D&D 5E Soooo, the melee ranger?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

One solution I've found is to move the extra attack from the offhand to the "attack" action rather than the bonus action. It lets a ranger case a spell and hit with both weapons in the same round, shores up the difference in dual wield/GWF for fighters using action surge, etc.

 

[famousringo]

I agree the ranger falls a little short in melee. This is especially regrettable since the dual-wielding ranger is, IMO, more iconic to DnD than an archer ranger.

I'd like to see a new subclass, perhaps called the Stalker, that offers an emphasis on stealth and two-weapon fighting. Some spells to augment melee fighting for all rangers would be welcome, too.

 

[Psikerlord#]

In my experience (< level 10), provided you get rid of the -5/+10 from GWM and SS feats, ranger damage is competitive/good. As is rogue. And sword and board.

 

[CapnZapp]

Agreed.



Maybe Rangers should be trying harder to protect their animal companions in combat rather than trying to use them to augment their DPR.

Maybe you should understand many players want their pet to add to combat rather than subtract from it.

The current pet is a *liability* in combat and associated situations.

Perhaps you're content with treating it like the mounts you leave outside the dungeon, but don't be surprised when others aren't.

 

[Hriston]

Maybe you should understand many players want their pet to add to combat rather than subtract from it.

The current pet is a *liability* in combat and associated situations.

Perhaps you're content with treating it like the mounts you leave outside the dungeon, but don't be surprised when others aren't.

It's like any henchman, you need to treat it well, which includes not asking it to take undue risks that will most likely get it killed. I think the "pet" could have some combat utility at higher levels, but its primary contribution seems to be in the exploration pillar, like most hired NPC's, perhaps in the capacity of a guard animal while the Ranger sleeps.

edit: The Ranger's combat buffs come from its spells, not its animal friend.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It's like any henchman, you need to treat it well, which includes not asking it to take undue risks that will most likely get it killed..

There is a reason why most players don't hire henchmen. I think you'll find that the few exceptions to that don't care if they die OR spend an inordinate amount of time babying them so that they remain safe. With the way AOEs and damage work, any creature that is in combats (ie - present, not necessarily contributing or being a threat) that has low hitpoints for the challenge level will not survive, and there is almost nothing that the average PC can do about that without a huge expenditure of resources.

In short - if you're going to give out companions for PCs as class abilities, you need to do one of three things:
1. Give them defenses appropriate to the AOE damage that they will face.
2. Allow them to be ressed very cheaply and expect them to die every other combat, which tends to cheapen the concept of death.
3. Give them a mechanic to avoid damage from AOEs (which may include having them cease to exist during a fight)

Otherwise you're just giving the PC a liability, even if you don't intend the companion to contribute to combat.

Personally I don't see a reason not to do 1) for hunter companions. It's by far the most sensible option. If it's not game-breaking for a druid to have a giant pool of expendable hitpoints, I'm not quite sure why it's game-breaking for a ranger to have one. Especially if it's one that foes can choose to ignore for the most part.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's like any henchman, you need to treat it well, which includes not asking it to take undue risks that will most likely get it killed. I think the "pet" could have some combat utility at higher levels, but its primary contribution seems to be in the exploration pillar, like most hired NPC's, perhaps in the capacity of a guard animal while the Ranger sleeps.

How's that? On paper the pet looks pretty decent. At level 11 where the Hunter gets Volley, the Beastmaster gets one attack of his own and two attacks at +10 (1d4+8 piercing + 3d6 poison, save for half) from his AC 18, 40 HP pet cobra (with blindsight). Depending on party composition that cobra could have up to 15 temp HP for an effective 56 HP. It's nowhere near as durable as an earth elemental, and it's nothing to get really excited about given that the ranger can summon eight cobras with a single spell, each of which is about half as good as his pet cobra... but I wouldn't say that it's not contributing in combat. The ranger's overall DPR is comparable to a Sharpshooter fighter's DPR of the same level, e.g. about 34 DPR (with Sharpshooter) against an AC 18 Drow Elite Warrior, whereas a GWM fighter of the same level would be doing 24.15 DPR, or 32.20 on rounds where he gets a bonus attack.

I still think Hunter is preferable, and the Beastmaster's action economy in RAW grates on the imagination... but mechanically it's not too shabby even by RAW if you find the right beast. I certainly wouldn't say the beast is useless in combat.

As an aside, I don't think "most hired NPCs" are useless in combat either. If the PCs take point, a few NPC Guards with CR 1/8 can shoot arrows just fine, contributing substantially to the combat. Rallying the townsfolk against a threat works really, really well in 5E. (Rallying the monsterfolk against the PCs works equally well for a big monster like a beholder. Who wants to fight ten bugbears inside of an anti-magic zone?)

 

[Hriston]

There is a reason why most players don't hire henchmen. I think you'll find that the few exceptions to that don't care if they die OR spend an inordinate amount of time babying them so that they remain safe. With the way AOEs and damage work, any creature that is in combats (ie - present, not necessarily contributing or being a threat) that has low hitpoints for the challenge level will not survive, and there is almost nothing that the average PC can do about that without a huge expenditure of resources.

In short - if you're going to give out companions for PCs as class abilities, you need to do one of three things:
1. Give them defenses appropriate to the AOE damage that they will face.
2. Allow them to be ressed very cheaply and expect them to die every other combat, which tends to cheapen the concept of death.
3. Give them a mechanic to avoid damage from AOEs (which may include having them cease to exist during a fight)

Otherwise you're just giving the PC a liability, even if you don't intend the companion to contribute to combat.

Personally I don't see a reason not to do 1) for hunter companions. It's by far the most sensible option. If it's not game-breaking for a druid to have a giant pool of expendable hitpoints, I'm not quite sure why it's game-breaking for a ranger to have one. Especially if it's one that foes can choose to ignore for the most part.

It seems to me they've done #3 in allowing the Ranger to order his beast to move to a safer place if he finds he's gotten him in over his head.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

3. Give them a mechanic to avoid damage from AOEs (which may include having them cease to exist during a fight)

AoEs in 5E are so small that a very cheap and effective defense against them is a technology called a "sling." (Much less a longbow.) Stay in skirmish formation one round's movement away from everyone else and you are pretty safe from most AoEs up to and almost including adult dragons[1]. Your biggest worry is a threat from the rear, but basilisks, fireballs, behir breath, etc. won't hit you unless they aim specifically for you (in which case you're dead if you're still at first level).

Maybe I use less AoE than some of y'all, but at my table NPCs who hang back and pew-pew tend to be pretty safe compared to the ones who charge into the cluster of a dozen umber hulks, alone.

[1] Even then you're probably safe from blues and blacks.

 

[Hriston]

How's that? On paper the pet looks pretty decent. At level 11 where the Hunter gets Volley, the Beastmaster gets one attack of his own and two attacks at +10 (1d4+8 piercing + 3d6 poison, save for half) from his AC 18, 40 HP pet cobra (with blindsight). Depending on party composition that cobra could have up to 15 temp HP for an effective 56 HP. It's nowhere near as durable as an earth elemental, and it's nothing to get really excited about given that the ranger can summon eight cobras with a single spell, each of which is about half as good as his pet cobra... but I wouldn't say that it's not contributing in combat. The ranger's overall DPR is comparable to a Sharpshooter fighter's DPR of the same level, e.g. about 34 DPR (with Sharpshooter) against an AC 18 Drow Elite Warrior, whereas a GWM fighter of the same level would be doing 24.15 DPR, or 32.20 on rounds where he gets a bonus attack.

I still think Hunter is preferable, and the Beastmaster's action economy in RAW grates on the imagination... but mechanically it's not too shabby even by RAW if you find the right beast. I certainly wouldn't say the beast is useless in combat.

Neither would I. What I said was that its combat utility wasn't fully realized until you get to higher levels, by which I meant something like the level eleven you gave in your example.

As an aside, I don't think "most hired NPCs" are useless in combat either. If the PCs take point, a few NPC Guards with CR 1/8 can shoot arrows just fine, contributing substantially to the combat.

That's what I mean by treating the hirelings well. The PC's are keeping them safe so they can do their job.