As I look at the first few levels of the ranger class I start to wonder.
Was the ranger built to fit a traditional or stereotypical game of D&D?
Is ths 5th edition ranger too niche? Not given enough general D&D features?
Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer both speak mostly to survival and travel heavy games. Later HIPS whch is strong but not exactly great with your party nearby.
The Ranger skill list is expansive but also is heavy on these themes.
The ranger spells list is mostly exploration spells, tracking spells, anti-minion spells, and restoration.
And the ranger subclasses are not broadly effective. Both require character builds and party set-ups to be effective.
Okay, then you look at the rest of the book and the basic rules. And exploration, tracking, survival are in these little corner. Minor parts of the written game.
This is compared to classes like the bard and druid who have strong theme while keeping a general D&D featuree at full strength and range.
So does the ranger fit the common way people play this game?
I still haven't figure it out. Some classes like the ranger are subclassed into very specific builds, and another like the fighter have subclasses that explore new territory. And others like the wizard allow the class to specialize, while still gaining a benefit from general spells. At that point you may as well introduce new classes like the EK into a separate sword/mage, and add a new ranger class that is less dependent on magic and more of a martial tradition.
We have an archer ranger win the aprty who is a hunter. I suspect with sharpshooter, coollossus slayer and some of the bonus action ranger spells she will end up doing copious amounts of damage while being a good skill monkey. That is close to the 3.5 ranger using the spell compendium in feel. Did not help she missed with 4/5 of her attacks in the first combat of her session and she did not use any of her spells.
However the ranger lacking the favored enemy thing or at least bonus damage more or less classes with the class as presented from 1st-3rd ed and the 4E one made a good striker at least. The hunter ranger looks like a blend of a late 3.5 ranger and the 4th ed striker thing. My gut feeling is she will end up out damaging everyone else by level 8 or so. Most of the D&D rangers have been very good at their thing with the exception of the 3.0 one, and maybe 2nd ed one depending on fighters being allowed to dual wieled. The 3.5 ranger was a great class in the wrong edition but it felt like a ranger at least.
I have some serious doubts about the wild mage, beastmaster ranger, and Rogue in general though.
This might be playstyle bias, but I'd argue that "survival and exploration heavy" is general D&D. Heck the core rulebook cites exploration, interaction, and combat as being the three "pillars" of the game. A character optimised for Exploration should, in theory, excel at fully one third of the default game, exactly as much as one optimised for combat.
Zardnaar wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Their unique combat niche for the Hunter is being a non-Arcane AoE class with their spells and after 11 Multiattack available each and every round. They can also do respectable single-target damage at the same time. Beastmaster's niche is apparently being "the pet guy".
Rangers have strong exploration and skill-monkey abilities as you pointed out.
I fail to see any major problem. Primeval Awareness could do with some love, but that's relatively minor.
1eejit wrote:
Hyperbole.
Volley with Sharpshooter does 19.5 damage in AoE, every round all day at -3 to hit. No dex save for half, unlike most AoE. If you have Horde Breaker you can double that, to the equivalent of Cone of Cold damage.
Rangers are superb scouts, especially if you talk with the DM about your Natural Explorer terrain choices early, but their skills make them on-par with Rogues or Bards regardless.
Orzel wrote:
1eejit wrote:
I think that the Ranger's skill bonuses are comparable to the Rogues, albeit slightly weaker and more limited. They however do get a way to double their proficiency to certain skills and also gain advantage on them. They also have many good skill-modifying spells with long durations, such as pass without trace.
In combat, Rangers are pretty close to Fighters in terms of number of attacks. Both classes keep pace until Extra Attack (3), although Beast Masters seem to be better against single targets (2 beast attacks + 1 ranger attack) and Hunters have better AoE (Hordebreaker and Multiattack).
I think Rangers are a very good hybrid class- slightly weaker than Rogues in the skill department, on pace or slightly behind the Fighter (but better in some AoE situations) in the "iterative attack" department, and capable of some utility and healing magic, in addition to a few good AoE spells (and some marginal ones as well).
Spells such as pass without trace, freedom of movement, and water breathing/walking are very useful for exploration or tactical combat. Attrition-based options are more limited, but swift quiver is one of the best bonus action attacks in the game, in my opinion, and conjure volley is fairly equivalent to cone of cold, a benchmark AoE spell. Hunter's mark can provide reliable bonus damage for players who aren't exactly enamored with the Ranger spell list.
Perhaps the ranger's lack of single target "nova" or "alpha strike" rubs some people the wrong way, but I think they have very nice AoE and sustained damage, in addition to useful non-combat abilities. They make a nice gap-filler or fifth man, or they can be specialized to function as a skill character or fighter substitute.
PS: Based on the way I read some poster's comments, I think some people are under the impression that Hordebreaker and Colossus Slayer can be used more than once per turn. However, they both say "once per turn" in their respective descrptions (Colossus Slayer can also be used on OAs, but Hordebreaker cannot 
). I think they're still very useful, though, and I think that Hordebreaker (and also Giant Killer) is undervalued in the posts I've read.
If you could retrain your Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer features every long rest I'd say that the ranger would be quite interesting. As it is now, I'd say he's almost an NPC class.
Lady_Auralla wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Dunno about flavor but getting to level 20 and getting a capstone power that rarely works... priceless. Having a subclass focused around a pet and have the pet die in the first fight every day making 4 levels of your class useless... priceless.
Clearly they didn't waste much thought on the class.
Rangers are slightly on the weaker side (slightly too niche), but they arn't nearly as bad as people make them out to be.
IMO, they need to boost Primevil Awareness. Which is just too weak for a level 1 spell.
The level 10 ability Hide in Plain Sight is virtually worthless, rarely will one be alone or in a position to use this and have full minute to prepare to use it.
Volley to hit any number of creatures within 10 feet of a point is of limited use as at higher levels many foes will be large and 3 or more simply won't be found in such a small space.
Fighter gets 3rd attack at level 11, which work for melee or ranged. Ranger has to chose Volley or Whirlwind Attack, each of which rarely will be useful against 3 foes, are only ranged or melee respectively, can't be used as multiple attacks on a single foe, etc. At worst, Ranger should have gotten them both, and then they still would generally be worse than just getting a third attack.
And many of the other abilities are of very limited use.
I wanted to play a Ranger, but just couldn't do it due to some of those limitations.
Orzel wrote:
The Ranger in our game is really hugely powerful.
I think people are missing that they have some of the best spells in the game, and some of their power was moved into spells. Hunters Mark can literally last 24 hours, and applies to EVERY hit you make (not just once a round), and is assigned as a bonus action. That's a class ability, disguised as a spell. And they have several bonus action spells and unique spells like that. Their power is not in the favored enemy or terrain bonuses, it's that they are tough spellcasters that are also fighters.
Our Ranger is applying Hunter's Mark every hit, Collossus Slayer once a round, while two weapon fighting and getting a second attack, and that's all just at 5th level. He's just destroying everything in his path.
ranger just needs little bump in the class.
I.E. fighting style should be at 1st level so the class gets combat value from the start.
at 2nd level it should get expertise with two skills, one of it must be survival.
also ranger should get at least 4 skill proficiencies(one must be survival if it wasn't allready picked by background) or ability to trade medium armor and shield proficiency for bonus skills.
Favored terrain should be retrainable with every long rest. requirement should be that ranger must spend atleast one month in terrain to learn it. ranger would start with 1+ wis bonus(in any) of known terrains.
at level 6 you can have 2 terrains "prepared" at level 10, 3 terrains "prepared".
hide in plaing sight should be prepared in 1 round instead of 1 minute.
favored enemy should add wis mod to damage also.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
mellored wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
Paladins also get Hunter's Mark but the cost of a bonus action can often make Divine Favor do more damage overall. In fact if you have to swap targets often Hunter's Mark will COST you damage.
As for the longer duration on Hunter's Mark... yeah, good luck with those concentration rolls. Gotta love making 3 or 4 saves every round. What an idiotic mechanic.
FFSAA wrote:
It should have been "the other skill guy."
Mistwell wrote:
5E ranger falls somewhere between rogues and fighters, plus a dash of magic. Doesn't dominate, but doesn't fall behind. News at 11.
Grifford wrote:
I'm not arguing hat the class is too weak.
I'm arguing that the ranger class is a bit too far off it it's metagame and loses too much of it's flavor trying to stay relevant.
The ranger is the guy bringing a sniper rifle to a battle heavy on close quarters firefights.
The guy with anti-equipment cards when few really run equips.
Rangers and snipers aren't bad, They are just a tad too niche and the obviousness of it is a bit destressing.
Yeah I wish the ranger was more of a primal champion than poor imitation of Aragorn.
More seeker and warden, less Woodsman the Class.
Orzel wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Ranger is a niche that fits certain game styles very well. More in the home campaig than AL format. if you are looking for a combat beast ala 4e ranger then look no further tan fighter wth outsider background. Ranger is a nod to an exploration heavy game style that some players prefer.
Lawolf wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Hunter's Mark on a dual-wielding Ranger is pretty damn awesome if you ask me. You certainly didn't get spells that good on Rangers back in 3.5. Ensnaring Strike is quite nice as well. The Ranger has some pretty nice spells that a lot of people are glossing over.
Exploration is one of the three pillars of the game. It's potentially just as important as roleplaying/ interaction and combat.
The ranger should be the class that focuses on exploration. It gives the class a niche beyond being "the archer" or "the dude with two weapons".
From play reports, it sounds like the ranger is holding his own. But, realistically, if the ranger was the damage equal of the fighter or rogue and the best exploration character, why would anyone play a fighter or rogue.
The_Jester wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Atheosis wrote:
Orzel wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Orzel wrote:
I have not yet actually played a 5e ranger but I will say that it looks to me like it's better suited to a solo campaign than a team-based one. I have been irregularly teaching my oldest daughter to play D&D, and she chose to play a wood elf ranger. She's been enjoying it so far.
good question to ask is if the ranger class says you should only play ths in a heavily wilderness campaign is that actually a bad thing? rangers per D&D lore are wilderness warriors. Aragorn is more the fighter class with some wilderness skills. both work in D&D but don't het hung up on ghe name. Aragorn is called a ranger but Legolas fits the D&D ranger template much better.
Just using those names as examples as many see them both as archtypical rangers.
every single class in 5th can be fun to play if you want it to be. I wish theorycrafting was over now that the rules are out, but sadly it isn't.
Veleria wrote:
Veleria wrote:
Veleria wrote:
superknud wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
crimfan07 wrote:
Veleria wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I think some classes should be more out of combat focused than others. I'd like to see version of the rogue that is more out of combat focused then what we now have as well.
Unless you're going for an all out hack 'n' slash experience, exploration and interaction should be two thrids of the game.
Atheosis wrote:
The main thing the ranger needs improved is Primeval Awareness, which by RAW is borderline useless.
To have a class feature that requires a spell slot to use, but provides such vague and pointless information, is surprising it made it though playtesting.
This feature was used in the last Acquisitions Incorporated game at PAX, however it wasn't used per RAW. When it was used during the game, Chris Perkins provided how many dragons there were, their distance away, and vague locations. All of which this feature does not provide. Had it been used by RAW, Chris should have said something like, Yes you sense dragon presence.
I'm not saying one cannot house rule this feature, or use it as Chris did in the PAX game. I'm merely pointing out the information the RAW version of this feature provides shouldn't require a spell slot, and even then it's still rather useless. To fix this feature it should function pretty much how Chris Perkins described it at PAX, provide direction, vague distance (close by, far away, etc), and the amount of creatures sensed.
Fenstrider wrote:
OKay, there are a few things about rangers, some of which I haven't seen much mention of.
Fighting Styles: Rangers are the only class other than Fighters that can take the archery style, which is a signifigant boost to accuracy. Most of the ranger's best spells tie into archery as well, for me personally this make Archer rangers the best option. They are also the only other class that gets the Two-weapon style, which is a nice DPR boost, they don't get the spells in this case, but it's harder for a duel wielder to cast anyways. Now, I would have like Rangers to get Greatweapon, but they don't really need it and they can't get everyting, that's the fighter schtick. This has not been talked about, but it is pretty signifigant to comparison's with classes other than the fighter
Natural Explorer: This is the Ranger's "skill buff" ability. Everyone seems to deride it because rogue's with expertise can match it, and do better outside of the ranger's terrain (which with three options will be rare when things like tracking will be used). However, this ability far outstrips the expertise in other circumstances. Rogues have a limited number of expertise skills to give a big bonus to, but in the favored terrain explorers can also: Move through difficult terrain easily, not get lost (except magic), The ranger can do another activity while keeping a look out for danger, if you go to scout ahead you can move normal pace stealthly (which means the party is slowed by stealthing), you find twice the amount of food, you get bonus info when tracking. None of this can be done by the rogue's expertise. Now, if your group carries rations and the DM handwaves overland travel, these don't help, but that is a DM thing not a reflection on the assumptions in the ranger class. So Rogue with Expertise in survival can track at +7 everywhere, a ranger can track at +7 in their terrain, while remaining alert for danger, moving stealthily, and not slowing down the party. If it is favored enemy they get advantage as well
Hunter's abilities: A lot of people seem to think these are too situational. Now, I'll admit, Giant Killer is situational. You have to be fighting a Large creature, and really you have to be a melee fighter. However, Horde Breaker is really useful. By third level it is a 2nd attack, all you need is two enemies adjacent. This is still useful at high levels, two enemies adjacent and you can hit one guy twice and the other once. Also, most classes are using smaller weapons and damages than they did in older editions. Hitting with a d8 or d6 with +5 is pretty big damage. Two handers get bigger, but hitting two enemies with average damage can be very effective. You have to look at the flow of the battle in a way. A fighter can hit one guy twice, killing him. A ranger hits two guys once, then next turn thoe enemies only need one hit each, while the fighter's foe still needs two hits, so since the ranger isn't losing anything by spreading his damage (it does it anyways) they therefore can shorten the entire encounter. The Volley and Whirlwind at 11 have similiar things going on. The big thing to focus onfor me is "opportunity cost" you don't lose anything by making the additional attacks. Also, the level 11 abilities are not lmited like the Fighter's 3rd attack, sure against a single foe the fighter gets 3 attacks and can focus them, putting them ahead. Targeting three enemies puts them on equal footing. Ranger's with Volley can hit close to 20 enemies. If you're still feeling things are too unbalanced, it is possible to read Whirlwind as allowing you to move between the attacks, meaning you can hit enemies adjacent and move until you run out of enemies and movement. I personally think it goes against the intent, but you could allow it.
Animal companions: With bonuses to Ac and Hp, plus a general consensus to give them death saves, Beasts are hardier than some people give them credit for, and you can have them dodge (which is powerful) and possibly tank attacks and lockdown an enemy who wouldn't want the AO from moving away. They are much better than people give them credit for.
My problem is I think the idea of the class itself is pretty weak. If you want to be an amazing archer aka Legolas, that should be wrapped up in the fighter class and 5e has finally done that. A leather wearing archer fighter is pretty kickass and just as viable as the guy in full plate wielding a sword. If you want to be a nature oriented spellcaster you have the druid. If you want to be an outdoor stealth/bandit guy you can just be a rogue with a wilderness oriented background. Want to be a kick ass savage fighter? Well, barbarian handles that nicely.
The ranger just sort of blends all three of the above which sort of falls flat. It could be a sort of pet class guy, but it really doesn't do that well in 5e and historically D&D hasn't had a "pet class". I just don't now what ranger as a class concept really provides that a solid multiclass or skill system can't offer. It's sort of like the cavelier class from the 1e unearthed arcana. It's rather pointless.
Paladins, druids, barbarians and bards are all really solid class concepts. Ranger seems more like it's in the game because early D&D had it so it had to be added, but they really didn't know what to do with the idea.
Orzel wrote:
You mention much of the ranger stuff being based on survival and exploration. That's what a ranger does, if the campaign isn't going to focus on that, tell the players and let the guy who wants to play a ranger know that he's gonna be a fish out of water.
The Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard are broader than the other classes becaue the othe classes are derived from those 4. The others are just more specialized versions of those 4.
MasterVelles wrote:
Basically give some general terrain benefits, and then allow the ranger to specialize just like a wizard. But the usefulness will be questionable if you use the battlemaster as an example, because they only have a limited amount of maneuvers to perform before they have to rest. It is just as bad a daily based maneuvers. I expect the ranger would suffer the same fate with terrain benefits that apply accross the board. It would be easier to update their spell selection or add new spells, or even rituals.
MasterVelles wrote:
Currently I am allowing the Ranger to change his favoured terrain after a long rest, removed the spell slot cost from Primal awareness. Gave Survival and Nature as automatically gained skills thus giving him 2 extra skills and gave him expertise in 2 skills (gains expertise with 2 ore at 10) and lastly gave hime ritual casting and tagged many exploration skills as rituals. The Ranger is now performing in the exploration roll as it is expected to.
Some more feedback. My PCs hit level 5 and picked up the extra attck for the ranger. Put simply she became absurd amounts of damage. The other PCs were damaging targets for her even the bard used vicious mocker just to trigger colossus slayer. Hunters Quarry works on every shot so the ranger average damage was something like 1d8+4+1d6+1d8. They were traveliong form point A to point B so had time for short rests between encounters, last week they had an urban game, week before that was a dungeon hack.
The bard is considering taking haste at level 6 and casating on the Ranger as she deals more damage than the polearm fighter. She hits more often and never has to give up an attack due to range. I would have to say the ranger is not gimped in combat so its wilderness skills and abilities are really the icing on the cake or a freebie throw in.
The fighter would have been better offas a battlemaster instead of a warrior as well as there were a few times he could not get close enough to use his halberd or could not hit a flying creature with it so giving up his attack to let the Ranger have another shot would have been better than a 19/20 crit range.
Sure the ranger may not be able to use their abilites as often as they like but I would be hard pressed to say they are giving up much in terms of combat for them. Our ranger was a hunterr and they had 4 encounters this session in the same day and the ranger used 1 spell per session but she only used hunters quarry.
They were on a wilderness track but the skill use was not a major part of this weeks session although they used social skills in town and some checks to examine a scene.
Zardnaar wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Its an issue or tactics. In every D&D game and most RPGs and Strategy games, the best tactic is to remove the enemy's ability to attack. Typically this is to kill enemies. Because of this, the best tactic is to deal high single target damage than moderate AOE damage. Where AOE shines is when the enemies are numerous and have low HP and the AOE kills them. "AKA fireball"
The issue with 5e is monster have tons of HP after CR 5. Because ranger AOE is on the lower side and sustained, at mid levels and up it is often better to attack the same guys with every attack to kill him faster than plink everyone equally.
Orzel wrote:
You missed my point. In 5e, when faced with 2 giants, it is better to attack one giant twice than attack 2 giants each once. Heck I will sometimes attack one enemy twice over attacking 3-4 enemied once each.
Because dead enemies cannot attack you nor cast spells.
Volley and WWA would be great in 1e, 2e, and 3e as monsters had low HP. But 5e monster have a lot of HP because of bounded accuracy. AOE is bad in 5e unless you deal tons of damage or catch a lot of people in it.
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
AoE is better if lots of PCs have it.
For example let's say a fireball does 25% of an enemies HP and a single target spell does 35% of an enemies HP. A group using 4 single target spells will kill one enemy and do some damage to a second. A group using 4 fireballs will kill all enemies.
That being said, ranger AoE is far more limited than wizard AoE, both in number of targets hit and damage done per target per action.
Lawolf wrote:
I just made a new character for the Age of Worms campaign I'm playing in. I wanted her to be similar to a Diablo III demon hunter, and I ended up making her a MCed rogue 4/ranger 5 with the Crossbow Expert, Skulker, and Sharpshooter feats. My only real complaints with the ranger as a class are as follows:
- Natural Explorer needs more terrain options. Does grassland cover hills? Why no "urban" option? I seem to recall a 3.5 supplement had urban-themed options for druids and rangers. I realize that these are easy enough to add on with a house rule but still ... why not just bake these into the base game?
- Primeval Awareness needs buffing. Sacrificing one of your precious few spell slots just to learn that certain types of creatures are somewhere within a certain radius of you just doesn't seem worth it to me. It either needs to drop the spell slot cost (it could be based on Wis mod like a paladin's divine sense) or allow you to at least know which direction the various creatures are in. It's no good finding out that there's a dragon within 6 miles of you if you don't know which direction it's in. If you're trying to find the dragon, that's still a good bit of ground to cover searching for it; whereas if you're trying to avoid the dragon, there's no way to know if you're moving away from it or straight towards it.
Otherwise, I'm fairly happy with the ranger so far. I actually did get to use Natural Explorer on the way to the dungeon and during that evening's rest (when my PC went out foraging).
EDIT: For the record, the other members of the party are a shadow monk, a moon druid, a tempest cleric, and an evoker wizard. My previous PC was a rogue/bard/sorcerer.
How many of you actually tried out the ranger class, and how many of you are just speculating on how good you believe it will be? Because I can't help but notice that most of the comments reporting a player's actual experiences as a ranger are overwhelmingly positive.
Slyck314 wrote:
Fralex wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
Fralex wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Fralex wrote:
OK. I was just curious about the apparant disconnect between the reports given so far and the more number-crunchy-type posts. I myself haven't tried one yet. I hope to give every class a try eventually, but for now I guess I don't have anything else to say here. Carry on!
Zardnaar wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
If you want a single target Ranger, look at the Beast Master. Beast Masters effectively attack as much as Fighters until level 20, but trade Action Surge and other Fighter features for Ranger spells and features.
Also, Hunter Rangers may have weak at-will AoE, but it's still better than a Wizard's at-will AoE choices. A Hunter Ranger can Volley a 20' square area at a range of up to 200' for around 10 base damage plus other bonuses. A Wizard can cast acid splash at a range of 60' for around 10 damage on two adjacent targets.
Conjure volley is pretty much strictly better than cone of cold, the benchmark AoE for most levels in the game, other than perhaps its damage type (although many undead are immune to cold). It has a huge radius, a long range, and deals precisely the same amount of damage as cone of cold.
Orzel wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Orzel wrote:
I'm not assuming solo monsters. I am saying that the ranger's combat class features are heavily geared to groups of lower CR enemies, ranger exploration class feature are needlessly restricted or compete with combat and utility features for a tiny space.
Rangers are not bad. Just saying that they rely too much on DM setups or themed campaign. In a campaign with a little of everything, rangers would probably be rather bad.
The design flaws of the old ranger classes remain.
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Seems fine to me, but the absence of Great Weapon Fighting as a Fighting Style is superbly disappointing (house-ruled, immediately).
Multiattack is an action.
Extra Attack adjusts your Attack action.
A level 11 hunter can take a Attack action to make 2 attacks or use Multiattack to make multiple attacks.
You can substitute actions for actions or attacks for attacks or attack equivalent ability checks and contests.
1eejit wrote:
Orzel wrote:
1eejit wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Orzel wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
It sounds like many people here who have issues with the ranger are playing with DMS who try to circumvent player abilities rather than providing opportunities to use them. I've played with some of those. But that does not reveal the usefulness of a class. THe problem is you arep laying games which intentionally make the class less viable. Complaints about ranger damage are also unwarranted. As has been stated numerous times before, there is a trade of single target damage to promote AOE damage. The complaints about monster HP compared to damage dealt are ignoring the fact that this game expects a PARTY of adventurers, not a ranger mowing down every monster/group of monsters solo. Volley hits in a 10' radius, which is rather large (in 4e that's area 2) It is reasonable even at level 11 to come across thigns other than dragons. The point of 5e was to make encounters viable regardless of level with the whole bounded accuracy stuff etc. That volley could hit 15 medium sized targets (more if they are really bunched together for some reason) but conservatively will likely include 4. This could easily be 5 or 6 if your party is coordinated and using things like shove and positioning tactics. That hit against 4+ targets amounts to more than a fighter getting 3 attacks easily. Yes AOE is conditional and always has been. It require tactics and coordination. So you trade a 3rd attack (As every class other than fighter does not get a 3rd attack) in exchange for VERSATILITY in having another option, which is what is being complained that the ranger lacks...the complaint seems contradictory. Of the suggestions I've seen that need to be made to the ranger, people expect it to be OP comapred to everything...get spells, ranger abilities, plus 4 attacks, as well as maneuver like abilities? come on at least have the semblence of being reasonable.
teron82 wrote:
One thing that seems weird to me - is Whirlwind Attack supposed to be strictly inferior to Volley, or am I reading something incorrectly?
I can't imagine many situations where you'd be surrounded by more than 3 enemies, and Hordebreaker works just as well, and works better against 2 enemies. Something seems to be missing with it, unless you interpret it as allowing moves between the attacks, which doesn't seem correct.
Einlanzer wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
How many of you have actuially played a ranger in game or seen one if you are the DM? The rranger has always more or less been a specialised class and it is not giving up much in terms of combat for its out of combat stuff so I do not really see what the problem is.
Chaosmancer wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orzel wrote:
I might convert the 1st Ed Ranger (jazz it up a bit), something about that class.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Looking over everything again, I'm pretty confidnent that you cannot move between individual attacks in a Whirlwind. For one, there is no control given for it - even though the rules say you can move between different attacks in a given action, that doesn't make sense in the context of Whirlwind because, per its description, it is technically a single attack made in a given moment against multiple creatures.
So, that means that Whirlwind attack is, IMO, a bit underpowered for melee builds compared to Volley for ranged builds. Additionally, I'm not terribly keen on them being pushed so heavily into either a melee or ranged build based around that one choice.
In light of that, I think I know how I'm going to do it. At 11th level, instead of getting a choice between Volley and Whirlwind, you instead get a choice betwen Extra Attack (making 3) or Multiattack (Whirlwind + Volley). I like that this gives pulls back on some of the melee vs. range stuff and also gives Rangers a choice between specializing more in single-target vs. more in AoE. While I don't think Volley or Whirlwind quite measure up to a 3rd standard attack individually, I think it's arguable that both together do.
Rangers need better spells really. Hunter's Mark is using up your bonus action to move around. At low levels no biggie, but at higher levels I'd think you'd have picked up a thing or two to do with your bonus action. Also the best damage spells are concentration. Hail of Thorns, Ensnaring Strike, Hunter's Mark, all concentration, pick one. Second level spells are pretty meh. Spike Growth isn't bad for light control work. Everything else is situational at best. Third level, Lightning Arrow, solid. The rest are again situational. 4rth level, Freedom of movement just in case but odds are 4rth level slots get turned into Lightning Arrow. 5th level Swift Quiver is all you need, but that is at the end of a long road. As has been said previously, too few known, too few slots, too specialized spells. If more of the utiliy spells were rituals there would be a chance to do some of the niche Ranger stuff and keep your combat buffs up, assuming you went out of your way to pick up Ritual casting : )
If you've got advanced knowledge of what you're running into the Ranger can tailor spell selection but you're running into the same issue with the class abilities. If you're not facing the right foes or the right situations your abilities just gather dust. You could have just played a fighter that picked up the skilled feat.
Also Hide in Plain sight and Vanish come way too late. Invisibility is a 2nd level spell yo. Vanish is a limited version of the Rogue's Cunning action that comes 12 levels later. Really just about anything a Ranger can do a purposely built fighter can do as well, often better and sooner.
I imagine that additional Ranger spells will come out in supplemental material that will help out the class. Also, adding a retraining feature would help a great deal. Or a decent DM that says..."you want to pick swamps now..." And its not about mechanically outshining other PCs. Its about getting those spotlight moments where your character gets to do the cool stuff.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I had a Ranger last nihgt use pass without trace to help the PCs sneak through a heavy mist, circumvent the final encounter on my sesison and summon a silver Dragon to kill followers of Tiamat. Seems very ranger like to me.
1eejit wrote:
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.
So, there's been clarification that movement is not allowed during Whirlwind. That's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that it's very situational and strictly infererior to both Volley and a 3rd regular attack. Was it their intention to make melee Rangers suboptimal?
The ranger is fine, the drama is all the queens (as in, drama) that follow it.