WotC Wants your Feedback On The Revised Ranger

I'm a big fan of the concave Rangers. When they're out in nature they can collect rainwater during a storm... they're great!

*EDIT* Okaaaaaayyy... so the merging of the two threads pretty much made this joke superfluous.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Initiative is essentially an opposed roll. If you are fighting a critter that has a higher modifier than you then you will need to roll relatively high to win, and a "not bad" roll won't cut it (and vice-versa). For initiative, advantage is inferior to +5 unless the PC and monster have around the same modifier.

Not even then. I already forgot what my results were last time I checked, but I think I remember that if you are +4 ahead in initiative you surpass a +4 bonus slightly and with a +9 dex bonus ahead you have the best result which is only very slightly better and then it goes down again and drops below +4 at a +15 dex bonus ahead of you opponent. But actually you nearly beat the enemies initative very reliably most of the time anyway.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A martial controller would have been trivial to build. I posited a half dozen or so on the wotc forums, as did many others.
Mans it would have been really, really fun.

 

[Einlanzer0]

There appears to be a tug of war in reference to the ranger being a combination of a fighter, monk and rogue. The abilities have to match what niche the ranger is trying to fill starting with favored terrain and/or enemies. As written general abilities to hide, dash, 1d10 hit dice, or automatic abilities like natural explorer start to step on the other classes toes. Because if the other classes are suppose to be the toughest\generalist (fighter), stealthiest\striker (rogue), or defensive\movement (monk), then I am not sure what is left.

I believe having a disengage action makes more sense than dash, and any hide/stealth ability should be tried to terrain if is surpasses the rogue, and 1d8 hit points, etc.

This isn't an MMO, so it doesn't really matter that much if there's mechanical overlap between classes (and as DBW mentions below, it's even sort of desirable to some extent so there's greater flexibility in builds and party comps). All that matters it that a class has a good theme and expresses that theme well through its mechanics.

I honestly think the quest to give the ranger a more "unique" identity through its mechanics than what it already has is kind of folly, which is why I'm generally pleased with this update. The fact is, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the ranger being a wilderness fighter/rogue/druid as long as the presentation and gameplay of the class feels sufficiently polished.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This isn't an MMO, so it doesn't really matter that much if there's mechanical overlap between classes. All that matters it that a class has a good theme and expresses that theme well through its mechanics.

Even then, some mechanical overlap is desirable. If nothing else, it allows a group to do better with a missing niche.

 

[jayoungr]

A martial controller would have been trivial to build.

The fact that they didn't do it suggests that it was a deliberate decision not to.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The fact that they didn't do it suggests that it was a deliberate decision not to.

Yep. They chose not to. Probably because the rogue, ranger, and fighter could already be good at controll as a secondary role, and because an already butt hurt mob would have accused them of "grid filling" even more than they already were.

Between the pole arm ideas people had, bombardier, and knife thrower ideas many of us put forth, a martial controller woulda been easy.

Especially with a Taunt ability that wasn't about being sticky, and some strong mobility.
Mid loved to have a knife throwing, acrobatic, taunter that mechanically slows, stubs, enrages, trips up, and confuses enemies, sometimes into hurting themselves and their allies.

 

[ScuroNotte]

Duplicate post. Sorry

 

[ScuroNotte]

You mean that ability that barbarians get at 7th level, but rangers get at 1st that somehow isn't overpowered.
Yeah, it won't stack of they're the same. But, adding proficiency bonus prevents it stacking with the bard Jack of All Trades feature that lets you add half your prof to all ability checks

Actually proficiency bonuses don't stack like any similar ability. Fighter Champion adds 1/2 Proficiency modifier rounded up. Bards get 1/2 proficiency modifier rounded down. It doesn't round to full proficiency bonus. You select (usually the better).

 

[Uchawi]

This isn't an MMO, so it doesn't really matter that much if there's mechanical overlap between classes (and as DBW mentions below, it's even sort of desirable to some extent so there's greater flexibility in builds and party comps). All that matters it that a class has a good theme and expresses that theme well through its mechanics.

I honestly think the quest to give the ranger a more "unique" identity through its mechanics than what it already has is kind of folly, which is why I'm generally pleased with this update. The fact is, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the ranger being a wilderness fighter/rogue/druid as long as the presentation and gameplay of the class feels sufficiently polished.

I agree where the line is drawn can be debated, but it does not need to be justified just because MMOs do something similar. There is overlap and then there is stepping on toes. The more diverse the class is, especially if it has spell use, will increase the chance of lessening another classes ability. Especially with classes like a fighter which is limited to begin with. The ranger is just taking over the role of the old bard in searching for an identity.

 

[Peter Larsen]

The biggest problem I have is none of the buffs are limited per time period. Compare with a paladin where divine sense is stat bonus +1 per long rest, Lay on Hands is 5x lvl per long rest, Chanel divinity is once/short rest and divine smite is limited by spell slots. The always on buffs of a ranger are too strong.