D&D (2024) Please focus on concept, not numbers.

[UngeheuerLich]

[Citation needed]

I wanted to correct that but forgot. You are correct.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It is however part of what looks like an attempted "no criticism is valid" when we have the following two concepts floating around.

• Don't criticise the fluff. It's easy to add spice and you start with the basics.
• Don't criticise the mechanics. It's easy to add numbers.

In other words what should the criticism be for?

And I'm going to start. The most fundamental thing a class needs is a vision. The current ranger has none which is how it has ended up as a bland half-caster-with-expertise-and-a-fighting-style. Then it needs to clearly communicate it. Which means that the fluff is needed. Then it needs to make sure the implementation is relevant (where the 2014 ranger failed) Then it needs to check for interferences (which it has finally done). Then it needs to get the numbers right but if the mechanics are clear this is still relevant.

This ranger is not a failure like the 2014 ranger - it's a failure like the 2014 sorcerer with no real reason to exist other than to be the jack of all trades, master of none.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is however part of what looks like an attempted "no criticism is valid" when we have the following two concepts floating around.

Then you got me wrong.
Criticize as much as you like, but don´t take it the wrong way, if I am criticise the criticism.

I even support you on the lack of spice. But in the case of the ranger it is all: "conjure barrage is a bad spell, because it does not do enough damage as a level 3 spell [commentary: which is out of question, if you compare it to benchmark spells] so please keep the old multiattack feature [which is also totally underpowered and totally useless]"

So just say: "I don´t like it, because it conveys the wrong flavour, I´d rather have a mundane ability that is useful." Or "I think it is a cool idea, but the numbers are way too low for the cost of a spell slot". Both are valid criticisms.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And I'm going to start. The most fundamental thing a class needs is a vision. The current ranger has none which is how it has ended up as a bland half-caster-with-expertise-and-a-fighting-style. Then it needs to clearly communicate it. Which means that the fluff is needed. Then it needs to make sure the implementation is relevant (where the 2014 ranger failed) Then it needs to check for interferences (which it has finally done). Then it needs to get the numbers right but if the mechanics are clear this is still relevant.

This ranger is not a failure like the 2014 ranger - it's a failure like the 2014 sorcerer with no real reason to exist other than to be the jack of all trades, master of none.

This is all how criticism should be done and exactly why I opened this thread.

The 2014 ranger failed not because the implementation was not relevant, but because some mechanics changed between the last few playtest rulesets and the 2014 rules, and because the ranger needed a little nerf from the playtest rules. This left the ranger with abilities that did not work well with each other...

 

[tetrasodium]

Of course. This is why we playtest those mechanics and give feedback.

I think giving feedback that this is bland, or that damage is not up to par are valid.

What I have seen however is: "The ability is bland because it does not do enough damage compared to the old one."
This is not a valid criticism.

I've seen a some similar criticisms of the hide action because it's not easy to hide from multiple observers or hide in an empty room/hall with no cover. That's exactly why the hide action is great though. 5e was built with the whole rulings not rules & then everywhere it had rules they were so slanted in the extreme towards trivialized success that the GM was too often left with little room to make non-adversarial rulings.

With the new not trivialized hide action that makes it hard to treat stealth like the scry spell the GM has room to both allow leeway where appropriate as well as to simply point out that difficult things are actually difficult to accomplish when it's not appropriate to give leeway.

Edit: On the topic of damage itself lower damage abilities allow more design space for cool features buffs & magic items so I'd be disappointed that some abilities didn't deal less damage

 

[Neonchameleon]

So just say: "I don´t like it, because it conveys the wrong flavour, I´d rather have a mundane ability that is useful." Or "I think it is a cool idea, but the numbers are way too low for the cost of a spell slot". Both are valid criticisms.

So is "A single spell known at a level you can cast anyway that needs to be cast through your spell slots is always a pathetic excuse for a class feature and so this should never have made it so far as the playtest packet"

So is "We all know that Volley (? - the old ability) wasn't great. This would be significantly less useful in practice than Volley even if it didn't use a spell slot to cast"

The problem with this ability is that it's bad from so many angles that it's difficult to know where to start. It might not quite be fractally wrong - but it's certainly a turducken of bad design. And criticising a critique because it did not stick to only one of the many ways it's a bad ability but instead started on several (especially in response to your comparing it to Volley) is not a way to respond to criticism.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which doesn't mean you'll get things right. Ideas on the other hand are easy to come up with - but it's only when you apply the numbers and then check for synergies and interference that you see if they are useful.

This is true, but WotC isn’t interested in our opinions on the numbers. Any attention dedicated to that will be wasted, as they won’t take that feedback into account.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The problem with this ability is that it's bad from so many angles that it's difficult to know where to start. It might not quite be fractally wrong - but it's certainly a turducken of bad design. And criticising a critique because it did not stick to only one of the many ways it's a bad ability but instead started on several (especially in response to your comparing it to Volley) is not a way to respond to criticism.

I do not dislike volley, because it does low damage. I do dislike it, because it does not play well with extra attack and especially the level 3 ability "horde breaker".
Whirlwind attack is even worse.

Both play terrible with a melee based ranger. The new ability at least works.

Numbers can be tweaked.

This is what I say.

You say it is bad design. You should say instead: "I don't like the design".

So my criticism points at exactly that: you imply that the ability is factually a downgrade. Which it is not.

Volly and whirlwind were only good in so few scenarios, so specific, that you would (nearly) never use them anyway.

So this is my opinion against yours. Just two opinions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You say it is bad design. You should say instead: "I don't like the design".

I should say "I don't like the design" when I don't like the design. I should say it is bad design when it is bad design. The two are different.

I don't like the design of the ranger that turns them into a hedge wizard rather than a ranger. It is not inherently bad design because it does its job.

It is bad design to make a supposed powerful class feature into something that merely adds a spell of a level that someone could already cast onto that character's spell list and gives them a ribbon ability of an effect. It is also bad design to not check the power level of the spell you add and find that it's utterly pathetic of a spell of that level. It's a bottom tier spell that is trying to compete with spell slots with e.g. Revivify, Nondetection, Elemental Weapon, and Conjure Animals.

I have pointed out that if you literally doubled the damage of Conjure Barrage then because of its other restrictions it still would struggle to be a match for Fireball. Which the wizard got when they were literally half the level that the Ranger is when they get this pile of junk. And because Int is the primary stat for most wizards and Wis is a secondary stat for rangers it's likely Fireball would be harder to save against back then than conjure barrage is now.

So my criticism points at exactly that: you imply that the ability is factually a downgrade. Which it is not.

I say it is a downgrade because it factually is. The numbers actually exist and are a part of the design we have been presented.

Volly and whirlwind were only good in so few scenarios, so specific, that you would (nearly) never use them anyway.

And as I have pointed out the use case for the class ability both comes at a far higher cost than Volley and is far far more specific and good in fewer situations than Volley despite having a much higher cost; one of the key factors of Conjure Barrage is that it attacks everyone, friend or foe and another is the fixed range and shape. (And almost any non-artificial situation Conjure Barrage is good in so is Volley).

Also you claim you dislike Volley because, and I quote, "I do dislike it, because it does not play well with extra attack and especially the level 3 ability "horde breaker"."

Guess what? Conjure Barrage also does not play well with extra attack. Or for that matter Horde Breaker or even the now mandatory Hunter's Prey. Or for that matter Hunter's Mark. Or your fighting style. Or for that matter your magic bow. Or for that matter your primary stat. If this is your reason for disliking Horde Breaker then on every single count you criticise Volley Conjure Barrage is worse.

And for the record Horde Breaker and Volley work just fine together; because volley is an attack it triggers horde breaker. If there are two enemies next to each other then if you are using Extra Attack then you can get two attacks against one of them and your Horde Breaker extra attack against the other. If you are using Volley against two enemies next to each other then you get one arrow aimed at each of them and then an extra attack against one of them from Horde Breaker - the situation is literally identical in that it's two arrows against one and one against the other with the only difference being the order you fire them in. Which means that if there's a third foe within about fifteen feet of either of them then the attack against this third target is literally free. So I disagree with your assertion that Hordebreaker and Volley don't play well together when any time you could trigger Hordebreaker with a Volley then Volley will be at least as good as extra attack and frequently strictly better.

What volley admittedly does not play well with is Crossbow Expert and using a rapid firing hand crossbow, preferably with the Sharpshooter power attack. If that's your line fine - although I think this should never have been the thing it was.

Now it's possible to argue that Conjure Barrage is better than Whirlwind Attack because (a) it gives you a ranged AoE option and (b) doesn't require you to dive into the middle of a mass of enemies while being a member of a class with very limited defensive tech and (c) doesn't conflict in the same way with two weapon fighting. But that's because Volley is just a mediocre ability while whirlwind attack is genuinely bad and even manages to cover a smaller area than Volley.

So this is my opinion against yours. Just two opinions.

And when your opinion needs to start by pretending that we should ignore the math, and when you have obvious and blatant double standards (such as criticising Volley for not playing well with Extra Attack while not caring that Conjure Barrage works in exactly the same way with Extra Attack while not playing well with other class features) and ignore things like one having a cost and the other not. You're entitled to your opinion - and I'm entitled to check and then outline what your opinion is based on

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And for the record Horde Breaker and Volley work just fine together; because volley is an attack it triggers horde breaker. If there are two enemies next to each other then if you are using Extra Attack then you can get two attacks against one of them and your Horde Breaker extra attack against the other. If you are using Volley against two enemies next to each other then you get one arrow aimed at each of them and then an extra attack against one of them from Horde Breaker - the situation is literally identical in that it's two arrows against one and one against the other with the only difference being the order you fire them in.

I stand corrected. I probably read it wrong the whole time.
When I read "a ranged attack against any number of targets", I read it as singular. So I assumed, since you attacked everyone in the area, it was not possible to chose a "different" target.

Ok. That makes it a bit better.

Still gaining a multitarget spell helps a melee ranger more than having to pull out a bow.