D&D 5E What is/should be the Ranger's "thing"?

[CapnZapp]

But that's not what people want.

They want Super Forest Ninja and Wolf-Tank who act independently, don't come from spells, doesn't take months to replace, and have no XP penalty.

And that AINT happening.

You might draw comfort from setting up these straw men, but you add little substance to the discussion.

Of course Wotc can offer a capable ranger with an independent beast that survives combat, without this being any of this ninja nonsense.

If they conclude the resulting class is very strong, the simplest solution is to simply state this. Make it an optional variant for the players who want it, and the players who feel it is obvious their ranger-playing friend should have an independent sturdy animal companion.

Oh wait - since this new ranger won't be published in your PHB, I suppose it definitely will be optional, as in "nobody is forcing YOU to use it".

 

[CapnZapp]

Which totally explains why we have summoners and necromancers that can send out hoards that completely destroy the action economy. Or that we have Fighters slaughtering everyone in combat with -5/+10 feats. Meanwhile, the pact of the blade is crying with its inability to keep up with most others, without heavy levels of optimization from the optional feats/multiclassing.

People like freaking out over these things, but you know what? Balance is already across the board with different options. More than anything, the class needs to be FUN first and foremost. Exact numbers can be dialed back after the design is fixed. Otherwise, we end up with a lackluster class that no one wants to play. And that's bad.

This.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'm not sure this identity is viable in an intrinsically team-based game like D&D. And lots of rangers are team players - scouts and pathfinders whose whole job is helping other people survive the wilderness. Aragorn certainly didn't give the Hobbits a dramatic growl of "I work alone." He was from the beginning a guide, teacher, and leader.

Also, side note, it has been noted on many occasions that Batman is the World's Worst Loner. He's surrounded himself with the Bat-Family and shows up on every single DC superhero team. (Runner-up for World's Worst Loner: Wolverine.)

I absolutely agree about D&D being a team game and "loner" not being a useful descriptor for PCs.

However, maybe what [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] is getting at is the Ranger as a Scout conducting reconnaissance. Having that enshrined in a class feature would make a lot of sense. Actually, scouting is one of the areas where parties often get split up, so a class features that empowers scouting without getting separated would be apropos (e.g. a scouting radius - that increases with level - that can be searched to find enemies during short rests without being detected).

 

[Minigiant]

You might draw comfort from setting up these straw men, but you add little substance to the discussion.

Of course Wotc can offer a capable ranger with an independent beast that survives combat, without this being any of this ninja nonsense.

If they conclude the resulting class is very strong, the simplest solution is to simply state this. Make it an optional variant for the players who want it, and the players who feel it is obvious their ranger-playing friend should have an independent sturdy animal companion.

Oh wait - since this new ranger won't be published in your PHB, I suppose it definitely will be optional, as in "nobody is forcing YOU to use it".

I'm not setting up a strawman. There are rules for almost everything else in 5th edition. Independent summoned beasts (conjure spells via druid). Independent NPC beasts (DMG NPC allies). Beast which doesn't cost magic nor XP and allows the master to be good (beastmaster ranger). The only other "balanced" option is the strong beast and weak master variant.

It would be unfair of me to suggest WOTC release a broken ranger for these fans.

Really, my question to those who want a better beast master is, what are you will to sacrifice for your independent beast which costs no XP, gold, or spell slots?

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not sure this identity is viable in an intrinsically team-based game like D&D. And lots of rangers are team players - scouts and pathfinders whose whole job is helping other people survive the wilderness. Aragorn certainly didn't give the Hobbits a dramatic growl of "I work alone." He was from the beginning a guide, teacher, and leader.

Also, side note, it has been noted on many occasions that Batman is the World's Worst Loner. He's surrounded himself with the Bat-Family and shows up on every single DC superhero team. (Runner-up for World's Worst Loner: Wolverine.)

The ranger is more like Aquaman. He can work alone in the sea because he's OUTRAGEOUSLY OVERPOWERED in the water.
On land, he can still punch a foe through a wall and stick tridents in places where tridents don't go.

In the wild, the ranger is straight overpowered when prepared. He can work alone there if he feels and he can meet the threat. In the city or a dungeon, he can bring those skills to help the group and be a scout, backup healer, watchman, offensive warrior, and backup defensive warrior.

 

[Mephista]

I'm not setting up a strawman.

You're misrepresenting and exaggerating other arguments. That is, by definition, a strawman.

It would be unfair of me to suggest WOTC release a broken ranger for these fans.

You're the only one suggesting "broken" rangers. So, you're the one with the burden of proof. Run all the numbers and give an analysis on why this is flat out superior to, oh... lets say an eldritch knight with a familiar ritual, and then with a book warlock, in a wide variety of situations. And be sure to include all the numbers for all three pillars, and keep an eye on Concentration effects and the action economy.

Really, my question to those who want a better beast master is, what are you will to sacrifice for your independent beast which costs no XP, gold, or spell slots?

Oh, I don't know... class features? Like how the sorcerer gets metamagic options at so many levels, or the warlock gets invocations, or the fighter gets extra feats/attribute bumps, or that the barbarian gets Reckless Attack or Savage Critical, the bard gets Inspirations and Songs... Or how about the paladin auras?

In short, you're saying that other classes can have nice stuff as they level, but the ranger can't without paying a penalty. Which is just silly.

The ranger is more like Aquaman. He can work alone in the sea because he's OUTRAGEOUSLY OVERPOWERED in the water.

Riiiiiight. Because Aquaman doesn't have his army of fish to call upon at will, doesn't have Mera, Aqua Lad and any number of other Atlanteans (he IS a king).

In the wild, the ranger is straight overpowered when prepared. He can work alone there if he feels and he can meet the threat. In the city or a dungeon, he can bring those skills to help the group and be a scout, backup healer, watchman, offensive warrior, and backup defensive warrior.

So... lets here all the reasons why the Ranger is supposedly overpowered in the wild as opposed to anywhere else. Wild claims (no pun intended) without proof is meaningless. Favored Terrain/Enemy are primarily exploration features, and I have yet to see them used to break the game. Monk and Rogue stealth abilities are generally better than the Ranger's.

The one place that the Ranger shines is very niche - a specific Hunter build that relies on at will AoE attacks. Too bad the niche overlaps with just about any other spellcaster out there.

And lets just stop pretending that anyone can't be considered overpowered when they have the time to prepare. Wizards, assassins setting up ambushes... they can all be very scary. Being prepared is a huge advantage for any class.

 

[Minigiant]

You're misrepresenting and exaggerating other arguments. That is, by definition, a strawman.

You're the only one suggesting "broken" rangers. So, you're the one with the burden of proof. Run all the numbers and give an analysis on why this is flat out superior to, oh... lets say an eldritch knight with a familiar ritual, and then with a book warlock, in a wide variety of situations. And be sure to include all the numbers for all three pillars, and keep an eye on Concentration effects and the action economy.

Familiar attacks are hot garbage for damage unless you equip them with weapons which only pixies can do. The only boon is that they are cheap to replace. Familiars are support.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. The fighter gets 2 attacks at level 5 and 3 at 11. The beast ranger gets 2 attacks at level 5 either W/W or W/B and at level 11 they can do W/B/B.

How many attack do people who want a better beastmaster want? Almost every homebrow I've seen on the net let's the ranger keep his 2 attacks wile letting the best attack. This is Weapon/Weapon/Beast at best and so even give the beast more attack or crit bonuses. That's better that the fighter.

I oppose the ranger being better than the fighter.

Oh, I don't know... class features? Like how the sorcerer gets metamagic options at so many levels, or the warlock gets invocations, or the fighter gets extra feats/attribute bumps, or that the barbarian gets Reckless Attack or Savage Critical, the bard gets Inspirations and Songs... Or how about the paladin auras?

In short, you're saying that other classes can have nice stuff as they level, but the ranger can't without paying a penalty. Which is just silly.

No. Ranger is my favorite class. That doesn't mean I want it broken. Every class feature has a cost for its bonus.

The hunter gets a free attack but the attack must target another for.
The beastmester gets a 3rd attack but it comes from a beast who mus

Riiiiiight. Because Aquaman doesn't have his army of fish to call upon at will, doesn't have Mera, Aqua Lad and any number of other Atlanteans (he IS a king).

[/QUOTE]
So... lets here all the reasons why the Ranger is supposedly overpowered in the wild as opposed to anywhere else. Wild claims (no pun intended) without proof is meaningless. Favored Terrain/Enemy are primarily exploration features, and I have yet to see them used to break the game. Monk and Rogue stealth abilities are generally better than the Ranger's.

The one place that the Ranger shines is very niche - a specific Hunter build that relies on at will AoE attacks. Too bad the niche overlaps with just about any other spellcaster out there.

And lets just stop pretending that anyone can't be considered overpowered when they have the time to prepare. Wizards, assassins setting up ambushes... they can all be very scary. Being prepared is a huge advantage for any class.[/QUOTE]

 

[Minigiant]

You're misrepresenting and exaggerating other arguments. That is, by definition, a strawman.

You're the only one suggesting "broken" rangers. So, you're the one with the burden of proof. Run all the numbers and give an analysis on why this is flat out superior to, oh... lets say an eldritch knight with a familiar ritual, and then with a book warlock, in a wide variety of situations. And be sure to include all the numbers for all three pillars, and keep an eye on Concentration effects and the action economy.

Familiar attacks are hot garbage for damage unless you equip them with weapons which only pixies can do. The only boon is that they are cheap to replace. Familiars are support.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. The fighter gets 2 attacks at level 5 and 3 at 11. The beast ranger gets 2 attacks at level 5 either W/W or W/B and at level 11 they can do W/B/B.

How many attack do people who want a better beastmaster want? Almost every homebrow I've seen on the net let's the ranger keep his 2 attacks wile letting the best attack. This is Weapon/Weapon/Beast at best and so even give the beast more attack or crit bonuses. That's better that the fighter.

I oppose the ranger being better than the fighter.

Oh, I don't know... class features? Like how the sorcerer gets metamagic options at so many levels, or the warlock gets invocations, or the fighter gets extra feats/attribute bumps, or that the barbarian gets Reckless Attack or Savage Critical, the bard gets Inspirations and Songs... Or how about the paladin auras?

In short, you're saying that other classes can have nice stuff as they level, but the ranger can't without paying a penalty. Which is just silly.

No. Ranger is my favorite class. That doesn't mean I want it broken. Every class feature has a cost for its bonus.

The hunter gets a free attack but the attack must target another for.
The beastmester gets a 3rd attack but it comes from a beast who must be guarded.
The monk must use monk weapons and use ki for a fourth attack.
The barbarian must use a frenzied rage for their third.
The fighter gets a 3rd attack but practically no class features to adjust them.

Riiiiiight. Because Aquaman doesn't have his army of fish to call upon at will, doesn't have Mera, Aqua Lad and any number of other Atlanteans (he IS a king).

Aquaman doesn't always bring them and its usually when he's outnumbered... let a ranger.

"Green dragon in my forest. I need to call in some favors" Campaign Start.

So... lets here all the reasons why the Ranger is supposedly overpowered in the wild as opposed to anywhere else. Wild claims (no pun intended) without proof is meaningless. Favored Terrain/Enemy are primarily exploration features, and I have yet to see them used to break the game. Monk and Rogue stealth abilities are generally better than the Ranger's.

The one place that the Ranger shines is very niche - a specific Hunter build that relies on at will AoE attacks. Too bad the niche overlaps with just about any other spellcaster out there.

And lets just stop pretending that anyone can't be considered overpowered when they have the time to prepare. Wizards, assassins setting up ambushes... they can all be very scary. Being prepared is a huge advantage for any class.

Spells the spells. The ranger spell list is perfectly suited for wilderness encounters and they have the skill bonuses to abuse them.
I've slaughtered a whole mage guild solo in 3.5, running the DM's hook in hilarious fashion. Sure I can a TON of wands and scrolls

 

[Mephista]

I'm not misrepresenting anything.

Yes, you are. You're completely over-exaggerating the questionable benefits and ignoring the manifold drawbacks.

How many attack do people who want a better beastmaster want?

Number of attacks is meaningless without context - force multipliers are a thing. There's also the small issue that the Ranger isn't built for heavy weapons, forcing them to use weaker attacks compared to the Fighter. Since we're talking about a subclass, we also need to take into account Superiority Dice and Action Surges. Which you are neglecting.

This is why its a strawman. You are using just a pale imitation of the actual truth.

Every class feature has a cost for its bonus.

Yeah, its called -gaining a level-. You seem to be confused with the idea that different subclasses have different battle styles. The Hunter specializes in at-will AoE weapon attacks as part of the Hoard-breaker theme. Beastmaster doesn't have that theme. As well, the Hunter class can use the Hunter Mark freely, while the animal companion cannot. This isn't a matter of sacrificing, this is a matter of designing mechanics to fit a certain theme for the subclass.

Familiar attacks are hot garbage for damage unless you equip them with weapons which only pixies can do. The only boon is that they are cheap to replace. Familiars are support.

Turn by turn, the Eldritch Knight has a higher damage output before feats, plus magic, plus a familiar that's just as good at scouting as the beastmaster's animal companion. You were the one that said the Ranger is broken. So far, it seems like the Eld.Knight is actually better at fighting and the same at exploration as the Ranger.

Aquaman doesn't always bring them and its usually when he's outnumbered... let a ranger.

"Green dragon in my forest. I need to call in some favors" Campaign Start.

So... suddenly the Ranger isn't being overpowered in his forest when there's a danger? Lets not move the goal posts and forget that was the point of this comparison!

Ranger as the lone man on patrol? Fine, that's being a scout. Rangers, rogues, shadow monks, some flavors of warlocks and bards as well.
Dealing with an actual threat in the wilderness? Call in the full cavalry!

Sounds about right for someone that's not overpowered.

Spells the spells. The ranger spell list is perfectly suited for wilderness encounters and they have the skill bonuses to abuse them.
I've slaughtered a whole mage guild solo in 3.5, running the DM's hook in hilarious fashion. Sure I can a TON of wands and scrolls

The ranger isn't better at using skills than anyone else in 5e - a druid or cleric is just as adapt as the ranger at the signature skill traits. Maybe more at times.

The Ranger spell list, while it does have a number of good spells, I've yet to see any that make them "abused" or "overpowered." Start listing these supposed bonuses and spells that no one else can use in a way that's abusive and overpowered, or I'm calling shenanigans.

And I don't care what happened in 3.xe. Not only are we talking about the fifth edition Ranger, not the ranger across editions, but it also matters how the GM played enemy mages - those with only the most basic defenses active are generally easy targets. That's how it is with wizards - they're only super great when they've had time to prepare.

 

[Hriston]

I'm not sure this identity is viable in an intrinsically team-based game like D&D. And lots of rangers are team players - scouts and pathfinders whose whole job is helping other people survive the wilderness. Aragorn certainly didn't give the Hobbits a dramatic growl of "I work alone." He was from the beginning a guide, teacher, and leader.

Also, side note, it has been noted on many occasions that Batman is the World's Worst Loner. He's surrounded himself with the Bat-Family and shows up on every single DC superhero team. (Runner-up for World's Worst Loner: Wolverine.)

PH pp. 89-90 are full of flavor descriptions of the Ranger as a solitary hunter who "stalks alone" and is "independent to a fault". In the "Creating a Ranger" section, "What made you join up with a band of adventurers?" is posed as a question that is fundamental to the character concept of a Ranger. While I'm certainly not suggesting that Rangers always be played in solo campaigns, I would suggest that the basic assumption is that the Ranger has spent considerable time outside of the adventuring group developing his Ranger-skills alone in the wilderness.

Of course Aragorn didn't reject the company of the hobbits, but you'd be hard-pressed to characterize his involvement with them as teaming up or forming an adventuring party with them where all members are equal. He was on an assignment to protect them and what they carried, so you could say that up until the point they reached Rivendell, he was "working alone" towards that end, without much help from the hobbits, if any. The important thing is that, at the point at which he enters the story, he comes in from the wilderness alone, a bedraggled wanderer, surrounded by mystery as to his true identity. I think it's fundamental to the Ranger to be associated with the wilderness in this way, as opposed to being a full participant in "society". There is something to this character that is basically anti-social.

Obviously, Batman's character is somewhat inconsistent in this respect throughout his publishing history, but the mere fact that he is known as the "World's Worst Loner" shows that the concept of isolation is fundamental to his basic character in the way I was referring to it.