Was all the early concern about ranger overblown?

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

ZaxFahrenheit200

Jun 12, 2015 12:20:30

Back before I started my campaign nearly half a year ago and before I got my 5e books, there were threads all over the D&D community talking about how mediocre 5e ranger was.  I haven't seen any recently, which leads me to believe either...

 

1) the concern was overblown and it turns out the ranger can hold its own

or

2) yes they're still mediocre, it's just that there's nothing more to be said about it

 

The reason I'm posting this is because I 'm considering some homebrew options with the ranger if #2 is the truth, which I don't see why it wouldn't be (granted the party's average level is 4, so much of this is just looking ahead).  I saw the UA spell-less ranger, but I felt like they should've just thrown poultices in with original ranger from the start, and is otherwise pretty mediocre in itself.

#2

AaronOfBarbaria

Jun 12, 2015 14:15:54 		Yes, concern was/is overblown. Some folks stress too much about being the best and start failing to see what is fun and good enough.
#3

AdrastusDarke

Jun 12, 2015 14:57:28 		The ranger is fine and great fun to play. Maybe beast master isn't that great but it still contributes just as well as most other classes and having a pet is both thematic and useful for things other than attacking. The panic about rangers sucking was overblown in my opinion.
(Reply to #2)

ZaxFahrenheit200

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#5

Barky

Jun 12, 2015 18:36:24

In my game, the ranger has Colossus Slayer and Sharpshooter and he does a cosmic butt-ton of damage. Probably the highest damage-dealer right now (4th level).

#6

ZaxFahrenheit200

Jun 12, 2015 19:00:19

Yeah...I suppose that so long as the bard doesn't want to duplicate the ranger, then the ranger should end up ok.  But if the bard really wants to lean toward ranger damage spells at later levels, then there's nothing stopping him from outclassing, IMHO.

#7

Psikerlord

Jun 12, 2015 23:25:31

I never thought beastmaster was a problem, given you could take sentinel feat.

#8

Mechatarrasque

Jun 13, 2015 20:48:15

Beastmaster (with ever present animal companion always by his/her side) plus a dip in rogue seems like a fun combination (and as psikerlord said, add sentinel feat).  I think the "problem" for the beastmaster was that people (myself included) thought that you could be the lazy beastmaster (like the lazy chainlock), sit back, and let the pet do all the work.  It works better to treat the pet as a tactical assistant until you get to the point where it is making mutliple attacks on your action.

#9

CCS

Jun 13, 2015 22:15:35 		[quote="ZaxFahrenheit200"]

1) the concern was overblown and it turns out the ranger can hold its own

or

2) yes they're still mediocre, it's just that there's nothing more to be said about it

Well if those are the only two choices, it's gotta be #1.

How do I know you ask?? Because people around here are quite happy to continue beating dead horses. They NEVER run out of things to say about something.

#10

Lobo316

Jun 18, 2015 12:22:59

Concern was overblown.  Have had no issues with the ranger.  Very fun to DM so far, and from the bit we've experienced, quiet the damage machine.

#11

DemoMonkey

Jun 15, 2015 11:33:42

Beastmaster Ranger is still sub-par. The people who don't care about that were never complaining in the first place;  the people who DO care, have already houseruled it in some fashion in their their games. Thus, a lot less complaining on the boards about it.

 

The survey results indicated there are still a (to WOTC) significant number of people who were unhappy with it, so we'll see what they do further down the road.

#12

Xeviat-DM

Jun 15, 2015 20:58:55

The Ranger (Hunter) in my game is doing great. He's the best damage dealer in the game, right behind the Warlock; Collossus Slayer (just got last session) and hunter's Mark (initially didn't take it, but when he saw how good the Warlock's Hex was, he went for it).

 

I'm not sure if I think the Beast Master needs a buff, as I haven't seen it in play and it doesn't immediately jump out at me as problematic.

#13

Moonshadow50

Jun 17, 2015 6:31:42

One of my players is running a half orc undead hunting ranger that is doing just fine, she is often top damage dealer in the party. I don’t think there is any problem with the class at all.

#14

iserith

Jun 17, 2015 6:37:04

I've had two rangers in my games that did really well. Stars of the show, arguably. Both of them were beast masters. Danaidh was a half-elf ranger (iirc) with a wolf and was played by bawylie. Delazar78 played Ragna Wolfsbane, a human ranger with with a flock of ravens as her beast.

#15

ChrisCarlson

Jun 17, 2015 7:11:48

Yeah, IMO all the white-room nonsense trying to calculate DPR, or these hollow arguments about action economy concerns, really misses the mark on what makes a beastmaster ranger effective and enjoyable to play. I've seen several in play in 5e already as well, and they did just fine (or even better than most) across the lengths of the adventures.

 

[EDIT: For sharing purposes, so far I've seen a human with a wolf, a wood elf with an owlbear cub, and a drow with a giant wolf spider. And I've been itching for an excuse to play my feral/primitive halfling on a pteranodon.]

#16

Xeviat-DM

Jun 17, 2015 15:38:13

 

White room analysis is fine for a broad view check; if something is grossly out of balance, a white room test will reveal it. But the tolerance in game is very high; I'd wager you won't notice differences less than 20%.

 

I'm really impressed at how balanced 5E is proving to be. My only issues are more preference related. 

(Reply to #4)

Saeviomagy

ZaxFahrenheit200 wrote:
#18

GladiusLegis

Jun 18, 2015 22:08:40

ZaxFahrenheit200 wrote:
#19

GladiusLegis

Jun 18, 2015 21:50:27

Saeviomagy wrote:
#20

Ironxxx

Jun 19, 2015 8:16:20

I'm currently playing a 9th level Halfling Beastmaster with a mastiff as a pet. He's fantastic fun, ridiculously mobile and even when not mounted the duo are capable of very good damage. We do houserule in death saves for the dog, slightly increased HP (6X instead of 4X), one bonus action to select a target which the dog then attacks until given another target and allow barding - this feels fine to me. I've found there is an action economy issue if you're trying to keep up hunters mark and you're attacking weaker monsters but you can't have everything.

I think there's still an issue whereby Find Steed (with its intelligent, free thinking mount) can out-do the rangers pet but the mount given in Find Steed is largely up to the DM anyway, if the DM thinks it will outshine the ranger pet then don't allow the more powerful steeds.

 

Personally the most underpowered aspect of the ranger I've found are Favoured Enemy, Primeval Awareness and Natural Explorer, both FE and PA are so specialised that it's possible you may use them very rarely, if ever and whose benefits can be replaced by spells pretty easily, especially at higher levels. Even when you do get the bonuses from these the mechanical benefit is all down to the DM (based on where you are/what you're fighting), whereas the mechanical benefits from similar abilities of D10 HD classes such as the paladin and fighter are very straightforward and of general use and continue to be useful at all levels. Primeval Awareness is just bad giving barely any info that can be used;

 

Player "I use Primeval Awareness, are there any aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends,and undead within 6 miles?"

DM "Yes there are"

Hmmmmm...

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the Hunter ranger's damage output, they have a unique feel too.

#21

Illithidbix

Jun 20, 2015 19:53:35

Combatwise: Between Hunter's Mark and Colossus Slayer (Or Horde Breaker); the Hunter Ranger feels very punchy at levels 3-5.

 

I think the issue is that they kinda peak there (until they get Swift Quiver - for ranged at least), unless they have a nice lot of AoE to splat at.

 

As for non-combat utility, they have more than a little, but likewise find Favoured Enermy and Favoured Terrain a little awkward to work with as a DM, even with guidance to the player on what will be relevent for the game. The campaign shifts focus and the useful abilities become irrelevent.

#22

GladiusLegis

Jun 21, 2015 0:47:42

Illithidbix wrote:
(Reply to #16)

DoctorBadWolf

Xeviat-DM wrote:
(Reply to #21)

DoctorBadWolf

Illithidbix wrote: