Revised Ranger update

[Umbran]

Folks, don't escalate this into rudeness or hyperbole, hm? Thanks.

 

[AmerginLiath]

I wouldn’t be surprised to see another “pet” subclass release for the Ranger at some point to supplement the Beastmaster, just as the Zealot Barbarian sort of supplements the Berserker (filling a similar role/style, but coming from a different narrative place). It’s probably just a matter of when they come up with a good subclass that is both mechanically and stylistically distinctive enough while still appealing to that playstyle.

 

[jgsugden]

But if you're bleeding heavily, you don't just bandage the worst one. You start there and bandage all the wounds.

Yes. You fix/address the heavy wounds... the wounds worthy of being addressed...

Which is part of the issue. If you "improve" one class, will there suddenly be pressure to make changes to other classes or problems in the game.

Just like they did in 3.5, which was considered a major improvement in the play experience at the time. People, generally, loved it. However, 5E doesn't have as many imbalances to address as 3E did.

This also assumes that introducing a second version of the ranger will "fix" things and not cause more confusion at tables. Or tension in games when DMs don't allow it. Are the problems it creates greater than the problems it solves?

If they introduce the revisions as options you can select - as in take what is in the PHB or gain this - well, we've seen it dozens of times already. No problem.

There are two variant rangers by WotC already out there. There are dozens on the DMsGuild. If someone isn't happy they can easily "fix" things on their own, picking and choosing elements.

Insert AL argument here, and note that the problem you just raised - about whether a DM and player will agree on including it - is much worse with ALand homebrew materials.

Oh, there absolutely are.
But is there the same percentage as older fans? I think so. The fans who got into the game via streaming are a lot more focused on roleplaying, character, and story. There's a lot more interest in those aspects of D&D than the crunchy building.
And, most importantly, are the waves of new fans as vocal about their dislike of the ranger? And has the percentage of dissatisfied fans stayed the same or decreased?

Naturally decreased because those most offended are using the UA article ranger. Less people complain about leaky tires that are patched... but it is still just a patch.

But the above is irrelevant. As Crawford points out, despite the ranger being the "worst" class it is NOT the least played class. So many, many people are happy with the class. And changing the class risks making them unhappy or causing issues at their table.
So when you poll the entire audience, the ranger comes out at the bottom. But when people actually make characters, the optimizers don't just avoid the ranger, they avoid all the bottom tier classes, while the remaining 2/3rds or 3/4s of the audience is happy to consider the ranger.

See my above argument. The play experience would be benefitted by an improvement to the class. If all your friends are jumping off a bridge, does it make the bride jump a good plan?

The class is getting played, which means the problem is not a real issue so much as a theoretical issue. Which is the key difference and distinction between something that is a problem in white room design and message board theorycraft and something that is a problem in the real world. Here, on ENWorld, the ranger is broken. Out in actual games, four other classes are more of a problem as they're the ones that aren't seeing play.

But can we approve the play experience for this iconic class?

Yes... but you could say that about all the classes.
Way of the Four Elements could be fixed. Fighter subclasses could be revised for flavour. The barbarian's exhaustion mechanic could be revisited. The wild mage is unpopular. Plus several feats are seen as problematic, several spells are too strong or weak.

While I do not agree with all of those statements (wild mage gets a lot of play in my campaigns - I have not seen metrics indicating it is less often used in other games) - Improving the play experience is a good idea when it can be improved.

Again, this could be said about many features and options in the game.

3.5 was widely accepted as a massive improvement in the play experience. You could do it on a lesser path here by introducing new options and have a lot of happy players.

It's almost like perfect balance is impossible and they could spend years revising and tweaking mechanics to make things more balanced and again to make things more fun.
Only to have none of that matter at all because the same number of players will say "Imma gonna play Strider," and roll a ranger irregardless of the mechanics and changes.

And if that player has a better experience because the mechanics work better? WIN. It is an iconic class. Peopl want to play the iconic class. If they play it despite the mechanics, there is room for improvement.

Halfling on a riding dog two-weapon fighting with lances. Two to three attacks dealing 1d12 damage plus hunter's mark with 40 foot movement.

Almost as good as a barbarian with GWF ... only about 10 damage per strike less.

And at 7th level it can move 20 feet, you can attack, and then it can Disengage and move back 20 feet.

And monsters move up to it and hit it? That is not overpowered. If you put that 7th level down on paper and compare it to a polearm fighter, a GWM barbarian, or a high defense paladin of similar level you'll find it inferior. And, quite frankly, a bit odd. Optimizers that believed it to be great might play it... but those are bad optimizers. I doubt anyone else - outside of a really silly player - would think two lances on a halfling makes a lot of sense.

 

[Eric V]

Makes me much MORE confident, as they are making their decision off of actually data and play testing, rather than freaking out about what a small number of loud voices on the internet says about it. More companies these days would do well to take a lesson from WoTC in that regard.

Is Ranger one of the weaker DPR options? Sure, but D&D isn't so finely balanced that it makes a difference in play. You could have a party of 4 rangers and they would be fine in keeping up with level appropriate CR, encounters and encounter days.

The Hunter Ranger I DM for at 18th level has no problem shining multiple times every session (and rarely casts hunter's mark, there are more interesting things for him to do with his slots).

Oh, I didn't realize you had anecdotal evidence. Guess there's nothing to discuss, then.

 

[lkj]

I suspect that it won't make much of a difference to this discussion. But Jeremy didn't say they weren't still considering adding options to the PHB ranger:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1023354199646527488

"Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players."

This is in line with Mearls comment that they were going to do another survey this fall before deciding how to move forward. So alternative class features (and not just for Ranger) are still on the table. The only firm decision seems to be that they won't release an entirely new build.

AD

 

[CapnZapp]

We have one in the party. He's not useless. If you can't make use of them, that's something you might want to work on. Or not.

You did not try to deny the "pet without an action" bit.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yep. Hurts, don't it? You should probably quit playing 5E so it doesn't happen again.

removed because I saw the mod post, but don't think you did not cross that line.

 

[Mistwell]

You did not try to deny the "pet without an action" bit.

That was part of "not useless". He uses his pet all the time. It depends on the circumstances, but it's very useful in the game for us. You should try it. Get creative.

For example, do things which are aided by someone else attacking next to you. Like take sentinel, and use your pets attacks to trigger your sentinel attacks.

Or use a net - which normally means you can only use one attack action but in this case it's not an attack action to have your pet attack.

Or be a magic archer. Starting at 5th level, whenever you command your beast to attack you get to make one free weapon attack. To make the most of this attack, pair it with spells like ensnaring strike, hail of thorns, or lightning arrow. These require a bonus action to cast, but you do not need to use the Attack action to trigger them.

Or try a Duelist (DEX with rapier). Use a Giant Badger as a pet in early levels (the multiattack + the beastmaster bonuses is pretty gnarly) and then switch to a Wolf at Level 5 for the potential synergy of the Wolf knocking the target prone.

Halflings and gnomes can ride the medium sized pets. The mastiff is in the RAW category allowing small PCs to ride with a saddle. So you can take the mounted combatant feat and this will generally make you more mobile than your team, except monks, and you can possibly get flying mounts earlier than other players which just makes you stupidly safe in fights.

I've read about this build: Archery Fighting Style, A companion with Flyby, Sharpshooter, Level 7. Animal flies to the enemy, helps as a bonus action. You fire at the -5 penalty helped by the +2 from Archery and advantage granted by the beast. Enjoy your +10 damage.

The pets are disposable. They can be used for a utility function. You have spells that help you befriend an animal like Animal Friendship and Speak with Animals, and bring several potential pets with you while only commanding one.

There are so many things you can do with this class. It just takes a lot of creativity. There are some good guides out there to help figure it out though.

 

[Satyrn]

Oh, I didn't realize you had anecdotal evidence. Guess there's nothing to discuss, then.

Well, he did mention the ranger doing interesting things. That might be, uh, interesting to discuss.

But I'm really replying to say that I like reading about other posters' experiences at the table. And I find it kind of weird that you're dismissing somebody's experiences as not worth discussing.

 

[Jester David]

Yes. You fix/address the heavy wounds... the wounds worthy of being addressed...

But who decides what is a “heavy wound”?

Just like they did in 3.5, which was considered a major improvement in the play experience at the time. People, generally, loved it. However, 5E doesn't have as many imbalances to address as 3E did.

We must be remembering a different 3.5e.

People hated having to buy the same rules again. Sales were half that of the 3.0 books. Games stores were saddles with numerous 3.0 books they couldn’t give away and many were driven out of business. And the audience was divided between those who updated and did not updated.

Doing it for a single class would be a terrible idea.

Heck, WotC isn’t even doing the Updates that 4e did, adjusting things for balance. Because people didn’t like that.
If it’s not overtly broken and wrecking people’s campaigns it does not need to be fixed. Great Weapon Fighting is more of an issue.

If they introduce the revisions as options you can select - as in take what is in the PHB or gain this - well, we've seen it dozens of times already. No problem.

Except the options prior have been additive. They haven’t replaced content in people’s games.

Also… not ever DM allows the newest accessories. Many just play PHB only games. So yeah, that does cause issues. And making an optional “core” element will cause tension and friction at the tables.

Insert AL argument here, and note that the problem you just raised - about whether a DM and player will agree on including it - is much worse with AL and homebrew materials.

Adventurer’s League is irrelevant.

There are less than 2500 Wizards Play Network stores running AL in North America. Less than 0.5% if games are AL. And, of those, only a fraction will play rangers. And only a fraction of that fraction of those will want to play the ranger but not like it.
It’s an irrelevant number.

There are likely more people playing online via Rol20 and Fantasy Grounds. You’re better off asking “but what about the VTT?!?l” Because the tabletops suddenly have to worry about adding a new ranger to their systems, coding alternate class features, and somehow paying for that development time without charging for a second version of the ranger. Plus confusion from players over how their class might have been stealth updated.

VTT are ten times as relevant as Adventurer’s League.
(Literally. Roll20 alone has 36k games.)

See my above argument. The play experience would be benefitted by an improvement to the class.

See my argument about all the many, many things that could be changed for the “play experience”.

Singling out the ranger is largely arbitrary.
Seriously. Why the ranger? Well, it’s the least well received when you poll the entire audience and ask how happy they are.
But why not fix the class that is actually played less? That seems more relevant. Or the feats played least? The spells cast least? Why not fix the options considered overpowered, needing them a little? All those would be equally good for balance.

You can make a case for any change.

But can we approve the play experience for this iconic class?

Can we improve it? Sure. But, again, we can do the same thing for the fighter, monk, sorcerer, barbarian. Likely a few wizard and cleric options,

Improving the play experience is a good idea when it can be improved. 3.5 was widely accepted as a massive improvement in the play experience.

Again, by “widely accepted” you mean “less than half”.

You could do it on a lesser path here by introducing new options and have a lot of happy players.

There are new options. There are dozens. I linked a popular one above.

And if that player has a better experience because the mechanics work better? WIN. It is an iconic class. Peopl want to play the iconic class. If they play it despite the mechanics, there is room for improvement.

It’s not that the mechanics don’t work. They work just fine. It’s that the damage output doesn’t meet the output in a white room simulation. The class just doesn’t meet some arbitrary bar for optimizers.

People HAVE an iconic class. And lots and lots of gamers are playing it and happy. Being in the top 66% of classes, likely one out of every three tables has a ranger.
Because, brace yourself, not everyone cares about the mechanics. (I’d argue that most people don’t.) The tone and feel of the class is often more important. The story. And that works just fine.