D&D General What is a Ranger? A miserable pile of secrets! (+)

[Minigiant]

Hot Take (not really):

You could give the Ranger its base class, and add to it all the Tasha features (without removing anything, just in addition) AND add the Beastmaster archetypes to the base class and it still would be less powerful than a paladin or some clerics.

Depends on what you call power.

The ranger is better at some roles than paladins and clerics at many aspects and waker at other ones.

That kind of the discussion of the thread. What should be the ranger be strong at.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The problem with everyone digging in on their 'deal breakers' for a class with a dozen archetypes is that either someone wins and everyone else loses like with the fighter, or everyone wins and there's zero focus in the class and it can't really do any of the things it's supposed to do that well.

 

[Undrave]

Because if the ranger gets a pet and the fighter gets a squire and the rogue gets a sidekick and the wizard gets a summon and the cleric gets a mini angel an the warlock gets an imp (on top of their pact boon) that's twelve pc characters and turns to account for, which probably means most fights will need about a dozen enemies, so that's about 24 turns per round.

Even if everyone can bang out a turn in a minute the rogue and sidekick likely go near the top of the order so that player is waiting 20 minutes ideally between turns. Best case - 60 minutes is more likely.

Hey, I don't care about pets, but if you REALLY want one, then it'll come with consequences. At that point it's a table issue, not a game design issue. Pick one: you play fast or you get your super special awesome Wolf (or what have you) and you just can't have both.

1) You are still changing the rules to allow the ranger to do something not written into the 5e rules. They are not "naturally great" at taming beasts.

Well... yeah? I'm talking hypothetically here, I'm not trying to homebrew a Beast Sidekick in 5e.

4) One thing a proper pet class should have is combo moves.

... Which the 5e Ranger doesn't get anyway. Unless you count 'use a Help action to give someone Advantage as a combo move. I agree with you on that point, but it doesn't seem to be a deal breaker for people because it largely doesn't come up.

The problem with everyone digging in on their 'deal breakers' for a class with a dozen archetypes is that either someone wins and everyone else loses like with the fighter, or everyone wins and there's zero focus in the class and it can't really do any of the things it's supposed to do that well.

Oh, like the Monk!

 

[Gradine]

Here's our Build-a-Arakatzzt

Base Class:
The masters of the wilderness. Silent stalkers, stealthy trackers. Experts at ranged combat, keeping out of sight and out of reach. Core class features focus on these features. Ambush, bonus damage, etc.

Archetypes:
Druid-Lite: 1/3 caster. Rituals, healing
Horse-Whisperer: Gotta have pets
Hunter: I mean, this already exists. But more, I guess

E: Driraganiss?

 

[payn]

The problem with everyone digging in on their 'deal breakers' for a class with a dozen archetypes is that either someone wins and everyone else loses like with the fighter, or everyone wins and there's zero focus in the class and it can't really do any of the things it's supposed to do that well.

I'll happily take the latter.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Which the 5e Ranger doesn't get anyway.

No, but they could do if WotC actually committed to the pet class concept. Make them spells, along with an increased repertoire of other "combat move" spells, and you get a good JRPG class.

 

[Minigiant]

No, but they could do if WotC actually committed to the pet class concept. Make them spells, along with an increased repertoire of other "combat move" spells, and you get a good JRPG class.

The Ranger is woefully ignored on exclusive spells. The Ranger should be able to train a pet or summon one with a spell, Then buff it up with magic.

Good old Animal Growth + Magic Fang + Barkskin

Maybe the ranger does a ritual to do it permanent or it become permanent on the 10th casting.

 

[Shardstone]

The problem with everyone digging in on their 'deal breakers' for a class with a dozen archetypes is that either someone wins and everyone else loses like with the fighter, or everyone wins and there's zero focus in the class and it can't really do any of the things it's supposed to do that well.

So long as I win, the rest of yall can homebrew lol

 

[Vaalingrade]

So long as I win, the rest of yall can homebrew lol

That is a core problem of the D&D fandom, yes.

 

[Stalker0]

So funny enough, I consider one of the real rangers in the world, the "Army Ranger" as the perfect example of a subclass in real life. To be a ranger, you first have to be a soldier (ie fighter). You have to gain experience and high proficiency in several aspects of soldiering (aka gain a few levels in fighter) and then you can start specializing by going to ranger school (aka subclass).