Leaving aside the constant quest for more damage (I actually do get it and given that 5e is a hyper focused combat game sadly it makes sense so maybe we can come back to it later hung?) Tom, Optimus and I made some suggestions for upgrading the core abilities or fulling reworking them ( I did read yours to. - still thinking them over). Optimus, your saying that as things stand now you don’t see much reason not to MC sometime after L9-11, would that opinion change if tom’s or my ideas were actually instituted? If not how would you redo them to make them something that would reset your thinking? Same question fo everyone else too.
Your formating here is a little confusing. Who are you directing which questions at?
in the mean time I’m starting to look at the subclasses and think about what I would change there as well. First up the Hunter - my change here would be simple - instead of having to choose one of the options permanently at L3,7, 11, & 15 you would get all at that level and would have to declare which you were using each round. The ranger, and especially the hunter, is the jack of all trades class and limiting to only one of each of those abilities all the time is crazy. Take L3 - colossus slayer and giant killer are meant for taking on single foes, colossus slayer is more archer oriented while giant killer is more melee oriented while horde breaker is more masses of foes oriented. Same thing at L7,11, and 15. I don’t think it would be OP and would make the hunter far more versatile.
I remember seeing some YouTubers (DungeonDudes, I believe, but could be wrong) talk about Hunter and how it felt like these abilities should've been baseline to Ranger and that Hunter should have been a different subclass alltogether. It would've probably demanded some redesign for the archetypes that followed for balance reasons, but it was an interesting idea.
As for the idea that we could swap which of the Hunter benefits we have on a whim, I think that might be a bit much since that would be very close to getting all three at all times. I do, however, think it would be fair if we could change them on a short rest. It would keep the versatility, while leaning more into the Hunter preparing for combat. I will say that I don't see the level 11 features as all that useful, however, though I do think the other levels have options ranging from kinda meh to really good for their level. Hunters have some of the best combat features of all Rangers at level 7. But I am disappointed by the Multiattack options.
Volley is pretty self explanatory. It's alright, but I think the radius could've been a little larger. I don't see it being super useful in most cases compared to just attacking twice, because how often will you be able to utilize the 10ft radius? Even if you get 4 targets, you're spreading the damage thin. That being said, Lightning Arrow + Volley is a neat, if expensive, trick.
Whirlwind I can't see a reason to use. With a hard range limit of 5ft from the user it can't even be combined with a reach weapon for some fun shennanigans. If you're in a position to get some good value out of this, you're probably in a pretty bad spot and should consider repositioning. Or you're fighting enemies that aren't much of a threat to begin with, so picking this over Volley seems like a waste.
I generally like the idea of the Hunter; no extra utility or spells or anything. Just a bunch of combat features to turn the Ranger into something of a weapon master. If we get some updated class designs for 5.5 or whatever it will be called, some more options to pick from at each level could turn the Hunter into an awesome martial focused archetype. Could be a neat compromise between those who like the martial side of the Ranger, like me, and those who prefer the more gish type class it turned into.
Tasha’s offered options for the ranger to put them in line with other hyper combat focused subclass option in Tasha’s. The entire book is optional. Someone who assumes Tasha’s is there as a fix for the ranger is wrong. It’s an option for a particular play style that is not the majority. If it was the majority than a permanent change at the root would be in order. That has not been done.
Yes, Rosco. Elections are won in margins of less then 2%. A 70% satisfaction rate is high.
I am not sure where you get the 70% satisfied rate but its was considerably lower than that when revised ranger came out....
A quote from WotC:
"Over the past year, you’ve seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin"
Ultimately JC backtracked on it some but I think its more WotC inability to change old material but rather just create something new and call that the "fix" rather than the actual dissatisfaction that's obviously surrounded the class since the early 5e days. (See hexblade, Tasha's ranger, Undead Warlock, etc...)
Obviously regardless it was enough dissatisfaction for them to make changes...they did not try NEARLY as hard for any other class and that is telling in itself.
What a ranger is happens to be the issue. WotC doesn’t put out stuff below some crazy satisfaction rating. Like 80%.
Its so funny to me that you think that because rangers hit more in Tasha’s that is somehow self evident of terribleness of the original. I see that more as as pacifier. I’m a room with 100 adults and 1 crying infant, you don’t have all of the adults put in earplugs, you give the infant a pacifier. The game is the core 3 books. All the rest is optional fluff, not fixes.
This is pretty condescending to compare people who have legitimate concerns with the class "infants"
I think that the concerns were well founded enough for them to have an official response.
Tasha’s offered options for the ranger to put them in line with other hyper combat focused subclass option in Tasha’s. The entire book is optional. Someone who assumes Tasha’s is there as a fix for the ranger is wrong. It’s an option for a particular play style that is not the majority. If it was the majority than a permanent change at the root would be in order. That has not been done.
Yes, Rosco. Elections are won in margins of less then 2%. A 70% satisfaction rate is high.
I am not sure where you get the 70% satisfied rate but its was considerably lower than that when revised ranger came out....
A quote from WotC:
"Over the past year, you’ve seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin"
Ultimately JC backtracked on it some but I think its more WotC inability to change old material but rather just create something new and call that the "fix" rather than the actual dissatisfaction that's obviously surrounded the class since the early 5e days. (See hexblade, Tasha's ranger, Undead Warlock, etc...)
Obviously regardless it was enough dissatisfaction for them to make changes...they did not try NEARLY as hard for any other class and that is telling in itself.
wizards issued a correction on that saying that they were mistaken and they were listening to a vocal minority. you admit JC backtracked on the statement but then treat the original as evidence. bad faith arguments.
as for mistaken dms and players, that literally happens all the time. that's the sole reason for sage advice to exist. some people still believe you can only cast one spell per turn. But at least we can point to sage advice to clarify. same with invisibility, counterspell, unarmed strikes, fog cloud. some people are honestly mistaken. some deliberate try to take advantage of loopholes. established rules are there for a reason.
Let's take the Ranger's higher level features one at a time, shall we? My point here isn't to argue whether or not a 1 level dip in [x] is better. I'm actually more interested in how they compare to other class features at the same level. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use Tasha's features. Also because people who champion the PHB features tend not to be the ones complaining about the Ranger's higher levels. Let's start with:
10th: You get a fountain of free THP you can use PBx per long rest, you get exhaustion removal on a short rest, and you get a one round Greater Invisibility PBx per long rest. At 10th-level, Barbarian and Fighters gets a subclass feature and that's it. A Rogue gets a Feat/ASI (which at best amounts to about the same as what the Ranger is getting,) and a Cleric gets a second 6th-level slot and Divine Intervention (which is next to useless at this point. Like, actually worse than HiPS useless.) I'd say the Ranger matches up pretty evenly at this level compared to other classes.
11th: This is a big level for martial classes. Fighters get a third attack, Paladins get Improved Divine Smite, and Rogues get Reliable Talent + an additional Sneak Attack die. This is the level where most people say Rangers fall off a cliff. Those people aren't looking closely enough. Rangers get a subclass feature at this level, and it is an extremely important one. With the exception of Swarmkeeper, EVERY Ranger subclass grants a massive DPR bump. Whether it's Hunter's Multiattack or Beast Master's Bestial Fury or Gloom Stalker's Stalker's Flurry or Horizon Walker's Distant Strikes or Fey Wanderer's Summon Fey or Drakewarden's breath weapon. Okay, Monster Slayer waits until 15th for theirs, but the point is that this is how Rangers keep up with Fighters and Paladins at higher levels. This level is crucial for Rangers and cannot and should not be ignored. I'd say this level is far more important for Rangers than any one-level dip of any class and certainly at least on par with the Fighter's Extra Attack. I'll go so far as to say that Rangers at this level get way more than Paladins do.
12th: ASI for pretty much everyone. Nothing to see here.
13th: 4th-level spells. This is your Guardian of Nature. This is your Conjure Woodland Beings. This is your Freedom of Movement. It's also a scaling level for Primal Awareness if you took that (oh hai Locate Creature.) This is about on par with Paladins and Artificers, and way better than the Fighter's Indomitable (woo?) or the Barbarian's Brutal Critical scaling. At this point, the full casters are admittedly overtaking Rangers, but they're also overtaking all the other martial classes, so I don't know why we feel the need to single this one out.
14th: Favored Foe scaling, as well as Vanish. I maintain that Vanish is undervalued and overlooked. Vanish combined with Nondetection (which you can pick up as early as 9th-level) makes you 100% untraceable for an entire workday. There are a lot of shenanigans you can get up to in that time, especially if you picked Stealth Expertise from Deft Explorer. And you no longer need to blow your 2nd-level spell slots for Pass without Trace (though you still can for the stealth bump,) which frees you up to use them on things like Aid, subclass spells, Summon Beast, Silence, or Spike Growth. And then there's the Bonus Action Hide. "But Envoy" you say "Rogues get Cunning Action at level 2, and that's just this but better." To which I say, Rogues need it more. They're way squishier than Rangers with their worse armor and lower hit die. In addition, Rangers get Zephyr Strike, Longstrider, and Ashardalon's Stride, all of which can do everything Cunning Action does...except the Bonus Action Hide. So really, all Rangers were missing is BA hide, which they now get. At the same time, Rogues are getting Blindsense, Paladins are getting Cleansing Touch, and Fighters are getting an ASI. I'd argue the combination of Vanish and Favored Foe puts them at least on par with the Fighter's ASI. But sure. Let's call this one of the weaker Ranger levels. They can't all be winners.
15th: Ranger subclass capstones. Monster Slayer finally catches up to the other martials (and other Rangers) offensively. Paladins and Fighters get a subclass feature, but not their capstone. Rogues get proficiency in Wisdom Saves. I'd say, all in all, Rangers are pretty on par with Fighters and Paladins here. Mostly, it depends on the subclass. I will also say that Rangers getting to enjoy their capstones for 3-5 levels longer than Fighters and Paladins makes them more attractive, though. Not less. And having an earlier capstone actually incentivizes staying in the class for it, rather than the opposite. But wait, there's more. In addition to this, Rangers now get a second 4th-level spell slot, and another spell known. This is about on par with Paladins, of course, but combined with getting their subclass capstone at this point, Ranger 15 is way stronger than Fighter 15 or Rogue 15.
16th: ASI. Moving on.
17th: 5th-level spells. This means Swift Quiver and Steel Wind Strike (oh look! More attacks), as well as Commune with Nature if you took Primal Awareness. Again, about on par with Paladins. Fighters get two uses of Action Surge, which is pretty significant. They also get Indomitable scaling, but who cares about that? Rogues get their subclass capstone, which is also pretty cool. Meanwhile, Barbarians are just getting Brutal Critical scaling. I'll admit, it's a strong level for most classes. But it's also a strong level for Rangers, especially those that took Primal Awareness.
18th: Feral Senses and not much else. It's pretty underwhelming. I'd say about as good as the Barbarian's Indomitable Might. Certainly not on the level of the Fighter's subclass capstone, slightly below the Rogue's Elusive, and definitely worse than the Paladin's Aura Improvements. But while this level might be underwhelming for Rangers, you're still making three attacks every round with access to Swift Quiver while being completely untraceable and invisible if you want and sneaking to places the Rogue would only dream of. So again, it's not all bad.
19th: ASI. But unlike the other ASI levels, this one also gives you a second 5th-level spell slot as well as your last Spell Known slot. So this ASI level is better for Rangers than it is for pretty much any other martial class (except, of course, Paladin, who matches up to them.)
20th: Foe Slayer. I'm not going to rehash this conversation. I feel like everyone has said their piece on this. Up to you to decide if 1d8+5 to damage (or +5 to attack and 1d8 to damage) for your concentration PBx per long rest is good or not. If you wanted to multiclass out here, sure. Go ahead. But it's 20th-level. One level of Rogue or Fighter or Paladin or Druid or Cleric (except maybe Peace) won't be substantially better than Foe Slayer at this point. Not against the things you're coming up against.
So overall? I'm of the opinion that staying Ranger until at least 19th-level is about as good as staying in any other martial class until 19th-level. Getting a few Expertises or Sneak Attack dice is neat and all, but not markedly better than what you're getting. Or at least, if Multiclassing out of Ranger after level [x] is the smarter move, so is multiclassing out of Fighter, Rogue, or Barbarian after level [x]. Hell, even Paladin, who almost never gets to even see their capstone, let alone enjoy it for long enough to feel earned.
Let's take the Ranger's higher level features one at a time, shall we? My point here isn't to argue whether or not a 1 level dip in [x] is better. I'm actually more interested in how they compare to other class features at the same level. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use Tasha's features. Also because people who champion the PHB features tend not to be the ones complaining about the Ranger's higher levels. Let's start with:
10th: You get a fountain of free THP you can use PBx per long rest, you get exhaustion removal on a short rest, and you get a one round Greater Invisibility PBx per long rest. At 10th-level, Barbarian and Fighters gets a subclass feature and that's it. A Rogue gets a Feat/ASI (which at best amounts to about the same as what the Ranger is getting,) and a Cleric gets a second 6th-level slot and Divine Intervention (which is next to useless at this point. Like, actually worse than HiPS useless.) I'd say the Ranger matches up pretty evenly at this level compared to other classes.
11th: This is a big level for martial classes. Fighters get a third attack, Paladins get Improved Divine Smite, and Rogues get Reliable Talent + an additional Sneak Attack die. This is the level where most people say Rangers fall off a cliff. Those people aren't looking closely enough. Rangers get a subclass feature at this level, and it is an extremely important one. With the exception of Swarmkeeper, EVERY Ranger subclass grants a massive DPR bump. Whether it's Hunter's Multiattack or Beast Master's Bestial Fury or Gloom Stalker's Stalker's Flurry or Horizon Walker's Distant Strikes or Fey Wanderer's Summon Fey or Drakewarden's breath weapon. Okay, Monster Slayer waits until 15th for theirs, but the point is that this is how Rangers keep up with Fighters and Paladins at higher levels. This level is crucial for Rangers and cannot and should not be ignored. I'd say this level is far more important for Rangers than any one-level dip of any class and certainly at least on par with the Fighter's Extra Attack. I'll go so far as to say that Rangers at this level get way more than Paladins do.
12th: ASI for pretty much everyone. Nothing to see here.
13th: 4th-level spells. This is your Guardian of Nature. This is your Conjure Woodland Beings. This is your Freedom of Movement. It's also a scaling level for Primal Awareness if you took that (oh hai Locate Creature.) This is about on par with Paladins and Artificers, and way better than the Fighter's Indomitable (woo?) or the Barbarian's Brutal Critical scaling. At this point, the full casters are admittedly overtaking Rangers, but they're also overtaking all the other martial classes, so I don't know why we feel the need to single this one out.
14th: Favored Foe scaling, as well as Vanish. I maintain that Vanish is undervalued and overlooked. Vanish combined with Nondetection (which you can pick up as early as 9th-level) makes you 100% untraceable for an entire workday. There are a lot of shenanigans you can get up to in that time, especially if you picked Stealth Expertise from Deft Explorer. And you no longer need to blow your 2nd-level spell slots for Pass without Trace (though you still can for the stealth bump,) which frees you up to use them on things like Aid, subclass spells, Summon Beast, Silence, or Spike Growth. And then there's the Bonus Action Hide. "But Envoy" you say "Rogues get Cunning Action at level 2, and that's just this but better." To which I say, Rogues need it more. They're way squishier than Rangers with their worse armor and lower hit die. In addition, Rangers get Zephyr Strike, Longstrider, and Ashardalon's Stride, all of which can do everything Cunning Action does...except the Bonus Action Hide. So really, all Rangers were missing is BA hide, which they now get. At the same time, Rogues are getting Blindsense, Paladins are getting Cleansing Touch, and Fighters are getting an ASI. I'd argue the combination of Vanish and Favored Foe puts them at least on par with the Fighter's ASI. But sure. Let's call this one of the weaker Ranger levels. They can't all be winners.
15th: Ranger subclass capstones. Monster Slayer finally catches up to the other martials (and other Rangers) offensively. Paladins and Fighters get a subclass feature, but not their capstone. Rogues get proficiency in Wisdom Saves. I'd say, all in all, Rangers are pretty on par with Fighters and Paladins here. Mostly, it depends on the subclass. I will also say that Rangers getting to enjoy their capstones for 3-5 levels longer than Fighters and Paladins makes them more attractive, though. Not less. And having an earlier capstone actually incentivizes staying in the class for it, rather than the opposite. But wait, there's more. In addition to this, Rangers now get a second 4th-level spell slot, and another spell known. This is about on par with Paladins, of course, but combined with getting their subclass capstone at this point, Ranger 15 is way stronger than Fighter 15 or Rogue 15.
16th: ASI. Moving on.
17th: 5th-level spells. This means Swift Quiver and Steel Wind Strike (oh look! More attacks), as well as Commune with Nature if you took Primal Awareness. Again, about on par with Paladins. Fighters get two uses of Action Surge, which is pretty significant. They also get Indomitable scaling, but who cares about that? Rogues get their subclass capstone, which is also pretty cool. Meanwhile, Barbarians are just getting Brutal Critical scaling. I'll admit, it's a strong level for most classes. But it's also a strong level for Rangers, especially those that took Primal Awareness.
18th: Feral Senses and not much else. It's pretty underwhelming. I'd say about as good as the Barbarian's Indomitable Might. Certainly not on the level of the Fighter's subclass capstone, slightly below the Rogue's Elusive, and definitely worse than the Paladin's Aura Improvements. But while this level might be underwhelming for Rangers, you're still making three attacks every round with access to Swift Quiver while being completely untraceable and invisible if you want and sneaking to places the Rogue would only dream of. So again, it's not all bad.
19th: ASI. But unlike the other ASI levels, this one also gives you a second 5th-level spell slot as well as your last Spell Known slot. So this ASI level is better for Rangers than it is for pretty much any other martial class (except, of course, Paladin, who matches up to them.)
20th: Foe Slayer. I'm not going to rehash this conversation. I feel like everyone has said their piece on this. Up to you to decide if 1d8+5 to damage (or +5 to attack and 1d8 to damage) for your concentration PBx per long rest is good or not. If you wanted to multiclass out here, sure. Go ahead. But it's 20th-level. One level of Rogue or Fighter or Paladin or Druid or Cleric (except maybe Peace) won't be substantially better than Foe Slayer at this point. Not against the things you're coming up against.
So overall? I'm of the opinion that staying Ranger until at least 19th-level is about as good as staying in any other martial class until 19th-level. Getting a few Expertises or Sneak Attack dice is neat and all, but not markedly better than what you're getting. Or at least, if Multiclassing out of Ranger after level [x] is the smarter move, so is multiclassing out of Fighter, Rogue, or Barbarian after level [x]. Hell, even Paladin, who almost never gets to even see their capstone, let alone enjoy it for long enough to feel earned.
Leaving aside the constant quest for more damage (I actually do get it and given that 5e is a hyper focused combat game sadly it makes sense so maybe we can come back to it later hung?) Tom, Optimus and I made some suggestions for upgrading the core abilities or fulling reworking them ( I did read yours to. - still thinking them over). Optimus, your saying that as things stand now you don’t see much reason not to MC sometime after L9-11, would that opinion change if tom’s or my ideas were actually instituted? If not how would you redo them to make them something that would reset your thinking? Same question fo everyone else too.
Your formating here is a little confusing. Who are you directing which questions at?
I was saying that had read yours Tom and was still mulling it over. I think it was Optimus that was saying he saw no reason not to MC after R11 I was asking if your rewrite or my tweaks were operating would that change his mind? I was then asking optimus to provide the changes that would change his mind if ours were not doing it. Then asking anyone/everyone that hadn’t answered the same questions. sorry if it was confusing.
in the mean time I’m starting to look at the subclasses and think about what I would change there as well. First up the Hunter - my change here would be simple - instead of having to choose one of the options permanently at L3,7, 11, & 15 you would get all at that level and would have to declare which you were using each round. The ranger, and especially the hunter, is the jack of all trades class and limiting to only one of each of those abilities all the time is crazy. Take L3 - colossus slayer and giant killer are meant for taking on single foes, colossus slayer is more archer oriented while giant killer is more melee oriented while horde breaker is more masses of foes oriented. Same thing at L7,11, and 15. I don’t think it would be OP and would make the hunter far more versatile.
I remember seeing some YouTubers (DungeonDudes, I believe, but could be wrong) talk about Hunter and how it felt like these abilities should've been baseline to Ranger and that Hunter should have been a different subclass alltogether. It would've probably demanded some redesign for the archetypes that followed for balance reasons, but it was an interesting idea.
As for the idea that we could swap which of the Hunter benefits we have on a whim, I think that might be a bit much since that would be very close to getting all three at all times. I do, however, think it would be fair if we could change them on a short rest. It would keep the versatility, while leaning more into the Hunter preparing for combat. I will say that I don't see the level 11 features as all that useful, however, though I do think the other levels have options ranging from kinda meh to really good for their level. Hunters have some of the best combat features of all Rangers at level 7. But I am disappointed by the Multiattack options.
Volley is pretty self explanatory. It's alright, but I think the radius could've been a little larger. I don't see it being super useful in most cases compared to just attacking twice, because how often will you be able to utilize the 10ft radius? Even if you get 4 targets, you're spreading the damage thin. That being said, Lightning Arrow + Volley is a neat, if expensive, trick.
Whirlwind I can't see a reason to use. With a hard range limit of 5ft from the user it can't even be combined with a reach weapon for some fun shennanigans. If you're in a position to get some good value out of this, you're probably in a pretty bad spot and should consider repositioning. Or you're fighting enemies that aren't much of a threat to begin with, so picking this over Volley seems like a waste.
I generally like the idea of the Hunter; no extra utility or spells or anything. Just a bunch of combat features to turn the Ranger into something of a weapon master. If we get some updated class designs for 5.5 or whatever it will be called, some more options to pick from at each level could turn the Hunter into an awesome martial focused archetype. Could be a neat compromise between those who like the martial side of the Ranger, like me, and those who prefer the more gish type class it turned into.
I don’t think letting them have all 2/3 is really overdoing it since they can only use one at a time and each is best in a different situation. What it does do is give the hunter the martial abilities they should have in every situation. Here is how I see the abilities being used:
Colossus slayer - especially at low level an extra D8 is a lot of damage so this used ( probably in conjunction with hunters mark/favored foe) to take things down quickly in one on one combat or two on one so you can move on to the second quickly.
Giant killer - used to get a third (fourth after L5) attack against a single heavy duty foe. If used with scimitars and two weapon fighting at L3 if all attacks hit that is 6d6 (8d6starting at L5) damage which is going to take pretty much anything down quickly. At higher levels the 8D6 is still equivalent to a fireball for damage and that’s not too bad.
Horde Breaker - used when fighting multiple foes to do damage to 2 foes in one round.it’s only one attack but if it hits your set up for colossus slayer on that foe later.
Escape the Horde - disadvantage on opportunity attacks against me while I’m moving around? If nothing else it helps the party by eliminating the reactions of everyone that swings at me and misses. It also allows me to move around with a fair amount of impunity and minimal damage.
Multi attack defense - exactly what it says if they hit with the first of several all the other attacks from that foe are probably going to miss now so instead of taking a second and/or third hit you only take one (I hope it wasn’t a crit).
Steel will - as I said earlier this should be proficiency with wisdom saves but… As is getting advantage vs fear so your roughly 25%more likely not to flee when your most needed is a big party help.
Volley - 10 foot radius means a max of 16 foes, if all hit, 1D8+Dex+weapon each covering an area 20’ x 20’ is a huge damage potential. Will you normally reach it - no but even half that is fireball damage and area so not bad.
Whirlwind is the same thing for melee - a separate attack attack vs upto 8 foes in one round. Combine it with escape the horde and you can risk jumping into rooms full of foes and becoming a foe-Amatic for a couple of rounds then misty step out after you’ve taken some damage. great for dealing with hordes of low level minions etc.
I’m not going to bother with the L15s they are self obvious, yes rogues get them earlier but would you rather have them or not is the real question.
What is the standard people use to measure the usefulness of an area of effect ability? Because people seem to value Volley and Whirlwind a lot higher than I would.
Edit: To clarify, I mean how many average targets per area etc?
What is the standard people use to measure the usefulness of an area of effect ability? Because people seem to value Volley and Whirlwind a lot higher than I would.
Edit: To clarify, I mean how many average targets per area etc?
What is the standard people use to measure the usefulness of an area of effect ability? Because people seem to value Volley and Whirlwind a lot higher than I would.
Edit: To clarify, I mean how many average targets per area etc?
Let me rephrase the question then, since I was too unclear: What parameters are people using to determine the average DPR amount Volley and Whirlwind adds to the Ranger? A feature like Stalker's Flurry is easy to measure, since it happens passively, but these abilities have to be used instead of a regular attack action and so I wonder how people determine the expected impact.
At L11+ you have 2 attacks so you can do 2 different targets without volley so to use it you need a minimum of 3 foes in the area.since it’s 0 cost if you can get at least 3 why not use it then the more the merrier.
What is the standard people use to measure the usefulness of an area of effect ability? Because people seem to value Volley and Whirlwind a lot higher than I would.
Edit: To clarify, I mean how many average targets per area etc?
If what you're really asking about is the Hunter Ranger's damage output, then it really depends on the numbe of enemies. That being said, they are the martial class closest able to do AoE damage, which is their claim to Fame. Value that (or don't) as you will.
However, even if we just take Horde Breaker into account and not Multiattack, a Ranger with Hunter's Mark is doing almost as much single-target damage as a Paladin with Improved Divine Smite, but they also get to hit a second guy with a weapon attack as well.
The Paladin has to Smite in order to actually widen the gap to the point where it would matter, but as I've said, Rangers aren't built for spike damage. So that's the point where the comparison becomes moot, imo.
At L11+ you have 2 attacks so you can do 2 different targets without volley so to use it you need a minimum of 3 foes in the area.since it’s 0 cost if you can get at least 3 why not use it then the more the merrier.
I'm not asking when to use it. Obviously the rule of thumb will be (APR + 1). I'm asking how we would add it to damage calculations for comparisons with, for example, Stalker's Flurry.
Well stalkers flurry gives 1 extra attack if you miss one so figure 1.5 hits in a round same as volley with 3 foes so if you use 4+ your probably going to show more damage.
Tasha’s offered options for the ranger to put them in line with other hyper combat focused subclass option in Tasha’s. The entire book is optional. Someone who assumes Tasha’s is there as a fix for the ranger is wrong. It’s an option for a particular play style that is not the majority. If it was the majority than a permanent change at the root would be in order. That has not been done.
Yes, Rosco. Elections are won in margins of less then 2%. A 70% satisfaction rate is high.
I am not sure where you get the 70% satisfied rate but its was considerably lower than that when revised ranger came out....
A quote from WotC:
"Over the past year, you’ve seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin"
Ultimately JC backtracked on it some but I think its more WotC inability to change old material but rather just create something new and call that the "fix" rather than the actual dissatisfaction that's obviously surrounded the class since the early 5e days. (See hexblade, Tasha's ranger, Undead Warlock, etc...)
Obviously regardless it was enough dissatisfaction for them to make changes...they did not try NEARLY as hard for any other class and that is telling in itself.
wizards issued a correction on that saying that they were mistaken and they were listening to a vocal minority. you admit JC backtracked on the statement but then treat the original as evidence. bad faith arguments.
as for mistaken dms and players, that literally happens all the time. that's the sole reason for sage advice to exist. some people still believe you can only cast one spell per turn. But at least we can point to sage advice to clarify. same with invisibility, counterspell, unarmed strikes, fog cloud. some people are honestly mistaken. some deliberate try to take advantage of loopholes. established rules are there for a reason.
Yet they still made the features...
Sorry it's just what happened.... No other class got this treatment
Too much has happened since I last posted, and I'm on my phone so have not read it all, but to reiterate, my numbers were to show how much the Level 20 Suite of Abilities affected each class, I was not trying to show a clearly defined damage champion. Foe Slayer adds an incredible amount to your damage against your favoured enemies, it isn't nearly as bad as it is made it to be. My gripe with it is that it is purely combat based, and it is based off a mechanic that I have never liked through all editions of d&d I've played, being of course favoured enemy. But that is purely a personal preference. Mechanically it is sound.
Well stalkers flurry gives 1 extra attack if you miss one so figure 1.5 hits in a round same as volley with 3 foes so if you use 4+ your probably going to show more damage.
Again, that's not what I am asking about. I am wondering what standard one could use to get a rough idea of how much use a Hunter could get from Volley in a typical adventure.
Let's use an example to make it a bit more clear:
I've talked to someone who proposed that one standard we could use for Fireball at level 5 is that it hits minimum 3 creatures thanks to its large radius, 2 of which are considered to make their saves to account for creatures with good dex saves, resistance to fire and "lost" damage above their HP maximum. This standard would mean that a Wizard could expect to add 56+ damage to their DPR via that spell in exchange for a 3rd lvl spellslot.
This isn't an objective standard, obviously, but it is an interesting way to try to compare single and area of effect damage. So I am wondering what standard we could use to try to measure the value of Volley (or Whirlwind) compared to Stalker's Flurry, Distant Strike etc.
Ok so try this: you use volley when there are 3 or more foes in its area. Typically swarms will have a CR of @ half your level so these would be 3 CR 4-7 creatures with an average AC of 15.the ranger has a PB of +4, a stat bonus of +4, archery bonus of +2 and a +1 bow for a total to hit of +11 so they hit on a roll of 4 or more giving them a hit % of 85%. Each hit does 1D8 damage (4 average) + 4 stat bonus +1 bow bonus for +9 damage. 3 foes is 27 damage x .85 (%hit rate) = 23 damage a round minimum.
Tasha’s offered options for the ranger to put them in line with other hyper combat focused subclass option in Tasha’s. The entire book is optional. Someone who assumes Tasha’s is there as a fix for the ranger is wrong. It’s an option for a particular play style that is not the majority. If it was the majority than a permanent change at the root would be in order. That has not been done.
Yes, Rosco. Elections are won in margins of less then 2%. A 70% satisfaction rate is high.
I am not sure where you get the 70% satisfied rate but its was considerably lower than that when revised ranger came out....
A quote from WotC:
"Over the past year, you’ve seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin"
Ultimately JC backtracked on it some but I think its more WotC inability to change old material but rather just create something new and call that the "fix" rather than the actual dissatisfaction that's obviously surrounded the class since the early 5e days. (See hexblade, Tasha's ranger, Undead Warlock, etc...)
Obviously regardless it was enough dissatisfaction for them to make changes...they did not try NEARLY as hard for any other class and that is telling in itself.
wizards issued a correction on that saying that they were mistaken and they were listening to a vocal minority. you admit JC backtracked on the statement but then treat the original as evidence. bad faith arguments.
as for mistaken dms and players, that literally happens all the time. that's the sole reason for sage advice to exist. some people still believe you can only cast one spell per turn. But at least we can point to sage advice to clarify. same with invisibility, counterspell, unarmed strikes, fog cloud. some people are honestly mistaken. some deliberate try to take advantage of loopholes. established rules are there for a reason.
Yet they still made the features...
Sorry it's just what happened.... No other class got this treatment
I’d say the treatment fit the amount of dissatisfaction yelled about. Do you want more or less now?
Frank, I gotta ask at this point. What are you hoping to get out of this thread?
I understand the desire to defend the PHB ranger and demonstrate what its strengths are, ut at the end of the day the purpose of this thread is to suggest changes that could make the ranger stronger than it already is (even if only by a little).
Saying stuff along the lines of "Theres nothing wrong with this ability, people just dont know how to use it / dont see how its mathematically good" goes against what this thread is hoping to accomplish.
If you have no problems with the Ranger as it is now, then thats great. I am glad you can play at a table where all of its features shine. But if thats how you feel then this thread is not for you. This thread is for players who have problems with the ranger's kit or at the very least play at tables where the style of game does not allow for the ranger's strengths to shine.
16 pages in, this thread should not be arguing whether the ranger is good in the first place or not. That is not the purpose of the thread. The purpose is to discuss and brainstorm changes and tweaks that could make it more enjoyable for those that are dissatisfied with its current execution.
Wi1dBi11and other commenters have been discussing small tweaks and changes but their comments keep getting interrupted by this back and forth about if something is good in the first place or not.
I am guilty of derailing this thread as well, with the back and forth about whether Foe Slayer is strong or not, but I have moved away from that and will not return to it because (again) its not what is meant to be discussed here.
Your formating here is a little confusing. Who are you directing which questions at?
I remember seeing some YouTubers (DungeonDudes, I believe, but could be wrong) talk about Hunter and how it felt like these abilities should've been baseline to Ranger and that Hunter should have been a different subclass alltogether. It would've probably demanded some redesign for the archetypes that followed for balance reasons, but it was an interesting idea.
As for the idea that we could swap which of the Hunter benefits we have on a whim, I think that might be a bit much since that would be very close to getting all three at all times. I do, however, think it would be fair if we could change them on a short rest. It would keep the versatility, while leaning more into the Hunter preparing for combat. I will say that I don't see the level 11 features as all that useful, however, though I do think the other levels have options ranging from kinda meh to really good for their level. Hunters have some of the best combat features of all Rangers at level 7. But I am disappointed by the Multiattack options.
Volley is pretty self explanatory. It's alright, but I think the radius could've been a little larger. I don't see it being super useful in most cases compared to just attacking twice, because how often will you be able to utilize the 10ft radius? Even if you get 4 targets, you're spreading the damage thin. That being said, Lightning Arrow + Volley is a neat, if expensive, trick.
Whirlwind I can't see a reason to use. With a hard range limit of 5ft from the user it can't even be combined with a reach weapon for some fun shennanigans. If you're in a position to get some good value out of this, you're probably in a pretty bad spot and should consider repositioning. Or you're fighting enemies that aren't much of a threat to begin with, so picking this over Volley seems like a waste.
I generally like the idea of the Hunter; no extra utility or spells or anything. Just a bunch of combat features to turn the Ranger into something of a weapon master. If we get some updated class designs for 5.5 or whatever it will be called, some more options to pick from at each level could turn the Hunter into an awesome martial focused archetype. Could be a neat compromise between those who like the martial side of the Ranger, like me, and those who prefer the more gish type class it turned into.
This is pretty condescending to compare people who have legitimate concerns with the class "infants"
I think that the concerns were well founded enough for them to have an official response.
wizards issued a correction on that saying that they were mistaken and they were listening to a vocal minority. you admit JC backtracked on the statement but then treat the original as evidence. bad faith arguments.
as for mistaken dms and players, that literally happens all the time. that's the sole reason for sage advice to exist. some people still believe you can only cast one spell per turn. But at least we can point to sage advice to clarify. same with invisibility, counterspell, unarmed strikes, fog cloud. some people are honestly mistaken. some deliberate try to take advantage of loopholes. established rules are there for a reason.
Let's take the Ranger's higher level features one at a time, shall we? My point here isn't to argue whether or not a 1 level dip in [x] is better. I'm actually more interested in how they compare to other class features at the same level. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use Tasha's features. Also because people who champion the PHB features tend not to be the ones complaining about the Ranger's higher levels. Let's start with:
10th: You get a fountain of free THP you can use PBx per long rest, you get exhaustion removal on a short rest, and you get a one round Greater Invisibility PBx per long rest. At 10th-level, Barbarian and Fighters gets a subclass feature and that's it. A Rogue gets a Feat/ASI (which at best amounts to about the same as what the Ranger is getting,) and a Cleric gets a second 6th-level slot and Divine Intervention (which is next to useless at this point. Like, actually worse than HiPS useless.) I'd say the Ranger matches up pretty evenly at this level compared to other classes.
11th: This is a big level for martial classes. Fighters get a third attack, Paladins get Improved Divine Smite, and Rogues get Reliable Talent + an additional Sneak Attack die. This is the level where most people say Rangers fall off a cliff. Those people aren't looking closely enough. Rangers get a subclass feature at this level, and it is an extremely important one. With the exception of Swarmkeeper, EVERY Ranger subclass grants a massive DPR bump. Whether it's Hunter's Multiattack or Beast Master's Bestial Fury or Gloom Stalker's Stalker's Flurry or Horizon Walker's Distant Strikes or Fey Wanderer's Summon Fey or Drakewarden's breath weapon. Okay, Monster Slayer waits until 15th for theirs, but the point is that this is how Rangers keep up with Fighters and Paladins at higher levels. This level is crucial for Rangers and cannot and should not be ignored. I'd say this level is far more important for Rangers than any one-level dip of any class and certainly at least on par with the Fighter's Extra Attack. I'll go so far as to say that Rangers at this level get way more than Paladins do.
12th: ASI for pretty much everyone. Nothing to see here.
13th: 4th-level spells. This is your Guardian of Nature. This is your Conjure Woodland Beings. This is your Freedom of Movement. It's also a scaling level for Primal Awareness if you took that (oh hai Locate Creature.) This is about on par with Paladins and Artificers, and way better than the Fighter's Indomitable (woo?) or the Barbarian's Brutal Critical scaling. At this point, the full casters are admittedly overtaking Rangers, but they're also overtaking all the other martial classes, so I don't know why we feel the need to single this one out.
14th: Favored Foe scaling, as well as Vanish. I maintain that Vanish is undervalued and overlooked. Vanish combined with Nondetection (which you can pick up as early as 9th-level) makes you 100% untraceable for an entire workday. There are a lot of shenanigans you can get up to in that time, especially if you picked Stealth Expertise from Deft Explorer. And you no longer need to blow your 2nd-level spell slots for Pass without Trace (though you still can for the stealth bump,) which frees you up to use them on things like Aid, subclass spells, Summon Beast, Silence, or Spike Growth. And then there's the Bonus Action Hide. "But Envoy" you say "Rogues get Cunning Action at level 2, and that's just this but better." To which I say, Rogues need it more. They're way squishier than Rangers with their worse armor and lower hit die. In addition, Rangers get Zephyr Strike, Longstrider, and Ashardalon's Stride, all of which can do everything Cunning Action does...except the Bonus Action Hide. So really, all Rangers were missing is BA hide, which they now get. At the same time, Rogues are getting Blindsense, Paladins are getting Cleansing Touch, and Fighters are getting an ASI. I'd argue the combination of Vanish and Favored Foe puts them at least on par with the Fighter's ASI. But sure. Let's call this one of the weaker Ranger levels. They can't all be winners.
15th: Ranger subclass capstones. Monster Slayer finally catches up to the other martials (and other Rangers) offensively. Paladins and Fighters get a subclass feature, but not their capstone. Rogues get proficiency in Wisdom Saves. I'd say, all in all, Rangers are pretty on par with Fighters and Paladins here. Mostly, it depends on the subclass. I will also say that Rangers getting to enjoy their capstones for 3-5 levels longer than Fighters and Paladins makes them more attractive, though. Not less. And having an earlier capstone actually incentivizes staying in the class for it, rather than the opposite. But wait, there's more. In addition to this, Rangers now get a second 4th-level spell slot, and another spell known. This is about on par with Paladins, of course, but combined with getting their subclass capstone at this point, Ranger 15 is way stronger than Fighter 15 or Rogue 15.
16th: ASI. Moving on.
17th: 5th-level spells. This means Swift Quiver and Steel Wind Strike (oh look! More attacks), as well as Commune with Nature if you took Primal Awareness. Again, about on par with Paladins. Fighters get two uses of Action Surge, which is pretty significant. They also get Indomitable scaling, but who cares about that? Rogues get their subclass capstone, which is also pretty cool. Meanwhile, Barbarians are just getting Brutal Critical scaling. I'll admit, it's a strong level for most classes. But it's also a strong level for Rangers, especially those that took Primal Awareness.
18th: Feral Senses and not much else. It's pretty underwhelming. I'd say about as good as the Barbarian's Indomitable Might. Certainly not on the level of the Fighter's subclass capstone, slightly below the Rogue's Elusive, and definitely worse than the Paladin's Aura Improvements. But while this level might be underwhelming for Rangers, you're still making three attacks every round with access to Swift Quiver while being completely untraceable and invisible if you want and sneaking to places the Rogue would only dream of. So again, it's not all bad.
19th: ASI. But unlike the other ASI levels, this one also gives you a second 5th-level spell slot as well as your last Spell Known slot. So this ASI level is better for Rangers than it is for pretty much any other martial class (except, of course, Paladin, who matches up to them.)
20th: Foe Slayer. I'm not going to rehash this conversation. I feel like everyone has said their piece on this. Up to you to decide if 1d8+5 to damage (or +5 to attack and 1d8 to damage) for your concentration PBx per long rest is good or not. If you wanted to multiclass out here, sure. Go ahead. But it's 20th-level. One level of Rogue or Fighter or Paladin or Druid or Cleric (except maybe Peace) won't be substantially better than Foe Slayer at this point. Not against the things you're coming up against.
So overall? I'm of the opinion that staying Ranger until at least 19th-level is about as good as staying in any other martial class until 19th-level. Getting a few Expertises or Sneak Attack dice is neat and all, but not markedly better than what you're getting. Or at least, if Multiclassing out of Ranger after level [x] is the smarter move, so is multiclassing out of Fighter, Rogue, or Barbarian after level [x]. Hell, even Paladin, who almost never gets to even see their capstone, let alone enjoy it for long enough to feel earned.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
thank you. good points
I don’t think letting them have all 2/3 is really overdoing it since they can only use one at a time and each is best in a different situation. What it does do is give the hunter the martial abilities they should have in every situation. Here is how I see the abilities being used:
Colossus slayer - especially at low level an extra D8 is a lot of damage so this used ( probably in conjunction with hunters mark/favored foe) to take things down quickly in one on one combat or two on one so you can move on to the second quickly.
Giant killer - used to get a third (fourth after L5) attack against a single heavy duty foe. If used with scimitars and two weapon fighting at L3 if all attacks hit that is 6d6 (8d6starting at L5) damage which is going to take pretty much anything down quickly. At higher levels the 8D6 is still equivalent to a fireball for damage and that’s not too bad.
Horde Breaker - used when fighting multiple foes to do damage to 2 foes in one round.it’s only one attack but if it hits your set up for colossus slayer on that foe later.
Escape the Horde - disadvantage on opportunity attacks against me while I’m moving around? If nothing else it helps the party by eliminating the reactions of everyone that swings at me and misses. It also allows me to move around with a fair amount of impunity and minimal damage.
Multi attack defense - exactly what it says if they hit with the first of several all the other attacks from that foe are probably going to miss now so instead of taking a second and/or third hit you only take one (I hope it wasn’t a crit).
Steel will - as I said earlier this should be proficiency with wisdom saves but… As is getting advantage vs fear so your roughly 25%more likely not to flee when your most needed is a big party help.
Volley - 10 foot radius means a max of 16 foes, if all hit, 1D8+Dex+weapon each covering an area 20’ x 20’ is a huge damage potential. Will you normally reach it - no but even half that is fireball damage and area so not bad.
Whirlwind is the same thing for melee - a separate attack attack vs upto 8 foes in one round. Combine it with escape the horde and you can risk jumping into rooms full of foes and becoming a foe-Amatic for a couple of rounds then misty step out after you’ve taken some damage. great for dealing with hordes of low level minions etc.
I’m not going to bother with the L15s they are self obvious, yes rogues get them earlier but would you rather have them or not is the real question.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Great job envoy thanks
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
What is the standard people use to measure the usefulness of an area of effect ability? Because people seem to value Volley and Whirlwind a lot higher than I would.
Edit: To clarify, I mean how many average targets per area etc?
More than 2.
Let me rephrase the question then, since I was too unclear: What parameters are people using to determine the average DPR amount Volley and Whirlwind adds to the Ranger? A feature like Stalker's Flurry is easy to measure, since it happens passively, but these abilities have to be used instead of a regular attack action and so I wonder how people determine the expected impact.
At L11+ you have 2 attacks so you can do 2 different targets without volley so to use it you need a minimum of 3 foes in the area.since it’s 0 cost if you can get at least 3 why not use it then the more the merrier.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
If what you're really asking about is the Hunter Ranger's damage output, then it really depends on the numbe of enemies. That being said, they are the martial class closest able to do AoE damage, which is their claim to Fame. Value that (or don't) as you will.
However, even if we just take Horde Breaker into account and not Multiattack, a Ranger with Hunter's Mark is doing almost as much single-target damage as a Paladin with Improved Divine Smite, but they also get to hit a second guy with a weapon attack as well.
The Paladin has to Smite in order to actually widen the gap to the point where it would matter, but as I've said, Rangers aren't built for spike damage. So that's the point where the comparison becomes moot, imo.
I'm not asking when to use it. Obviously the rule of thumb will be (APR + 1). I'm asking how we would add it to damage calculations for comparisons with, for example, Stalker's Flurry.
Well stalkers flurry gives 1 extra attack if you miss one so figure 1.5 hits in a round same as volley with 3 foes so if you use 4+ your probably going to show more damage.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Yet they still made the features...
Sorry it's just what happened.... No other class got this treatment
Too much has happened since I last posted, and I'm on my phone so have not read it all, but to reiterate, my numbers were to show how much the Level 20 Suite of Abilities affected each class, I was not trying to show a clearly defined damage champion. Foe Slayer adds an incredible amount to your damage against your favoured enemies, it isn't nearly as bad as it is made it to be. My gripe with it is that it is purely combat based, and it is based off a mechanic that I have never liked through all editions of d&d I've played, being of course favoured enemy. But that is purely a personal preference. Mechanically it is sound.
Again, that's not what I am asking about. I am wondering what standard one could use to get a rough idea of how much use a Hunter could get from Volley in a typical adventure.
Let's use an example to make it a bit more clear:
I've talked to someone who proposed that one standard we could use for Fireball at level 5 is that it hits minimum 3 creatures thanks to its large radius, 2 of which are considered to make their saves to account for creatures with good dex saves, resistance to fire and "lost" damage above their HP maximum. This standard would mean that a Wizard could expect to add 56+ damage to their DPR via that spell in exchange for a 3rd lvl spellslot.
This isn't an objective standard, obviously, but it is an interesting way to try to compare single and area of effect damage. So I am wondering what standard we could use to try to measure the value of Volley (or Whirlwind) compared to Stalker's Flurry, Distant Strike etc.
Ok so try this: you use volley when there are 3 or more foes in its area. Typically swarms will have a CR of @ half your level so these would be 3 CR 4-7 creatures with an average AC of 15.the ranger has a PB of +4, a stat bonus of +4, archery bonus of +2 and a +1 bow for a total to hit of +11 so they hit on a roll of 4 or more giving them a hit % of 85%. Each hit does 1D8 damage (4 average) + 4 stat bonus +1 bow bonus for +9 damage. 3 foes is 27 damage x .85 (%hit rate) = 23 damage a round minimum.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I’d say the treatment fit the amount of dissatisfaction yelled about. Do you want more or less now?
Frank, I gotta ask at this point. What are you hoping to get out of this thread?
I understand the desire to defend the PHB ranger and demonstrate what its strengths are, ut at the end of the day the purpose of this thread is to suggest changes that could make the ranger stronger than it already is (even if only by a little).
Saying stuff along the lines of "Theres nothing wrong with this ability, people just dont know how to use it / dont see how its mathematically good" goes against what this thread is hoping to accomplish.
If you have no problems with the Ranger as it is now, then thats great. I am glad you can play at a table where all of its features shine. But if thats how you feel then this thread is not for you. This thread is for players who have problems with the ranger's kit or at the very least play at tables where the style of game does not allow for the ranger's strengths to shine.
16 pages in, this thread should not be arguing whether the ranger is good in the first place or not. That is not the purpose of the thread. The purpose is to discuss and brainstorm changes and tweaks that could make it more enjoyable for those that are dissatisfied with its current execution.
Wi1dBi11and other commenters have been discussing small tweaks and changes but their comments keep getting interrupted by this back and forth about if something is good in the first place or not.
I am guilty of derailing this thread as well, with the back and forth about whether Foe Slayer is strong or not, but I have moved away from that and will not return to it because (again) its not what is meant to be discussed here.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!