D&D 5E (2014) Ranger

[Juriel]

Perhaps the devs viewed animal companions as a form of temphp pool that you can refresh with a long rest once it's gone?

 

[ppaladin123]

I'd say the two classes I came out from reading the PHB feeling pretty "Meh" about are the ranger and the sorcerer. I'm sure ranger does OK, I just don't see a lot about them to get excited about. I'm thinking that a lot of their uniqueness might be in the spell lists, rather than the class features.

Same. They seem fine but neither really excited me or filled my head with possibilities the way the other classes did.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Hmmm even the bonus action help isnt that good, since it only gives adv on a single attack. If youre twf you could just use yr bonus action to attack... the main pet adv is extra target/bag of hp, isnt it? I dont have the phb, but presumably there are spells to buff the pet, or use it to scout, etc..? And rangers are typically very stealthy, so they have that over fighters. Im guessing their spells are a significant part of their effectiveness in combat and out.

I haven't run the numbers yet, but taking Dueling instead for the damage bonus on attacking with a single weapon, plus the bonus action help, might yield a comparable DPR.

 

[Snapdragyn]

I think one thing we have to consider on the pets is their special attacks or special abilities.

For example, the panther can knock an opponent prone. You gave up one attack to get advantage on the next one (& give advantage to others in the party focusing on the same foe).

Mastiff gets advantage when attacking the same target as an ally. You gave up one attack to grant advantage to the pet, then.

I was sorely disappointed to see that hawk lost its special attack (granting disadvantage through a distracting attack) from the alpha. Don't see much point in it now.

Also note that ACs are not limited to those 3, which are specifically referenced as examples, but can be any beast of medium size w/ up to 1/4 CR. W/o grabbing my PHB copy, I seem to recall at least owl, wolf, & mule of the included creatures in the appendix fitting that definition.

 

[Charles Rampant]

The animal companion can also serve as a way of blocking off access to the Ranger and his friends (i.e. meatshielding), especially since he won't grant cover to enemies that the Ranger then shoots. I'm not sure if the companion would get a reaction, though. The Hunter does appear the more powerful option from the two, but I think that I'd like to see a clever player using the Beast Master subclass in play before I wrote it off.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Math time!

Ranger 11 (Beast Master), TWF, shortswords x2, Hunter's Mark

+9 vs. AC 16 (5 dex, 4 prof), plus Panther +8 vs. AC 16 (bite damage 1d6 + 6), Bestial Fury

2 * (.65 (3.5 + 3.5 + 5) + .05 (7 + 7 + 5))
+ 2 * (.6 (3.5 + 6) + .05 (7 + 6))

= 17.5 + 12.7
= 30.2


Ranger 11 (Hunter), TWF, shortswords x2, Hunter's Mark, Colossus Slayer, +9 vs. AC 16 (5 dex, 4 prof)

3 * (.65 (3.5 + 3.5 + 5) + .05 (7 + 7 + 5))
+ (1 - .35^2)4.5 + (1 - .95^2)9

= 26.25 + (3.949 + 0.878)
= 31.077


So, at least for Lv. 11, the same level the Fighter gets his third attack, the Ranger (both builds) actually isn't looking too bad DPR-wise.

Comparing to two types of Fighters at this same level:

Fighter 11 (Champion), Dueling, rapier, +9 vs. AC 16 (5 dex, 4 prof)

3 * (.6 (4.5 + 7) + .1 (9 + 7))
= 25.5


Fighter 11 (Champion), Great Weapon, greatsword, GWM (no -5/+10 trade), +9 vs. AC 16 (5 STR, 4 prof)

3 * (.6 (8.33 + 5) + .1 (16.67 + 5))
+ (1 - .9^3)10.165

= 30.495 + 2.755
= 33.25

I picked Duelist for the "finesse" Fighter because it's strictly better than TWF for a pure Fighter at Lv. 11 with 3 attacks. The Duelist Fighter is well behind both Rangers.

Even the much-ballyhooed Great Weapon Master isn't terribly far ahead DPR-wise. (He can technically get 37.069 DPR if he does the -5/+10 trade, but the variance becomes so ridiculous there that it's really not worth doing that.)

Where the Fighter DOES maintain a HUGE advantage, however, is burst damage via Action Surge. Rangers simply don't have an equivalent to that, or even to something like the Paladin's Smites, for that matter.

 

[fba827]

Disclaimer, I have not seen the phb ranger write up, merely basing my response on what I see here


Keep in mind that this edition is explicitly trying to cater to three pillars of RPGs, combat is merely one of them. So the features of the class may be leaning towards more of the exploration pillar. If your playstyle does lean more towards the combat pillar then perhaps a different ranger build ( or a different class such as fighter with some creative multiclassing or background choices) might suit your needs better.

Not every class/build is going to cater to every pillar equally.

That's my take on it anyway

 

[Chriscdoa]

To me the hunter is fine, it clearly has a role.
But the beast master simply trades an attack for the pets attack. The prof bonus is handy
but i don't see why you have to use an action for the pet to attack.
What is it doing the rest of the time if not attacking?

if another pc trained a pet through animal handling or hired a merc they would attack for free, i think thats the better option.
Currently i'm running a solo player with a pet and it workds fine, plus i am levelling up the pet.

This is a rare area where i prefer how pathfinder and 13th age deal with something over 5e. This seems very close to 4e which i never liked. But easy to house rule that pet attacks with bonus actions not main, although that disadvantages TWF rangers...

 

[Stalker0]

So the features of the class may be leaning towards more of the exploration pillar.

I was wondering this too, don't have my books yet.

How good is the animal companion on its own? I feel like you could a lot of non combat things with them.

 

[Zelc]

Thanks for doing the math, Gladius. Keep in mind though, Hunter's Mark is situational because 1) it's a bonus action, which conflicts with the extra TWF attack, and 2) it requires Concentration and the Hunter doesn't have proficiency in Con saves.