D&D fans and designers have been taking Rangers for granted once again.
They reduced our subclasses from 3 to 2. The Collosus Hunter didn't even make sense. And then they spring the Hunter and Beast master on us.
And there is an odd LACK of ranger based threads in the front few pages in this forum.
Where is the Horizon Walker (focus on travel and adaptation?
Where is the Seeker (focus on magic primal arrow magic)?
Where is the Tracker (focus on detection and tracking)?
Where is the Mystic Ranger (everybody else get wizard spells)
Where is the Urban Ranger (focused on gathering information and city based endangering)
No NY Rangers? No Texas Rangers? No Mighty Morphin Power Rangers?
Rendell is outside shooting giant monsters with a bow. Not a dragonzoid.
We normal shoot email in the eyes but that giant ant got so many!
I am not saying that rangers are going on strike and letting goblin crawl in an stab y'all in y'alls sleep but...
... let's talk about Rangers.
And can a ranger get a giant beaver or something cause there is a giant pig with a helmet eating up the beet farmers a few miles east of here. Dang transmuters.
One of my players wanted to play a ranger this weekend and I told him to make a fighter. Pick the right fighting style and I don't see any meaningful difference at level 1. In fact rangers should have possibly been subsumed by the fighter in the first place.
Regardless the Next game will be after the PHB comes out so he'll get a free rebuild.
The Ranger is the only Class that isn't in the in the Basic rules which is on the front page of the DnD site right now when you click on the "classes" section 
We are awaiting the preview.
JohnLynch wrote:
Ranger is one of my favourite classes as well. I don't think I will like the new one.
I find it kind of odd how people have already decided that they don't like the ranger when we haven't seen the final thing. Come now!
We have ranger. We have drow. We have dual wielding. The purpose of the class is fulfilled
Mephi1234 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Daganev wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
So first off, probably not much ranger talk because they haven't showed a ranger preview yet.
Having said that, the ranger in the alpha has an awful lot built into the "Hunter" build. You still get to pick favored enemies, fighting styles, and so on. But as to your list...
First off, I don't really see why Tracker, Urban Ranger and Horizon Walker should be different builds. The only thing that would really separate them mechanically is skill proficiency and spell selection, and you can make those choices already.
In the public playtest there were a few "magic arrow" spells for the Seeker style, and I don't think that's going away.
As for the Mystic Ranger... it's called an Eldritch Knight. Or a warlock, sorcerer, bard, or wizard with maybe an archery feat or some fighter or ranger multiclassing. How many ways do you need to make an arcane gish character?
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
I feel you bro, my fav class in 4th was warlord.
I have been repeatedly unimpressed with every version of the 5e ranger we have seen (including the alpha version). I like the class in concept, but the execution has been terrible. I think seeker, hunter, beast master would have made for great subclasses. One commands primal spirits and infuses their attacks with nature magic. One is completely non magical. The other has an awesome beast companion. But, they decided to mash those concepts together as do each one half assed.
Orzel wrote:
I'm pretty sure my ranger got spells at 4th level and companion at 5th level. We always starting game play at 3rd or 4th level. (Though never got past 8th level) But now I'll have to figure out how to look it up.
Fascinating, apparenlty my father houseruled when we got spells.
http://home.online.no/~rahag/AD&D/Ranger's_Handbook.pdf
And I'm confusing an animal companion with animal empathy allowing me to just train a creature I found at 5th level. (by chance)
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Well you could do it the lazy way with Ranger unique spells.
Tracker:
Scent
Track through Air
Track through Earth
Track through Water
Track through Planes
Track through Time (this literally happened to me one. Dang timetravellers)
Trace the Untraceable (beats Pass without Trace)
Reopen Teleportation Circle (reopen recently opened TCs)
Horizon Walker:
Resist Elements
Endure Elements
Spell for swim speed
Spell for climb speed
Spell for flight
Spell for ice walk
Spell for sand walk
Spell for burrow speed
Spell to not need to breath
Spell to hide from undead
Spell to not dehydrate
Urban
Spell to jump 30 feet
Spell to look like a brick wall
Spell to detect lies
Silence (Dang guard dogs)
Spell to track on wood
Spell to track on tile and stone
Scent
Comprehend Languages
Tongues
Knock
Orzel wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Being the only non-basic class listed on the new website so far it says this:
"Ranger
Though a ranger might make a living as a hunter, a guide, or a tracker, a ranger’s true calling is to defend the outskirts of civilization from the ravages of monsters and humanoid hordes that press in from the wild.
This fierce independence makes them well suited to adventuring, since they are accustomed to life far from the comforts of a dry bed and warm water. Some rangers find the responsibility of protecting the rest of an adventuring party to be burdensome, but most quickly find that other adventurers who can carry their own weight in a fight against civilization’s foes are worth any extra burden. City-bred adventurers might not know how to feed themselves or find fresh water in the wild, but they make up for it in other ways. A ranger’s talents and abilities are honed with deadly focus on the grim task of protecting the borderlands.
Warriors of the wilderness, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization—humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and even dragons. They learn to track their prey as a predator does, moving stealthily through the wilds and hiding themselves in brush and rubble. Rangers focus their combat training on techniques that are particularly useful against their specific favored foes. Thanks to their intimate familiarity with the wilds, rangers alsp acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature’s power, much as a druid does. Their spells, like their combat abilities, focus on speed, stealth, and the hunt."
That seems to be our typical ranger to me. I come up with a concept I want to play and then use the mechanics to come as close as possible. I expect this approach will work with rangers too, but since it is an extremely popular class I don't doubt we'll see ranger subclasses and options in supplements soon enough. :-)
There's a vague rumor that the Ranger will have a way to burn his spell slots much like the Paladin's Smite. We'll see what comes of that.
Ashrym wrote:
4e rangers were awesome, and had little in common with 4e fighters (aside from being labeled 'martial' along with rogues and warlords). I liked that a lot. They were each very much their own thing, IMO, for the first time. You also didn't have to choose between being a classic dual-wield build and an classic archer build...It was easy (based on AEDU selection), to do both.
No idea what the 5e ranger will be like (aside from some playtests I still have), as we haven't gotten a tease yet. I don't like them being weaker fighters with some druid spells, though. And any class can take a hunter/tracker/guide background option.
I hope the Seeker/Arcane Archer is folded into the ranger, but it doesn't seem to be with the 5e PHB.
Daganev wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orzel wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
Orzel wrote:
JC999 wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
Grifford wrote:
I never liked Rangers much in the prior editions of D&D, but from the playtest I am very excited to try out a Ranger in this edition. I love survivalist shows, and I f3eel this version of the ranger captures that idea very well. Been watching alot of the Mountain Men show. So, I, a non-Ranger enthusiast, have become a fan of the class through 5e.
So far I like the Ranger. I want to be able to make one like my Ranger archetypes which is Hawkeye from Last of the Mohicans and Aragorn (who is not a Paladin BTW, thats absurd). I think at this point I can do it either with the actual Ranger class or with a carefully made Fighter.
ChrisTheS wrote:
Aragorn would be a Ranger with a single level of Paladin (for lay on hands – "the hands of a King are the hands of a healer; it's practically ripped straight from him), and having taken that feat that lets him grant THP.
eleran wrote:
You seriously aren't comparing LotR with D&D, are you? Especially not some sort of classes...by that Aragorn also has to be a multiclass bard. He has wits, he encourages/inspires his fellows...and he even sings...
Jesus Christ, the D&D Ranger - again - has got spells, which isn't bad at all, since they add to his versatility. Deal with it.
the_move wrote:
the_move wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisTheS wrote:
the_move wrote:
They're terrible fighters because they're all low-level characters in a high-level party. I generally associate rogues with competence, which isn't something you can really accuse any of them of having (even Merry, although he's a bit more level-headed than the rest).
Now, Smeagol is a rogue. But Gollum is a barbarian.
DLfan wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Orzel wrote:
the_move wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Orzel wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
http://archives.theonering.net/features/interviews/gary_gygax.html#maincontent
1. Do you enjoy the works of JRR Tolkien? If so, How did he influence your work?
Oh-oh! I am going to be in trouble from the get-go! I loved THE HOBBIT, read it once to myself, then about three or four times aloud to my children.
As a Swords & Sorcery novel fan from way back–I read my first Conan yarn about 1948, was a fan and collector of the pulp SF and fantasy magazines since 1950, I was not as enamored of The Trilogy as were most of my contemporaries. While I loved Bombadil, the Nazgul too, the story was too slow-paced for me.
How did it influence the D&D game? Whoa, plenty, of course. Just about all the players were huge JRRT fans, and so they insisted that I put as much Tolkien-influence material into the game as possible. Anyone reading this that recalls the original D&D game will know that there were Balrogs, Ents, and Hobbits in it. Later those were removed, and new, non-JRRT things substituted–Balor demons, Treants, and Halflings.
Indeed, who can doubt the excellence of Tolkien’s writing? So of course it had a strong impact on A/D&D games. A look at my recommended fantasy books reading list in the back of the original DUNGEON MASTERS GUILD will show a long list of other influential fantasy authors, though.
2. Did you actively base D&D on Tolkien's world, adopting some of the preferences of the species, and their behaviours and all that from Tolkien?
No. As a reader of fairy tales and myth from childhood, and later fantasy and history too, I used all manner of interests I had to create the D&D game. It sprang from an amalgam of medieval history and miniature wargames set in that period, then the fantasy material as originally covered in the supplement of the CHAINMAIL rules as published in 1971.
The initial treatment of "Law" and "Chaos" was inspired by Michael Moorcock’s treatment of good and evil in his "Elric" and other fantasy books written prior to 1970.
The world setting I used, "Greyhawk", was likewise a sort of conglomerate of history and fantasy.
Frankly, I used as many sorts of fantasy and horror concepts as I could, spread them liberally but not in depth, so as to cover as much as possible in a small work, thus make it as appealing as possible to the potential audience.
3. As many D&D fans know, the game has taken flak in the past from Christian and "concerned parents" groups regarding the game and its supposed occult/Satanic influence on some of those who play it. How would you respond to those that say D&D is a "gateway" to Satanic or dangerous practices?
By saying, "Utter rubbish!" there isn’t a single documented instance of any such "Satanic or dangerous practices" anywhere. Frankly, this subject is one that deserves a rather long and complex answer, and that’s quite out of the question here, of course.
That dedicated Christians might believe that the mention in a game of "magic", and "Demons and devils" and the like is bad can be understood. However, in all, it is actually nothing more than a game. The "magic spells" are all make-believe, don’t work. They, along with the demons, devils, dragons, swords, thieves, gold and gems–the whole kit and caboodle–are fictitious. Imaginary things are not evil nor harmful. As to "occult", how can a game played by millions be "hidden", "Secret" and the like? Complete nonsense.
As to being dangerous to the minds of players, there is no basis for such assertions either. The vast majority of qualified mental health experts have no such concerns in regards normal persons. That a group playing a fantasy RPG will lose touch with reality, or become "mind-controlled" is completely fatuous. This is obvious to any observer of or participant in RPG activity. Those who claim such an effect is possible are the ones who have lost touch with reality.
In all, the majority of attacks on RPGs seem to have stemmed from cynical media exploiting matters so as to take advantage of sensationalism to attract viewers and readers, a small group of persons who likewise sought to exploit the sensationalism for profit, and then some larger number of sincere but misguided persons reacting to the initial coverage. Of the lot, concerned parents are the main element, and the group that can be most easily shown that the game is at worst entertaining, at best developmental and educational.
4. Are you surprised that D&D and games like it have been as popular as they are? Were you aiming for a much smaller market, or did you imagine that this many people would enjoy what you enjoy creating?
When I wrote the D&D game in 1972-3 I envisaged an audience of military boardgamers, military miniatures players, and fantasy, SF and horror fans only. This was indeed the initial core audience, and it wasn’t until 1976, two years after the game was first sold, that I began to realize that the appeal was more universal.
5. How old were you when you actually began to create AD&D?
I began writing the game in 1972 at the age of 34. Of course I had designed games before that. My first attempts were chess variants way back in the 1950s, then wargames and military miniatures rules and the like in the 1960s. There are still one or two of my DIPLOMACY Game variants from the 1960s somewhere online, BTW.
6. I would imagine, that you invented D&D, and played it for a long while before actually going to market with it, who, if anyone, inspired you to market the game?
Not so. I had been working with a small game publisher, Guidon Games, from 1970 on. I was determined to be involved in the creation and publication of games from around 1965, in fact. So when I drafted the initial manuscript for the D&D game in 1972 it was indeed an effort to get a publishable game product to market….eventually. I sent out about 20 or 30 copies of the initial draft ms, to gamer friends all over the USA, and their incredibly enthusiastic response made me certain that what I was doing was on target. So later on, in 1973 when I did the draft that became the original three booklets of the D&D game, I was planning to publish as soon as possible. Don Kaye and I formed Tactical Studies Rules company in October of 1973, and the D&D game was published at the end of January 1974.
7. I imagine you read fantasy novels quite a bit; do you have any favorite authors, or any favorite books in general?
Whoa, do I! It’s a long laundry list, and I recommend you check the original AD&D game DMG. If you can’t find that easily, try the MYTHUS game list of inspirational reading.
8.In a recent issue of Dragon magazine, you said you would have developed a 2nd edition of AD&D differently than what TSR eventually came out with in 1989. What would have been your vision of a 2nd edition had you worked on it?
Well, some of the material in UNEARTHED ARCANA sure gives a clue. I was going to change characters and stats around a bit so as to enable easy movement from the fantasy genre to others, so as to make AD&D a multi-genred game. My first step, and one that I left with my whole program outline at TSR when I parted from there in 1985, would have been to compile all the "monster" books into an encyclopedic set, one that would be updated with packets of additional monsters, redone in new editions about every five years or so as volume of new material warranted.
As for the rest, it is water so long under the bridge as to not matter. Somewhere in WotC’s archives there is likely a file on my suggestions and notes for the project. I began urging it in 1983, and yes. Skills were to be added.
I’ll take this opportunity to plug my new game system, the LEJENDARY ADVENTURE RPG. It is "Rules lite" and skill-based, with a character creation system that is quick, easy, and allows the player to develop just about any sort of game persona that is imaginable and desired. Although it is about a polar opposite from the AD&D game approach, it does show some of the general concepts I had in mind for the latter system, although presentation would perforce have been far different. The LA game will become multi-genre next year too, when we publish the first expansion into "fantastical Science", with "Hard SF" and "Weird Science" working and more to come.
9. The Dungeon and Dragons game used to be billed as a "simple" game as opposed to those games like G.R.U.P.S and Wizards and Warriors. Why has it become so complicated??
That’s better answered by the designers who were with TSR after I left, and now those at WotC. However, from what I can observe, not a little of that complexity and complication has occurred because of the demand of the hardcore fans…
10. What do you have in the works as of now?
Besides about 20 games aimed for computer presentation, and unlikely to ever see publication, my main creative efforts are directed at the LA game system, the development of its LEJENDARY EARTH World Setting, additional genre rules and information, adventures. I oversee all the creative production for Hekaforge. We have in the pipeline 10 books that I have written plus about as many other works–adventures and sourcebooks–from freelancers. This is ongoing. I am currently working on three more books, supplemental core material and source works, plus a handful of adventures. Freelancers are likewise in contact, and I am directing their efforts in regards like materials.
In time I will likely be writing a sort of "how to" book for Wizards as well, although it is about a year or so before I will be able to begin drafting it as I’ll need to DM and play a good deal of 3E before then (^_^).
11. Thinking back, I seem to remember a Middle Earth role playing game. Were you involved in this? Is it still available?
There was indeed a MERP game, but I was not involved in its creation or production. Some of my fellows here played it a bit.
One of the problems with a game using an novelist-authored setting is the basis of the underlying work. That is, the environment for the game must pretty well meet that of the book(s), and what happens in the game must more or less reflect the story environment. This seems too limiting to me to use as a basis for a vital RPG. Some problems were evident in DRAGONLANCE adventures because of this very fact. The STAR TREK and STAR WARS RPGs are likely going to avoid much of the problems, I am told, by expanding the story universe to accommodate game activity, not feature the same specifics, just enough to make sure the underlying appeal of the initial universe remains to satisfy the fan of both the story and the game.
12. Did you ever consider making the Lord of the Rings into a module?
No, because it seems to me that the RPG system would have to be tailored to accommodate the environment, its magical features. Perhaps more importantly, what JRRT fan would want to alter the plotlines and outcomes of the underlying work?
What could be done is to create "later-time" spin-off material for Tolkienesque adventuring. That sort of approach might be viable, given licensing and some really good writers and game-adventure designers.
13. What is your favorite book of all time? (excluding your own)
My own? I haven’t read them since finishing the edits of the final mss.! Asking what book is my favorite is like asking which of my six children I love the most. Depends on the genre–I love history, historical novels, mysteries and detective yarns, SF, fantasy, horror, and imaginative adventure for "escape reading".
Some authors that spring to mind are Bruce Catton, C.S. Forrester, Arthur Conan Doyle, Robert E. Howard, Edgar Allen Poe, Sax Rhomer, H. Rider Haggard, H.P.Lovecraft, Jack Vance. My main problem with being creative is that I haven’t nearly the time I would wish for reading. Once long ago I would read a book or two a day, and now I am lucky if I manage to finish one a month.
14.Who is Gary Gygax? What makes him tick?
If you go to http://www.gygax.com and click on the Virtual Residence, go to the Hall, click on the doorknob of the Closet door there, you’ll find a long bio on me. It is about three years out of date, but…
What makes me tick? Ah, it’s a wise man who knows himself. But I can say for certain that I love games and gaming!
15. In all of your world, who is your favorite creature or character you have created?
Another "which child do you love most" sort of question…
Gord was a lot of fun.
So were the Drow and Eclavdra.
And Iuz had his moments. Wastri could have been amusing, had I ever done as much with him as I had planned.
Playing Mordenkainen is exciting, especially now that he’s very potent and I dread losing such a PC ;-}>
My son Ernie and I developed a couple of PCs in James Ward’s METAMORPHOSIS ALPHA RPG, characters GMed by Jim himself, that became potent forces on the "Starship Warden" founded the "Vigilists", and doing all that was much like writing an adventure novel of sorts.
Setne Inhetep for the MYTHUS game-based novels had potential, I thought.
Enough!
16. I know you have not seen the trailer because you don’t want to spoil it, but what do you think of the Lord of the Rings movies being produced? What are your hopes for it?
I am more excited about the JRRT-based films than I am about the D&D movie also in the works. I am very anxious to go to the theater, sit back, and be blown away by the Lord of the Rings show!!! From what I have heard, they are doing it right, and, at long last, there is hope for a really GOOD fantasy film.
I really loved the first STAR WARS movie, and I am hoping that the Tolkien film will surpass it. If that happens, then we can expect some other good fantasy movies to follow. Hooray!
If by chance the D&D movie is also a winner, then so much the better, and we are all in for some good viewing.
17. Do you think the Lord of the Rings movies will create a surge in new fantasy fans?
If it rocks, sure If it is a failure, well, it won’t hurt the RPG market much, if at all, so its is a no-lose situation.
WotC is planning an introductory boxed 3E D&D game, and if they have their act together, that should hit about the time the D&D movie premiers. The only company capable of really bringing a lot of new players into RPGing is WotC, and I dearly hope they will succeed. If they do, and the JRRT motion pictures hit, the D&D film doesn’t bomb, there should be a pretty substantial influx of young gamers into the ranks, and we need them badly!
18. When first creating D&D, did you ever expect to make a living at it?
Absolutely. When I left the insurance field in 1970 I was determined to make a career in games and fiction writing. I worked hard, wrote and designed a lot for nothing more than name credit and recognition, for about seven years before that. So I starved for a lot of years, then did okay, then really good, and am back to subsistence living again sorta…So what? I am doing what I really love (^_^).
19. What was the book that you read that got you hooked on fantasy?
It was a combination of writings in the fantasy and SF genres. First were fairy tales, though. Then adventure stories. I read Burrough’s CAVE GIRL when I was about nine, thought it a smashing yarn. Then I read "The Veldt" by Bradbury around 1948, and followed up with the "Conan" tale read in a pulp zine that was lying around in a garage I liked to hang out in. When I was bored at a summer place in Michigan in 1950, picked up a copy of STARTLING STORIES magazine then, that’s when I was totally hooked.
I think it is true that there comes a time when you are no longer standing on the shoulder of a giant you are instead feeding and a defiler of the corpse.
Except for a very few things, mostly mechanics, Gygax had it right forty years ago and the constant deviation from that vision does not honor the creators not does it improve the game.
@Zardnaar
Well here are my opinions of the power and usefulness of rangers throughout the editions.
The 1e one was OP but balanced by rarity. But they relied on magic and items to be good at high levels due to the fighters early mages late balance.
The 2e was okay. Few people got to high levels where they were weak and their damage bonus stopped applying and magic ruled.
The 3e one was decent and well balanced in a game where classes were literally all over the place.
The 4e was a very good and idiot proof striker. Best nonmunchin striker.
When they weren't purposely overpowered and separated by role, rangers became weak after level 8 or so as the game stopped using ranger elements. Then the ranger had to rely on the DM to give them a point or showcase it.
Orzel wrote:
My household in 3e was that at the first level the ranger could choose to get
1/2 caster with 0 level slots
1/2 wildshape
1/2 animal companion
Sneak Attack 1/2 of what a rogue gets.
Or
Feats 1/2 of what a fighter gets
Then at level 4, the ranger can go full or pick another.
Combined with the Favored Enemy style I named in my blog on this site, rangers of my games were interesting and brought something to the table.
Here's a Ranger there's a Ranger and another little Ranger fuzzy Ranger funny Ranger Ranger Ranger Mage.
Orzel wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisTheS wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Jaden.Shadowcraft wrote:
When Aragorn (correct me if I am wrong) made Sam go get the kingsfoil when Frodo was stabbed with the Morghul blade, I believe he spoke words in elvish or sung them as he prepared it. He was doing magic. It's just that in LotR, the characters don't have spell lists or spell slots, and magic is much more integrated into the things they do.
Rangers know words of power and magics in LotR because they are descended from the old race of men. That's what Gygax was representing when he gave them spells.
They were also known to have powers of prophecy, powers of vision and hearing beyond human capability, and the ability to speak to animals and birds and control them.
Edit: Funnily enough, the Paladin Ancients Oath/Warden/Green Knight with it's Lay on Hands and nature based theme might be a closer analog in this edition for a Ranger of the North, if they can effectively track and use a bow. Aragorn wore lighter armor while being in the woods, but switched to heavier ring mail while fighting actual battles. Especially since the origin of the Rangers had a lot to do with the teachings of the Eldar, and the Green Knight oath seems to be very elf/fey based.
Rangers with spells doesn't really work though. Its just "Aragorn the Class". Its theme isn't ranger, its theme is Aragorn
Rangers as hardened survivalists, master beast tamers? Those work as themes
Mecheon wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Jaden.Shadowcraft wrote:
I've always thought of the ranger as a skirmisher, more akin to the rogue than the fighter. Agile, hit-and-run folks.
Cennedi wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DLfan wrote:
the_move wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
"Where is the Ranger talk?"
Well, sometimes when a mommy ranger and a daddy ranger love each other very much...
Ashrym wrote:
ChrisTheS wrote:
the_move wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
the_move wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
As the previous posters stated, this is not an issue of D&D or the ranger class. This is a matter of your DM and how he shapes his campaign.
Granted, if there are others in your party capable to conjure food and drink, well as I said no class is truely indispensable...and never should be.
About the other thing(s), I think you should have a word or two with your DM. Tell, that you feel redundant by him giving out extra toys, which are too comfortable and with it steal some of your content.
Tell him, that it feels awkward, when all creatures become untraceable at higher lvls, or that you can't use the tracking feat for anything else like examining a scene of event. Tell him, that flying mounts are nice and shorten travel times drastically, but sometimes the adventure lies within an strenuous journey. And this is, where you come into play.
And if your DM precludes you from doing so - may it be ignorance, negligence or just comfort/laziness - then he should be adverted to this deficiency.
DLfan wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
So in the fantasy supplement yo the original chainmail rules Tolkien and Howard are called out by name. The original halfling was basically bilbo baggins, and was called halfling in the chainmail rules and in the first three books, but in the greyhawk supplement they were called hobbits. Point being that dnd was hugely influence by Tolkien, though Tolkien himself drew from many traditional sources. Obviously other authors influenced dnd as well, especially Vance and moorcock. But the idea of a ranger was clearly pulled from Tolkien.
What is the ranger, after all?
Mind you, I am an avid fan of the ranger (I think as much as the OP). I can see two layers in this class:
a) First, its core ability as implied by its name -> wilderness terrain specialization. There, he gets all sorts of bonuses to do things a rogue would do in a city (gather information X tracking; stealing to survive X foraging to survive; knowing all the nooks and crannies of said terrain X mad-ninja-stealth-skillz // this guy should also have some combat skills against the most common enemies he face in said terrain X rogues also have fighting skills even though they're not professionally trained in this, such as a fighter for example
b) Then, there's what D&D tradition (editions, novels, campaign books..) constructed as belonging to this class. Archery, Two-Weapon Fighting, Animal Companions and Spells. A more weapon-y druid, if you ask me.
Not to bring the "this is a class while that isn't a class" debate, because IMHO it's utterly futile, because no kind of stereotype (aka class) will keep itself from falling apart as highly relative if closely analyzed.
What we do have is the decision to keep class creation to a a certain ammount. Again, imho, 3.5 overdid it (think of how many gishes it had, among full classes and prestige classes.) 4e less so yet still had lots of classes for close enough concepts through the role-power source axis. 5e we have yet to see.
I have a soft spot for systems on the economic end of the "class variety" spectrum (Dragon Age, I'm looking right at you). I can see the ranger being:
i) a Rogue archetype (thinking of layer a)
ii) a Druid archetype (layer b).
iii) a Fighter archetype
iii) a feat similar to the Elemental Aptitude but granting 'rogue expertise' while on the favored terrain and dealing with enemies/creatures on that terrain. Let's call it... "natural expertise".
I favor option 4, that way, if you like your ranger more batman-like, take it as a rogue. If you prefer him battling enemies, take it as a fighter. Miss spells and a pet? Go druid. Want more than one of these things? Multiclass.
I feel that, if you try to mash all of these concepts in a single class, you can't make him actually good at none of these, since it would make him better than 3 classes at the same time (or a wizard, kinda synonym). If a player wants to mix these concepts, he should multiclass and accept whatever losses it incurs.
the_move wrote:
- The new web site lists ranger as one of the five core classes
- The miniatures for starter set includes a ranger
- We haven't been given a preview of the ranger
I have a theory that the ranger is going to be added to the Basic PDF at the next update, along with stat blocks for animal companions.
the_move wrote:
the_move wrote:
I always considered the ranger and rogue to be two sides of the same coin. Similar skills, similiar fighting styles, similiar role in the party. They're the scouts, the ones who deal with traps and searching. Just one lived and thrived in ciites, and the other in the wilderness. Like fighter and barbarian.
So, to me, tracking with a ranger has never been a big deal. Its like locking picking on a rogue. Its a thing. The class does it, yes. But the role in the party isn't to be a tracker all the time. Its not to be the woodland guide. No more than the rogue is meant to be No, its to be the scout. They sneak ahead of the party, they keep an eye out for traps and ambushes, they deal with things quietly. They are the real assassins and hunters of the party; they sneak up on their enemies in combat. They skirmish, they don't battle.
So, with that thought in mind, I feel this - for a ranger, "tracking" is just an aspect of being a hunter. Its not a defining feature of the class. Tracking someone who teleports away? Eh. You can't hunt someone who's that far away. Now, if they were close, you should be able to hunt them down and pounce on them from unawares. But "follow someone anywhere they may go" isn't really a big part of the class, I think.
Besides, that's where others come in. Auguries, calling in contacts, etc. Tracking someone major enough to teleport away should be a group effort.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Orzel wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
The big ones constantly talked about during the previous months have been fighter, warlock, bard, and sorcerer. Of those four, the latter three weren't really "previewed" at all during playtest. Bard technically got a slot at the very end, but it was all but scrapped. Fighter's preview was mainly to discuss the battle master subclass, since the playtest version didn't really have that either.
Monk hasn't gotten about as much talk as the ranger. Is that class all doomed? I doubt it. The barbarian and druid were also kept quiet. Should we be concerned because there's been very little word for any of the wilderness classes? Druid moon shifter was terrible in the playtest. I like that subclass, and if it doesn't change, its pretty much ruined in my mind.
We all have our favorite classes - mine are bards and warlocks. I'm a bit worried over the spell slot thing with the warlocks, and more than a touch about the lack of group song effects from the previews. It could either go really well, or I could very likely end up not liking the two new incarnations of my old favorite classes. But also a lot of the worry is because there's a lack of information. Its very easy to assume the worst from lack of information.
Lack of information is just that. A giant variable X that could be anything, positive or negative. Given the sheer amount of testing they did, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they've made twelve really awesome classes.
The Ranger is just cool.
BoldItalic wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orzel wrote:
There's a lot of people who seem to have a hate on for the caster aspects of the classes. They often call for it to be removed entirely. I know Zard, in the past, had said that he detested how the paladin smites were powered by spell slots, and it was a stupid idea. I'm pretty sure it was him.
In short, I tend to notice that there's a notable group of people that seem to want a number of classes to be as magic-free as possible. Likely a vocal minority, as we probably wouldn't be seeing the shift we have.
Ashrym wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Orzel wrote:
I feel that some people are ignoring this information that was pointed out earlier: http://dnd.wizards.com/dungeons-and-dragons/what-is-dd/classes
The ranger is listed amongst the core 4. They probably have not neglected the ranger, but rather plan to add it to the Basic D&D with all sorts of festivities associated with that event. It may still suck, but is not neglected.
As to the OP. I think the mentioned subclasses (Horizon Walker, Tracker, Mystic Ranger, Trapsmith, etc. whatever) are splat book options. Just like we won't see a blood mage wizard in the PHB.
On the topic of higher level challenges being relevant to rangers, I agree with Orzel that of course exploration, and as such wilderness, challenges should scale appropriately and should be discussed in the DMG. Saying the DM should handle it himself is pretty elitist, I think. Exploration is a freakin' pillar!
Whether or not it is true that most DMs ditch these kind of challenges or makes the monsters immune to the ranger's abilities, I cannot say...
Mephi1234 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Paladins are not as god focused, as, wanting to eradicate what they see as garbage.
the_move wrote:
No, Paladins - good or not - should never be chaotic, because - good or not - they should have a code and an oath sworn to uphold it. And yes, many gods shouldn't have paladins, but there are lawful neutral ones, which definately should have a lawful neutral order...Helm and the Red Knight are/were good examples.
Of course, Torm is the iconic patron of paladins, but it should not be exclusive to him.
the_move wrote:
Browser at my posts.
1) Chaotic doesn't mean you can't have oaths. It means you can't have other people's oath if they don't match you views 100%.
2) Rangers usually have to be magic because they are soloists in magical wilderness.
3) Ranger stealth and combat features were situational in the last playtest, more so stealth. So a dexterity fighter is very close in Stealth and better in combat.
4) Not giving New DMs advice is elitist. This favored the experience. The Spec Ops methods causes a lot of failures and using it for DMs makes New DMs into Bad DMs until they spend years learning. Exploration should have challenges in the SKY from level 1 (quicksand and snakes) to level 20 (sharknadoes, living storms, blights of undeath, spontaneous portals)
Mecheon wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
He who shall not be named is a fighter who dips into ranger. In 1e and 2e, low level rangers just just fighters who can track and knew who to kill savage humanoids and giants well.
Aragorn was either born with inner magical of his order used magic depending on who you ask.
The key was, ranging a D&D style wilderness with orc tribes, fey, giant beasts, dragons and giants in it is suicide without either magic spells, magic items, or the ability to OHKO level appropriate enemies.
The 4e ranger needed no magic because Twin Strike + Encounter/Daily powers which where upgraded Twin Strike + Quarry + Damage bonuses > All.
Because the 4e ranger is a dex fighter with the outlander background.
4e broke up the classic fighter into 3 classes and focused them by role. Even as a 4e fan, I agree with that.
Orzel wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Yeah. According to this, Drizz't really isn't a ranger. He's primarily a fighter with a small handful of ranger levels. He can cast spells, but he devotes himself to only casting detect plants and animals which is very easy to narrate without making it seem like a spell.
Drizzt cast a speak with animla spell in one of the books IIRC. He was a level 16 ranger in 2nd ed and they had a hand full of spells and at level 16 he may have been able to cast a level 3 spell maybe but they were limited to plant andd animal spheres. He was a level 18 fighter who retrained to be a level 16 Ranger (AD&D xp tables). I think that is the difference between the classic Ranger and Paladin. The Ranger is mostly martial with a few spells at starting at level 4 or 8.
The Paladin is more supernatural based with magical abiliites like lay on hand, cureing disease, summoning a mount and at higher levels casting a few spells. Both are hybrid classes that are situationally better than the fighter in combat and generally better than the fighter outside of combat due to skills and class abilities.
It doesn't actually bother me as such there is a ranger that has better spell casting but there is no ranger with no spell casting (for the 4E fans) or a mostly martial ranger a'la AD&D and 3.5 to a lesser extent. There is only one non magical class in the game now and that is the barbarian since they added spells to some Fighter and Rogue subclasses. You can't really do a Game of Thrones/LoTR or a low magic world with D&DN unless you like using 2 subclasses for the most part it seems.
I can have a spellcasting focused Ranger in 2nd ed, or a default one or a purely martial one and that was from 1995 using Skills and Powers. 1 or 2 subclasses doens't seem to be a big demand.
A 4E style ranger is a STR/DEX fighter with the Outlander background.
Orzel wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
the_move wrote:
the_move wrote:
A chaotic person can accept a paladin oath. They just have to be really into it or they will quit. A Lawful paladin will dedicate themselves to a cause that isn't dear to them or accept rules they kind inconvenient.
A Lawful paladin will tithe.
A Chaotic paladin will be like "Blank that. This is my gold. Come closer and I will smite you."
Chaotic Good people do whatever they will, bound only by their morality, irregardless of what others think or the law says.
Technically, if you're living in a city dominated by evil that's outlawed the worship of the gods of good, swearing a paladin oath is an inherantly Chaotic act. A bit of delicious irony, that.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
the_move wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
So now that some people have the PHB and we are getting new info on the ranger, I thought I would give my opinion. So far the hunter ranger looks good and the beastmaster looks like animal turds. They based it off of 4th editions beastmaster which was my least favorite ranger ever. I hate having too use your action for another creature. Animal companions should be there to fill in for smaller groups, and I thought they where going this waywith them until I heard that the only other subclass was beastmaster. I now completely agree with Orzel and officially declare the ranger as the 5th editions version of the 4th edition paladin. That is a incomplete class that almost forces you to buy a future product to get the complete class. Would it have hurt wizards too add one more page of ranger goodness. Its always been a popular class in evry edition Ive played(even if its not my fav class). All the other classes have atleast three options, this strikes me as very odd considering that the could have made a nonspellcasting option as the third. Half assing a class like this didnt do 4th edition any good and I think ranger is a more popular class than paladin too be honest. Another thing, panthers really? You do realize that panthers are ****ing rare right, And that drizzts cat wasnt a animal companion, she was a magic item. Can you please stop using drizzt as the posterboy for rangers.
At least one 5e Ranger build looks good, though? That's more than can be said about any 4e Paladin build on initial release.
GladiusLegis wrote:
The STR-based Paladin was garbage at the start of 4e (and actually stayed subpar throughout). No CHA meant your Divine Challenge was laughable (and even after Divine Power there was no STR on Sanction), not to mention STR powers as a whole were bad except for one really broken one at Lv. 27.
As for the Hunter Ranger, yeah, all the colossus hunter, giant killer and hordebreaker abilities got thrown together under the same umbrella, so there's plenty of build variance in that subclass, at least.
Ranger gets the shaft agaim.
Ranger gets the shaft agaim.
563: You give your animal companions your proficiency bonus to AC, Attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as any skills and saves it has proficiency in. Its hit points equal the beasts normal max, or 4 times your ranger level whichever is higher. 11th level gets Bestial Fury which allows the beast to attack twice when commanded to attack.
I still think there should have been some more ranger subclasses. Here are ideas based on past ranger ACF, prestige classes, and paths.
URBAN RANGER
Urban Tracking.
You can track down the location a person perfectly in a city by gathering information, doing favors, and performing advanced detective work. Your DM might require a Charisma checck to find people who are actively hiding themselves, have not been seen in days, are in a metropolis or large city, or if you don't have clear descriptions of their looks.
Voice of the City
You gain the ability to communicate basic concepts with people who speak languages you do not know and with domesticated animals
City Warrior
You deal +2 damage with clubs, daggers, darts, greatclubs, improvised weapons, and quarterstaves. You have advatange of Charisma (Deception) to hide armor and light weapons under clothes.
Crowdwalker
You can move in crowds without penalty. You can hide in crowds as if they were wildnerness. You can dodge as a bonus action if you have at least 4 creatures within 10 feet of you and you move at least 10 feet..
OK, well, after actually buying the PHB and looking over the final Ranger ... yeah, it does rather suck. Sad to say.
You're pretty much strictly better off playing a Rogue/Fighter MC. Or if you still want that Divine/Nature magic feel, a DEX-based Oath of Ancients Paladin with the Criminal or Urchin background for Stealth proficency, even.
Definitely the runt of the litter as far as classes go, this Ranger.
GladiusLegis wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
Dude, why do you always assume that just because someone has one single complaint that they hate 5e?
I like 5e. It's probably going to be my favorite edition. I like how every class has turned out so far ... EXCEPT the Ranger.
GladiusLegis wrote:
I don't expect them to be DPR monsters. I DO expect them to be at least competent there. And I'm just not even seeing competence in the combat category. Having done enough DPR math with other builds and other classes, and then looking at the Ranger, I just don't see where the Ranger is getting any worthwhile damage.
Hmmm. They get the extra attack at 6th. Most the fighting styles equate to more damage. The hunter deals extra damage. Or the beast master's companion will deal extra damage. What am I missing?
Again, no, they are not DPR kings. That's not their job. They are Explorer tier badarses. But in combat they are still nothing to sneeze at. I'm looking at it right now. I'm not seeing the woeful patheticness you see. Maybe some examples for comparison?
They also get some cool spells (like Hunter's Mark that deals bonus damage on all their attacks).
Ranger 20 (Hunter, Colossus Slayer), Archery, longbow, Hunter's Mark, +13 vs. AC 16 (5 DEX, 6 prof, 2 archery)
2 * (.85(4.5 + 3.5 + 5) + .05(9 + 7 + 5))
+ (1 - .1^2)*4.5 + (1 - .95^2)*9
= 24.2 + (4.455 + 0.8775)
= 29.5325
Rogue 15/Fighter 5, Archery, longbow, +13 vs. AC 16 (5 DEX, 6 prof, 2 archery)
2 * (.85(4.5 + 5) + .05(9 + 5))
+ (1 - .1^2)*28 + (1 - .95^2)*56
= 17.55 + (27.72 + 5.46)
= 50.73
This is probably the most appropriate comparison. The Rogue/Fighter has pretty much got the exploration pillar locked down just as much if not moreso. And is even better with his skills. And then you see the damage difference on top of that.
GladiusLegis wrote:
Raw-damage-wise it's far better to go Rogue 3/Fighter 17 (for extra action surge and indomitable) or Rogue 4 / Fighter 16 (for extra ability score improvement/feat)
You'll get 3 attacks (expandable to 4 with action surge) with the surprise round ones being crits. Crits favor fighter maneuvers, where you'll get to double your superiority dice (d10 by level 10)
A pure rogue's first attack would be devastating with Death Strike but over the rounds, the fighter would have a steadier flow of damage due to combat maneuvers.
In any case, yeah, the ranger gets the shaft damage wise. you may be able to shoot a gazillion enemies, but will only cause damage enough to scratch them. Cool effect, lame overall damage. As a long time ranger fan (actually: stealthy elven archer trope fan) I think 4e's ranger was much better.
4e's Ranger certainly got the job done, but was pretty flavorless to be honest. It really was nothing else other than a Fighter except with bows or two weapons.
Yuukale_Narmo wrote:
D&D is giving the ranger 2 niches: party guide in the wilds. ass-kicker of specific monsters/creatures.
The first shtick he does superbly well (yeah, all 4e had were nature skill checks and bad non-combat utilities)
The second shtick... it seems any other class does it better
Ranger is pretty simple idea, that depends Tolkiens Middle Earth.
The man who try to duplicate elves natural abilities like high wisdom and wisdom based skills, great adaptation with nature and natural creatures, natural stealth, some inner nature based spells (or knowledges that looks like spells), knowledge about healing and medical treatments, bow skills etc... You know all of them.
While you are trying to arguing about ranger, you should build your references on that. Neither other editions nor other game systems...
Lokiron wrote:
That's part of it. But number of attacks wouldn't be so bad if Rangers had a consistent source of per-hit bonus damage a la the Paladin's Improved Divine Smite, as well as an option to deal a major spike in damage on demand (e.g. Fighter's Action Surge, Paladin's Smite). But they have neither.
GladiusLegis wrote:
Orzel wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
Does controlling the beast cost any form of action resource?
Lokiron wrote:
"Does controlling the beast cost any form of action resource?"
No action required by the ranger to get the beast to move, requires the rangers action to get it to do anything else. If the Ranger has Extra attack, they can take 1 weapon attack when they give the beast an attack action.
At 7th level they can use their bonus action to command the beast to do anything except attack.
At 11th level the beast gets 2 attacks when you give the beast an attack option.
Lokiron wrote:
Rangers only get Extra Attack once, at 5th level. They never get more.
Lokiron wrote:
PHB p93
"Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action".
So it doesn't matter if you somehow got Extra Attack (2), (3), or (11). If you are using your Action to command your beast to attack, you get ONE weapon attack yourself.
Note that it isn't worded as "Give up one of your attacks to let your beast attack", which I think may be how you are looking at it.
Orethalion wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
@Loiron - you should be asking what happens when you give up an Attack action from the Haste spell!
Mephi1234 wrote:
OK, so after doing the math at Lv. 11, I guess I kind of owe the Ranger a bit of an apology, at least as far as base DPR is concerned.
Ranger 11 (Beast Master), TWF, shortswords x2, Hunter's Mark
+9 vs. AC 16 (5 dex, 4 prof), plus Panther +8 vs. AC 16 (bite damage 1d6 + 6), Bestial Fury
2 * (.65 (3.5 + 3.5 + 5) + .05 (7 + 7 + 5))
+ 2 * (.6 (3.5 + 6) + .05 (7 + 6))
= 17.5 + 12.7
= 30.2
Ranger 11 (Hunter), TWF, shortswords x2, Hunter's Mark, Colossus Slayer, +9 vs. AC 16 (5 dex, 4 prof)
3 * (.65 (3.5 + 3.5 + 5) + .05 (7 + 7 + 5))
+ (1 - .35^2)4.5 + (1 - .95^2)9
= 26.25 + (3.949 + 0.878)
= 31.077
So, at least for Lv. 11, the same level the Fighter gets his third attack, the Ranger (both builds) actually isn't looking too bad DPR-wise.
Comparing to two types of Fighters at this same level:
Fighter 11 (Champion), Dueling, rapier, +9 vs. AC 16 (5 dex, 4 prof)
3 * (.6 (4.5 + 7) + .1 (9 + 7))
= 25.5
Fighter 11 (Champion), Great Weapon, greatsword, GWM (no -5/+10 trade), +9 vs. AC 16 (5 STR, 4 prof)
3 * (.6 (8.33 + 5) + .1 (16.67 + 5))
+ (1 - .9^3)10.165
= 30.495 + 2.755
= 33.25
Well ahead of the Duelist Fighter (which we all know by now is better than the TWF Fighter at Lv. 11 unless he takes the Dual Wielder feat and goes 2 rapiers). And not even terribly far behind the much-ballyhooed Great Weapon Master. (The GWM could squeeze out more than 37 if he does do the -5/+10 trade, but in that case the variance becomes so borked that it really isn't worth doing that).
That's not to say the Ranger doesn't have his deficiencies, though. The Ranger can't burst damage worth a crap. He has nothing like the Fighter's Action Surge or the Paladin's Smites. Also, at Lv. 20 all Fighters naturally move well ahead in DPR with that 4th attack.
GladiusLegis wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Honestly I have always hated the idea of ranger being a totally separate class. Being able to build a good "ranger" inside the fighter class is great for people like me who hate the spell casting & animal aspects of the ranger class but like the outdoorsman and martial part. If you want to playe a ranger as the class or as a fighter I dont see the problem. Its more of a flavore choice in this edition.
When I think LOTR rangers I think fighters.
One disapointing thing was the limits on the ranger fighting styles. No great weapon? One of the most known fantasy rangers uses a two handed sword....
I did not know that the beastmaster could eventually attack along with his companion, that kinda makes him a little better. What level does that happen though?
h347h50 wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
One thing I think people are missing when they do the ranger damage math is some of these spells are pretty awesome and are bonus actions. Add a second attack (or third with hordebreaker) and the occasional +1d8 from colossus slayer and I think you have a dealy combo
Hail of thorns: Bonus to cast, next arrow in addition to being an arrow gives off a 5ft burst 1d10 (Concetration)
Cordon of Arrows: regualr action but sets a trapped area where any enemy that enters gets attacked for 1d6. Goo for four shots as a lv 2 and get's an additional 2 per slot. Also not concentration
Conjure Barrage: Action for a 60ft cone of 3d8. not concetration
Lightning Arrow: Bonus action, next attack is a lightning bolt for 4d8 (can still use second attack as normal) (Concentration)
Conjure Volley: Action, cylinder with 40ft radius (that means 80 ft across) and 20 ft high 8d8 damage (not concentration)
Swift Quiver: bonus action, unlimited ammo and can take a bonus action to make 2 additional attacks. (concetration)
So a high level aracher ranger using 1d8+5 bow with... +13 to hit? Can activate swift quiver, then use volley to hit all enemies in a 10 ft radius burst (so a 20ft circle of enemies) Then make four attacks every tur, maybe throwing in the occasional conjuration if they bunch up again. Give them the sharpshooter feat and their range is 600 ft and they can take a -5 to add +10 damage if they feel like it. Plus with some of their stealth options they might be making this sort of attack stream with advantage
Sure, you aren't getting a lot of single target stuff, but you can hit a massive number of enemies with ease, and in the context of a party that can be awesome. Imagine the above massive volley followed by a wizard AoE. You can decimate a large opposing force without breaking a sweat.
Now, I do think that melee ranger's are getting the short end, but I (after outgrowing 2 weapon fighting is so awesome) find that sharpshooting archers are wicked cool.
A 2nd-level alt human ranger, with a 16 in strength or dex, can deal 1d8+3/1d8+3 damage each round in melee.
I'm not saying a fighter can't also, just that it's not weaksauce.
I dont think the ranger is weak so to say, but since it was the DPR king in 4th there where some expectations. Its wierd all the other classes are now strikers and the ranger moved more towards a survival/skill monkey. Although his magic has become more offensive in 5th and people need to add that into account when looking at him for offense. Still I think there was plenty of room and time for wizards to add a martial or nonmagic ranger.
Im not going to math it out..but what about going with Hunter/Assassin with the Sharpshooter Feat? Penalty to attack but a pretty big bonus to damage. Sneak Attack/Hunters Mark/Sharpshooter + weapon and Dex mod. 2nd Attack Would be Hunters Mark/Sharpshooter/Colossus Slayer.
Having 3rd level into Rouge and getting Assassin makes it a bit easier to get a sneak attack and a crit and the sneak attack dice goes up at level 3.
Chaosmancer wrote:
Yuukale_Narmo wrote:
Another thing I realized earlier today, the hunter ranger's Volley and Whirlwind Attack abilities at lv 11 are not a limited resource. You can do them every turn, all day. This makes it kind of clear that Ranger's are probably much better suited to hitting multiple foes every turn than trying to match single target dpr...actually, is there any other class that can target so many enemies without using a daily resource?
Chaosmancer wrote:
That is a problem with martial type characters overall, in reference to stepping on each others toes. If the ranger starts going into other class territory as a mage killer (monk), assasin (rogue), or brute killer (fighter or barbarian) then the other martial classes have less space to breath. At least the ranger has spells to diversify. If martial characters had maneuvers, there would be a greater chance they could share some abilities just like spells. That would include hybrid classes as well.
Orzel wrote:
I read this thread a few days back and started to wonder how bad the situation with the ranger really is. After doing a bit of basic math (probably incorrectly, admittedly) I've come to the determination that the ranger is actually capable of some of the best sustained DPR of any of the fightery classes (without multiclassing) up until level 11 due to the combination of the spell Hunter's Mark and the class feature Colossus Slayer with the two-weapon fighting style.
Unfortunately, at level 11 when the fighter is getting a 3rd attack and the paladin is getting 1d8 radiant damage on every attack (which stacks with smite), the ranger gets a multi-attack feature. Aside from the fact that spreading damage around to multiple enemies is generally ineffecient, the casters in your group will likely perform this function much better at an earlier level with spells like fireball, ice storm, etc. Despite this, the ranger's single target DPR is still quite competitive at this level, dealing slightly less damage on average than a fighter or barbarian power-attacking with a greatsword.
The real disappointment comes with the highest levels (the least played levels, though ironically those for which calculations of this sort are most frequently performed). At level 17 the champion fighter gets an additional action surge. At 18 he crits on an 18. At 20, he gets a fourth attack. The barbarian gets an additional +4 to his two most important abilities, making him more survivable, accurate, and damaging all at once. The paladin gets a 1/day aura/transformation with varying degrees of benefit depending upon their oath. By contrast the ranger gets his wisdom modifier to damage once per turn if he's fighting a favored enemy. It isn't that it's not useful, it's just a bit underwhelming by comparison.
In my opinion, the ranger is fine for most of the game. Most of the issues people are having seem to stem from high level discrepencies between classes and a noticable stagnation of combat abilitiy after capping the primary attack attribute (as in, from levels 6-17 there are no more single target damage adds coming from the base class). I do think that there are two things that could be done to improve the overall combat value of the ranger at higher levels, though. One is to allow Foe Slayer to either continue to activate only once per turn while affecting all enemies (essentially just removing the favored enemy requirement) or to affect only favored enemies but activate on every attack (rather than just once per round), my preference would be the latter for flavor purposes. The other is to add a few more melee friendly spells to the ranger list (which is notably filled with nature-themed utility spells and archery spells).
As an aside, one big problem that I've noticed is that while two-weapon fighting is pretty effective by itself, the Dual Wielder feat could use a little help. It's just not as effective as the Great Weapon Master feat, partially because its greatest benefit is to allow you the ability to overcome arbitrary restrictions placed on two-weapon fighting to begin with rather than adding new capabilities like Great Weapon Master does.
But is having the whole class rely on Hunter's Mark for damage a good thing?
If the existence or absence of an occational bonus +1d6 damage is a make-it-break-it determiner, for whether a character is playable or not, well, just "Yikes!" is all I can say...
Orzel wrote:
Hunter's mark should've been built in-class, instead of being a spell. Foe Slayer, imho, is a joke. How does 1-5 in your attack or dmg only once on your turn, helps actually slaying your foe? I mean, rogues get at least 1 auto-crit at level 3.
Also, all the archery spells on the ranger's list are "concentration" so you can't lightning arrow when you're already hunter marking. That's a HUGE disappointment.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
AtomicPope wrote:
Yuukale_Narmo wrote:
AtomicPope wrote: