slaying.

I now return your to the ranger debate currently in progress ...

 

[steeldragons]

For the World of Orea roleplaying game [TM], in stead of building fighting styles into favored enemy for rangers, I built favored enemy into favored terrain.

A ranger hails from somewhere, some region (their favored terrain). Most of their class abilities are dependent on where that is. Including, but not limited to, a "favored terrain" AC bonus for using the terrain in combat and stealth/hiding bonus for knowing how to hide/use cover in this terrain to their advantage, and 2 "favored enemies" (with more coming as they level up or take on additional terrains). So the stereotypical forest ranger might choose "orcs and owlbears." A ranger with swamps as their favored terrain might go for "lizardmen and Black dragons." A desert ranger might be more specialized in hunting lamia and sphinxes (if you house such creatures in your setting/world's deserts). Etc...

What they use to fight these things? Whatever they want. They know how and where to hit these creatures. The bonuses are not at all weapon dependent or dictating...there are Weapon Specialization, Archer and Dual-wielding "styles' that a ranger PC may opt to take...as any warrior class might. But they are not baked into the class....and if, as I said upthread, I move rangers into "Rogue class" territory, rogue in the WoO have access to archery and dual-wielding also. So if someone wants a [*gag*cof*throw up a lil in my mouth] Drizz't style dual-wielding ranger that's totally doable.

But the bulk of the ranger's abilities stem from where they know/are from/have built up their experience or received training before joining the party/"beginning their adventuring life" in scene. I think, not only does this make the most sense, but makes the class very flexible for various concept creations of who wants what kind of ranger. If you want animal companions or spell use or additional thievery type stuff tacked on...as they say, "there's an ap for that." There are various themes and skills that will give you what you want while maintaining a useful and distinctly flavorful warriory/roguey class separate from a Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin. Add magic, animals, specializations and fighting styles to taste.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Definitely don't like them making dual-wielding or archery too tied to a subclass.

And I certainly see other archetypes that I'd group into Ranger might not use either style. Such as the African jungle warrior with his leopard companion who'd probably use a spear. Or the undead hunter, who'd probably use a big two-handed weapon or sword and shield. Or the Bounty-hunter who probably uses small concealable or specialized weapons.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This is only a recent legacy, 2WF was tossed in the 3e Ranger only because of Aragorn

I'm sure that someone else will have already picked you up on this but... no

2WF was in the 3e ranger because 2wf was introduced to the 2e ranger, which was there because Drizzt was a ranger who used 2wf because he was a drow and drow used 2wf.

And breathe.

The original ranger (as per the Strategic Review) was very much based entirely upon Aragorn but with a bit more magic along the way. Back when 3e launched I did a big breakdown of the SR ranger, the 1e ranger, the 2e ranger and the 3e ranger. I could probably dig it up if you think it might be interesting (might actually be educational to include 3.5e, 4e, 4e essentials and 5e in the comparison now!)


Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

My suggestion in the survey was to decouple Favored Enemy from Fighting Styles. Also, I suggested the possibility of spellcasting being "opt-in": you'd have a ranger with basic, iconic features that worked like some of the less-than-magical spells (Hunter's Mark and Longstrider, for instance), and the player would have the option of forgoing those in favor of spellcasting.

This is the approach I would favour at the moment.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I agree. The ranger archetype, regardless of its history in D&D, should be a NON-magical/casting class. Even in 1e, you didn't get spell-use (and that very minor) until higher levels.

Although in 1e it started kicking in at about, what, 8th level - it wasn't exactly minor spell casting as they got 1st and 2nd level wizard spells from the wizard list and 1st-3rd druid spells from the druid spell list. There were some kick-ass spells on those lists, I can tell you!

Personally, my call since the time before 3e was launched was... why not use multiclassing to get a spell ranger? Standard ranger is a wilderness scout and fighter. Some tree huggers will multiclass a few levels of druid, some alchemical detectives will multiclass a few levels of wizard.

I still think that judicious multiclassing is probably the best way of giving 'dabbler' level magic to classes such as ranger (and paladin).

Cheers