D&D 5E Ranger fight: PHB vs. UA

[Minigiant]

Agreed. I'd also add "tough" to that, but I'm starting to think that may be best represented as a subclass, somehow.

One thing to keep in mind, both for boosters and skeptics is that the "highly skilled" part may be a factor of level. We just only see high-level rangers, in media. A fighter who gets his clock cleaned and later wins is a sweet comeback/underdog story. A woodsy guy who steps on a twig is just a doofus.

I'd counter that almost never see high level rangers in media. Not high levels in the D&D sense.

Few stories go into the "high levels" of in a D&D sense in order to make the stories relate to the ready. Remember in D&D, high level means fighting thousand year old demons, dragons, vampires, and archmages in other planes of existence with a raging thunderstorm overhead and an elaborate trap crafted by a master gnomish or dwarven locksmith behind them.

Tiny little tricks with twigs and muds isn't gonna cut it vs one of Orcus' archmages or a Pit fiend's grandson.

Eventually your giant killer has to upgrade to Storm Giants. Your drow slayer has to be able to take out a drow raiding party alone. And your forest ranger has to be able to deal with a marilith wielding 6 different magic swords who gut summoned by an evil cult held up in the ruined elven town.

 

[Gadget]

I think that how people feel about the 5th edition ranger (any version) comes down to their expectations of what the ranger is "supposed to be".

In most cases, from what I have seen, people have expectations that don't match to what the designers intended. I've even seen people that appear unable to tell which features of the class are intended to be important, and which are "ribbons" added primarily for flavor rather than function.

Agreed. In particular, people not realizing that the 'favored enemy' feature is now a 'ribbon' (at least until Foe-slayer kicks in), and don't realize that there are many other features that are meant to give the Ranger combat boost (how successful these features are is up for debate). I will disagree that the PHB Ranger could use some improvement, particularly the Beastmaster. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the whole 'pet' aspect and don't feel it should be a major aspect of the class, but WOTC need to come up with second sub-class and this is what came out. I would prefer if this was handled by an 'Animal Friendship' spell and the handle animal skill or equivalent.

PHB ranger. There is no secret for many here that i prefer the spellcasting, skilled warrior as the ranger for D&D.

To me, the easiest as most foolproof way to do the ranger is to ranger is to give it spells and have D&D's magic system do all the heavy lifting.

It works for wizards and clerics. Why not rangers?

Take every little ranger trick.... Every ranger gimmick... And make it into a spell. Then let the player snatch the ones they see as the ranger.

The hunter warrior will take the damage spells. The archer will take the arrow spells. The beastmaster will take the animal spells and beast buff spells. The tracker will take the tracking and perception spells. The stalker will take stealth spells. The ranger lord will take the healing and divination spells. The racist xenophope will take the racist xenophobic spells. The "nonmagical" ranger will take the "easiest to reflavor as mundane skills" spells. The "spirit" ranger will take the "spirit" spells.

Just need more spells. PHB ranger no doubt. The UA ranger aren't my cup of herbal tea.

I agree that this is certainly one way to do it, even an elegant way. It seems that this is indeed more or less what WOTC settled upon in the PHB, particularly after all the flak generated in 4e about martial abilities that were too 'magical'. Easier to just let the the tried and true D&D magic system handle most of these abilities. Besides the problem of not enough spells, there is also the issue of 'needing' to use Hunter's Mark and such all the time to keep up, so to speak, while not being able to use the more utility or flavorful options. This hearkens back to the 4e philosophy of 'silo-ing' different abilities so they are not competing for the same resource.

The Rangers spell selection is pretty cool. They have a lot of abilities which increase their combat damage or alter terrain or hamper opponents. However, nearly all their effective spells are Concentration effects. Hunter's Mark, Silence, Barkskin, Spike Growth, Conjure Woodland Beings, Grasping Vine, Stoneskin -- all Concentration effects. Hunter's Mark or Swift Quiver is necessary for the Ranger to be competitive in terms of damage done compared to Fighters, Barbarian's and Paladins meaning a great many of your spells will be ignored in favor of one of these two in most combat situations. Even in non-combat situations, you end up having to decide whether or not casting Goodberry to help heal a party member is worth the loss of several d6 potential damage in the next combat. There are simply too many restrictions on an already fairly limited pool of effects for the Ranger.

Yes, this is the problem with hanging the Ranger's hat on spell casting. Perhaps something like the Warlock's invocations could be used to modify the base abilities? I don't know. On the other hand, I thought the earlier UA Spelless Ranger had a lot of merit as well.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Agreed. I'd also add "tough" to that, but I'm starting to think that may be best represented as a subclass, somehow.

I think the core ranger should definitely be "tough", just not necessarily in the same sense as a big ol' barbarian. Being a ranger isn't about taking twenty sword blows and fighting right through them; it's about long-term tenacity.

Survivor

---

You have hidden reserves of stamina with which to outlast your enemies. For each of your ranger levels, in addition to the regular Hit Die you receive, you also have an extra d[X] Hit Die. These extra Hit Dice do not increase your maximum hit points, but you can still spend them to regain hit points when you finish a short rest, and they return normally when you finish a long rest.

---

Endurance

---

Starting at [X]th level, you are inured to the harshest of lifestyles. Whenever you're exhausted, you suffer effects as though your exhaustion level were reduced by half, rounded down. For example, you do not roll with disadvantage on ability checks until you have two levels of exhaustion, and you do not die until you have twelve.
In addition, when you take a long rest, you recover two exhaustion levels instead of one.

---

​

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Eventually your giant killer has to upgrade to Storm Giants. Your drow slayer has to be able to take out a drow raiding party alone. And your forest ranger has to be able to deal with a marilith wielding 6 different magic swords who gut summoned by an evil cult held up in the ruined elven town.

Fighters, barbarians, and rogues can do it without magic. Why not rangers?

 

[Mercule]

I think the core ranger should definitely be "tough", just not necessarily in the same sense as a big ol' barbarian. Being a ranger isn't about taking twenty sword blows and fighting right through them; it's about long-term tenacity.

I was actually toying with using a 2d4 hit die mechanic and allowing Rangers (or a specific subclass) add their Proficiency Bonus to the hit points gained when hit dice are spent for healing (e.g. short rest).

That makes Rangers actually slightly less happy to charge into melee than Fighters and Paladins, but ridiculously survivable if they're allowed any time to prepare/recoup. That totally fits my image of "avoid, assess, act" for Ranger behavior.

 

[Celondon]

I was actually toying with using a 2d4 hit die mechanic and allowing Rangers (or a specific subclass) add their Proficiency Bonus to the hit points gained when hit dice are spent for healing (e.g. short rest).

That makes Rangers actually slightly less happy to charge into melee than Fighters and Paladins, but ridiculously survivable if they're allowed any time to prepare/recoup. That totally fits my image of "avoid, assess, act" for Ranger behavior.

It makes them more fragile, though, losing 0.5 hp per level on average compared to the 1d10 standard. 2d6 results in too great of survivability compared to the other classes, and steps on Barbarians toes a bit. If the multi-dice thing is an imperative, the closest mathematically would be 1d6+1d4...but the asymmetry would cause confusion.

 

[Gadget]

The 2d6 hit die steps on the barbarian's toes about as much as the 1d10 hit dice steps on the fighter's toes. In other words: not much. The Ranger has a reputation for toughness, and you don't have to be the Hulk to be tough and enduring.

 

[Gnashtooth]

I played this ranger for one session. It lends itself to an incredibly boring playstyle - attack and give advantage every round. It gets old fast. Went back to my character being an Eldritch Knight.

To be fair, it sounds incredibly munchkin on paper, but in play it's just kinda meh.

 

[Minigiant]

Fighters, barbarians, and rogues can do it without magic. Why not rangers?

Fighters, barbarians, and rogues aren't handling the same things as rangers typically.

Fighters and barbarian are combat-first damage dealing, damage taking tanks. Everything dies with enough Sword swing and arrows to the face in 5E.
Do you want rangers to be combat-first monsters as well?

Rogues is the "roll high on skill checks" class. There are no magical caps on skill checks anymore.
Are rangers supposed to be a "skill checks winner" class?

However the 5e environment and nature gets blatantly magical and extremely deadly after level 5 or so. Aftef level 10 it is outright with giant, dragons, elementals, fiends, fey, and spellcasters.

Either 5e rangers eventually get magic or "reality bending" features which look mundane to combat this or rangers need another job. We made nature OP. So rangers need to be as well.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The 2d6 hit die steps on the barbarian's toes about as much as the 1d10 hit dice steps on the fighter's toes. In other words: not much. The Ranger has a reputation for toughness, and you don't have to be the Hulk to be tough and enduring.

For me, the problem isn't toe-stepping. The concept of "damage sponge" is broad enough that it can (and does) fit multiple classes. I just don't see the ranger as one of them. Sure, they're sturdy enough to take some punishment -- wizards they ain't. But it's not what they excel at. [MENTION=5100]Mercule[/MENTION] echoed my thoughts pretty much exactly.