D&D 5E Question about Ranger's ability vs Hordes

[KahlessNestor]

I must have remembered incorrectly. Possibly I read it elsewhere (whether another game or recreational reading) and transposed it to the D&D Ranger.

Thank you for clearing it up.

Heh. Maybe you read Drizzt novels? He fights hordes.

 

[ScuroNotte]

Heh. Maybe you read Drizzt novels? He fights hordes.

Actually not a fan. Tried reading it but couldn't.

I would recommend Dragon Reborn (Robert Jordan) and Magician Apprentice (Raymond E Fiest) series.

 

[ScuroNotte]

Yeah, and frankly, I think giving the Hunter even those abilities was a mistake. They're the Hunter. They're supposed to hunt. The guy standing in the middle of a horde and saying "Whirlwind Attack!" should be a barbarian or fighter.

It seems that any ability given to a Ranger is unacceptable as it "belongs" to another class. It encroaches upon that class's features. I am personally tired of hearing of these complaints. Example when the UA rangers was given "advantage on attacks against creatures who haven't taken a turn in combat yet." Many came out damning such a plan as it steps on the Rogues toes.
My opinion is that if a feature makes sense, it should be given.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

My opinion is that if a feature makes sense, it should be given.

That is my opinion as well.

This feature does not make sense.

 

[ScuroNotte]

That is my opinion as well.

This feature does not make sense.

Does for me. Ranger adept in being in natural terrain and using camouflage to lay and wait (Hide in Plain Sight). Then when target in range or within reach, attack. Just like an assassin (who doesn't have camouflage)

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Does for me. Ranger adept in being in natural terrain and using camouflage to lay and wait (Hide in Plain Sight). Then when target in range or within reach, attack. Just like an assassin (who doesn't have camouflage)

That feature is fine. I was still talking about the Hunter's Multiattack.

 

[ScuroNotte]

That feature is fine. I was still talking about the Hunter's Multiattack.

Sorry, misunderstood.

I can see multiattack with rangers though. Rangers either travel in groups or scouting alone. They are woodsman who travel through the land and they have to deal with a band of orcs for example. Such a confrontation may require dealing with multiple targets who wish to surround or kill the Ranger.

Fighters can already have 4 to 5 attacks (if dual wielding). Add in Action surge..

I can see barbarians having this feature though.

The thing I don't understand with the feature is to get the true benefit with melee weapons, you need to be surrounded. Which I would not recommend. They should allow movement, maybe half your normal movement or something. I picture moving through a group while swinging a weapon, not doing a pirouette.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The thing I don't understand with the feature is to get the true benefit with melee weapons, you need to be surrounded. Which I would not recommend. They should allow movement, maybe half your normal movement or something. I picture moving through a group while swinging a weapon, not doing a pirouette.

Yeah, that's exactly it. Wading into the middle of melee and deliberately getting surrounded does not sound like a rangerish thing to do at all, whereas it sounds exactly like a barbarianish thing to do. An ability allowing you to bounce from target to target would fit the ranger's skirmishing theme much better.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Um...you can already move between attacks. And if you want to avoid OA, take the Mobile feat.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Um...you can already move between attacks. And if you want to avoid OA, take the Mobile feat.

We're talking about Whirlwind Attack, in which you simultaneously attack everything you're adjacent to. Can't move in between those attacks. Doesn't feel right to me.

But the Hunter does have a special option for avoiding opportunity attacks, which again feels very properly rangerish. No feat required.