Revised Ranger update

[Asgorath]

Yeah, but that only works in the dark, if all the lightsource is far enough away from you.

In a brightly lit room, or even a place with simply dim lighting you don't get the advantage and you aren't invisible.

Not saying Gloomstalker isn't tons of fun, but when you rely on the environment to be in your favor you have to also look at the other side. A Hunter with Sharpshooter in daylight can get 3d8+20+(dex mod * 2) on every turn after all, and that's still solid, even if in the Gloomstalker's preferred setting they can outperform the Hunter.

So we agree that both the Hunter and Gloom Stalker are fine, then? I’ve always thought it reasonable that melee classes like the Barbarian, Paladin and some Fighters will out-damage ranged classes like Rangers, because there’s a large opportunity cost to fighting in melee. Similarly, there will be fights where they simply cannot contribute, such as a flying opponent.

I guess at the end of the day, I don’t need my character to be the mathematically optimized highest DPR spec in the game to enjoy playing it. The Beast Master could definitely use some attention, but I don’t think there are major issues with the class in general to the point where they need to toss the whole thing and redesign it from scratch.

 

[ad_hoc]

So we agree that both the Hunter and Gloom Stalker are fine, then? I’ve always thought it reasonable that melee classes like the Barbarian, Paladin and some Fighters will out-damage ranged classes like Rangers, because there’s a large opportunity cost to fighting in melee. Similarly, there will be fights where they simply cannot contribute, such as a flying opponent.

I guess at the end of the day, I don’t need my character to be the mathematically optimized highest DPR spec in the game to enjoy playing it. The Beast Master could definitely use some attention, but I don’t think there are major issues with the class in general to the point where they need to toss the whole thing and redesign it from scratch.

And if Hunter is fine then Beastmaster is fine too.

An additional 1d8 (slightly conditional) damage per turn isn't a big difference in the round.

I would rather have the beast in the battle. I'm glad the beast doesn't do an extra 1d8 damage for the Ranger too, as then why have the Hunter?

 

[Yunru]

but I don’t think there are major issues with the class in general to the point where they need to toss the whole thing and redesign it from scratch.

Honestly? Neither do I. It needs a power up to some of it's features (hello F10, you suck), but the problem there is they tried to fix the ranger by going "look at how powerful these new subclasses are!" rather than fix the original issues, so unless they also remake those subclasses, they're boxed in for what they can do to the chassis.

 

[RATUTHOM]

Let us be honest.
Fighters do more damage even if they are using a ranged weapon. So a flying dragon would not be a big problem for them.
Rangers‘ damage output stopped increasing at the middle tier of the game. But that's fine. They still have a sepll progression and many of those spells are extremely useful.
Like Pass Without Trace, or Nature's Wrath.
Also, surprisingly, rangers apear to be lot better at surviving than fighters. Every subclass except for Beastmaster(which clearly needs to be refined) gains a defensive ability at level 7 and level 15.
Rangers are fine, and melee rangers are absolutely capable with spells from XGtE.

 

[Asgorath]

Let us be honest.
Fighters do more damage even if they are using a ranged weapon. So a flying dragon would not be a big problem for them.
Rangers‘ damage output stopped increasing at the middle tier of the game. But that's fine. They still have a sepll progression and many of those spells are extremely useful.
Like Pass Without Trace, or Nature's Wrath.
Also, surprisingly, rangers apear to be lot better at surviving than fighters. Every subclass except for Beastmaster(which clearly needs to be refined) gains a defensive ability at level 7 and level 15.
Rangers are fine, and melee rangers are absolutely capable with spells from XGtE.

Right, that's why I said "some Fighters" because an archery Fighter will still do more damage than a Ranger. I'm totally okay with that, of course. If I had wanted to simply create the highest-damage archer I could, then my character would've been a Fighter. With the right background and skill choices, you could create a very Ranger-like character that's still a Fighter, if that's what you're interested in.

However, I was able to create an interesting character that can do plenty of damage (at no point have I felt like I was under-performing), in fact a non-trivial factor in my decision to create a Ranger was to see what all the fuss was about and why everyone ranked them so poorly. I agree with what [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION] said above, maybe the overall chassis isn't the greatest thing ever but I'm still having a ton of fun playing the class and especially like the new XGtE subclasses.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So we agree that both the Hunter and Gloom Stalker are fine, then? I’ve always thought it reasonable that melee classes like the Barbarian, Paladin and some Fighters will out-damage ranged classes like Rangers, because there’s a large opportunity cost to fighting in melee. Similarly, there will be fights where they simply cannot contribute, such as a flying opponent.

I guess at the end of the day, I don’t need my character to be the mathematically optimized highest DPR spec in the game to enjoy playing it. The Beast Master could definitely use some attention, but I don’t think there are major issues with the class in general to the point where they need to toss the whole thing and redesign it from scratch.

Mostly fine, in the larger class I want to rework Primeval Awareness and Favored Terrain, rework their spellcasting to make them prepared casters, and a few other things. But damage output is fine for the Hunter and Gloomstalker.

I would note though, just because most rangers are archers, because of how highly that synchronizes with the ranger abilities, that does not mean all rangers are. You can just as easily have a sword and board ranger with Dueling or Defender fighting styles who are going to have the same damage output as the hunter archer. They aren't iconic or thematic builds per se (I blame the weakness of the spear for that one) but they are just as possible, so being okay with rangers falling behind because they are archers isn't a... complete vision, because they could be melee as well.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

So apparently, Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour Tuesday was all about the Ranger. Did anyone watch it yet?

 

[Jester David]

So apparently, Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour Tuesday was all about the Ranger. Did anyone watch it yet?

Yeah, he mostly talks about the low levels of the class not hitting the combat tier very well and how the first level overly focuses on the exploration tier and Favoured Enemy, which is a ribbon. And the awkward design of asking people to make choices for powers that have limited mechanical effect. Doesn't really get into higher level stuff; it's mostly the first couple levels and mentioning people were typically happy with the hunter.

And then he spends the second half of the show designing a city based ranger, so it works for Dragon Heist.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So apparently, Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour Tuesday was all about the Ranger. Did anyone watch it yet?

I haven't gotten into the habit of watching any of those yet. I assume they are on the Youtube channel for DnD, but I haven't actually confirmed that yet.

 

[Asgorath]

They usually put them on YouTube, but here's the VOD from Twitch:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/305917714