D&D 5E Soooo, the melee ranger?

[Cortrillion]

This.

I get so frustrated with "Well, at level 19 *snort* according to my calculations, class x is woefully underprepared compared to class y, and is therefore no fun. *snort*"

Seriously. Who cares? It's not a competitive game...

And i get frustrated with "well, it's not a competitive game *drool* so why do you even have dice or stats or skills or even a book, just say what you try to do and the gm will tell you what happens."

Joke aside, you have a point, I normaly say "you can't be overpowerd vs the game, buryou can be, vs the rest of the groupe". This was really true in 3.x , where one character may have 40+ ac an one only hav 14.

But I like to have balance in the base classes from a mechanical perspective, from an rpg perspective it may work to have someone that play Forley the Weakest, that can be a lot of fun. But if you play the game as a dungeon crawler sprt of a game, like a more advanced version of warhammer quest, then you need balance.

So yes, I see you point, but that is not what i am asking about.

 

[sonicfire59]

5e new stuff is great! hope 2 play soon!

 

[Jester David]

The big difference in damage likely comes from the feats, and the fact there's no -5/+10 feat for two-weapon fighting or single-handed weapons. That makes a HUGE difference in the fighter as well. That hits the ranger hard, but it's unfair to call out the ranger as weaker because of that.
However, the offset in hits isn't shown in this example since there are no misses, skewing the average damage. Their damage should be 25% lower as a result.

Accuracy is actually pretty huge and ignoring it invalidates much of these results. For example, the two-weapon ranger has a higher chance of doing some damage each round rather than none (that damage being a not insignificant 2d8+1d6+5).

Another discrepancy is hunter's mark, which lasts for as long as you have concentration, so it's the entire fight. And possibly the next fight and the fight after that. Once the fighter has used their tricks in a single round they're just swinging. And, as mentioned, the ranger's higher level output is focused on multiple creatures. So it's an in-optimal situation for them.

 

[Cortrillion]

Ok, Thanks all for putting in some comments. It looks like I was completely right and the ranger is going to be redone. http://media.wizards.com/2015/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_07_10_2015.mp3 3min in. Working as intended, but way to weak.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Just exactly as well as ever single other class, in the rpg part and ok, better than the warrior, about as well as the paladin, worse than the rogue, in the skills part.

I guess I could have been clearer in my post.

D&D has three pillars of play: combat, exploration and roleplaying.

I feel that the Ranger excels in the second and is good in the third.

Exploration: having a pet with an extremely close bond is extremely useful in the exploration pillar, especially if the animal can fly. This, coupled with the favoured terrain feature (not that it is all that great) gives the Ranger the edge over most classes. There are other classes that can summon creatures to do scouting, or turn themselves into creatures, but those all have short durations.

Roleplaying: The Ranger is good at this pillar because it comes with a builtin schtick - a wilderness survivalist. Some classes have no schtick from the class (e.g. fighter, rogue), some have a large amount (e.g. Monk, Druid, Cleric).

 

[Hriston]

Ok, Thanks all for putting in some comments. It looks like I was completely right and the ranger is going to be redone. http://media.wizards.com/2015/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_07_10_2015.mp3 3min in. Working as intended, but way to weak.

The problem given for the redesign is not that the Ranger is too weak in combat. To the contrary, it is that the Ranger lacks a unique role that can't be covered by other class/background/skill combinations. I seriously doubt this will be addressed by making the Ranger hit as hard as the Fighter.

 

[Wik]

And i get frustrated with "well, it's not a competitive game *drool* so why do you even have dice or stats or skills or even a book, just say what you try to do and the gm will tell you what happens."

I've played those games. Drool aside, it was actually pretty fun!

Rules are good and all. But when they become the be-all and end-all of an RPG, I'd rather drop the "RP", and just play a "G". Seriously, I did that all day today - a nice, competitive board game. I won, because I understood the rules best. It was awesome.

But when I'm playing an RPG? Rules Mastery is just nails on a chalkboard.

Joke aside, you have a point, I normaly say "you can't be overpowerd vs the game, buryou can be, vs the rest of the groupe". This was really true in 3.x , where one character may have 40+ ac an one only hav 14.

Agreed. And I hate this sort of thing. I hated it in 3e, and I hated it in 4e. I don't want to see it in 5e. I hate seeing it in 5e. And I've come to the conclusion it's not really the mechanics fault, but more the internet's fault. It puts a bunch of system-using players in contact with one another, and creates a game of one-upmanship and trick-sharing that didn't really happen in 2e days, at least in my neck of the woods... despite the fact that the game was super abusable. And we played with Skills and Powers!

So yes, I see you point, but that is not what i am asking about.

So what is your point? That a ranger, using the specifics you mention, does less damage than another class? Yet has its own role and abilities that, in many other situations, outshines those classes? If you play a melee ranger, and I play a fighter, and I out-damage you in a combat and you out-perform me in exploration or horde-killing, does that make us unequal? We're on the same team.

I'm also amused that you use 19th level as your baseline for damage, as if that's the regular starting point for play. But whatever. Different strokes for different folks and all that jazz.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If the ranger would hit as hard as the fighter... what is left for him? The fighter is only average at exploration and average at social skills. His job description is fighter. Let him be the best in that area.
Rather make the ranger unique. Everything he needs is already there... but he still lacks something... and in my opinion it is a really useful fe and ft mechanic. I guess I have already found my hotfixes. Maybe I try them out soon.

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem given for the redesign is not that the Ranger is too weak in combat. To the contrary, it is that the Ranger lacks a unique role that can't be covered by other class/background/skill combinations. I seriously doubt this will be addressed by making the Ranger hit as hard as the Fighter.

The Ranger isn't weak as much having weak features, and the solution isn't to make it hit like a fighter.

IMO the Ranger is fine if unspectacular as a base class. It is the subclass Beastmaster that needs work.

An animal companion that can act at least as independently as summoned critters would go a long way. If it also got features that allowed it to survive level-appropriate combats (since the idea of disposable pets is horrible rp-wise) most complaints would go away.

 

[Hriston]

The Ranger isn't weak as much having weak features, and the solution isn't to make it hit like a fighter.

Agreed.

IMO the Ranger is fine if unspectacular as a base class. It is the subclass Beastmaster that needs work.

An animal companion that can act at least as independently as summoned critters would go a long way. If it also got features that allowed it to survive level-appropriate combats (since the idea of disposable pets is horrible rp-wise) most complaints would go away.

Maybe Rangers should be trying harder to protect their animal companions in combat rather than trying to use them to augment their DPR.