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

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

So sure, if you compare the beastmaster attack to some theoretical ranger attack that's not reflective of how the game is played, its balanced. Got it. Better not include feats, magic weapons, hunter's mark, etc, or your arguement instantly falls apart and shows why the beastmaster pet attacks are underpowered.

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.[/qoute]

Hey, if you want to house rule it that way, sure. But the text is clear. It applies to AC, attack rolls and damage rolls. If the beast is proficient in saves (none are) or skills (some are) it applies to those as well.

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.

No, it does reflect how the game is played. You have a weak ass companion many players will be spending resources to try and prop up and keep alive. Just because you choose to roleplay a robot with no attachment doesnt mean the pet isnt a liability in many tables.

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.

I was referring to your absurd notion that beastmasters want 2 pc's. Even if the beast fully acted independently, it wouldnt be a full 2nd PC.

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.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a roleplaying game, in which case yes, most players dont use them as a throwaway HP bag like you imply. The beast will eat a hit then most players will try and keep it alive, unless their DM is generous and gives it death saves

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.

So again, the beast's attack is on par with some crappy theorycraft ranger who doesnt bother to use feats, spells, or abilities. So essentially the beast is equal to the worse case scenario...

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?

Even better! It takes NO action on the paladin's part, since the mount acts independently of the paladin and is intelligent enough to take the help action on its own. Unless the DM decides to have the mount be a jerk, it will generally do what is asked.

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

I'm not sure how you could possibly take the beast as a PC equivalent, even were it acting independently. Its mechanically inferior to every other class.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

So sure, if you compare the beastmaster attack to some theoretical ranger attack that's not reflective of how the game is played, its balanced. Got it. Better not include feats, magic weapons, hunter's mark, etc, or your arguement instantly falls apart and shows why the beastmaster pet attacks are underpowered.

Even if you include feats, my argument doesn't fall apart. But it shouldn't even get there, because when evaluating one subclass to another mechanically, you don't throw in a bunch of optional things from the outside. To do so is disingenuous at worst, fundamentally wrong for any sort of credible analysis at best. As we say in the testing work (I work as a systems analyst), "Garbage in, garbage out." That would be like me comparing the shadow monk subclass against the berserker subclass, saying that the monk is effective at range as well because the magic initiate feat grants eldritch blast.

Hey, if you want to house rule it that way, sure. But the text is clear. It applies to AC, attack rolls and damage rolls. If the beast is proficient in saves (none are) or skills (some are) it applies to those as well.

Is that really a house rule? Tell me, if none of the pets have saves, then whey would the say that your prof bonus is applicable to saves? Since it states that the prof bonus applies to all skills, attack rolls, damage rolls, and AC, it seems clear to me that the inference is that it also applies to Save DC since that a "save", something called out in that sentence. And even if it weren't, that doesn't nullify the benefit completely. With bounded accuracy, it seems like it's still a benefit that can apply on every turn. Which is the point. So even if you don't apply the prof bonus, granting a class ability that allows you to impose a DC12 save or be knocked prone on every turn is a pretty big deal.

No, it does reflect how the game is played. You have a weak ass companion many players will be spending resources to try and prop up and keep alive. Just because you choose to roleplay a robot with no attachment doesnt mean the pet isnt a liability in many tables.

Once again, missing the point. The point is that you have the ability to do X. Subjective preferences cannot be included with any sort of credibility. That X in this case is to soak up attacks that would otherwise be targeted at the PC or other allies. It doesn't really matter how often a player heals their pet or not. What matters is that it's a benefit that takes attacks away from the PC and allies.

I was referring to your absurd notion that beastmasters want 2 pc's. Even if the beast fully acted independently, it wouldnt be a full 2nd PC.

Looking at several of the "solutions" people have come up with, it is essentially another PC. That's not an absurd notion at all. Look for yourself at some of these solutions.

So again, the beast's attack is on par with some crappy theorycraft ranger who doesnt bother to use feats, spells, or abilities. So essentially the beast is equal to the worse case scenario...

Resorting to strawmen now too? Can't say I'm surprised. Also, I don't think you know what "theorycraft" means. I'm not theorycrafting at all. All I'm doing is looking at one subclass's objective mechanical benefits. I haven't provided any in game scenarios or mock battles or anything.

Even better! It takes NO action on the paladin's part, since the mount acts independently of the paladin and is intelligent enough to take the help action on its own. Unless the DM decides to have the mount be a jerk, it will generally do what is asked.

So the paladin's mount can grant advantage to any ally as a bonus action? That's what I asked. Your answer does not say it can. And even if it could, "the ranger is not as powerful as the paladin" =/= "the ranger is an underpowered class in general".

 

[TwoSix]

Even if you include feats, my argument doesn't fall apart. But it shouldn't even get there, because when evaluating one subclass to another mechanically, you don't throw in a bunch of optional things from the outside. To do so is disingenuous at worst, fundamentally wrong for any sort of credible analysis at best. As we say in the testing work (I work as a systems analyst), "Garbage in, garbage out." That would be like me comparing the shadow monk subclass against the berserker subclass, saying that the monk is effective at range as well because the magic initiate feat grants eldritch blast.

I don't have a horse in this argument, but I don't accept this argument at all. At a bare minimum, any sort of class analysis for 5e must at least consider feats, considering their relative ubiquity. Different subclasses scale very differently with feats. At the very least, an analysis will point that subclass A is comparable to subclass B, but taking feat C will make subclass B much stronger than it otherwise would be.

 

[Staccat0]

*shrug* With colossus slayer the ranger at my table easily deals the most damage per round and has saved the party from multiple levels of exhaustion in a recent mountain scaling adventure.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't have a horse in this argument, but I don't accept this argument at all. At a bare minimum, any sort of class analysis for 5e must at least consider feats, considering their relative ubiquity. Different subclasses scale very differently with feats. At the very least, an analysis will point that subclass A is comparable to subclass B, but taking feat C will make subclass B much stronger than it otherwise would be.

I suppose you can choose to not accept it, but it's the accurate way to go. Much like doing math with fractions. You get rid of all common denominators. But even outside of that, when evaluating subclasses, it's just bad methodology to selectively include optional factors. You won't have any reliable data to evaluate. For example, when the design team went and balanced the classes, they have a requirement "not all tables will be using feats". Therefore, in order to achieve their goal, they would have to balance the classes without feats being factored in. If you have subclasses that have large swings in their power level depending on if a feat was selected or not, that fails the overall goal.

*Edit* I mean, look at what's being argued here. There's the claim that BM rangers are underpowered. Why? For reasons like:

*rangers will have the sharpshooter feat, and that makes giving up an attack not worth it
* the paladin has a mount that he or she doesn't have to control


Those are some pretty highly specialized assumptions that have to be there, which makes it awfully odd to justify a blanket statement that BM rangers are underpowered in general. Even if you agreed with the assumption that giving up a sharpshooter attack is always worse than having your pet attack, which is hardly universally true.

 

[Sunseeker]

Am I missing something?

A 5th level Ranger with the Archery Fighting Style and an extra attack,
I could do up to 1d10+2 x 2 damage.

If I play a Wizard, I can use Mage Armor and Shield to have a high Armor Class and do cantrip damage 2d12 poison with the option to use a bigger spell avg 8d6 dmg.

That's a shame. This is why the Ranger is broken. When we were making this game there was a discussion about balance. Some were saying it wasn't important.

That is so incomparable and lacking in so many variables it's really hard to figure out where to start.
Cantrip damage gets no stat bonus to damage for starters.
Cantrips still require a to-hit, or a save.
Your Fireball has a save for half and you only have 1 of them.

The ranger isn't great, but you're really comparing apples to oranges here.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

Personally, I agree with Sancrosact for two reasons.

First, feats are optional. Just like multiclassing. We could discuss how level dips might make one subclass super-awesome, or not, but they are options. Comparing the baselines is what you are supposed to do (IMO). In addition, to the extent that feats are a problem, they are exceptionally easy to modify or remove (since they are optional); not so much with core class abilities.

Second, I don't use feats. And since the world revolves around me, that's kind of important. Jus' sayin'.

Exactly right, and worded better than I did. When evaluating something like subclasses, you need to do a direct comparison. Doing things like, "Well, with this race, and a few dips into this other class, and taking these feats..." doesn't help any because it's just convoluted data samples. You gotta start at the baseline first.

 

[TwoSix]

I suppose you can choose to not accept it, but it's the accurate way to go. Much like doing math with fractions. You get rid of all common denominators. But even outside of that, when evaluating subclasses, it's just bad methodology to selectively include optional factors. You won't have any reliable data to evaluate. For example, when the design team went and balanced the classes, they have a requirement "not all tables will be using feats". Therefore, in order to achieve their goal, they would have to balance the classes without feats being factored in. If you have subclasses that have large swings in their power level depending on if a feat was selected or not, that fails the overall goal.

But isn't the very problem that there ARE subclasses in the game that do swing wildly in power depending on whether or not feats are allowed? I mean, if you want to argue "The designers should design classes to balance without feats, and let the chips fall where they may if feats are turned on," that's fine, and a cogent argument, but anyone doing analysis of the game as it is currently played has to point out that the beastmaster scales poorly with the popular weapon feats that a hunter ranger excels with.