Revised Ranger update

[Yunru]

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)

It's only the early levels I feel are too strong (way to steal the Assassin's whole shtick before level 17, and two levels early at that), but unfortunately, they are also the most accessible levels.

 

[Gladius Legis]

As far as the PHB Ranger (with official splats):

Beastmaster sucks
Hunter is meh
Gloom Stalker is actually really good
Horizon Walker is solid
Monster Hunter is meh

 

[Gladius Legis]

But we're not discussing the biggest flaw of the Ranger: It doesn't get Awaken.

This would solve so many Ranger problems.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This would solve so many Ranger problems.

Not sure a 5th level spell is going to solve problems. Coming online at 17th level means the characters is either long done or almost done. You don't "fix" things at that point.

 

[Mistwell]

Not sure a 5th level spell is going to solve problems. Coming online at 17th level means the characters is either long done or almost done. You don't "fix" things at that point.

I agree. Instead it should be called Awaken Companion, target only companions, and be a third level spell.

 

[dco]

The Hunter's fine, if slightly weak.

Try one with two swords.

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".

Depends on what you understand from the twitter screenshots, for me it is quite clear.
I find the melee hunter also extremely bad.

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.

I don't need experience playing the class to see its problems.
I didn't bash anyone.

 

[Eubani]

Maths is not subjective. Bad maths is bad maths regardless of having played the sub class or not.

 

[ad_hoc]

Maths is not subjective. Bad maths is bad maths regardless of having played the sub class or not.

Right, but the value that people place on various abilities is subjective.

Most people don't know how to properly value things. The only reason top player's opinions in various competitive games are trusted is because they're top players.

D&D isn't competitive so what is seen as 'best' is a matter of what the majority of people think is best.

There are many nuances and concepts in 'optimization' threads that are never even touched on. My advice to 'optimizers' is to find a competitive game and try to excel at that. If there are enough stakes involved they will likely find challenge. Skills they develop there can be brought back to D&D too if they like. Though at that point they will probably recognize that optimizing in D&D given the all the different scenarios and interactions is a silly endeavour.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Try one with two swords.

Depends on what you understand from the twitter screenshots, for me it is quite clear.
I find the melee hunter also extremely bad.

Why do you find the melee hunter bad?

Sure, Hunter's Mark interfering with making the bonus action attack is aggravating, but if you pull it off you can get 2d6+2d6+1d8+modx2 by third level. That makes them a blender of death. 4th level (or v. Human) you can turn that into 2d8+2d6+1d8+modx2 and +1 AC. Get Warcaster for advantage on concentration checks and you are sitting relatively pretty

They have little spell support, but I'd argue the Archer ranger doesn't get a lot of spell support either once they hit mid-levels, since most of the "arrow" spells are kind of underwhelming, and most of the best ranger spells are non-specific.

In fact, I'd say the only really major loss is Swift Quiver, and the fact that Volley is superior to Whirlwind attack in most battlefields.

Maths is not subjective. Bad maths is bad maths regardless of having played the sub class or not.

To be clear, what math are we talking about?

 

[Eubani]

Why do you find the melee hunter bad?

Sure, Hunter's Mark interfering with making the bonus action attack is aggravating, but if you pull it off you can get 2d6+2d6+1d8+modx2 by third level. That makes them a blender of death. 4th level (or v. Human) you can turn that into 2d8+2d6+1d8+modx2 and +1 AC. Get Warcaster for advantage on concentration checks and you are sitting relatively pretty

They have little spell support, but I'd argue the Archer ranger doesn't get a lot of spell support either once they hit mid-levels, since most of the "arrow" spells are kind of underwhelming, and most of the best ranger spells are non-specific.

In fact, I'd say the only really major loss is Swift Quiver, and the fact that Volley is superior to Whirlwind attack in most battlefields.





To be clear, what math are we talking about?

That the Beast Master is combat ineffective and that the small amount of utility gained nowhere makes up for it.