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?
Fair... But the ranger would also probably like to Max wisdom and dexterity while the Hexblade just needs CHA.
All in all the ranger does very well in damage from level 9 on thanks to conjure memes.
It's just keeping it up (or any concentration spell) is tough.
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.
As is yours....
You were in a group where your ranger was top in damage so that's everyone's experience right?
Also it's not like the ranger will never get hit and has a poor chance to keep concentration spells up.
That's my major point and why I think that they need some in class help to support.
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
There are ways to do it but you have to be ok with unique builds and "flavor is free."
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.
some times the best way to pass a concentration check is to avoid taking damage. AC, Hide, even doge actions at appropriate moments. rangers have ways of doing almost everything if you are willing to think outside the "normal approach"
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
There are ways to do it but you have to be ok with unique builds and "flavor is free."
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.
some times the best way to pass a concentration check is to avoid taking damage. AC, Hide, even doge actions at appropriate moments. rangers have ways of doing almost everything if you are willing to think outside the "normal approach"
If you hide or Dodge that dramatically reduces your damage.
The others I mentioned don't need to as their damage is not tied to concentration as much
Again they do fine I'm just saying that's what I would like to see and why.
you can hide before combat and work for surprise rounds.
Sometimes dodging and making all the enemies miss me is the better option. enemies waste attacks and concentration is maintained. (your stated goal )
look at most of the good concentration spells. they are used and done quick or use your bonus action and give you a free action. swift quiver. summons spells. wrath of nature. all those only need concentration or a bonus action to still preform not a main action. (hiding in combat means they could be forced to attack summons and not you)
Also there is a thing called teamwork, those wasted attacks equate to damage mitigated and prevent allies from going down. keeping allies up equates to more party damage.
you can hide before combat and work for surprise rounds.
Sometimes dodging and making all the enemies miss me is the better option. enemies waste attacks and concentration is maintained. (your stated goal )
look at most of the good concentration spells. they are used and done quick or use your bonus action and give you a free action. swift quiver. summons spells. wrath of nature. all those only need concentration or a bonus action to still preform not a main action. (hiding in combat means they could be forced to attack summons and not you)
Also there is a thing called teamwork, those wasted attacks equate to damage mitigated and prevent allies from going down. keeping allies up equates to more party damage.
Sure but we are talking about the ranger not these other classes as others have stated.
Everyones going to have infinity different experiences but for me it's been the concentration saves, lack of high level utility abilities that have make me dislike ranger past level 9.
If you all just want to say how good current ranger is and just fluff it to pieces why comment in a thread about what people want to see different with the ranger?
The other thing I want to say is in regards to so-called "optimized" builds.
For both the Ranger and other classes.
The vast majority of "optimized builds" are designed in a white room that by necessity has to strip away all variables of a combat encounter and pit you against a faceless sack of HP. Under these conditions, the "optimized builds" of the Paladin and the Fighter are going to look really good because they basically just require you to plant them in front of the faceless sack of HP and whack it until it dies.
Here's the problem: these calculations are functionally useless. Why? Because the conditions under which they were determined are so exceedingly rare as to be practically non-existent.
How often are you really going to encounter a combat in a 25x25 empty room with a monster that does nothing but sit there and wait to get killed? Never. That's when. Or certainly, nowhere near often enough for anyone to be using that as their baseline assumption.
When variables are introduced, it's usually done to prove or disprove a point. But again, that's not how practical play actually works.
So what a Ranger, Warlock, Paladin, Fighter, or Barbarian can do in theory has no bearing on what it will actually be doing in practice. And to top it all off, different tables can use the exact same builds and have wildly different experiences (see the whole conversation about Horizon Walkers just now.) Why? Because of myriad reasons like good/bad luck with rolls, the DM's personal style, the way the story progresses, the conditions of a given encounter, and a whole host of other things.
So telling me what the "optimized build" is or can do is effectively tantamount to telling me nothing.
Anyway, that's me on my soap box. I'll see myself out now.
If we are still talking about levels like 17+, a ranger would have a bonus action hide, sharpshooter, resilient constitution, a +5 dexterity, and a +3 wisdom. I’ll be honest, +3 for wisdom is more than adequate for almost all rangers and will still get you a +4 and wisdom for foe slayer. Personally, I’d give up +1 on foe slayer to keep concentrating on a 5th level conjure animals or swift quiver.
you can hide before combat and work for surprise rounds.
Sometimes dodging and making all the enemies miss me is the better option. enemies waste attacks and concentration is maintained. (your stated goal )
look at most of the good concentration spells. they are used and done quick or use your bonus action and give you a free action. swift quiver. summons spells. wrath of nature. all those only need concentration or a bonus action to still preform not a main action. (hiding in combat means they could be forced to attack summons and not you)
Also there is a thing called teamwork, those wasted attacks equate to damage mitigated and prevent allies from going down. keeping allies up equates to more party damage.
Sure but we are talking about the ranger not these other classes as others have stated.
Everyones going to have infinity different experiences but for me it's been the concentration saves, lack of high level utility abilities that have make me dislike ranger past level 9.
If you all just want to say how good current ranger is and just fluff it to pieces why comment in a thread about what people want to see different with the ranger?
Every thing I stated was about the ranger. a ranger who "lives to attack another day" out damages the tank that goes down but had one extra turn attacking.
I was just expressing how obsessing over one solution to constitution saves is not how the ranger functions. if you still want that or can't because of build reasons there are options, There are still feats, magic items or multiclassing you can do.
Honestly, I think you would be much happier playing a scout rogue and you keep suggesting changes that fit a different gameplay loop. one with different benefits and different downsides.
Now, a paladin with a +4 to charisma at level 20 would suck.
I guess these conversations would be clearer if they were feats or no feats.
I think we are getting in the trap of comparisons. I think more time should be spent on current abilities and trying to write them from bad raw to RAI/balanced gameplay. or at least have all the things quantified that make it good.
for example Primeval awareness needs wording that gives the option to exclude Known creatures. and clear rules on whether sensing them gives more than just a Ping ( i think a general direction) or possibly allowing for a unique ranger only skill check that gives more information worded into the ability. also I think the duration limit should be slightly longer.
HIPS. I believe should work more like an actual camo suit. you make one to fit a surface (grass field, stucco wall, cabin wall) and as long as you are pressed up against that surface you have a bonus to stealth and as long as the creature didn't see you hide. so a suit made for one cave would only work in caves from that system or a suit made in a field of grass won't work in a flower field.
you can hide before combat and work for surprise rounds.
Sometimes dodging and making all the enemies miss me is the better option. enemies waste attacks and concentration is maintained. (your stated goal )
look at most of the good concentration spells. they are used and done quick or use your bonus action and give you a free action. swift quiver. summons spells. wrath of nature. all those only need concentration or a bonus action to still preform not a main action. (hiding in combat means they could be forced to attack summons and not you)
Also there is a thing called teamwork, those wasted attacks equate to damage mitigated and prevent allies from going down. keeping allies up equates to more party damage.
Sure but we are talking about the ranger not these other classes as others have stated.
Everyones going to have infinity different experiences but for me it's been the concentration saves, lack of high level utility abilities that have make me dislike ranger past level 9.
If you all just want to say how good current ranger is and just fluff it to pieces why comment in a thread about what people want to see different with the ranger?
Every thing I stated was about the ranger. a ranger who "lives to attack another day" out damages the tank that goes down but had one extra turn attacking.
I was just expressing how obsessing over one solution to constitution saves is not how the ranger functions. if you still want that or can't because of build reasons there are options, There are still feats, magic items or multiclassing you can do.
Honestly, I think you would be much happier playing a scout rogue and keep suggesting changes that fit a different gameplay loop. one with different benefits and different downsides.
I just want to talk about what could be better with ranger....
Now, a paladin with a +4 to charisma at level 20 would suck.
I guess these conversations would be clearer if they were feats or no feats.
I think we are getting in the trap of comparisons. I think more time should be spent on current abilities and trying to write them from bad raw to RAI/balanced gameplay. or at least have all the things quantified that make it good.
for example Primeval awareness needs wording that gives the option to exclude Known creatures. and clear rules on whether sensing them gives more than just a Ping ( i think a general direction) or possibly allowing for a unique ranger only skill check that gives more information worded into the ability. also I think the duration limit should be slightly longer.
HIPS. I believe should work more like an actual camo suit. you make one to fit a surface (grass field, stucco wall, cabin wall) and as long as you are pressed up against that surface you have a bonus to stealth and as long as the creature didn't see you hide. so a suit made for one cave would only work in caves from that system or a suit made in a field of grass won't work in a flower field.
Solasta had a decent solution to HiPS: you have +10 Stealth as long as you are next to a wall, even if you move.
Hide in plain sight is funny to me. I run it as you spend one minute to apply camouflage and then at some later point you can try to hide simply by laying flat against something (circumventing the general rules for hiding regarding being seen). When you do you get a +10 to the stealth check. This kind of thing works just like the lightfoot halfling and wood elf racial abilities. The difference being the ranger gets a huge bonus that is balanced by an out of combat setup and one time use thereafter.
Now, a paladin with a +4 to charisma at level 20 would suck.
I guess these conversations would be clearer if they were feats or no feats.
I think we are getting in the trap of comparisons. I think more time should be spent on current abilities and trying to write them from bad raw to RAI/balanced gameplay. or at least have all the things quantified that make it good.
for example Primeval awareness needs wording that gives the option to exclude Known creatures. and clear rules on whether sensing them gives more than just a Ping ( i think a general direction) or possibly allowing for a unique ranger only skill check that gives more information worded into the ability. also I think the duration limit should be slightly longer.
HIPS. I believe should work more like an actual camo suit. you make one to fit a surface (grass field, stucco wall, cabin wall) and as long as you are pressed up against that surface you have a bonus to stealth and as long as the creature didn't see you hide. so a suit made for one cave would only work in caves from that system or a suit made in a field of grass won't work in a flower field.
Solasta had a decent solution to HiPS: you have +10 Stealth as long as you are next to a wall, even if you move.
But then you loose out in fields which is kind of the inspiration for the created "camo" Do trees count as a wall?
I agree moving should be allowed. I don't think the intent was to restrict the ranger to a specific square after creation. I agree sliding along a wall should be allowed. this is why i think a surface assignment was the original intent.
What becomes over powered is when you are jus allowed to hide while being watched in the middle of no where.
just adding +10 to stealth permanently seems too much. but the goal is to create situations that are useful but need almost no adjuration by a dm. We need a simple Witten thing that describes the narrative and mechanics together simply and balanced.
Now, a paladin with a +4 to charisma at level 20 would suck.
I guess these conversations would be clearer if they were feats or no feats.
I think we are getting in the trap of comparisons. I think more time should be spent on current abilities and trying to write them from bad raw to RAI/balanced gameplay. or at least have all the things quantified that make it good.
for example Primeval awareness needs wording that gives the option to exclude Known creatures. and clear rules on whether sensing them gives more than just a Ping ( i think a general direction) or possibly allowing for a unique ranger only skill check that gives more information worded into the ability. also I think the duration limit should be slightly longer.
HIPS. I believe should work more like an actual camo suit. you make one to fit a surface (grass field, stucco wall, cabin wall) and as long as you are pressed up against that surface you have a bonus to stealth and as long as the creature didn't see you hide. so a suit made for one cave would only work in caves from that system or a suit made in a field of grass won't work in a flower field.
Solasta had a decent solution to HiPS: you have +10 Stealth as long as you are next to a wall, even if you move.
But then you loose out in fields which is kind of the inspiration for the created "camo" Do trees count as a wall?
I agree moving should be allowed. I don't think the intent was to restrict the ranger to a specific square after creation. I agree sliding along a wall should be allowed. this is why i think a surface assignment was the original intent.
What becomes over powered is when you are jus allowed to hide while being watched in the middle of no where.
what we need is a simple thing and just adding +10 to stealth permanently seems too much. but the goal is to create situations that are useful but need almost no adjuration by a dm
It's more to compensate for the mechanical limitations of the engine, I believe, or to make it more directly applicable to combat, which is 90% or thereabout of what you do in Solasta.
Maybe we should skip this ability for this thread then, Rosco. As it’s already been given an option.
If not, I would be very happy if it just worked exactly like the halfling and wood elf version. “At level 10 you can try to hide by pressing yourself against flat surface and stay there. You can try to hide regardless if a creature can see you or not when you do so.” Something like that. That would be full on sniper mode and not over powered. And it would mesh with vanish later on.
That works for me as well. Now for some catch up thoughts after I’ve gotten some of the Xmas decorations up: 1) Tom I actually like your rewrite of the basic ranger abilities - but I doubt they will do something like that. favored Enemy and Terrain have been with us since at least 2e (I think 1e but I’ve been wrong once or twice😳). They have played with them every edition so it’s possible they would tweak it offering some way to get more of each. 2) the ideas for new subclasses are good, that looks like the main way WOtC is trying to shift things - maybe we should open a thread just to discuss possible different subclasses we have created or would like to see. 3) we in the ranger forum are at least as diverse in our vision of what a ranger is/can be as the ranger characters we play. We need to be a bit more open to the other views and ways of playing. No class is perfect and while some of us can and do play rangers to high levels and find the PHB ranger to be very good on its own, optional tweaks (like those from Tasha’s) can be nice for other builds or other styles of play so they are worth at least discussing and experiment with. 4) no class is perfect, as much as I like the current ranger versions each has some weakness so there is room for us to discuss where those weakness are (even if we can’t agree all the time) and suggest possible tweaks for what we see as weaknesses. A little respect for each other’s experiences helps as well. 5) saying something is bad or doesn’t meet my needs is a start but what is needed is specific suggestions for how to fix what you see as problematic. Also, it helps understanding if you give the est of us an idea of how you view the ranger like I, Envoy, and Tom have tried to do even if it’s just to say that your mechanics/lore/feel/or something else.
so
things I would like to see:
more slots for favored enemies and terrains I’ve covered my ideas here before
cleaned up text for the present abilities so we at least know what they intended ( like HiPS). I’ve covered this as well
a few more spells known (like 15 instead of 11) - and this
a way to maintain concentration - allow proficiency bonus to be added to the save for just this Specific save
an improved TWF just for rangers (we don’t get GWF so fighters shouldn’t get our TWF) - one possibility is changing the ability for rangers to include the dual wielding feat so you can do more than a D6 damage on 1 attack from the get go..
thoughts any one?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fair... But the ranger would also probably like to Max wisdom and dexterity while the Hexblade just needs CHA.
All in all the ranger does very well in damage from level 9 on thanks to conjure memes.
It's just keeping it up (or any concentration spell) is tough.
As is yours....
You were in a group where your ranger was top in damage so that's everyone's experience right?
Also it's not like the ranger will never get hit and has a poor chance to keep concentration spells up.
That's my major point and why I think that they need some in class help to support.
Literally, I've said twice now that my experience is not the norm and that the truth lies somewhere in between yours and mine.
Either you're not reading what I'm saying or you're arguing with a strawman.
There are ways to do it but you have to be ok with unique builds and "flavor is free."
Quote from Envoyofwater >>
some times the best way to pass a concentration check is to avoid taking damage. AC, Hide, even doge actions at appropriate moments. rangers have ways of doing almost everything if you are willing to think outside the "normal approach"
If you hide or Dodge that dramatically reduces your damage.
The others I mentioned don't need to as their damage is not tied to concentration as much
Again they do fine I'm just saying that's what I would like to see and why.
you can hide before combat and work for surprise rounds.
Sometimes dodging and making all the enemies miss me is the better option. enemies waste attacks and concentration is maintained. (your stated goal )
look at most of the good concentration spells. they are used and done quick or use your bonus action and give you a free action. swift quiver. summons spells. wrath of nature. all those only need concentration or a bonus action to still preform not a main action. (hiding in combat means they could be forced to attack summons and not you)
Also there is a thing called teamwork, those wasted attacks equate to damage mitigated and prevent allies from going down. keeping allies up equates to more party damage.
Sure but we are talking about the ranger not these other classes as others have stated.
Everyones going to have infinity different experiences but for me it's been the concentration saves, lack of high level utility abilities that have make me dislike ranger past level 9.
If you all just want to say how good current ranger is and just fluff it to pieces why comment in a thread about what people want to see different with the ranger?
The other thing I want to say is in regards to so-called "optimized" builds.
For both the Ranger and other classes.
The vast majority of "optimized builds" are designed in a white room that by necessity has to strip away all variables of a combat encounter and pit you against a faceless sack of HP. Under these conditions, the "optimized builds" of the Paladin and the Fighter are going to look really good because they basically just require you to plant them in front of the faceless sack of HP and whack it until it dies.
Here's the problem: these calculations are functionally useless. Why? Because the conditions under which they were determined are so exceedingly rare as to be practically non-existent.
How often are you really going to encounter a combat in a 25x25 empty room with a monster that does nothing but sit there and wait to get killed? Never. That's when. Or certainly, nowhere near often enough for anyone to be using that as their baseline assumption.
When variables are introduced, it's usually done to prove or disprove a point. But again, that's not how practical play actually works.
So what a Ranger, Warlock, Paladin, Fighter, or Barbarian can do in theory has no bearing on what it will actually be doing in practice. And to top it all off, different tables can use the exact same builds and have wildly different experiences (see the whole conversation about Horizon Walkers just now.) Why? Because of myriad reasons like good/bad luck with rolls, the DM's personal style, the way the story progresses, the conditions of a given encounter, and a whole host of other things.
So telling me what the "optimized build" is or can do is effectively tantamount to telling me nothing.
Anyway, that's me on my soap box. I'll see myself out now.
If we are still talking about levels like 17+, a ranger would have a bonus action hide, sharpshooter, resilient constitution, a +5 dexterity, and a +3 wisdom. I’ll be honest, +3 for wisdom is more than adequate for almost all rangers and will still get you a +4 and wisdom for foe slayer. Personally, I’d give up +1 on foe slayer to keep concentrating on a 5th level conjure animals or swift quiver.
Now, a paladin with a +4 to charisma at level 20 would suck.
I guess these conversations would be clearer if they were feats or no feats.
Every thing I stated was about the ranger. a ranger who "lives to attack another day" out damages the tank that goes down but had one extra turn attacking.
I was just expressing how obsessing over one solution to constitution saves is not how the ranger functions. if you still want that or can't because of build reasons there are options, There are still feats, magic items or multiclassing you can do.
Honestly, I think you would be much happier playing a scout rogue and you keep suggesting changes that fit a different gameplay loop. one with different benefits and different downsides.
I think we are getting in the trap of comparisons. I think more time should be spent on current abilities and trying to write them from bad raw to RAI/balanced gameplay. or at least have all the things quantified that make it good.
for example Primeval awareness needs wording that gives the option to exclude Known creatures. and clear rules on whether sensing them gives more than just a Ping ( i think a general direction) or possibly allowing for a unique ranger only skill check that gives more information worded into the ability. also I think the duration limit should be slightly longer.
HIPS. I believe should work more like an actual camo suit. you make one to fit a surface (grass field, stucco wall, cabin wall) and as long as you are pressed up against that surface you have a bonus to stealth and as long as the creature didn't see you hide. so a suit made for one cave would only work in caves from that system or a suit made in a field of grass won't work in a flower field.
I just want to talk about what could be better with ranger....
Isn't that what the thread is about?
Solasta had a decent solution to HiPS: you have +10 Stealth as long as you are next to a wall, even if you move.
I like that.
Hide in plain sight is funny to me. I run it as you spend one minute to apply camouflage and then at some later point you can try to hide simply by laying flat against something (circumventing the general rules for hiding regarding being seen). When you do you get a +10 to the stealth check. This kind of thing works just like the lightfoot halfling and wood elf racial abilities. The difference being the ranger gets a huge bonus that is balanced by an out of combat setup and one time use thereafter.
I also like Rosco’s take on it.
But then you loose out in fields which is kind of the inspiration for the created "camo" Do trees count as a wall?
I agree moving should be allowed. I don't think the intent was to restrict the ranger to a specific square after creation. I agree sliding along a wall should be allowed. this is why i think a surface assignment was the original intent.
What becomes over powered is when you are jus allowed to hide while being watched in the middle of no where.
just adding +10 to stealth permanently seems too much. but the goal is to create situations that are useful but need almost no adjuration by a dm. We need a simple Witten thing that describes the narrative and mechanics together simply and balanced.
It's more to compensate for the mechanical limitations of the engine, I believe, or to make it more directly applicable to combat, which is 90% or thereabout of what you do in Solasta.
Maybe we should skip this ability for this thread then, Rosco. As it’s already been given an option.
If not, I would be very happy if it just worked exactly like the halfling and wood elf version. “At level 10 you can try to hide by pressing yourself against flat surface and stay there. You can try to hide regardless if a creature can see you or not when you do so.” Something like that. That would be full on sniper mode and not over powered. And it would mesh with vanish later on.
That works for me as well. Now for some catch up thoughts after I’ve gotten some of the Xmas decorations up:
1) Tom I actually like your rewrite of the basic ranger abilities - but I doubt they will do something like that. favored Enemy and Terrain have been with us since at least 2e (I think 1e but I’ve been wrong once or twice😳). They have played with them every edition so it’s possible they would tweak it offering some way to get more of each.
2) the ideas for new subclasses are good, that looks like the main way WOtC is trying to shift things - maybe we should open a thread just to discuss possible different subclasses we have created or would like to see.
3) we in the ranger forum are at least as diverse in our vision of what a ranger is/can be as the ranger characters we play. We need to be a bit more open to the other views and ways of playing. No class is perfect and while some of us can and do play rangers to high levels and find the PHB ranger to be very good on its own, optional tweaks (like those from Tasha’s) can be nice for other builds or other styles of play so they are worth at least discussing and experiment with.
4) no class is perfect, as much as I like the current ranger versions each has some weakness so there is room for us to discuss where those weakness are (even if we can’t agree all the time) and suggest possible tweaks for what we see as weaknesses. A little respect for each other’s experiences helps as well.
5) saying something is bad or doesn’t meet my needs is a start but what is needed is specific suggestions for how to fix what you see as problematic. Also, it helps understanding if you give the est of us an idea of how you view the ranger like I, Envoy, and Tom have tried to do even if it’s just to say that your mechanics/lore/feel/or something else.
so
things I would like to see:
more slots for favored enemies and terrains I’ve covered my ideas here before
cleaned up text for the present abilities so we at least know what they intended ( like HiPS). I’ve covered this as well
a few more spells known (like 15 instead of 11) - and this
a way to maintain concentration - allow proficiency bonus to be added to the save for just this Specific save
an improved TWF just for rangers (we don’t get GWF so fighters shouldn’t get our TWF) - one possibility is changing the ability for rangers to include the dual wielding feat so you can do more than a D6 damage on 1 attack from the get go..
thoughts any one?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.