D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

[James Gasik]

Spells that buff exploration directly:

create bonfire
druidcraft
produce flame (light source)
animal friendship
beast bond
create or destroy water
detect magic
detect poison and disease
goodberry
jump
longstrider
speak with animals
air bubble
animal messenger
augury
beast sense
continual flame
darkvision
enlarge/reduce (narrow passages)
find traps (hypothetically)
locate animals or plants
daylight
speak with plants
water breathing
water walk

Spells that buff exploration indirectly:

guidance
resistance
enhance ability

Ok, so this is just one spell list, and only up to third level, but that's a lot of spells!

 

[Corinnguard]

And the other side. If you don't run any real exploration game, the 5e Ranger becomes lackluster because 25-35% of it is tied to being good at exploration.

Any class in 5e can become lackluster when the game focuses solely on one of the three pillars of role-playing. Not every session in D&D is going to have some combat in it for those classes that are good at combat. Ditto for exploration and social interaction. When any of these pillars aren't in play, it's up to the player to continue role-playing even when their character's class doesn't get to shine.

A class becomes what you make of it.

 

[Minigiant]

Any class in 5e can become lackluster when the game focuses solely on one of the three pillars of role-playing. Not every session in D&D is going to have some combat in it for those classes that are good at combat. Ditto for exploration and social interaction. When any of these pillars aren't in play, it's up to the player to continue role-playing even when their character's class doesn't get to shine.

A class becomes what you make of it.

The issue that is coming up is that many tables are running Almost pure DPR Optimization sims on the martial side and calling classes designed with budget in exploration or social lackluster.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The issue that is coming up is that many tables are running Almost pure DPR Optimization sims on the martial side and calling classes designed with budget in exploration or social lackluster.

I see what you're saying. Is the solution that you give all classes abilities that participate equally well in all pillars? Maybe, although I doubt it, and I'm not sure that's possible or even necessary.

Are you sure you are putting foreword some sort of hypothetical only scenario? I think most games have some sessions which are more combat focused, some which are more social or exploration focused. Doesn't mean that all classes have to be super equal at all times in all three pillars?

 

[Corinnguard]

The issue that is coming up is that many tables are running Almost pure DPR Optimization sims on the martial side and calling classes designed with budget in exploration or social lackluster.

Are we talking about Virtual tabletops, RL tabletops or both?

As for DPR Optimization sims, I have seen a number of postings in the EN World forums regarding how much damage a martial can inflict on one or more opponents. A lot of math gets thrown in those forum threads because combat in D&D heavily depends on crunching the numbers. And the higher the amount, the more awe-inspiring it sounds.

Exploration and Social Interaction is probably going to sound boring to those who get a kick out of combat. So, any class designed with a budget in exploration and social interaction is going to appear lackluster to them.

 

[mellored]

The Ranger has a role

Which is?

 

[Rushbolt]

I actually think the level 6 ability Roving is a perfect example of the design issues that are tanking this class. It appears to make the Ranger amazing at climbing. Then you playtest it with any Ranger build that didn't take Athletics/boost Strength, and to be honest that's going to probably well over half of them in my estimation, and you realize the DC 15 check that is given as an option to represent a difficult to climb surface in the rules glossary basically nullifies the feature because the Ranger has less than a 50 percent check to even make the ability check required to move on that surface. Worse yet, it means they fall off much more often than characters that focus on Strength and take Athletics as a skill. This is your King of exploration class. I have no idea why advantage on Climb and Swim checks was not included in this ability. It just makes me feel this class was not playtested at all.

 

[Minigiant]

I see what you're saying. Is the solution that you give all classes abilities that participate equally well in all pillars? Maybe, although I doubt it, and I'm not sure that's possible or even necessary.

Are you sure you are putting foreword some sort of hypothetical only scenario? I think most games have some sessions which are more combat focused, some which are more social or exploration focused. Doesn't mean that all classes have to be super equal at all times in all three pillars?

I was thinking that in 6e, D&D could just go back to Roles. But not just have combat ones but exploration and social ones as well. So each class is useful in each pillar.

Ranger
Combat: Blaster/Skrimisher
Exploration: Wilderness
Social: Linguist

Paladin
Combat: Defender/Spiker
Exploration: Athlete
Social: Orator

Monk
Combat: Skrimisher
Exploration: Acrobat
Social: Watcher

 

[Horwath]

I actually think the level 6 ability Roving is a perfect example of the design issues that are tanking this class. It appears to make the Ranger amazing at climbing. Then you playtest it with any Ranger build that didn't take Athletics/boost Strength, and to be honest that's going to probably well over half of them in my estimation, and you realize the DC 15 check that is given as an option to represent a difficult to climb surface in the rules glossary basically nullifies the feature because the Ranger has less than a 50 percent check to even make the ability check required to move on that surface. Worse yet, it means they fall off much more often than characters that focus on Strength and take Athletics as a skill. This is your King of exploration class. I have no idea why advantage on Climb and Swim checks was not included in this ability. It just makes me feel this class was not playtested at all.

just add that ranger auto-succeed on DC20 or lower for checks involving climbing and swimming.

 

[Rushbolt]

Which is?

Being at home any environment with limited resources requires incredible mental fortitude. The Ranger should absolutely be a martial with a high ability to resist mind-controlling spells. They should be at the top with the Monk. This would indicate proficiency in WIS saves initially, not DEX. This also fixes one glaring issue in consistency because right now the Ranger is the only spellcaster not proficient in the saves that match it's spellcasting ability modifier. This is step one in fixing the class, but backwards compatibility probably shot this idea down if the designers considered it during playesting. We're stuck with this mistake because it was made ten years ago. Just flip WIS saves to class creation and provide DEX saves early in tier two when the Paladin gets to boost all it's saves. You have the Gloom Stalker ability Iron Mind just do INT or CHA since the Ranger already has WIS saves. I didn't break the class there at all as I changed very little. But it sure plays differently now.

Oh, and I don't like the Monk saving throw setup either. I understand that DEX and WIS at level one would be unbalancing, but I absolutely think the Ranger and Monk should lead off with WIS saves and gain DEX saves as part of their class features early in tier two as the Paladin basically gets to boost all their saves at level six.