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

[TwoSix]

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.

I guess my point that any analysis done for purposes of character building right now, rather than to spitball what better design decisions could have been made by the designers, has to factor in feats. They're too integral to the 5e community's understanding of the game as a whole.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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?

Are there? Like what? Feats are available to every class that allows feats. So which feats suddenly make a subclass significantly more powerful that wouldn't also have a similar affect to any other class?

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.

I didn't say let the chips fall where they may with feats turned on. I said you have to start with the baseline and balance that first. Garbage in, garbage out. If your foundation is flawed, then the whole thing is flawed. Secondly, can you give me examples of rangers in actual play where they became underpowered compared to other classes using feats as levels progressed?

I've seen BM rangers in actual play, and I think people way underestimate the benefits of being able to grant advantage via help at great ranges (you don't even need to be anywhere near your buddy as long as your pet is), the knockdown ability to be used on every turn from the most popular pet types, or the ability for the pet to soak up attacks meant for you or another PC.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fedge123]

Party size is another factor to consider - in smaller parties (2 to 4 player character's), having a Ranger Beastmaster with his beast gives you essentially another 'player' to help your group, and multiplies the benefits mentioned above (extra attack, extra target, scout, etc.).

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think the ranger without a pet is great balance wise. The ranger with a pet is a bit odd, but fine once you add in sentinel feat, assuming you are using feats.

Of course, for me, I would have preferred a spell-less ranger, with a pet that just adds damage like hunters mark and is a second bag of hp for foes, AND most important some herbalism (spell like) abilities - something kinda like the witch hunter mutagens.

 

[steeldragons]

Shorter version- if the problem in balance is caused by the feats, then the problem is the feats, not the classes.

Beat me to it.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I think metagaming is very important.
Most players metagame. They pretend it isn't important, but it is to them because that is how they play. They need a high armor class and need to do more damage. They never say it out loud but that rules every choice they make.

Each class should be competitive in;
Armor Class
Damage dealing
Spells with non-combat role-playing applications are fine, but many players never choose them. Each spell should have a useful combat application to make them attractive choices.

To fix the Ranger, I would look at other classes at each level and note the damage. Then I would scale the Fighting Styles and Class Features to compete. Otherwise there will be few to no Rangers at the table.

You know, this is the thinking that got us 4e: hyperfocused on damage output, tightly focused roles, and emphasis on all classes being awesome every round.

 

[bganon]

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.

Ugh, this has been done to death several times already, but in case you're not aware: Designer intent was that animal companions only add the bonus to saves they are proficient in, and never to DC on any special abilities:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/28/beastmasters-beast-attack/
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/02/18/rangers-companion-hp-and-st/

Comparing the beast's attack to a "base ranger attack" is disingenuous. The valid comparison should always be "what would the Ranger be doing if they had a different build?" And non-BM Rangers use Hunter's Mark. A lot.

I'm actually with you in that I don't think BM is really all that bad, for most of the reasons you state. But let's not pretend that the class is capable of things that it's not capable of.

 

[Uchawi]

You also have to considered additional supplements, even if feats are not an assumption, because recent books like SCAG add cantrips, new subclasses and/or additional spells. So in reality, we are only talking about the PHB for a base analysis without feats.

But honestly, the developers were going for feel versus any sense of balance.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was ready to give a glib answer to this, when I realized the stuff about the Ranger having identity issues was actually a little valid.

I mean, you'd play a ranger if you wanted a character who was woodsy and used weapons, possibly two weapons at once or maybe archery, and cast spells and tracked and attracted strange woodsy followers or had a pet animal and really hated Giants, but 'giants' include kobolds for that purpose, and....

Oh, OK, yeah, there is an issue, there, maybe.

Why Would I Play a Ranger?

Still, though, because it, or at least one of the takes on it, best fits your character concept.

Oh, and the DPR optimization stuff? You can get a Ranger up to snuff if you work at it: I think several folks have demonstrated that.