D&D 5E Why Would I Play a Ranger?

[Sacrosanct]

That's fine if you dont allow feats. But the opportunity cost of giving up a sharpshooter arrow is pretty high.

What are you talking about? This doesn't make sense. What does this have to do with feats? Look at what that subclass actually gets, and don't look at it like a pet and the assumptions thereof. If you choose a beastmaster, you essentially get:

*a bonus to attacks that can be one or more of the following: knocking target's prone, bonus attacks, advantage on attacks, etc. And this can be done on every turn. It's not limited by things like a battlemaster's # of superiority dice.
* a resource that takes away attacks from monsters that would otherwise target the party (until hp runs out of the pet). This essentially is a HP soak buffer
*splitting areas on the combat map. I.e., your PC can be over here, and your pet over there, and you can impact the environment or other PCs (via help) from either location.

Those are huge benefits.

And "beasts" dont have things like pack tactics and prone. That's one specific beast that has both, and the panther can prone on what is essentially a charge attack. Plus the DC is a whopping 11 or 12 on the panther. Lots of pets dont get much. The guy who picks a falcoln? Sorry pal, chump choice on your part. Should have picked the 1-2 beasts that are actually slightly useful. If you hand out magic weapons the beast will fall even more by the wayside.

I think you need to reread the class and the common pet options. Nearly every pet gets some sort of bonus ability rather than just "attack". Also, the pet gets your prof bonus to all rolls, including saving throws and skills it's proficient in. So that DC12, if you have a prof bonus of +4, is a DC 16.

Also, in general, beastmaster players arent likely to want to use the pet to set off traps and just consider it a bag of HP to be used as a party resource. Some might, if they are playing something like a callous gnoll ranger. But in general, the type of player who would pick the beastmaster ranger class tends to have an emotional investment in the creature. I've seen players get more upset at the death of their beast than the death of their ranger.

And? Emotional investment has ZERO relevance to the mechanical power of a class. The BM as written has some pretty significant benefits as I mentioned. Being able to get a new beast after 8 hours of losing the previous one is just a minor inconvenience, mechanically. What I have read from many of the BM fans is that they essentially want to play two characters, both of whom are as effective as other classes individually. And of course that throws the balance off tremendously. Look at the benefits from a macro perspective. The abilities essentially granted easily rival those of any other class. Like I said, if you get rid of the beast part and say:

"your subclass allows you
*to soak 15HP or 4x ranger level (whichever is higher). Soak amount can be regained through normal healing measures, and can regen after a long rest completely.
*add an effect to your attack (either grant advantage or knock prone or grant a bonus attack) once a turn
* grant a help action at unlimited range
*at 7th level, take a bonus action to help (normally an entire action for everyone else)
*at 11th level, gain an extra attack that also has one of the above effects tied to it"

I highly doubt people would be complaining that that subclass is underpowered.

 

[hejtmane]

Would not a Fighter/Ranger build be better because with 11 levels of fighter you get 3 attacks with colossal slayer 17/3

Still get 3 1st level spells you would get more skill points two action surges at that point still leverage Colossus slayer 1d8 and hunters mark instead of a 4th attack (this is assuming 20th level for max)

But even if we are talking 8 levels

Plus fighter can go champion extra crit or Battle Master still has a few things that work or maybe the new purple night depending on how the sub category plays out (eldritch does not make sense to me)

Plus 2 fighting styles Archery and then pick defense and add +1 defense

The only thing I see that a fighter/ranger misses out on vs the High ranger is volley in certain situation it is great and Hunters defense (now this skill is very nice)

I mean I could be wrong but just what i am seeing

 

[TwoSix]

Oh, I'd also restore the beast resurrection ritual from 4th edition, so if you want to get your particular panther back you can with minimal fuss. That way its not a revolving door of throwaway pets.

I just don't allow pets to die short of falling off a cliff or the enemy choosing to behead their corpse. They come back to 1 HP after a short rest, and the ranger spending his Hit Die gives the same amount of HP back to the beast companion.

I don't know anyone who wants their beast companion to be Trained Wolf #14.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Would not a Fighter/Ranger build be better because with 11 levels of fighter you get 3 attacks with colossal slayer 17/3

If you start your games at level 20, sure. I see this a lot with "build recommendations". People seem to assume that you start at level 20, or will get there extremely fast. I don't think that's how most people play. I've been playing since playtest, and the highest we've gotten is level 9 so far. Point is, I will never understand why someone would spend a year or so of real game time just to get to a build they want to have fun. I want fun at every level. Thus I think it's flawed to assume that a class should be judged only when it reaches level 20, since so little actual game time is spent at that level.

 

[Minigiant]

I play ranger to hunt people down and stab then the crest while they sleep. You need that combination of weapons, stealh, and magic to make foes all paranoid.

Ranger= Boogeyman with a sword and bow.


I want my enemies rocking, arms around knees, mumbling "Can't sleep. Rangers will catch me." in the back of their horsedrawn carriage.

 

[iserith]

I just don't allow pets to die short of falling off a cliff or the enemy choosing to behead their corpse. They come back to 1 HP after a short rest, and the ranger spending his Hit Die gives the same amount of HP back to the beast companion.

I think using death saves for the companion is a good way to help keep them alive.

I don't know anyone who wants their beast companion to be Trained Wolf #14.

Personally, I rather like the opportunity to get new pets from time to time. It highlights some of the ranger's skills and class features (tracking, animal handling, etc.) and keep things fresh. It's also useful when you need a particular companion given the specifics of the adventure you're on.

 

[hejtmane]

If you start your games at level 20, sure. I see this a lot with "build recommendations". People seem to assume that you start at level 20, or will get there extremely fast. I don't think that's how most people play. I've been playing since playtest, and the highest we've gotten is level 9 so far. Point is, I will never understand why someone would spend a year or so of real game time just to get to a build they want to have fun. I want fun at every level. Thus I think it's flawed to assume that a class should be judged only when it reaches level 20, since so little actual game time is spent at that level.

Even early levels it makes sense go ranger 1 then 5 fighter then 2 more ranger then fighter the rest of the way (ranger for the dex save to open) at level 9 you are sitting pretty. 9th level would give the 2 attacks colossal 2 fighting styles action surge second,wind and two ability score improvements all by level 9 and 3 1st level ranger spells

Now this is all irrelevant if you are going pet

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

What are you talking about? This doesn't make sense. What does this have to do with feats? Look at what that subclass actually gets, and don't look at it like a pet and the assumptions thereof. If you choose a beastmaster, you essentially get:

*a bonus to attacks that can be one or more of the following: knocking target's prone, bonus attacks, advantage on attacks, etc. And this can be done on every turn. It's not limited by things like a battlemaster's # of superiority dice.
* a resource that takes away attacks from monsters that would otherwise target the party (until hp runs out of the pet). This essentially is a HP soak buffer
*splitting areas on the combat map. I.e., your PC can be over here, and your pet over there, and you can impact the environment or other PCs (via help) from either location.

Those are huge benefits.

Why would you NOT take feats into account if allowed. You want to pretend like this DC 11 trip is a freebie. It's not, it comes at the cost of one of your attacks, which could have been a significantly more damaging attack. That's the first opportunity cost (and the second is giving up the better class features of the hunter subclass)

I think you need to reread the class and the common pet options. Nearly every pet gets some sort of bonus ability rather than just "attack". Also, the pet gets your prof bonus to all rolls, including saving throws and skills it's proficient in. So that DC12, if you have a prof bonus of +4, is a DC 16.

Id suggest you actually read the class as well. Note the sentence structure. It's not that the get they get that bonus to all saves, its to saves they are proficient in. What saving throw proficiencies does the wolf get? None. So, they add that extra proficiency bonus to NO saving throws (but does to perception and stealth). Its pure stats for them, and a severe design flaw. Furthermore, it doesnt raise the saving throw DC of its prone ability, as that's not an attack roll, damage roll, AC, saving throw or skill check. In the players handbook, the options are bat, cat, constrictor snake, frog, hawk, mastiff, mule, owl, panther, poisonous snake, rat, raven, riding horse, and wolf. The snake can constrict, but cant hold on worth a damn, and the panther, mastiff and wolf can knock prone. Really the wolf or panther are the only decent pick.

And? Emotional investment has ZERO relevance to the mechanical power of a class.

And see here I thought we were discussing how D&D is played, and not pure theorycraft. My mistake.

The BM as written has some pretty significant benefits as I mentioned. Being able to get a new beast after 8 hours of losing the previous one is just a minor inconvenience, mechanically. What I have read from many of the BM fans is that they essentially want to play two characters, both of whom are as effective as other classes individually.

Ive never seen that. The ranger as it stands is a somewhat weak class, I think at least equaling the hunter would be nice for beastmasters.

And of course that throws the balance off tremendously. Look at the benefits from a macro perspective. The abilities essentially granted easily rival those of any other class. Like I said, if you get rid of the beast part and say:


"your subclass allows you
*to soak 15HP or 4x ranger level (whichever is higher). Soak amount can be regained through normal healing measures, and can regen after a long rest completely.
*add an effect to your attack (either grant advantage or knock prone or grant a bonus attack) once a turn
* grant a help action at unlimited range
*at 7th level, take a bonus action to help (normally an entire action for everyone else)
*at 11th level, gain an extra attack that also has one of the above effects tied to it"

I highly doubt people would be complaining that that subclass is underpowered.

Sure, if they got 4x level in temp hit points, that would be nice. But thats not what it is. Those HP are only a bonus if the attack hits the beast instead of the PC. Add in AE's and people actually caring if their beast dies, and it's not the temp HP pool you want to pretend it is.

Moreover, its NOT adding an effect to your attack. Its replacing your attack with another. So no hunter's mark. If you have magic weapons, feats etc, you dont get those benefits on the beast's attack. It also comes at the opportunity cost of just playing the better subclass of the hunter, so you're already down an offensive option.

The bonus Help is nice, but hey, Paladins can get that every round if their mount is present, since it can act independently without a command. And that doesnt even require them to give up a better subclass.

The beastmaster complaints really are a case of "where there's smoke, there's fire". There's a reason people think it is weak, and that's not because it isnt overpowered...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Level 8 or 9 is not early level lol. That's what I'm trying to say. it takes a significant amount of actual real time to get a PC to that level unless you're starting there from the get go.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Why would you NOT take feats into account if allowed. You want to pretend like this DC 11 trip is a freebie. It's not, it comes at the cost of one of your attacks, which could have been a significantly more damaging attack. That's the first opportunity cost (and the second is giving up the better class features of the hunter subclass)

class and subclass features are separate from feats. That's why. When you evaluate things like mechanical balance, you need to have an equal playing field, and every other class/subclass feature is independent of feats.

Id suggest you actually read the class as well. Note the sentence structure. It's not that the get they get that bonus to all saves, its to saves they are proficient in. What saving throw proficiencies does the wolf get? None. So, they add that extra proficiency bonus to NO saving throws (but does to perception and stealth). Its pure stats for them, and a severe design flaw. Furthermore, it doesnt raise the saving throw DC of its prone ability, as that's not an attack roll, damage roll, AC, saving throw or skill check. In the players handbook, the options are bat, cat, constrictor snake, frog, hawk, mastiff, mule, owl, panther, poisonous snake, rat, raven, riding horse, and wolf. The snake can constrict, but cant hold on worth a damn, and the panther, mastiff and wolf can knock prone. Really the wolf or panther are the only decent pick.

Since adding your prof bonus applies to pretty much everything the pet is skilled in or has as a "class" feature, the inference is there that your prof bonus is also added to Save DCs, since that's an ability that's tied to that pet's "class" ability.

And see here I thought we were discussing how D&D is played, and not pure theorycraft. My mistake.

Oh please. You put that disingenuous comment in the garbage where it belongs. The argument is that the beastmaster is underpowered, and that's measured by mechanical factors. Measuring power has nothing to do with whatever level of emotional attachment a person has for their pet. And it certainly isn't theorycrafting. That doesn't even make any sense to bring that up.

Ive never seen that. The ranger as it stands is a sub par class, I think at least equaling the hunter would be nice for beastmasters.

Who cares if you've never seen it. It's right there as a class feature. After 8 hours, you can get another pet. You can't just handwave away that as a benefit just because you personally haven't seen it used.

Sure, if they got 4x level in temp hit points, that would be nice. But thats not what it is. Those HP are only a bonus if the attack hits the beast instead of the PC. Add in AE's and people actually caring if their beast dies, and it's not the temp HP pool you want to pretend it is.

Yeah it is. Once again, how a player personally feels about their pet means nothing in the context of measuring objective benefits. Insisting on bringing that up just illustrates how your argument is weak. Stick to objective factors please. Pets will get attacked, especially if they are up there in melee attacking themselves. And for every pet that is targeted with an attack, that's one attack NOT targeted at the PC or an ally. So yeah, they very much are a HP soak in concept and application.

Moreover, its NOT adding an effect to your attack. Its replacing your attack with another. So no hunter's mark. If you have magic weapons, feats etc, you dont get those benefits on the beast's attack. It also comes at the opportunity cost of just playing the better subclass of the hunter, so you're already down an offensive option.

The base ranger's attack does not have hunter's mark. Once again, you're evaluating apples to oranges, and making assumptions that aren't necessarily true. Compare the attack given up with the attack granted, with no other additional conditional factors that may or may not apply. Several of the pet attacks grant an additional bonus that the ranger's base attack does not. And it can be applied every turn. This is objectively true. End stop.

The bonus Help is nice, but hey, Paladins can get that every round if their mount is present, since it can act independently without a command. And that doesnt even require them to give up a better subclass.

That sounds more like "the BM is underpowered compared to a paladin with his or her mount" rather than a blanket "the BM is underpowered". If that were a true statement. Which it's not. Or perhaps you can show me where the paladin with his or her mount can grant advantage to any ally as a bonus action?

The beastmaster complaints really are a case of "where there's smoke, there's fire". There's a reason people think it is weak, and that's not because it isnt overpowered...

And as I said, when you actually look at the actual benefits given, it's not underpowered compared to all of the other classes. It's only perceived to be underpowered. And the two are not the same. Especially since many of the "solutions" make the subclass OP compared to every other class, essentially giving the player two PCs to play, both individually as effective as almost every other class