D&D 5E 5th edition Ranger: Why does every class have to have it's own schtick?

[Minigiant]

We were talking about a variety of ranger abilities being used to set up an ambush, unleash a series of attacks over one turn and disappear, as opposed to any one ranger ability. The goal post had to shift quite a lot for the ranger to deal a load of damage even if all the conditions of the trick were met.

The ranger was always about using their combination of abilities to track down targets, ambush them, fight them, retreat if it when south, and avoid ambushes themselves.

The problem is D&D isn't typically played ambush friendly or allow for them or traps much. The ranger suffers because its specialty is common at many tables.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We were talking about a variety of ranger abilities being used to set up an ambush, unleash a series of attacks over one turn and disappear, as opposed to any one ranger ability. The goal post had to shift quite a lot for the ranger to deal a load of damage even if all the conditions of the trick were met.

Ah, sorry I didn't understand the context.

Still, I'd question what you mean by "a load of damage"

A Rogue Assassin could attack from stealth and shoot a single orc for (I think lv 11 is 5d6 damage) 12d6 damage plus mod. You'd overkill the target easily, could even add poison to the arrow if you want. Then hide.

A Hunter Ranger could shoot approx. 10-13 orcs for 1d8 damage (using Volley), dealing approximately the same damage amount or higher than the rogue, just spread out over more targets. Then hide.

Next turn Rogue either runs because orcs charged the woods where the shot came from, or lines up a second sneak attack shot from hiding. Second shot if sneak attack probably kills a second orc. If the rogue flubbed the stealth roll then they deal only a d6 plus mod of damage and might be in trouble.

Next turn the Ranger would either run because the orcs charged the woods, or shoot volley again, or perhaps allow the orcs to charge him because he had set up a spiky growth spell or cordon of arrows spell before the orcs charged and he's leading them into a trap. Also, if he flubbed the stealth he can still do all this stuff. After getting another 1d8 each some of the orcs may start dropping (can't remember orc hp value) but all of them are pretty heavily hurt.

This doesn't require anything special, except a high level ranger to pull off the vanish move, which I agree is very high level considering the rogue gets it so early, but rogues are the masters of stealth and should be able to slip in and out sooner than any other class, especially since it effects their combat so heavily, while other classes do not need that level of stealth to be effective at what they are supposed to do. Still, I don't think the rogue assassin even at lv 17 has a good way to deal with +10 enemies at the same time. That is the current ranger's strength (again talking about the hunter ranger) they spread damage enough that they can handle being severely outnumbered better than any class that doesn't get fireball, and the damage they deal is good enough for 5e. They are effective, not flashy. Like the Fighter, who at best gets 8-9 attacks by level 20.

 

[Shendorion]

I feel like the goal post has shifted again. Now we're comparing a lv. 17 rogue vs. a lv. 17 ranger versus a party of orcs in the woods? We've come a long way from the assertion I challenged, that a ranger using HIPS and vanish to pull off an ambush was "game breaking." But sure, in the woods, with a minute to prepare, provided they come into range of the place he's been waiting for them, that level 17 ranger sure does mow down some orcs!

How many times is that going to happen at a table? I'd rather have a rog3/ftr11 that we call a ranger. He'll pull off the same trick twice a day in any environment at a lower level against a wider variety of enemies without all that setup. If the orcs spread out farther than 10' from one another, it still works. If the orcs are a dragon or a giant, it still works. If the forest is a city, a dungeon, or another plane of existence (because how often are we in the woods fighting orcs at those levels of play?) it still works. It also doesn't demand that the rest of the party bugger off and wait somewhere while the ranger sets up the kill.

 

[Minigiant]

I feel like the goal post has shifted again. Now we're comparing a lv. 17 rogue vs. a lv. 17 ranger versus a party of orcs in the woods? We've come a long way from the assertion I challenged, that a ranger using HIPS and vanish to pull off an ambush was "game breaking." But sure, in the woods, with a minute to prepare, provided they come into range of the place he's been waiting for them, that level 17 ranger sure does mow down some orcs!

How many times is that going to happen at a table? I'd rather have a rog3/ftr11 that we call a ranger. He'll pull off the same trick twice a day in any environment at a lower level against a wider variety of enemies without all that setup. If the orcs spread out farther than 10' from one another, it still works. If the orcs are a dragon or a giant, it still works. If the forest is a city, a dungeon, or another plane of existence (because how often are we in the woods fighting orcs at those levels of play?) it still works. It also doesn't demand that the rest of the party bugger off and wait somewhere while the ranger sets up the kill.

Well that's the point.

The ranger is an expert is a style of play which is uncommon at most tables and adventures. It excels at tracking, ambushes, travel, and solo/scout/assassin mission play.

In the most common styles of play (dungeon delves, cave crawls, and party crashing), the ranger is just a jack of all trades, a warrior with some skill and spell features that augment its prowess.

 

[Lord Twig]

I don't remember if it was this thread I got the idea from of making Ranger use spells prepared instead of spells known, like the paladin does. To check the math on it, I reread how it all worked, and found something I thought was interesting. I made a list of all the classes and the maximum spells they can know or prepare just from sub-class and stats. I didn't bother with sub-classes that do not get spells.

[sblock] Classes: Spells Known/Prepared at MAX

Cleric: 25 prepared, 10 domain spells

Druid: 25 prepared, (8 land spells)

Bard: 22 spells known, 4 magical secrets (2 additional for lore)

Wizard: 25 spells prepared

Paladin: 15 prepared, 10 oath

Warlock: 15 spells known (4 Arcanum,add potential Invocations)

Ranger (with houserules) 15 prepared

Sorcerer: 15 spells known

Fighter: 13 spells known

Rogue: 13 spells known

Ranger(Current): 11 known

Monk: Variable per Ki and sub-class (highest around 5 disciplines)

Barbarian: 3 rituals [/sblock]

What kind of shocked me is both how many spells Paladins get (divine casters, wow) while the current ranger, which is a half-caster officially, gets fewer spells known than both the 1/3 casters which are only sub-classes. So I don't think the preparing spells would be too terrible a change.

I knew the Ranger got screwed on spells known, but I didn't know it was this bad. Thanks for breaking it down.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I feel like the goal post has shifted again. Now we're comparing a lv. 17 rogue vs. a lv. 17 ranger versus a party of orcs in the woods? We've come a long way from the assertion I challenged, that a ranger using HIPS and vanish to pull off an ambush was "game breaking." But sure, in the woods, with a minute to prepare, provided they come into range of the place he's been waiting for them, that level 17 ranger sure does mow down some orcs!

How many times is that going to happen at a table? I'd rather have a rog3/ftr11 that we call a ranger. He'll pull off the same trick twice a day in any environment at a lower level against a wider variety of enemies without all that setup. If the orcs spread out farther than 10' from one another, it still works. If the orcs are a dragon or a giant, it still works. If the forest is a city, a dungeon, or another plane of existence (because how often are we in the woods fighting orcs at those levels of play?) it still works. It also doesn't demand that the rest of the party bugger off and wait somewhere while the ranger sets up the kill.

Sorry to make it seem like shifting goal posts. I tend to ramble and I have a player rolling up a ranger currently so they are on the brain.

It was in response to the line about damage, that was where my brain was, because I often see it said that rangers don't deal enough damage compared with other classes, while the truth is that their damage scales vs the number of enemies more than by level. My point was to illustrate that the ranger damage (while preforming actions equivalent to the rogue in the attack then hide game) is significant, just spread over a wider area.

My end point is simply that rangers are good, I think better at meeting the goals they are designed to meet than almost any other class combo you can arrange. It is simply that they were designed to fill a niche that most people do not measure as closely as they measure others.

I knew the Ranger got screwed on spells known, but I didn't know it was this bad. Thanks for breaking it down.

Not a problem, I hadn't realized it myself until I realized how many spells paladins get prepared for the day.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

I was going to do a thorough analysis, but decided to keep it simple

1. Robin of Locksley is the basis of all Rangers. Without him, there is no Ren of the Blade, no Drizzt, no Aragorn, no Legolas.
2. If you ever want to know what capstone a ranger should have at 20th level, I have two words for you: Patriot Arrow. .

<count yourself lucky I didn't find the clip for the patriot arrow, so instead here's the trailer for robin hood men in tights. >

[video=youtube;dX4Ik-cyp-I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX4Ik-cyp-I[[/video]

<don't give me that, not realistic phooey, because in a world with wizards that can alter reality, and cleric that literally call on divine intervention, I can knock an arrow that acts as a rube gold berg device and still score a critical>.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

<don't give me that, not realistic phooey, because in a world with wizards that can alter reality, and cleric that literally call on divine intervention, I can knock an arrow that acts as a rube gold berg device and still score a critical>.

It was an Area of Tree attack.

 

[LightningArrow]

Is there anything else you can heap on for damage? I saw spells and animal companions and stopped paying attention to the PHB ranger, so I'm sure there's something about this I'm missing. I must be, because even if all those situational and environmental conditions are met, a FTR/ROG can pull off the same ambush in any environment and deal a lot more damage (somewhere in the vicinity of six critical hits) without all that complicated setup.

Yes.

Another thing that bugs me is that the ranger is the only spellcasting class that has no magic items meant for it. It's like they really don't care anymore.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Perhaps it would help if all those "situational" features were attributed to the group, not just the ranger. Yeah, rangers should excel when soloing, or when moving in ranger bands, but as already mentioned a dozen of times, most DnD adventuring groups don't roll this way. Nor should they be forced to stay behind, just so the ranger could have his/her 5 minutes of awesome.

However, if a ranger present in a party could increase the overall party chance to ambush enemies or avoid being ambushed in example, then the person playing the ranger could still feel a measure of satisfaction by being useful to the group. Thus the otherwise jack of all trades may not be DPR optimal, but would be synergy efficient.