Revised Ranger update

[Staffan]

I'm starting to think that 13th Age had the right idea about rangers. There, rangers get to choose three things at first level to specialize in. Having a wussy animal companion takes up one choice, but having a good one takes up two.

 

[dco]

So the Ranger is well balanced because people play it?
I disagree completely, I think it is a badly designed class full of traps, curiously no one has played or plans to play that class in our group.

 

[Yunru]

So the Ranger is well balanced because people play it?
I disagree completely, I think it is a badly designed class full of traps, curiously no one has played or plans to play that class in our group.

The Hunter's fine, if slightly weak.

 

[Mistwell]

So the Ranger is well balanced because people play it?

The Beastmaster Ranger is playable because people play it. The Ranger as a class seems to be well balanced and fine, but it's really the Beastmaster sub-class that people tend to question.

I'd like a few additions to the Beastmaster, like a new fighting style, and some new spells, to shore up the use of the animal companion.

But I don't think people are speaking about the Ranger class in general "because people play it".

I disagree completely, I think it is a badly designed class full of traps, curiously no one has played or plans to play that class in our group.

So you have zero experience with the class and have judged it based on white room basic reading of the pages? OK then why were you bashing people who have played it - at least they tried it before making a judgement.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But you also can’t deny that the Beastmaster companion, with its bonus to abilities based on Prof, does those things better than a familiar or using animal handling checks, while also being of value in combat.

I know it’s not at the value you would like, but it is comparable to the Hunter ranger options.

But it’s not another PC and IMO shouldn’t be, at least not without expending resources that could be used to up combat power in other ways.

The bonus to the skill checks is nice, but most beasts don't have skills beyond perception and stealth, and a lot of the beasts have advantage on Perception anyways. Additionally, any ability that buffs skill checks for players can also be applied to the beasts... so we are talking a relatively minor difference in the roll of between +2 and +4 for the majority of the character's life.

Sure, +2 is really nice, and if given a choice between not getting it and getting it, you take the +2 every time. But getting a +2 or +3 on perception and/or stealth checks isn't worth a full subclass, and as written with none of your spells to buff it up, an animal companion is not a great boon in combat either.


My point isn't that a beast companion should be another PC in combat, but if we are going to claim the PHB Beastmaster works as intended because the companion has a lot of out of combat utility, we should recognize how easily the vast majority of that utility can be copied by other classes.

I dunno about "lots of people". I get that you think otherwise.

Look, it's not exactly rocket science. Up to about 10th level, the fighter types are dealing about 20-30 points of damage per round. Give or take. Granted, pally's might be spiking here or there, but, as a benchmark, that's about where it is. So, if the beastmaster's companion is the primary damage dealer, then the ranger can't deal any damage at all. If your animal companion is dealing that 20-30 points per round, then there's just no space for the ranger itself to contribute.

So, which do you want? A class that strips away all combat abilities from the ranger so that the companion can be the damage star? Or key the companion to the ranger's actions, which lets the ranger deal damage and the companion deal damage, or strip away all the combat abilities from the companion and let the ranger be the DPS star?

Because that's your choices. At the end of the day, that's what you have to work with. If we're going to leave the ranger with a full fighter type capabilities (high HP, multiple attacks per round, spells, high AC) AND have a companion that is dealing equal(ish) levels of damage, then it's far too unbalanced. There's no way they're going to publish that. They'd get crucified if they even tried.

Stay within that 20-30 points per round, and do whatever you want. After 10th level, kick it up to about 40-50 points per round, similar to what a fighter is doing. And you're good to go. But, expecting WotC to bang out unbalanced classes just to satisfy you isn't going to happen. Not when the class is being played pretty regularly as is plus they've already given us a "fixed" ranger for home games. There's just no upside for them to give you what you want.

These are good numbers to look at.

PHB Beastmaster, RAW right now. 10th level, with what I see as the standard companion, the Wolf.

Beastmaster orders wolf to attack on their turn and the wolf gets a single attack. That attack is a 2d4+6, averaging about 11 damage. Beastmaster still has a bonus action, but I'm not sure what they are going to use it for that would be useful, and even if they could add damage, it'd likely be a 1d6, netting you 14 damage. You set the standard at 20-30

11th level when you say we can bump up, the wolf gets two attack for22 or 28 average. Standard you gave is 40-50


So, as written, we are beneath your given numbers. And sure, we can add in the increased accuracy and wolf pack tactics, but few beasts are doing much better and a lot of other common choices (like the hawk and the owl) are many, many times worse in the average DPR.


Just for fun, running that as a Revised Beastmaster, assuming double dipping the ability score improvements just for damage, gets the wolf dealing 2d4+8, jumping the wolf up to 13, but allows the ranger to make an attack, and the wolf to make a reaction attack. That gets us 26 from the wolf and 1d8+5 from the ranger, average around 10, putting us at 36, higher than the fighter, but the "bump" at 11th level relies on being able to hit multiple targets as the wolf, so it is still pretty close. And that is with no long tern resources, just like the fighter.

So, DPR-wise, the revised Ranger is pretty close to the parameters you set up, while the PHB ranger falls behind by a wide margin.

And the Hunter could be easily doing 3d8+10, getting them 25 average. Right in line with the Fighter, pretty superior to the PHB Beastmaster, and lagging behind the Revised Beastmaster, but I'm cool with that.

 

[cbwjm]

I thought the PHB headmaster just gives up one of their attacks to order their companion to attack. So at 10th level the ranger attacks, orders companion to attack, and maybe uses their bonus action for an attack (if dual wielding).

 

[Hussar]

/snip


Just for fun, running that as a Revised Beastmaster, assuming double dipping the ability score improvements just for damage, gets the wolf dealing 2d4+8, jumping the wolf up to 13, but allows the ranger to make an attack, and the wolf to make a reaction attack. That gets us 26 from the wolf and 1d8+5 from the ranger, average around 10, putting us at 36, higher than the fighter, but the "bump" at 11th level relies on being able to hit multiple targets as the wolf, so it is still pretty close. And that is with no long tern resources, just like the fighter.

So, DPR-wise, the revised Ranger is pretty close to the parameters you set up, while the PHB ranger falls behind by a wide margin.

And the Hunter could be easily doing 3d8+10, getting them 25 average. Right in line with the Fighter, pretty superior to the PHB Beastmaster, and lagging behind the Revised Beastmaster, but I'm cool with that.

So, as I said multiple times before, we have a fixed ranger in the UA. But, somehow that isn't good enough?

 

[CapnZapp]

So, as I said multiple times before, we have a fixed ranger in the UA. But, somehow that isn't good enough?

And as I have said multiple times before, the fixed UA Ranger is good enough*, now just put it in print.


*) or, rather, it's too strong, but nothing that a final balancing pass can't fix).

 

[Yunru]

So, as I said multiple times before, we have a fixed ranger in the UA. But, somehow that isn't good enough?

On the contrary. We have an OP Ranger and a fixed Beastmaster.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I thought the PHB headmaster just gives up one of their attacks to order their companion to attack. So at 10th level the ranger attacks, orders companion to attack, and maybe uses their bonus action for an attack (if dual wielding).

Oops, you are right, buried in the 3rd level ability it says that extra attack still lets the ranger get off one attack.

So the PHB beastmaster gets to add 1d8+5 to that 11, bumping them up to 21, just within the lines I was given. Good catch.

So, as I said multiple times before, we have a fixed ranger in the UA. But, somehow that isn't good enough?

Sure it is good enough for me, but a lot of people want to see something in a book, not playtest material. And while commenting on [MENTION=6796241]OB1[/MENTION]'s spells to fix the Beastmaster, which they will get printed instead of a full class revision that we have, reminding everyone of how oddly underpowered the Beastmaster tends to be came up.

I also think there is a reaction to JC's post here, in that he implied there isn't a problem since people still play the class. And, as people on the internet, we feel the need to rehash out the argument of whether there is a problem or not

On the contrary. We have an OP Ranger and a fixed Beastmaster.

I'd argue they are above the curve, but not OP. Like I've said before, had one in a party for a two year campaign, she never outshone the insane antics of the other party members. (Allowing a monk/druid to keep their monk abilities while beastshaped, that was OP and a mistake I'll not allow again)