D&D 5E Why Would I Play a Ranger?

[Sacrosanct]

One of those looks like a correct ruling: nothing is stated about save DCs or the like.

The other looks like it's only minimally considered. To me, there's one reading that has zero effect on the game (ie - that only proficient saves get the bonus) and one reading that actually has an effect (ie - that the requirement for proficiency is limited to skills, not saves, so all saves get the bonus). I'm going to go with the reading that actually has an effect.

Which means that they're not using any other concentration spell. Should we compare a BM ranger using conjure animals to a hunter using hunter's mark? Or perhaps one using pass without trace? Or beast bond? It's hard to say. Comparing "base" attacks is hardly being willfully and maliciously misleading though.

Exactly right. That's why you need to compare base attack to base attack, because there's many different optional factors one could use or not use, and that's what's actually disingenuous; to compare a ranger with hunter's mark v one who happens to be doing something else as the game dictates.

We are having a similar issue with our small group. One of our players wanted to be a Ranger, he liked the feel and role. But we are at the middling levels and now most of the time when a battle is about to begin all he does is try to hide, or even run away. In his mind he is such a wuss that these are realistically his only options - other than presenting another target for the bad guys. He'd rather hide or run away, than force the Cleric to expend all of the party healing on him every encounter.

This is most certainly a player issue that has nothing to do with the class itself.

 

[Zaran]

I don't think beastmaster's are nearly as underpowered as people think they are. You essentially give up one of your attacks for your pet to attack. Looking at most of the pets, and they have things like pack tactics, knocking target's prone, etc. Those are pretty significant abilities. If you gave a class an ability "when you hit your target, it must make a STR save or be knocked prone", no one would be complaining. In fact, if anything, people would say that's too OP compared to the BM fighter who can only do things like that a # of times = to their superiority dice. And since you can get another companion after 8 hours, the pet is essentially a regenerating resource of a bag of hit points to soak up damage that would otherwise go to you or your party members.

I don't want a replaceable animal companion. The only issue I have with the beast companion is the lack of saves. It's too easy for an animal companion to fail a save and be wiped out in a single area effect. I do understand that it doesn't make sense for the companion to cease attacking because the ranger didn't take time to direct it but I'm willing to let that go for game balance. I could see that directing a companion might cost a bonus action instead of an attack though.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't want a replaceable animal companion. The only issue I have with the beast companion is the lack of saves. It's too easy for an animal companion to fail a save and be wiped out in a single area effect. I do understand that it doesn't make sense for the companion to cease attacking because the ranger didn't take time to direct it but I'm willing to let that go for game balance. I could see that directing a companion might cost a bonus action instead of an attack though.

Even though it can be replaceable after 8 hours, that doesn't mean it has to be. The pet can heal, so when I talked about a pet being a HP soak in practical application, that HP amount regens every long rest without needing to be replaced. Just that if it does need to be replaced, it can after 8 hours. So even at a worst case scenario, you get that benefit up to 3 times a day (the time is 8 hours, not a long rest which you can only do once per day).

Also, and I know a lot of folks would like the pet to be able to attack by using your bonus action, but that ruins balance in a big way. It does so because now you've got a ranger who gets all of his or her attacks as normal, including any bonuses to those attacks (from any other ability or spell), AND gets a bonus attack at any other target that also may have the ability to knock prone the target, or grant advantage to an ally on their attack.

In simple macro terms, that basically means, "As a BM, you can choose to have a bonus attack on any other creature in the area, with an opportunity to knockdown on every turn. OR, you can grant advantage to any ally in the area. Additionally, you have another target for the monsters to attack other than you or your allies, which can either be healed or replaced after 8 hours."

I don't know any other 3rd level subclass feature that is close to that level of power.

 

[Mistwell]

Are there? Like what? Feats are available to every class that allows feats. So which feats suddenly make a subclass significantly more powerful that wouldn't also have a similar affect to any other class?

Well one example is any class than can get the archery style (+2 to archery attacks) makes the feat that allows you to deduct from your archery attack bonus (-5) to vastly increase your archery damage (+10) more effective.

I've seen BM rangers in actual play, and I think people way underestimate the benefits of being able to grant advantage via help at great ranges (you don't even need to be anywhere near your buddy as long as your pet is), the knockdown ability to be used on every turn from the most popular pet types, or the ability for the pet to soak up attacks meant for you or another PC.

My Ranger player is a beastmaster. He loves it, and does not understand why people say it's underpowered.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well one example is any class than can get the archery style (+2 to archery attacks) makes the feat that allows you to deduct from your archery attack bonus (-5) to vastly increase your archery damage (+10) more effective.

True, but that's not really a subclass issue. I.e., that's not a feat/ability that makes one subclass a lot more powerful than if the same subclass didn't have it. That's a class feature, open to all fighters and rangers regardless of subclass.

My Ranger player is a beastmaster. He loves it, and does not understand why people say it's underpowered.

I know it's anecdotal, but this is the most common response I see from people who have played BMs in actual play. With the exception of the immature player mentioned above who just runs and hides at every combat.

 

[JohnTitusRenzi]

At 7th Level, the Ranger Beast Master can finally command his animal companion as a bonus action. I think this needs to officially be a 1st level Class Feature.

The Hunter has these 2 awesome Class Features.
@11th(Volley)range attack all 10ft.
@11th(Whirlwind Attack)melee attack all adjacent.

Couldn't we scale this? Say +1 target@1st, +1 target@5th, then all targets at 11th?

Now if the Animal Companion had this feature, then the Ranger would be looking more attractive.

Exploration rules and features are just fine with the Ranger. I'm just looking for some combat optimization because the Ranger is a cool class.

But when I think of Rangers, I think of 2 types.
Tom Cruise in Legend with the spells.
Viggo without spells in Lord of the Rings.

I bet we could turn just about any spell into a non-spell.
How about some alchemy action for the non-spell Ranger?

 

[jodyjohnson]

Once suggestions to buff the Hunter's DPS enter - especially buffing the Ranger at 1st, it really feels like we've left the station for "the Ranger needs to be the best at everything land".

Best DPS, best exploration, best action economy.

Maybe we need a "lazylord/princess of the wild" Ranger build with all it's combat power funnelled through a Serious animal companion where all the combat stuff happens. "Go get 'em Rajah!"

That's where talk of stronger pets is headed IMO.

 

[DiscRover55]

Am I the only one confused about people talking about a 1d10 damage Longbow? They're 1d8 last time I checked, are they not?

 

[jodyjohnson]

Am I the only one confused about people talking about a 1d10 damage Longbow? They're 1d8 last time I checked, are they not?

OMG, ...turns in his NitPicker badge.

Can't believe we let this go 9 pages.

 

[Sacrosanct]

OMG, ...turns in his NitPicker badge.

Can't believe we let this go 9 pages.

In my defense, I didn't pay much attention to those math posts when the original complaint was comparing a ranger attack to a poison spray cantrip that has a range of only 10ft (meaning the squishy wizard has to be right in the business end of monsters). I'm probably not the only one.