What tweaks Tom? I think you’ve said some somewhere in the previous 16 pages but let’s put some specifics down without having to reread everything to find them again.
I've got plenty of ideas, but I think a very simple fix could be to move Vanish to T2 for a start. And a minor passive combat boost in early T3. It shouldn't increase damage too much, just something to hold players over until they get 4th level spells. Archetypes have something at level 11, but it often feels like a minor boost compared to multiclassing unless you want something very specific from the Ranger class already. Getting a little something on top of that from the base class would be nice.
This could've been achieved already, if WotC had put more thought into how to distribute various subclasses. Gloom Stalkers are awesome, but too frontloaded, which gives them rather insane synergy with Rogues (for Sneak Attack and Cunning Action) and Fighter (for Action Surge). Unless I read it wrong, Action Surge seems to allow you to use Dread Ambush twice on round 1. That's 6 attacks at level 7.
I think I see where the divide is between your view and mine Tom, you were saying “ I think there is a reductive element here, because the classes should primarily give access to mechanics first and only flavor insofar it establishes some basics.” While I come at it from the opposite side - the classes provide the flavor first and the mechanics second. So your spec ops warrior I see as a fighter base not a ranger base. that is, he is first and foremost a warrior with special skills not an explorer/hunter/outsider as Envoy and I were describing the ranger. I can see how starting with ranger might help the build but the concept essentially forces a multiclass into fighter because that is where the character really belongs. And that divide is there because you start with the concept “spec-ops warrior” and look for the the stats/class features to make it (perfectly legitimate) while I take the same concept and start with the flavor - warrior with multi skills and wilderness abilities and go straight to the fighter since it’s a warrior at core then add on things (folk hero/outsider background, nature skill proficiency) to give it the added flavor.
I still want to see the upper level tweaks you would like to play ranger all the way thru.
For me its less about ranger damage (their spells help a lot with that)
And more about helping them keep concentration spells up period. That was my stuggle as a T3 ranger was I was walloped by attacks from stuff that is putting out 30+ damage per swing and all of a sudden I can't keep any concentration spells up.
Even worse if you are a melee ranger...forget about it then! you are destined to drop your best spells fast.
Also the lame duck Feral Senses is something that akin to a T2 benefit at best but is the late game feature....I would rather have something more unique to ranger and the idea they are all hunters a bit at heart. Or better yet a choice between wanting to focus more on your spells (a short rest recovery of slots), a focus on your hunting skills (Ignore special sense like tremor sense/blindsense) or a focus on exploration/nature (you get a bonus equal to your ranger level divided by 3 to one of the skills of your choice: Nature, Survival, Perception. You can swap this skill on a long rest).
You would be able to choose what your ranger was good at and could tailor it to your group or your campaign. Each option is unique and is hard to replicate with a dip or MC.
Thank you again Envoy, you’ve done a better job of describing what I love about the ranger than I’ve managed so far - don’t be too surprised to portions quoted in other threads or even latter in this one 😁. I have used the mountain man trope a lot to try to remind folks that what sets the ranger apart is that he/she is, to a large extent, an outsider to normal society that steps in sometimes but isn’t really a part of. The scout rogue is, to my mind, a member of society that steps out to do a job and then returns. Pretty much the same thing for the ranger dipped fighter/barbarian. Somewhat the difference between the guy who lives 5 blocks from mom’s house but goes traveling every vacation to see the world and/or goes to a different national park to go camping ( with a tent, food, and full equipment) and the lady who has spent her life traveling the world living in many different places and maybe takes time off to center herself by simply walking into a national forest for a week/10 days with nothing but the clothes on her back and a decent knife and lives off the land in the middle of of nowhere away from society. They have very different world views.
I mean, I literally went level by level earlier and showed that Ranger progression is pretty much on par with other martial classes until at least level 19, with only two (semi-)underwhelming levels along the way.
I think I see where the divide is between your view and mine Tom, you were saying “ I think there is a reductive element here, because the classes should primarily give access to mechanics first and only flavor insofar it establishes some basics.” While I come at it from the opposite side - the classes provide the flavor first and the mechanics second. So your spec ops warrior I see as a fighter base not a ranger base. that is, he is first and foremost a warrior with special skills not an explorer/hunter/outsider as Envoy and I were describing the ranger. I can see how starting with ranger might help the build but the concept essentially forces a multiclass into fighter because that is where the character really belongs. And that divide is there because you start with the concept “spec-ops warrior” and look for the the stats/class features to make it (perfectly legitimate) while I take the same concept and start with the flavor - warrior with multi skills and wilderness abilities and go straight to the fighter since it’s a warrior at core then add on things (folk hero/outsider background, nature skill proficiency) to give it the added flavor.
I still want to see the upper level tweaks you would like to play ranger all the way thru.
"Spec ops martial" not "spec ops warrior". Envoy put it well, pointnig out how Rangers can be assassins, monster hunters etc. as well as wanderers and explorers. None of these are breaking with the broader flavor of the Ranger class. These things can be summed up as "spec ops". And "martial" because it uses the martial class basic stats: D10 hit dice, martial weapon and wide armor proficiencies, fighting styles and Extra Attack. Being a martial doesn't mean you can only go frontline and I don't mean it that way.
I think that reducing the flavor of the Ranger class to just "mountain men" would do everyone a disservice. The class should not work only on that specificity of flavor.
I could see myself going straight Stalker (tried a Horizon Walker in a lvl 7-8 campaign and was quite disappointed. Gone Hunter lvl 1-10 in Solasta and it was alright, but mostly saved by magic items because the spell selection is so small. Didn't even have Spike Growth at the time, 'cause it was added with Primal Calling), but what exact features I would like can't really be pinned down to one thing. Any idea would need to go through a process of playtesting and revision to keep it from getting out of hand.
Assuming for the moment I can't touch the PHB and Tasha's optional features, which is a pretty safe assumption, I think focusing on new archetypes that fulfills a couple more roles would be my preferred solution. Hunters aren't terrible, but they are not up to the design standards for current Ranger archetypes, so a new combat focused subclass would be nice. Another thing I would like is one that leans less into combat and more into spellcasting. We already have pet and stealth focused options.
Can I ask what exactly disappointed you about the Horizon Walker?
I used a Horizon Walker in a campaign from levels 5-20 (I started with a Fighter/Echo Knight from levels 1-5, but got bored by it so unbelievably much that the DM let me swap in a Ranger) and I, my party, and the DM can all attest that I was consistently the most useful, dangerous, and versatile member of my team. Sometimes much to the chagrin of the other players, I will admit. My party, by the way, consisted of a Verdan Hexblade, a Pallid Elf Light Cleric, a Bugbear Ancestral Barbarian, and an Aaracockra Lore Bard. I was the Human (Mark of Finding) Horizon Walker.
Can I ask what exactly disappointed you about the Horizon Walker?
I used a Horizon Walker in a campaign from levels 5-20 (I started with a Fighter/Echo Knight from levels 1-5, but got bored by it so unbelievably much that the DM let me swap in a Ranger) and I, my party, and the DM can all attest that I was consistently the most useful, dangerous, and versatile member of my team. Sometimes much to the chagrin of the other players, I will admit. My party, by the way, consisted of a Verdan Hexblade, a Pallid Elf Light Cleric, a Bugbear Ancestral Barbarian, and an Aaracockra Lore Bard. I was the Human (Mark of Finding) Horizon Walker.
It had more to do with the campaign than anything. I do think Walker is an alright archetype on its own. I spent my time agonizing over what to do with my bonus action, getting crit by enemies, failing skill checks and watching my Polearm Master/Sentinel V-human Vengeance Paladin ally kill everything before I had my turn. The most I got out of the class was using Detect Portal to bypass a puzzle.
Yes Envoy did a great job (thanks again) the only thing I was trying to add was a bit of how I see the mindset of rangers of all types - people who have, for whatever reason, left mainstream society behind fairly permanently - outsiders. I was using the mountain man example to point out the exploration arm they frequently represent but I’ll try to drop it since it seems to be creating more problems than it solves.
given 5.5/6/??? Coming in the not so distant future I can see possible rewrites/tweaks to core classes but if you prefer to focus on new subclasses I would love to see your ideas.I don’t expect finished products - the idea is to toss around ideas and discuss them - right now I see this thread as players brainstorming and trying to identify and fix obvious flaws. To me at least the video Frank shared made the point that WOtC does monitor what it’s base thinks and that that includes paying some sort of attention to DDB (they even mentioned us at one point) so I’m trying for “food for thought” on the off chance they look this over.
Sounds like you just got unlucky with a lot of rolls.
In my group, I mapped to your Paladin while the Hexblade mapped to you.
I was the one consistently doing the most damage by far (and *then* I got the Oathbow,) sneaking places with great stealth checks, removing traps with the Thieves Tools I got from my Urchin background, stealing McGuffins from the villains with Sleight of Hand, and constantly going places the DM did not want me to go to thanks to Etherealness, Misty Step, and PwT. And I was the one getting all the juicy lore bits of the setting thanks to my Favored Enemy choices. We had no dedicated Int class, so I was the one who ended up having to make the majority of Int skills, since I had advantage on 90% of them from Favored Enemy (humans and elves.)
Meanwhile, the Hexblade was the one rolling Nat 1's on stealth and failing even with the effects of my Pass without Trace, and I can count the number of times they rolled above a 10 in both attack rolls or saving throws during the course of the *entire* campaign. Literally, their rolls were so bad, they became a liability to the group. Sad though it was, the party was far more efficient whenever the Hexblade player had to miss a session. The Cleric actively spent more time getting the Hexblade back up from 0 than attacking, something that really did begin to annoy her about a third of the way in.
Sounds like you just got unlucky with a lot of rolls.
In my group, I mapped to your Paladin while the Hexblade mapped to you.
I was the one consistently doing the most damage by far (and *then* I got the Oathbow,) sneaking places with great stealth checks, removing traps with the Thieves Tools I got from my Urchin background, stealing McGuffins from the villains with Sleight of Hand, and constantly going places the DM did not want me to go to thanks to Etherealness, Misty Step, and PwT. And I was the one getting all the juicy lore bits of the setting thanks to my Favored Enemy choices. We had no dedicated Int class, so I was the one who ended up having to make the majority of Int skills, since I had advantage on 90% of them from Favored Enemy (humans and elves.)
Meanwhile, the Hexblade was the one rolling Nat 1's on stealth and failing even with the effects of my Pass without Trace, and I can count the number of times they rolled above a 10 in both attack rolls or saving throws during the course of the *entire* campaign. Literally, their rolls were so bad, they became a liability to the group. Sad though it was, the party was far more efficient whenever the Hexblade player had to miss a session. The Cleric actively spent more time getting the Hexblade back up from 0 than attacking, something that really did begin to annoy her about a third of the way in.
I mean if you get the literal best magic item for a ranged character then yeah you are gonna have a good time (oathbow ftw).
Also if your villian is somehow keeping McGuffins in plain sight and easy to pickpocket they deserve to lose that as anyone can pick that up with little problem. Heck even a mage hand can pull that one off and away.
And you are rolling the best damage because of terrible rolls by another player? I mean that is definitely not the norm math wise so the picture you paint is pretty one sided to be in your favor....
I am not gonna say your experience is invalid as it was yours and genuine. However, mathematically hex blades will generally outpace rangers wih the "optimal" set up. You pay all your warlock stuff to get that damage but it is what it is. It also requires 2 feats but if you are talking high level play or stat rolling then its reasonable.
This does go to show how YMMV and personal experiences shape how we see a class...its not "Ignorance" or lack of "understanding" of the class its how we have played it and how it played for us.
So if we could please stop saying people dislike ranger features because "you don't understand" them that would be great.
Sounds like you just got unlucky with a lot of rolls.
In my group, I mapped to your Paladin while the Hexblade mapped to you.
I was the one consistently doing the most damage by far (and *then* I got the Oathbow,) sneaking places with great stealth checks, removing traps with the Thieves Tools I got from my Urchin background, stealing McGuffins from the villains with Sleight of Hand, and constantly going places the DM did not want me to go to thanks to Etherealness, Misty Step, and PwT. And I was the one getting all the juicy lore bits of the setting thanks to my Favored Enemy choices. We had no dedicated Int class, so I was the one who ended up having to make the majority of Int skills, since I had advantage on 90% of them from Favored Enemy (humans and elves.)
Meanwhile, the Hexblade was the one rolling Nat 1's on stealth and failing even with the effects of my Pass without Trace, and I can count the number of times they rolled above a 10 in both attack rolls or saving throws during the course of the *entire* campaign. Literally, their rolls were so bad, they became a liability to the group. Sad though it was, the party was far more efficient whenever the Hexblade player had to miss a session. The Cleric actively spent more time getting the Hexblade back up from 0 than attacking, something that really did begin to annoy her about a third of the way in.
I mean if you get the literal best magic item for a ranged character then yeah you are gonna have a good time (oathbow ftw).
Also if your villian is somehow keeping McGuffins in plain sight and easy to pickpocket they deserve to lose that as anyone can pick that up with little problem. Heck even a mage hand can pull that one off and away.
And you are rolling the best damage because of terrible rolls by another player? I mean that is definitely not the norm math wise so the picture you paint is pretty one sided to be in your favor....
I am not gonna say your experience is invalid as it was yours and genuine. However, mathematically hex blades will generally outpace rangers wih the "optimal" set up. You pay all your warlock stuff to get that damage but it is what it is. It also requires 2 feats but if you are talking high level play or stat rolling then its reasonable.
This does go to show how YMMV and personal experiences shape how we see a class...its not "Ignorance" or lack of "understanding" of the class its how we have played it and how it played for us.
So if we could please stop saying people dislike ranger features because "you don't understand" them that would be great.
How about “When used in a way other than how you are using them the ranger abilities and spells are very good” instead?
Sounds like you just got unlucky with a lot of rolls.
In my group, I mapped to your Paladin while the Hexblade mapped to you.
I was the one consistently doing the most damage by far (and *then* I got the Oathbow,) sneaking places with great stealth checks, removing traps with the Thieves Tools I got from my Urchin background, stealing McGuffins from the villains with Sleight of Hand, and constantly going places the DM did not want me to go to thanks to Etherealness, Misty Step, and PwT. And I was the one getting all the juicy lore bits of the setting thanks to my Favored Enemy choices. We had no dedicated Int class, so I was the one who ended up having to make the majority of Int skills, since I had advantage on 90% of them from Favored Enemy (humans and elves.)
Meanwhile, the Hexblade was the one rolling Nat 1's on stealth and failing even with the effects of my Pass without Trace, and I can count the number of times they rolled above a 10 in both attack rolls or saving throws during the course of the *entire* campaign. Literally, their rolls were so bad, they became a liability to the group. Sad though it was, the party was far more efficient whenever the Hexblade player had to miss a session. The Cleric actively spent more time getting the Hexblade back up from 0 than attacking, something that really did begin to annoy her about a third of the way in.
I mean if you get the literal best magic item for a ranged character then yeah you are gonna have a good time (oathbow ftw).
Also if your villian is somehow keeping McGuffins in plain sight and easy to pickpocket they deserve to lose that as anyone can pick that up with little problem. Heck even a mage hand can pull that one off and away.
And you are rolling the best damage because of terrible rolls by another player? I mean that is definitely not the norm math wise so the picture you paint is pretty one sided to be in your favor....
I am not gonna say your experience is invalid as it was yours and genuine. However, mathematically hex blades will generally outpace rangers wih the "optimal" set up. You pay all your warlock stuff to get that damage but it is what it is. It also requires 2 feats but if you are talking high level play or stat rolling then its reasonable.
This does go to show how YMMV and personal experiences shape how we see a class...its not "Ignorance" or lack of "understanding" of the class its how we have played it and how it played for us.
So if we could please stop saying people dislike ranger features because "you don't understand" them that would be great.
I got the Oathbow halfway through the campaign, but I was still doing the most single-target damage of the party even before then.
And yeah. The Hexblade was rolling poorly, but the Barbarian and the Cleric weren't. And the DM still had the most trouble with me.
And the villains weren't leaving important McGuffins in plain sight. I was getting to places I shouldn't have been able to get into because of my Ranger/Horizon Walker abilities, and noticing things of interest because of my good perception skills.
Yes. I was rolling well. And Tom rolled poorly with their Walker. I didn't make my post to claim the Walker was somehow the be all; end all subclass in the game. The true power level of the Walker likely lies somewhere between Tom's Experience and mine.
One thing I will say though is that the Hexblade doesn't necessarily mathematically outpace the Horizon Walker. Hexblades never get more than two weapon attacks (unlike Walkers who get three + Haste) so at best, they're using Eldritch Blast, which is still weaker than three longbow shots with Sharpshooter (the penalty of which the Ranger can easily offset in myriad ways.) Sure, the Hexblade can drop a powerful high level spell and spike that way, but they only get, what? Three spell slots total? Unless you have a DM that's really generous with the short rests. And God forbid they want to Eldritch Smite. The level 6+ spells can only be used once per long rest. So while they *can* spike, it's in shorter bursts than Paladins.
And I haven't even talked about the Walker's summon spells.
Which, TO BE CLEAR, isn't me saying Walkers are better than Hexblades either. Rather, I'm just saying that the claim that Hexblade > H Walker mathematically isn't 100% absolute undeniable fact.
And I'm not just talking theoretical stuff here. I've played entire campaigns with Hexblades, Paladins, and Rogues. I've also used literally every Ranger subclass in the game right now and have spanned the gamut of levels from 1-20 with them. And I've DM'ed for a T3 all-Ranger party. Theoretical mathematics is great and all (and I engage with them plenty myself,) but I also have the practical experience to back my claims.
Yes Envoy did a great job (thanks again) the only thing I was trying to add was a bit of how I see the mindset of rangers of all types - people who have, for whatever reason, left mainstream society behind fairly permanently - outsiders. I was using the mountain man example to point out the exploration arm they frequently represent but I’ll try to drop it since it seems to be creating more problems than it solves.
For me, I think the current flavor the class itself offers now is perfectly fine as it is. It's broad enough to encompass a variety of character concepts, while also being distinct from the other martial classes and have some recognizeable pop culture characters that can be associated with it, which is usually how new people get their interest in classes in my experience. "I want to be Drizzt/Aragaon/Minsc!" seems to be more common reasons than "I want to be a mountain man".
I'm not even against using PHB Favored Enemy / Natural Explorer on a character, because the newer archetypes typically have strong enough features for it to be a nice ribbon feature; useful when/if it comes up, but not important to my ability to contribute in an average adventure day.
given 5.5/6/??? Coming in the not so distant future I can see possible rewrites/tweaks to core classes but if you prefer to focus on new subclasses I would love to see your ideas.I don’t expect finished products - the idea is to toss around ideas and discuss them - right now I see this thread as players brainstorming and trying to identify and fix obvious flaws. To me at least the video Frank shared made the point that WOtC does monitor what it’s base thinks and that that includes paying some sort of attention to DDB (they even mentioned us at one point) so I’m trying for “food for thought” on the off chance they look this over.
From what little I've heard of it, 5.5 seems to be intended to be compatible with the PHB, so I expect the tweaks to the core classes to largely come in the form of optional features.
Like I mentioned, pushing Vanish down into T2 seems obvious. It feels strange that we have to wait until mid T3 to get an ability that a 2nd level spell can do for the whole party, limiting this side to the Ranger's base kit.
Other than that, I do think my Favored Prey would be a neat way to make the Favored Enemy stuff more relevant. I do think that, from a design perspective, there is a bit of a problem tying the usefulness of certain features to things the player has no control over, like terrain and enemy types. This has been a problem for several editions with varying impact and late 3.5 and Pathfinder 1 is probably a good example of how they ended up overcompensating for how underwhelming the 3.0 Ranger was.
Freebooter Ranger can tank, spank and support with the best of them at the same time between their Bane & Bond (party buffs, not limited to any one type of enemy), Combat Style and spells that allow them to upscale weapon dice and add Sneak Attack dice. It's pretty insane.
Favored Prey, so you don't have to hunt it down in this thread:
One of the consistent problems of Rangers over the various editions is the idea of their favored enemy, which often limits their usefulness. In the interest of that, here is a possible path for changing Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer in 5e to be more useful.
This feature would replace Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer and Foe Slayer and would be incompatible with Tasha’s Favored Foe and Deft Explorer for balance reasons.
Favored Prey
You have experience studying, tracking and hunting a certain type of enemy and their environment.
Choose a type of favored prey: Survivalist, Bounty Hunter, Monster Slayer.
Survivalist - You count animals and humanoids living in tribal societies (such as orcs or barbarians) as your favored prey. You count forests, grasslands, mountain, tundra and desert as favored terrains for this feature.
Bounty Hunter - You count most humanoids who live in cities and other permanent settlements as your favored prey. You count urban and otherwise settled areas as your favored terrains for this feature.
Monster Slayer - You count magical monsters, outsiders, undead and anything not covered by Survivalist and Bounty Hunter as your favored prey. You count exotic locations such as the Underdark, not covered by Survivalist and Bounty Hunter as your favored terrain for this feature. You also count the lair of a magical monster (such as a dragon’s den) as your favored terrain if they have lair actions.
You have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your favored enemies, as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about them.
When in your favored terrain, you have advantage on initiative checks.
While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:
Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
You choose an additional favored prey at level 6 and 11.
Favored Prey 2
You have gained greater experience studying, tracking and hunting a certain type of enemy and their environment.
Choose a new type of favored prey: Survivalist, Bounty Hunter, Monster Slayer.
You now have advantage on Wisdom and Intelligence saving throws against your favored enemies.
Favored Prey 3
You have gained even greater experience studying, tracking and hunting, and can now apply your knowledge and skills to any situation. Your perceptive nature lets you find weak spots in your enemies.
Choose the last type of favored prey: Survivalist, Bounty Hunter, Monster Slayer.
Note: This feature would make every enemy and terrain count as favored.
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, the creature takes extra [type?] damage equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1).
Prey’s Bane
Once on each of your turns, you can add your Wisdom modifier to the attack roll of an attack you make against one of your favored enemies. You can choose to use this feature before or after the roll, but before any effects of the roll are applied.
Explanation
The Ranger’s limitations on favored enemy and terrain is one of the drawbacks that makes it hard to utilize the features from a design standpoint. Making it so that each choice covers a broadly applicable set of enemies and terrains that is easy to tailor to a campaign makes this less of a problem for players and DMs, even more so when they become universal. This will make it easier to avoid the player feeling like they made the wrong choice and put less stress on the DM to cater specifically to the Ranger.
Advantage on saving throws might seem strong and it is, but the Paladin gets its Aura of Protection at the same level, so I think it can slide.
Finally, going into higher levels, this would give the Ranger a passive boost to damage through their Wisdom modifier at the same time as their Favored Prey ability becomes universal.
It would technically be possible to have +10 damage on weapon attacks at level 11 with this setup if you’re using shillelagh via the Druidic Warrior fighting style, but this would come at the cost of not getting archery, dueling or two weapon styles. It would also add to your bonus action economy, making it harder to use other Ranger spells like Hunter’s Mark.
Rangers building for Dex or Str would likely only have +2 or +3 Wis at this point, but would be incentivised to max it out before 20. I prefer it being a static bonus over a damage dice so it isn’t multiplied on a crit (normally anyway).
I do believe the bonus damage should come in the form of damage independent of the weapon being used for gameplay reasons. This is to strike a balance between it being applicable and resisted, which can’t really be done if it is simply using the damage type of the weapon, since magical physical damage is too rarely resisted.
Non-magical physical damage is arguably too commonly resisted for it to be a realistic choice, as are immunities to it. The same can be said for Poison.
Fire, Frost, Acid, Thunder and Radiant are arguably too “magical” in theme
Necrotic could work, having a nice balance between being resisted or not, while also kinda working as a “bleed” damage type.
Lightning could work, seeing as Lightning Arrow is a pretty iconic Ranger spell, but is arguably too “magical” as well and would be better suited to a storm-themed Ranger archetype.
Of the ones available, I’d go with Necrotic.
For archetypes, we already have stealth Ranger, blink Ranger, always-making-their-saves Ranger, pet Ranger x2 and social Ranger who work as well as they can be expected to. What I would like to see is a frontline Ranger to replace the Hunter, because I don't think it holds up compared to Xanathar, and a mage Ranger.
Frontline Ranger
There are many themes for this to pick from, so let's go with Storm Dancer. I feel like having a short rest variant of the Ranger could be nice, so let's use that as the basis to balance these abilities. Names are obviously edgy placeholders.
Features: Storm Dance, Relentless, Hurricane, Eye of the Storm
Spell list: Maybe none?
Level 3: Storm Dance
When making a melee weapon attack on your turn with your attack action, you can use the momentum to enter a Storm Dance (free action, but prevents you from using standard action spells on the same turn as you set up).
Storm Dance... ... weapon attacks deal 1d6 lightning or thunder damage on melee weapon attacks, including the attack that starts the Storm Dance. Choose which when beginning the dance. This damage become 1d8 at level 11. ... gain resistance to the damage type you choose for the dance. ... AC is increased by 1. The AC bonus increases to 2 at level 11. ... lasts 1 minute or until you lose concentration as if you were concentrating on a spell. ... gives advantage on constitution saves for maintaining concentration on Storm Dance. (Uses concentration to avoid unintended combinations) ... 2 uses per short rest.
Level 7: Relentless
When it Storm Dance... ... lightning and thunder damage dealt by the character when in Storm Dance ignores resistance to lightning and thunder damage. ... you automatically succeed constitution saving throws to maintain Storm Dance.
Level 11: Hurricane
When in Storm Dance... ... your movement speed is increased by 10 feet. ... you can take the disengage action as a bonus action.
Level 15: Eye of the Storm
When in Storm Dance... ... you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against a creature that enters your reach. ... once per dance you can use your action to deal xd8 damage to creatures you choose within 10 feet. This damage is the same type as you chose for your dance.
Alternatively: Make it Lightning, Thunder or Cold damage.
As for a mage Ranger, I am less certain about the features. I know I'd want cantrips, more spells and no archetype based martial features.
Just to clarify so no one takes the wrong idea from my post; I don't think Horizon Walker is bad. I just had a disappointing experience with it and wouldn't play one again because of how bloated the bonus action economy felt thanks to Etherealness and Planar Warrior.
Just to clarify so no one takes the wrong idea from my post; I don't think Horizon Walker is bad. I just had a disappointing experience with it and wouldn't play one again because of how bloated the bonus action economy felt thanks to Etherealness and Planar Warrior.
Personally, I found myself using Etherealness almost exclusively outside of combat. I think I only used it in combat once. Misty Step was my go-to GTFO spell during combat.
I also found that the second I got a magic weapon, I completely forgot Planar Warrior existed. Like, actively forgot about the feature altogether. My BA was almost always better spent on Misty Step or Hunter's Mark. Whether that's a point in favor or against the Walker is up to the individual, I suppose. But I know I didn't really miss it most of the time. At higher levels, Vanish and Nature's Veil were more important to me than 2d8 force damage. Though I will say it was nice to have on the *exceedingly* rare occasion I needed a bit more damage.
Just to clarify so no one takes the wrong idea from my post; I don't think Horizon Walker is bad. I just had a disappointing experience with it and wouldn't play one again because of how bloated the bonus action economy felt thanks to Etherealness and Planar Warrior.
Personally, I found myself using Etherealness almost exclusively outside of combat. I think I only used it in combat once. Misty Step was my go-to GTFO spell during combat.
I also found that the second I got a magic weapon, I completely forgot Planar Warrior existed. Like, actively forgot about the feature altogether. My BA was almost always better spent on Misty Step or Hunter's Mark. Whether that's a point in favor or against the Walker is up to the individual, I suppose. But I know I didn't really miss it most of the time. At higher levels, Vanish and Nature's Veil were more important to me than 2d8 force damage. Though I will say it was nice to have on the *exceedingly* rare occasion I needed a bit more damage.
I was originally going to play a two-weapon fighting Gloom Stalker, but changed last minute to Horizon Walker because of the lore of the campaign dealing with things a Walker might have more relevance to. My main takeaway is that if you're playing a TWF Walker, you're gonna have a bad time.
Oh. TWF? Then, yeah. Definitely. Walkers are not designed with TWF in mind. Which sucks because the idea of a dual wielding teleporting Planeswalker is so damn cool.
Having gone the archery route tho, I found Walkers more than solid
Sounds like you just got unlucky with a lot of rolls.
In my group, I mapped to your Paladin while the Hexblade mapped to you.
I was the one consistently doing the most damage by far (and *then* I got the Oathbow,) sneaking places with great stealth checks, removing traps with the Thieves Tools I got from my Urchin background, stealing McGuffins from the villains with Sleight of Hand, and constantly going places the DM did not want me to go to thanks to Etherealness, Misty Step, and PwT. And I was the one getting all the juicy lore bits of the setting thanks to my Favored Enemy choices. We had no dedicated Int class, so I was the one who ended up having to make the majority of Int skills, since I had advantage on 90% of them from Favored Enemy (humans and elves.)
Meanwhile, the Hexblade was the one rolling Nat 1's on stealth and failing even with the effects of my Pass without Trace, and I can count the number of times they rolled above a 10 in both attack rolls or saving throws during the course of the *entire* campaign. Literally, their rolls were so bad, they became a liability to the group. Sad though it was, the party was far more efficient whenever the Hexblade player had to miss a session. The Cleric actively spent more time getting the Hexblade back up from 0 than attacking, something that really did begin to annoy her about a third of the way in.
I mean if you get the literal best magic item for a ranged character then yeah you are gonna have a good time (oathbow ftw).
Also if your villian is somehow keeping McGuffins in plain sight and easy to pickpocket they deserve to lose that as anyone can pick that up with little problem. Heck even a mage hand can pull that one off and away.
And you are rolling the best damage because of terrible rolls by another player? I mean that is definitely not the norm math wise so the picture you paint is pretty one sided to be in your favor....
I am not gonna say your experience is invalid as it was yours and genuine. However, mathematically hex blades will generally outpace rangers wih the "optimal" set up. You pay all your warlock stuff to get that damage but it is what it is. It also requires 2 feats but if you are talking high level play or stat rolling then its reasonable.
This does go to show how YMMV and personal experiences shape how we see a class...its not "Ignorance" or lack of "understanding" of the class its how we have played it and how it played for us.
So if we could please stop saying people dislike ranger features because "you don't understand" them that would be great.
I got the Oathbow halfway through the campaign, but I was still doing the most single-target damage of the party even before then.
And yeah. The Hexblade was rolling poorly, but the Barbarian and the Cleric weren't. And the DM still had the most trouble with me.
And the villains weren't leaving important McGuffins in plain sight. I was getting to places I shouldn't have been able to get into because of my Ranger/Horizon Walker abilities, and noticing things of interest because of my good perception skills.
Yes. I was rolling well. And Tom rolled poorly with their Walker. I didn't make my post to claim the Walker was somehow the be all; end all subclass in the game. The true power level of the Walker likely lies somewhere between Tom's Experience and mine.
One thing I will say though is that the Hexblade doesn't necessarily mathematically outpace the Horizon Walker. Hexblades never get more than two weapon attacks (unlike Walkers who get three + Haste) so at best, they're using Eldritch Blast, which is still weaker than three longbow shots with Sharpshooter (the penalty of which the Ranger can easily offset in myriad ways.) Sure, the Hexblade can drop a powerful high level spell and spike that way, but they only get, what? Three spell slots total? Unless you have a DM that's really generous with the short rests. And God forbid they want to Eldritch Smite. The level 6+ spells can only be used once per long rest. So while they *can* spike, it's in shorter bursts than Paladins.
And I haven't even talked about the Walker's summon spells.
Which, TO BE CLEAR, isn't me saying Walkers are better than Hexblades either. Rather, I'm just saying that the claim that Hexblade > H Walker mathematically isn't 100% absolute undeniable fact.
And I'm not just talking theoretical stuff here. I've played entire campaigns with Hexblades, Paladins, and Rogues. I've also used literally every Ranger subclass in the game right now and have spanned the gamut of levels from 1-20 with them. And I've DM'ed for a T3 all-Ranger party. Theoretical mathematics is great and all (and I engage with them plenty myself,) but I also have the practical experience to back my claims.
The "optimal" is PAM+GWM with Devil sight and Darkness.
You also forget about Life drinker so each swing for the warlock is doing d10+20 damage with no resource spend assuming 20 CHA.
Also I'm not sure what Barb was in your party but Zealot Barb is up there in damage at all times when you use the same combo: GWM+PAM and at will advantage. That with the zealot damage makes it very easily top DPR.
The main issue is that ranger needs spells to be top and they don't get a way to help with CON saves so you have a pretty high chance of not getting a lot out of the slot... especially with creatures with a lot of attacks.
If you are a "normal" ranger I assume a CON of 14 so +2 to saves.
If you have to make the standard DC 10 concentration save and are hit by three attacks you only have a 27% chance to make all three.
So you could get good mileage out of the spell.... Or none at all.
For most casters this is less of an issue as they have more slots to play with and more ways for defense.
A typical longbow ranger will have an AC of 17 or less for 90% of the campaign without much of a way to mitigate it so chances are good you will be hit.
So that's why I think they need help in the Con save area
Sounds like you just got unlucky with a lot of rolls.
In my group, I mapped to your Paladin while the Hexblade mapped to you.
I was the one consistently doing the most damage by far (and *then* I got the Oathbow,) sneaking places with great stealth checks, removing traps with the Thieves Tools I got from my Urchin background, stealing McGuffins from the villains with Sleight of Hand, and constantly going places the DM did not want me to go to thanks to Etherealness, Misty Step, and PwT. And I was the one getting all the juicy lore bits of the setting thanks to my Favored Enemy choices. We had no dedicated Int class, so I was the one who ended up having to make the majority of Int skills, since I had advantage on 90% of them from Favored Enemy (humans and elves.)
Meanwhile, the Hexblade was the one rolling Nat 1's on stealth and failing even with the effects of my Pass without Trace, and I can count the number of times they rolled above a 10 in both attack rolls or saving throws during the course of the *entire* campaign. Literally, their rolls were so bad, they became a liability to the group. Sad though it was, the party was far more efficient whenever the Hexblade player had to miss a session. The Cleric actively spent more time getting the Hexblade back up from 0 than attacking, something that really did begin to annoy her about a third of the way in.
I mean if you get the literal best magic item for a ranged character then yeah you are gonna have a good time (oathbow ftw).
Also if your villian is somehow keeping McGuffins in plain sight and easy to pickpocket they deserve to lose that as anyone can pick that up with little problem. Heck even a mage hand can pull that one off and away.
And you are rolling the best damage because of terrible rolls by another player? I mean that is definitely not the norm math wise so the picture you paint is pretty one sided to be in your favor....
I am not gonna say your experience is invalid as it was yours and genuine. However, mathematically hex blades will generally outpace rangers wih the "optimal" set up. You pay all your warlock stuff to get that damage but it is what it is. It also requires 2 feats but if you are talking high level play or stat rolling then its reasonable.
This does go to show how YMMV and personal experiences shape how we see a class...its not "Ignorance" or lack of "understanding" of the class its how we have played it and how it played for us.
So if we could please stop saying people dislike ranger features because "you don't understand" them that would be great.
I got the Oathbow halfway through the campaign, but I was still doing the most single-target damage of the party even before then.
And yeah. The Hexblade was rolling poorly, but the Barbarian and the Cleric weren't. And the DM still had the most trouble with me.
And the villains weren't leaving important McGuffins in plain sight. I was getting to places I shouldn't have been able to get into because of my Ranger/Horizon Walker abilities, and noticing things of interest because of my good perception skills.
Yes. I was rolling well. And Tom rolled poorly with their Walker. I didn't make my post to claim the Walker was somehow the be all; end all subclass in the game. The true power level of the Walker likely lies somewhere between Tom's Experience and mine.
One thing I will say though is that the Hexblade doesn't necessarily mathematically outpace the Horizon Walker. Hexblades never get more than two weapon attacks (unlike Walkers who get three + Haste) so at best, they're using Eldritch Blast, which is still weaker than three longbow shots with Sharpshooter (the penalty of which the Ranger can easily offset in myriad ways.) Sure, the Hexblade can drop a powerful high level spell and spike that way, but they only get, what? Three spell slots total? Unless you have a DM that's really generous with the short rests. And God forbid they want to Eldritch Smite. The level 6+ spells can only be used once per long rest. So while they *can* spike, it's in shorter bursts than Paladins.
And I haven't even talked about the Walker's summon spells.
Which, TO BE CLEAR, isn't me saying Walkers are better than Hexblades either. Rather, I'm just saying that the claim that Hexblade > H Walker mathematically isn't 100% absolute undeniable fact.
And I'm not just talking theoretical stuff here. I've played entire campaigns with Hexblades, Paladins, and Rogues. I've also used literally every Ranger subclass in the game right now and have spanned the gamut of levels from 1-20 with them. And I've DM'ed for a T3 all-Ranger party. Theoretical mathematics is great and all (and I engage with them plenty myself,) but I also have the practical experience to back my claims.
The "optimal" is PAM+GWM with Devil sight and Darkness.
You also forget about Life drinker so each swing for the warlock is doing d10+20 damage with no resource spend assuming 20 CHA.
Also I'm not sure what Barb was in your party but Zealot Barb is up there in damage at all times when you use the same combo: GWM+PAM and at will advantage. That with the zealot damage makes it very easily top DPR.
The main issue is that ranger needs spells to be top and they don't get a way to help with CON saves so you have a pretty high chance of not getting a lot out of the slot... especially with creatures with a lot of attacks.
If you are a "normal" ranger I assume a CON of 14 so +2 to saves.
If you have to make the standard DC 10 concentration save and are hit by three attacks you only have a 27% chance to make all three.
So you could get good mileage out of the spell.... Or none at all.
For most casters this is less of an issue as they have more slots to play with and more ways for defense.
A typical longbow ranger will have an AC of 17 or less for 90% of the campaign without much of a way to mitigate it so chances are good you will be hit.
So that's why I think they need help in the Con save area
To be honest, based on this and a previous post you've made, it sounds a lot like your own experience with the Ranger is coloring your opinion of them.
I've never had issues maintaining concentration with my Rangers because all of my Rangers are extremely slippery or fire from long range. I've gone entire workdays without having had to make a single concentration save.
Which again, I know is not the norm. But neither is failing your Con saves all of the time. The norm is somewhere in between your experience and mine.
As for Hexblade and Barbarian, again, the experience at the actual table is that enemies don't just plant themselves in front of them and wait to get hit and die. So the actual mathematical numbers don't mean a whole lot. But that's entirely another topic of conversation, so I'm going to stop talking about not-Rangers now.
Sounds like you just got unlucky with a lot of rolls.
In my group, I mapped to your Paladin while the Hexblade mapped to you.
I was the one consistently doing the most damage by far (and *then* I got the Oathbow,) sneaking places with great stealth checks, removing traps with the Thieves Tools I got from my Urchin background, stealing McGuffins from the villains with Sleight of Hand, and constantly going places the DM did not want me to go to thanks to Etherealness, Misty Step, and PwT. And I was the one getting all the juicy lore bits of the setting thanks to my Favored Enemy choices. We had no dedicated Int class, so I was the one who ended up having to make the majority of Int skills, since I had advantage on 90% of them from Favored Enemy (humans and elves.)
Meanwhile, the Hexblade was the one rolling Nat 1's on stealth and failing even with the effects of my Pass without Trace, and I can count the number of times they rolled above a 10 in both attack rolls or saving throws during the course of the *entire* campaign. Literally, their rolls were so bad, they became a liability to the group. Sad though it was, the party was far more efficient whenever the Hexblade player had to miss a session. The Cleric actively spent more time getting the Hexblade back up from 0 than attacking, something that really did begin to annoy her about a third of the way in.
I mean if you get the literal best magic item for a ranged character then yeah you are gonna have a good time (oathbow ftw).
Also if your villian is somehow keeping McGuffins in plain sight and easy to pickpocket they deserve to lose that as anyone can pick that up with little problem. Heck even a mage hand can pull that one off and away.
And you are rolling the best damage because of terrible rolls by another player? I mean that is definitely not the norm math wise so the picture you paint is pretty one sided to be in your favor....
I am not gonna say your experience is invalid as it was yours and genuine. However, mathematically hex blades will generally outpace rangers wih the "optimal" set up. You pay all your warlock stuff to get that damage but it is what it is. It also requires 2 feats but if you are talking high level play or stat rolling then its reasonable.
This does go to show how YMMV and personal experiences shape how we see a class...its not "Ignorance" or lack of "understanding" of the class its how we have played it and how it played for us.
So if we could please stop saying people dislike ranger features because "you don't understand" them that would be great.
I got the Oathbow halfway through the campaign, but I was still doing the most single-target damage of the party even before then.
And yeah. The Hexblade was rolling poorly, but the Barbarian and the Cleric weren't. And the DM still had the most trouble with me.
And the villains weren't leaving important McGuffins in plain sight. I was getting to places I shouldn't have been able to get into because of my Ranger/Horizon Walker abilities, and noticing things of interest because of my good perception skills.
Yes. I was rolling well. And Tom rolled poorly with their Walker. I didn't make my post to claim the Walker was somehow the be all; end all subclass in the game. The true power level of the Walker likely lies somewhere between Tom's Experience and mine.
One thing I will say though is that the Hexblade doesn't necessarily mathematically outpace the Horizon Walker. Hexblades never get more than two weapon attacks (unlike Walkers who get three + Haste) so at best, they're using Eldritch Blast, which is still weaker than three longbow shots with Sharpshooter (the penalty of which the Ranger can easily offset in myriad ways.) Sure, the Hexblade can drop a powerful high level spell and spike that way, but they only get, what? Three spell slots total? Unless you have a DM that's really generous with the short rests. And God forbid they want to Eldritch Smite. The level 6+ spells can only be used once per long rest. So while they *can* spike, it's in shorter bursts than Paladins.
And I haven't even talked about the Walker's summon spells.
Which, TO BE CLEAR, isn't me saying Walkers are better than Hexblades either. Rather, I'm just saying that the claim that Hexblade > H Walker mathematically isn't 100% absolute undeniable fact.
And I'm not just talking theoretical stuff here. I've played entire campaigns with Hexblades, Paladins, and Rogues. I've also used literally every Ranger subclass in the game right now and have spanned the gamut of levels from 1-20 with them. And I've DM'ed for a T3 all-Ranger party. Theoretical mathematics is great and all (and I engage with them plenty myself,) but I also have the practical experience to back my claims.
The "optimal" is PAM+GWM with Devil sight and Darkness.
You also forget about Life drinker so each swing for the warlock is doing d10+20 damage with no resource spend assuming 20 CHA.
Also I'm not sure what Barb was in your party but Zealot Barb is up there in damage at all times when you use the same combo: GWM+PAM and at will advantage. That with the zealot damage makes it very easily top DPR.
The main issue is that ranger needs spells to be top and they don't get a way to help with CON saves so you have a pretty high chance of not getting a lot out of the slot... especially with creatures with a lot of attacks.
If you are a "normal" ranger I assume a CON of 14 so +2 to saves.
If you have to make the standard DC 10 concentration save and are hit by three attacks you only have a 27% chance to make all three.
So you could get good mileage out of the spell.... Or none at all.
For most casters this is less of an issue as they have more slots to play with and more ways for defense.
A typical longbow ranger will have an AC of 17 or less for 90% of the campaign without much of a way to mitigate it so chances are good you will be hit.
So that's why I think they need help in the Con save area
These optimization builds you’re comparing to a ranger, I assume with sharpshooter, each need two feats. Why can’t the ranger just take one of the two feats that directly address constitution saving throws? That would mean all of these builds are taking two feats. Right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've got plenty of ideas, but I think a very simple fix could be to move Vanish to T2 for a start. And a minor passive combat boost in early T3. It shouldn't increase damage too much, just something to hold players over until they get 4th level spells. Archetypes have something at level 11, but it often feels like a minor boost compared to multiclassing unless you want something very specific from the Ranger class already. Getting a little something on top of that from the base class would be nice.
This could've been achieved already, if WotC had put more thought into how to distribute various subclasses. Gloom Stalkers are awesome, but too frontloaded, which gives them rather insane synergy with Rogues (for Sneak Attack and Cunning Action) and Fighter (for Action Surge). Unless I read it wrong, Action Surge seems to allow you to use Dread Ambush twice on round 1. That's 6 attacks at level 7.
I think I see where the divide is between your view and mine Tom, you were saying “ I think there is a reductive element here, because the classes should primarily give access to mechanics first and only flavor insofar it establishes some basics.” While I come at it from the opposite side - the classes provide the flavor first and the mechanics second. So your spec ops warrior I see as a fighter base not a ranger base. that is, he is first and foremost a warrior with special skills not an explorer/hunter/outsider as Envoy and I were describing the ranger. I can see how starting with ranger might help the build but the concept essentially forces a multiclass into fighter because that is where the character really belongs. And that divide is there because you start with the concept “spec-ops warrior” and look for the the stats/class features to make it (perfectly legitimate) while I take the same concept and start with the flavor - warrior with multi skills and wilderness abilities and go straight to the fighter since it’s a warrior at core then add on things (folk hero/outsider background, nature skill proficiency) to give it the added flavor.
I still want to see the upper level tweaks you would like to play ranger all the way thru.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
For me its less about ranger damage (their spells help a lot with that)
And more about helping them keep concentration spells up period. That was my stuggle as a T3 ranger was I was walloped by attacks from stuff that is putting out 30+ damage per swing and all of a sudden I can't keep any concentration spells up.
Even worse if you are a melee ranger...forget about it then! you are destined to drop your best spells fast.
Also the lame duck Feral Senses is something that akin to a T2 benefit at best but is the late game feature....I would rather have something more unique to ranger and the idea they are all hunters a bit at heart. Or better yet a choice between wanting to focus more on your spells (a short rest recovery of slots), a focus on your hunting skills (Ignore special sense like tremor sense/blindsense) or a focus on exploration/nature (you get a bonus equal to your ranger level divided by 3 to one of the skills of your choice: Nature, Survival, Perception. You can swap this skill on a long rest).
You would be able to choose what your ranger was good at and could tailor it to your group or your campaign. Each option is unique and is hard to replicate with a dip or MC.
I mean, I literally went level by level earlier and showed that Ranger progression is pretty much on par with other martial classes until at least level 19, with only two (semi-)underwhelming levels along the way.
"Spec ops martial" not "spec ops warrior". Envoy put it well, pointnig out how Rangers can be assassins, monster hunters etc. as well as wanderers and explorers. None of these are breaking with the broader flavor of the Ranger class. These things can be summed up as "spec ops". And "martial" because it uses the martial class basic stats: D10 hit dice, martial weapon and wide armor proficiencies, fighting styles and Extra Attack. Being a martial doesn't mean you can only go frontline and I don't mean it that way.
I think that reducing the flavor of the Ranger class to just "mountain men" would do everyone a disservice. The class should not work only on that specificity of flavor.
I could see myself going straight Stalker (tried a Horizon Walker in a lvl 7-8 campaign and was quite disappointed. Gone Hunter lvl 1-10 in Solasta and it was alright, but mostly saved by magic items because the spell selection is so small. Didn't even have Spike Growth at the time, 'cause it was added with Primal Calling), but what exact features I would like can't really be pinned down to one thing. Any idea would need to go through a process of playtesting and revision to keep it from getting out of hand.
Assuming for the moment I can't touch the PHB and Tasha's optional features, which is a pretty safe assumption, I think focusing on new archetypes that fulfills a couple more roles would be my preferred solution. Hunters aren't terrible, but they are not up to the design standards for current Ranger archetypes, so a new combat focused subclass would be nice. Another thing I would like is one that leans less into combat and more into spellcasting. We already have pet and stealth focused options.
Can I ask what exactly disappointed you about the Horizon Walker?
I used a Horizon Walker in a campaign from levels 5-20 (I started with a Fighter/Echo Knight from levels 1-5, but got bored by it so unbelievably much that the DM let me swap in a Ranger) and I, my party, and the DM can all attest that I was consistently the most useful, dangerous, and versatile member of my team. Sometimes much to the chagrin of the other players, I will admit. My party, by the way, consisted of a Verdan Hexblade, a Pallid Elf Light Cleric, a Bugbear Ancestral Barbarian, and an Aaracockra Lore Bard. I was the Human (Mark of Finding) Horizon Walker.
It had more to do with the campaign than anything. I do think Walker is an alright archetype on its own. I spent my time agonizing over what to do with my bonus action, getting crit by enemies, failing skill checks and watching my Polearm Master/Sentinel V-human Vengeance Paladin ally kill everything before I had my turn. The most I got out of the class was using Detect Portal to bypass a puzzle.
Yes Envoy did a great job (thanks again) the only thing I was trying to add was a bit of how I see the mindset of rangers of all types - people who have, for whatever reason, left mainstream society behind fairly permanently - outsiders. I was using the mountain man example to point out the exploration arm they frequently represent but I’ll try to drop it since it seems to be creating more problems than it solves.
given 5.5/6/??? Coming in the not so distant future I can see possible rewrites/tweaks to core classes but if you prefer to focus on new subclasses I would love to see your ideas.I don’t expect finished products - the idea is to toss around ideas and discuss them - right now I see this thread as players brainstorming and trying to identify and fix obvious flaws. To me at least the video Frank shared made the point that WOtC does monitor what it’s base thinks and that that includes paying some sort of attention to DDB (they even mentioned us at one point) so I’m trying for “food for thought” on the off chance they look this over.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Sounds like you just got unlucky with a lot of rolls.
In my group, I mapped to your Paladin while the Hexblade mapped to you.
I was the one consistently doing the most damage by far (and *then* I got the Oathbow,) sneaking places with great stealth checks, removing traps with the Thieves Tools I got from my Urchin background, stealing McGuffins from the villains with Sleight of Hand, and constantly going places the DM did not want me to go to thanks to Etherealness, Misty Step, and PwT. And I was the one getting all the juicy lore bits of the setting thanks to my Favored Enemy choices. We had no dedicated Int class, so I was the one who ended up having to make the majority of Int skills, since I had advantage on 90% of them from Favored Enemy (humans and elves.)
Meanwhile, the Hexblade was the one rolling Nat 1's on stealth and failing even with the effects of my Pass without Trace, and I can count the number of times they rolled above a 10 in both attack rolls or saving throws during the course of the *entire* campaign. Literally, their rolls were so bad, they became a liability to the group. Sad though it was, the party was far more efficient whenever the Hexblade player had to miss a session. The Cleric actively spent more time getting the Hexblade back up from 0 than attacking, something that really did begin to annoy her about a third of the way in.
I mean if you get the literal best magic item for a ranged character then yeah you are gonna have a good time (oathbow ftw).
Also if your villian is somehow keeping McGuffins in plain sight and easy to pickpocket they deserve to lose that as anyone can pick that up with little problem. Heck even a mage hand can pull that one off and away.
And you are rolling the best damage because of terrible rolls by another player? I mean that is definitely not the norm math wise so the picture you paint is pretty one sided to be in your favor....
I am not gonna say your experience is invalid as it was yours and genuine. However, mathematically hex blades will generally outpace rangers wih the "optimal" set up. You pay all your warlock stuff to get that damage but it is what it is. It also requires 2 feats but if you are talking high level play or stat rolling then its reasonable.
This does go to show how YMMV and personal experiences shape how we see a class...its not "Ignorance" or lack of "understanding" of the class its how we have played it and how it played for us.
So if we could please stop saying people dislike ranger features because "you don't understand" them that would be great.
How about “When used in a way other than how you are using them the ranger abilities and spells are very good” instead?
I got the Oathbow halfway through the campaign, but I was still doing the most single-target damage of the party even before then.
And yeah. The Hexblade was rolling poorly, but the Barbarian and the Cleric weren't. And the DM still had the most trouble with me.
And the villains weren't leaving important McGuffins in plain sight. I was getting to places I shouldn't have been able to get into because of my Ranger/Horizon Walker abilities, and noticing things of interest because of my good perception skills.
Yes. I was rolling well. And Tom rolled poorly with their Walker. I didn't make my post to claim the Walker was somehow the be all; end all subclass in the game. The true power level of the Walker likely lies somewhere between Tom's Experience and mine.
One thing I will say though is that the Hexblade doesn't necessarily mathematically outpace the Horizon Walker. Hexblades never get more than two weapon attacks (unlike Walkers who get three + Haste) so at best, they're using Eldritch Blast, which is still weaker than three longbow shots with Sharpshooter (the penalty of which the Ranger can easily offset in myriad ways.) Sure, the Hexblade can drop a powerful high level spell and spike that way, but they only get, what? Three spell slots total? Unless you have a DM that's really generous with the short rests. And God forbid they want to Eldritch Smite. The level 6+ spells can only be used once per long rest. So while they *can* spike, it's in shorter bursts than Paladins.
And I haven't even talked about the Walker's summon spells.
Which, TO BE CLEAR, isn't me saying Walkers are better than Hexblades either. Rather, I'm just saying that the claim that Hexblade > H Walker mathematically isn't 100% absolute undeniable fact.
And I'm not just talking theoretical stuff here. I've played entire campaigns with Hexblades, Paladins, and Rogues. I've also used literally every Ranger subclass in the game right now and have spanned the gamut of levels from 1-20 with them. And I've DM'ed for a T3 all-Ranger party. Theoretical mathematics is great and all (and I engage with them plenty myself,) but I also have the practical experience to back my claims.
For me, I think the current flavor the class itself offers now is perfectly fine as it is. It's broad enough to encompass a variety of character concepts, while also being distinct from the other martial classes and have some recognizeable pop culture characters that can be associated with it, which is usually how new people get their interest in classes in my experience. "I want to be Drizzt/Aragaon/Minsc!" seems to be more common reasons than "I want to be a mountain man".
I'm not even against using PHB Favored Enemy / Natural Explorer on a character, because the newer archetypes typically have strong enough features for it to be a nice ribbon feature; useful when/if it comes up, but not important to my ability to contribute in an average adventure day.
From what little I've heard of it, 5.5 seems to be intended to be compatible with the PHB, so I expect the tweaks to the core classes to largely come in the form of optional features.
Like I mentioned, pushing Vanish down into T2 seems obvious. It feels strange that we have to wait until mid T3 to get an ability that a 2nd level spell can do for the whole party, limiting this side to the Ranger's base kit.
Other than that, I do think my Favored Prey would be a neat way to make the Favored Enemy stuff more relevant. I do think that, from a design perspective, there is a bit of a problem tying the usefulness of certain features to things the player has no control over, like terrain and enemy types. This has been a problem for several editions with varying impact and late 3.5 and Pathfinder 1 is probably a good example of how they ended up overcompensating for how underwhelming the 3.0 Ranger was.
Freebooter Ranger can tank, spank and support with the best of them at the same time between their Bane & Bond (party buffs, not limited to any one type of enemy), Combat Style and spells that allow them to upscale weapon dice and add Sneak Attack dice. It's pretty insane.
Favored Prey, so you don't have to hunt it down in this thread:
One of the consistent problems of Rangers over the various editions is the idea of their favored enemy, which often limits their usefulness. In the interest of that, here is a possible path for changing Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer in 5e to be more useful.
This feature would replace Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer and Foe Slayer and would be incompatible with Tasha’s Favored Foe and Deft Explorer for balance reasons.
Favored Prey
You have experience studying, tracking and hunting a certain type of enemy and their environment.
Choose a type of favored prey: Survivalist, Bounty Hunter, Monster Slayer.
Survivalist - You count animals and humanoids living in tribal societies (such as orcs or barbarians) as your favored prey. You count forests, grasslands, mountain, tundra and desert as favored terrains for this feature.
Bounty Hunter - You count most humanoids who live in cities and other permanent settlements as your favored prey. You count urban and otherwise settled areas as your favored terrains for this feature.
Monster Slayer - You count magical monsters, outsiders, undead and anything not covered by Survivalist and Bounty Hunter as your favored prey. You count exotic locations such as the Underdark, not covered by Survivalist and Bounty Hunter as your favored terrain for this feature. You also count the lair of a magical monster (such as a dragon’s den) as your favored terrain if they have lair actions.
You have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your favored enemies, as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about them.
When in your favored terrain, you have advantage on initiative checks.
While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:
You choose an additional favored prey at level 6 and 11.
Favored Prey 2
You have gained greater experience studying, tracking and hunting a certain type of enemy and their environment.
Choose a new type of favored prey: Survivalist, Bounty Hunter, Monster Slayer.
You now have advantage on Wisdom and Intelligence saving throws against your favored enemies.
Favored Prey 3
You have gained even greater experience studying, tracking and hunting, and can now apply your knowledge and skills to any situation. Your perceptive nature lets you find weak spots in your enemies.
Choose the last type of favored prey: Survivalist, Bounty Hunter, Monster Slayer.
Note: This feature would make every enemy and terrain count as favored.
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, the creature takes extra [type?] damage equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1).
Prey’s Bane
Once on each of your turns, you can add your Wisdom modifier to the attack roll of an attack you make against one of your favored enemies. You can choose to use this feature before or after the roll, but before any effects of the roll are applied.
Explanation
The Ranger’s limitations on favored enemy and terrain is one of the drawbacks that makes it hard to utilize the features from a design standpoint. Making it so that each choice covers a broadly applicable set of enemies and terrains that is easy to tailor to a campaign makes this less of a problem for players and DMs, even more so when they become universal. This will make it easier to avoid the player feeling like they made the wrong choice and put less stress on the DM to cater specifically to the Ranger.
Advantage on saving throws might seem strong and it is, but the Paladin gets its Aura of Protection at the same level, so I think it can slide.
Finally, going into higher levels, this would give the Ranger a passive boost to damage through their Wisdom modifier at the same time as their Favored Prey ability becomes universal.
It would technically be possible to have +10 damage on weapon attacks at level 11 with this setup if you’re using shillelagh via the Druidic Warrior fighting style, but this would come at the cost of not getting archery, dueling or two weapon styles. It would also add to your bonus action economy, making it harder to use other Ranger spells like Hunter’s Mark.
Rangers building for Dex or Str would likely only have +2 or +3 Wis at this point, but would be incentivised to max it out before 20. I prefer it being a static bonus over a damage dice so it isn’t multiplied on a crit (normally anyway).
I do believe the bonus damage should come in the form of damage independent of the weapon being used for gameplay reasons. This is to strike a balance between it being applicable and resisted, which can’t really be done if it is simply using the damage type of the weapon, since magical physical damage is too rarely resisted.
Of the ones available, I’d go with Necrotic.
For archetypes, we already have stealth Ranger, blink Ranger, always-making-their-saves Ranger, pet Ranger x2 and social Ranger who work as well as they can be expected to. What I would like to see is a frontline Ranger to replace the Hunter, because I don't think it holds up compared to Xanathar, and a mage Ranger.
Frontline Ranger
There are many themes for this to pick from, so let's go with Storm Dancer. I feel like having a short rest variant of the Ranger could be nice, so let's use that as the basis to balance these abilities. Names are obviously edgy placeholders.
Features: Storm Dance, Relentless, Hurricane, Eye of the Storm
Spell list: Maybe none?
Level 3: Storm Dance
When making a melee weapon attack on your turn with your attack action, you can use the momentum to enter a Storm Dance (free action, but prevents you from using standard action spells on the same turn as you set up).
Storm Dance...
... weapon attacks deal 1d6 lightning or thunder damage on melee weapon attacks, including the attack that starts the Storm Dance. Choose which when beginning the dance. This damage become 1d8 at level 11.
... gain resistance to the damage type you choose for the dance.
... AC is increased by 1. The AC bonus increases to 2 at level 11.
... lasts 1 minute or until you lose concentration as if you were concentrating on a spell.
... gives advantage on constitution saves for maintaining concentration on Storm Dance. (Uses concentration to avoid unintended combinations)
... 2 uses per short rest.
Level 7: Relentless
When it Storm Dance...
... lightning and thunder damage dealt by the character when in Storm Dance ignores resistance to lightning and thunder damage.
... you automatically succeed constitution saving throws to maintain Storm Dance.
Level 11: Hurricane
When in Storm Dance...
... your movement speed is increased by 10 feet.
... you can take the disengage action as a bonus action.
Level 15: Eye of the Storm
When in Storm Dance...
... you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against a creature that enters your reach.
... once per dance you can use your action to deal xd8 damage to creatures you choose within 10 feet. This damage is the same type as you chose for your dance.
Alternatively: Make it Lightning, Thunder or Cold damage.
As for a mage Ranger, I am less certain about the features. I know I'd want cantrips, more spells and no archetype based martial features.
Just to clarify so no one takes the wrong idea from my post; I don't think Horizon Walker is bad. I just had a disappointing experience with it and wouldn't play one again because of how bloated the bonus action economy felt thanks to Etherealness and Planar Warrior.
Personally, I found myself using Etherealness almost exclusively outside of combat. I think I only used it in combat once. Misty Step was my go-to GTFO spell during combat.
I also found that the second I got a magic weapon, I completely forgot Planar Warrior existed. Like, actively forgot about the feature altogether. My BA was almost always better spent on Misty Step or Hunter's Mark. Whether that's a point in favor or against the Walker is up to the individual, I suppose. But I know I didn't really miss it most of the time. At higher levels, Vanish and Nature's Veil were more important to me than 2d8 force damage. Though I will say it was nice to have on the *exceedingly* rare occasion I needed a bit more damage.
I was originally going to play a two-weapon fighting Gloom Stalker, but changed last minute to Horizon Walker because of the lore of the campaign dealing with things a Walker might have more relevance to. My main takeaway is that if you're playing a TWF Walker, you're gonna have a bad time.
Oh. TWF? Then, yeah. Definitely. Walkers are not designed with TWF in mind. Which sucks because the idea of a dual wielding teleporting Planeswalker is so damn cool.
Having gone the archery route tho, I found Walkers more than solid
The "optimal" is PAM+GWM with Devil sight and Darkness.
You also forget about Life drinker so each swing for the warlock is doing d10+20 damage with no resource spend assuming 20 CHA.
Also I'm not sure what Barb was in your party but Zealot Barb is up there in damage at all times when you use the same combo: GWM+PAM and at will advantage. That with the zealot damage makes it very easily top DPR.
The main issue is that ranger needs spells to be top and they don't get a way to help with CON saves so you have a pretty high chance of not getting a lot out of the slot... especially with creatures with a lot of attacks.
If you are a "normal" ranger I assume a CON of 14 so +2 to saves.
If you have to make the standard DC 10 concentration save and are hit by three attacks you only have a 27% chance to make all three.
So you could get good mileage out of the spell.... Or none at all.
For most casters this is less of an issue as they have more slots to play with and more ways for defense.
A typical longbow ranger will have an AC of 17 or less for 90% of the campaign without much of a way to mitigate it so chances are good you will be hit.
So that's why I think they need help in the Con save area
To be honest, based on this and a previous post you've made, it sounds a lot like your own experience with the Ranger is coloring your opinion of them.
I've never had issues maintaining concentration with my Rangers because all of my Rangers are extremely slippery or fire from long range. I've gone entire workdays without having had to make a single concentration save.
Which again, I know is not the norm. But neither is failing your Con saves all of the time. The norm is somewhere in between your experience and mine.
As for Hexblade and Barbarian, again, the experience at the actual table is that enemies don't just plant themselves in front of them and wait to get hit and die. So the actual mathematical numbers don't mean a whole lot. But that's entirely another topic of conversation, so I'm going to stop talking about not-Rangers now.
These optimization builds you’re comparing to a ranger, I assume with sharpshooter, each need two feats. Why can’t the ranger just take one of the two feats that directly address constitution saving throws? That would mean all of these builds are taking two feats. Right?