D&D 5E I think people want the Ranger changed for the wrong reasons.

[Corpsetaker]

I believe it was The Jester who said that a class has to finish last and this time it was the Ranger. I don't believe that makes the class bad. I for one just want to see a well written spell-less ranger but that;s not really the topic here.

I believe people want the Ranger changed because of a poor reason. I believe in the end it all boils down to damage output and constant maximum efficiency.

The ranger itself has always been a specialty class. It is a wilderness warrior who is good at specific skills and killing specific creatures. If you want the warrior who is equally good against everything then play a Fighter. A ranger is not going to be optimal in every scenario or adventure but that's okay. You don't expect your Fire Mage to be equally effective at killing Fire and Ice elementals?

The ranger has not problem in identifying it's concept. I wish Favoured Enemy added a damage bonus, not because of DPR but because I think it better reflects that special hatred or training against specific types of creatures. I want the mechanics that fit the concept of the ranger, not ones that ignore the concept but allow me to do X amount of damage to everything all the time. All it takes is a little planning. If you know you are going to be playing Out of the Abyss and you want a ranger, well then just do a little research and you will find out the adventure takes place in the Underdark and there are drow. You find out you are captured at 1st level by drow so BOOM! Your Favoured Enemy begins with drow maybe because they captured you if you didn't have a Favoured Enemy before you were captured.

More damage and continuous maximum efficiency are not good reasons to change the class.

 

[CapnZapp]

I wish you could get full use out of the ranger's abilities as a melee dualwielder, but you can't since Hunter's Mark is too fragile for somebody whose job is to take hits in combat.

I wish the pet could actually survive adventures without me having to treat it as a porcelain vase.

I loathe the inexplicable and videogamey feel given by the "the pet can't act on its own" decision.

Acknowledge that the high level Ranger class features are decidedly unimpressive: no ranger will stay single-classed if multiclassing is an option.

Fix this and problem solved. Like you said: the ranger doesn't have to become best-in-book. My honest opinion is that if the above is fixed, the Ranger becomes completely viable and useful and fun (both subclasses).

Do not add spirit animals. Do not add fugly 2d6 hit dice. Save your energy for later. The ranger isn't so FUBAR you need to completely redesign the class. Keep all those ideas for new classes.

 

[gyor]

In the survey I voted to dump favoured enemy, I found it creepy, its way I don't play Ranger's, with favoured enemey, aka racial enemy, its like playing a Nazi, no thanks.

I'm personally pretty happy with the ranger, but some of the other options were cool too. I just think they need to tweek the class, some extra spells that pkay to the Ranger's strengths, new choices for animal companions, new subclasses, new fighting styles.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I wish you could get full use out of the ranger's abilities as a melee dualwielder, but you can't since Hunter's Mark is too fragile for somebody whose job is to take hits in combat.

I wish the pet could actually survive adventures without me having to treat it as a porcelain vase.

I loathe the inexplicable and videogamey feel given by the "the pet can't act on its own" decision.

Acknowledge that the high level Ranger class features are decidedly unimpressive: no ranger will stay single-classed if multiclassing is an option.

Fix this and problem solved. Like you said: the ranger doesn't have to become best-in-book. My honest opinion is that if the above is fixed, the Ranger becomes completely viable and useful and fun (both subclasses).

Do not add spirit animals. Do not add fugly 2d6 hit dice. Save your energy for later. The ranger isn't so FUBAR you need to completely redesign the class. Keep all those ideas for new classes.

I agree with most of your points there.

Giving the animal it's own actions fixes maybe 95% of the Beastmaster. I would give the animal a bit more HP and that's it. Make it survive longer.

 

[gyor]

The animal companion should have used the Ranger's own hp like in Pillars of Eternity (with the caveat that spells that hit both Ranger and Companion only deal damage to the ranger once, not once each for the Ranger and once for his pet).

 

[Minigiant]

I disagree.

I don't think people want the Ranger changed for the wrong reasons.
I think many people don't understand the consequences of if what they was implemented by a design team designing to make a book to be sold.

Meaning whatever any class is, it has to be different enough to warrant its design space, no completely disliked by many, and not broken.

Animal companions, in other to be very strong, must take up a lot of the ranger's class power. But then you are forcing animal companions on all rangers and also must make them viable at all levels (your bear has to be able to deal with high level threats which can fly, shoot lasers, summon foes, and stuff)

The nonmagical ranger has the similar issue. It has to be different from other existing classes (fighter, barbarian, rogue) and work at high levels. the fighter and barbarian work at high levels by being DPR machines who can take attacks to the face. The rogue works as a DPR machine that gets huge bonuses and reliability on some skill checks. DPR machine seems to be all we can agree on for nonmagical characters.

And that's the issue. The core of the class. It's gotta work in order to be sold.

 

[Xeviat]

Good points. I have been doing tests on the classes and builds to find where the baselines are so I don't make my new options too powerful. It is also helping me spot problem areas.

The hunter ranger is fine. With Colossus slayer, their damage is near rogue levels. The other options feel balanced compared to colossus slayer. Multi attack at level 11 is good if you can target 3 people on average; a blaster wizard faces the same issue. If you max your wisdom score, the level 20 ability is fine.

The trouble with the ranger is the same trouble that a lot of people had with 4E: perception. Things feel weird. It is not immediately apparent how much damage the ranger is supposed to get from their spells. If Hunter's Mark were a class feature and not a spell, I think it would look fine.

The beast master is a separate issue. It needs more hp; like 5 hp/level as the baseline. But that's for another thread.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

If Hunter's Mark were a class feature and not a spell, I think it would look fine.

Maybe even a subclass feature, the hunter subclass and hunters mark work very well together, and almost seem to be designed for eachother.


Hunters mark and beastmaster don't work that well together, if you let your best attack that means your missing out on hunters mark damage becouse your not making weapon attacks.
If hunters mark was a class feature of the hunter subclass, the beastmaster could get a difrent sub class feature that used spell slots to boost the eficiency of the beat companion.

 

[Megalith]

Maybe even a subclass feature, the hunter subclass and hunters mark work very well together, and almost seem to be designed for each other.

Another possible route is to turn Hunters Mark into a class feature but also include another option. An either/or choice. Choose either Hunters Mark or deal extra damage against your favored enemies. Call it Enmity. The extra damage could be something like doubling your ability bonus when damaging your favored enemy to reflect the Rangers skill and expertise in hunting a specific race or species.

 

[Minigiant]

The trouble with the ranger is the same trouble that a lot of people had with 4E: perception. Things feel weird. It is not immediately apparent how much damage the ranger is supposed to get from their spells. If Hunter's Mark were a class feature and not a spell, I think it would look fine.
.

Hunters mark and beastmaster don't work that well together, if you let your best attack that means your missing out on hunters mark damage becouse your not making weapon attacks.
If hunters mark was a class feature of the hunter subclass, the beastmaster could get a difrent sub class feature that used spell slots to boost the eficiency of the beat companion.

The problem with the beastemaster is there is no equivalent of "hunter's mark" for it.
No "Beast master's mark". The closest is "beast bond" in the EEPC.

There should be a "mark" for all ranger subclasses.

And that's the problem. The ranger's spell list is too small and has too few "unique spells". Same with the sorcerer.
Not enough page space.