I’d like to submit that a ranger’s damage output, damage mitigation, and overall battlefield contribution at and past level 9 is based on casting spells, and in particular, conjure animals. Even NOT conjuring 8 beasts puts a ranger’s damage output on par or way past other martials, even very optimized versions. And that is just damage output. I think a real issue for most players is a lack of being alright with relying on a spell for their combat contribution, over just shooting a bow and arrows. I don’t know if it doesn’t meet their thematic image or what. It seems many ranger players want to be an archer fighter or two-weapon fighter that can build a fire and pitch a tent too, but the 5E ranger doesn’t meet that for them, especially at levels 11+, because of the heavy druid-style conjuring/summoning function of the base class. Even the harshest DM implementation of conjure animals leaves the spell as “great”, and a typical DM implementation takes it up to “amazing”.
I know the one thing that Optimus and I (and many others) agree on is this spell (conjure animals, and even summon beast) is potent. I know many players don’t like that the class leans so heavily on a spell. One spell. But that has never bothered me, it’s just the way it is. I personally love the spell, so I’m super biased. For me, divine smite could be thought of the same way. So too sneak attack, action surge, rage, and hex+blast. It is baked into the ranger class, and can’t be easily avoided…successfully. I would yield that one of the few ways to avoid this spell reliance is the ever popular ranger/rogue multiclass which, as we all know, allows a “ranger” to play and continue to play past level 8, an outdoorsy skirmisher with a bow or short swords.
Yeah. I disagree. Concentration concerns for a casting ranger are almost completely negated by using a longbow, and this gets better with hide in plain sight and vanish. Even if that doesn’t “do it for you”, there are two feats to overcome this issue, and if taking 2+ feats to be a PAM+GWM is “worth it” then taking 1 feat to maintain concentration on a potent spell is too.
That seems to make for a very narrow class fantasy and playstyle as the bow summoner is kind of niche at best and then basically makes most fighting style features a trap. To be honest if the ranger was the to be the pet class they probably should have had features that point to that from level 1-3, not require what could be a dramatic change in approach to play nearly halfway through level progression (again if this is the case we can blame much of it on the lack of playtesting post level 11 or so). Though even with that playstyle being the intended design that would push ranger to consider a multi-class into druid for the addition spell slots (faster access to higher level slot to upcast from) and Circle of the Shepard (for it's summoner focused features)
Yeah. I disagree. Concentration concerns for a casting ranger are almost completely negated by using a longbow, and this gets better with hide in plain sight and vanish. Even if that doesn’t “do it for you”, there are two feats to overcome this issue, and if taking 2+ feats to be a PAM+GWM is “worth it” then taking 1 feat to maintain concentration on a potent spell is too.
In my experience its not enough...ranged attacks, AoE, etc... exist enough I will be hit enough to drop concentration. Its mathematically very likely.
Also as a ranger I need DEX and WIS to get the most out of my character....dropping any ASI for a feat (beyond the Sharpshooter or CBE I am already taking) is basically a non-starter for me.
Right out of the gate you are holding the ranger to a standard that you aren’t for others. Paladins NEED strength and charisma. Barbarians NEED strength, dexterity, and constitution. All casters with concentration spells NEED to keep concentration. All of this is true across the board. One could argue that rangers need wisdom far less than paladins, clerics, and barbarians need their second and third stat. Also, many of the builds yourself and others promote need two or three feats to work optimally. Why not the ranger? That’s if you are doing sharpshooter, which is not a given.
Very few monsters deal over 20 points of damage on a single hit, and those that do are CR 18+ AND those are melee hits. Some monsters have AoE effects and spells that do over 20 points of damage, but at that point everyone is failing their concentration checks. And guess what then? Recast the spell.
Paladin get their aura feature that does has Charisma do double duty on their spell casting (as it effects DC and concentration checks) so that is not a high standard.
It is. Paladins need their charisma or loose more. There are builds of rangers that use a 10 for their wisdom score. It is not the same in any way shape or form. You are claiming false equivalencies.
But there are some that would hurt bad with that....Gloomstalker gets +WIS to initative. you are forgoing one whole subclass feature by dumping it.
Fey Wanderer gets +WIS to charisma checks. Again you give up a whole part of the subclass by forgoing.
We have gone over this...not EVERY ranger will be hurt by it just like not every paladin will be hurt by CHA being low (Oath of Glory). But overall its still more a of a trade off for the popular and more fun ranger subclasses if you do not have good WIS.
Sure you can do fine with a dumped WIS on certain subclasses but overall the base ranger does better with a high WIS as a rule of thumb.
This means that you do give up SOMETHING to get that CON save bonus...while classes/subclasses that do not rely on it do not have as much opportunity cost to do so.
I am simply stating what is weak about ranger....they rely too much on concentration and BA is my thought.
Reduce the need for at least one of those and I think the class is better off.
Again its hard to come into a thread that is asking for ways to improve ranger and getting "its fine as is!" as the default response. I am not even sure why you would start a thread if you didn't want to hear peoples thoughts on their experiences and how they think it could be better.
I am simply stating what is weak about ranger....they rely too much on concentration and BA is my thought.
Reduce the need for at least one of those and I think the class is better off.
Again its hard to come into a thread that is asking for ways to improve ranger and getting "its fine as is!" as the default response. I am not even sure why you would start a thread if you didn't want to hear peoples thoughts on their experiences and how they think it could be better.
I'm sorry. My point is to fix what needs the most fixing. Which I'll admit isn't much. But there it is.
To your gloomstalker and fey wanderer examples: those are newer designs and very obviously designed to take steps away from the assumption from the handbook with conjure animals. With those examples, you are so very right. Wisdom is important. Even Tasha's take on the beast master means you HAVE to have wisdom. You HAVE to. But if you do, the Tasha's beast master is putting out some very high single target resource free DPR, so in that light they have taken design steps in the direction that you and Bran are wanting. Super!
I am simply stating what is weak about ranger....they rely too much on concentration and BA is my thought.
Reduce the need for at least one of those and I think the class is better off.
Again its hard to come into a thread that is asking for ways to improve ranger and getting "its fine as is!" as the default response. I am not even sure why you would start a thread if you didn't want to hear peoples thoughts on their experiences and how they think it could be better.
I'm sorry. My point is to fix what needs the most fixing. Which I'll admit isn't much. But there it is.
To your gloomstalker and fey wanderer examples: those are newer designs and very obviously designed to take steps away from the assumption from the handbook with conjure animals. With those examples, you are so very right. Wisdom is important. Even Tasha's take on the beast master means you HAVE to have wisdom. You HAVE to. But if you do, the Tasha's beast master is putting out some very high single target resource free DPR, so in that light they have taken design steps in the direction that you and Bran are wanting. Super!
Then what does need fixing? As so far we have roughly two dozen pages filled with it for you so it is fine, it would not be quite so large a thread if so.
I never stated that my goal is "high single target resource free DPR" I am mostly focused on they ranger not being a clunky multiclass lite version of a class with poor over design focus.
I am simply stating what is weak about ranger....they rely too much on concentration and BA is my thought.
Reduce the need for at least one of those and I think the class is better off.
Again its hard to come into a thread that is asking for ways to improve ranger and getting "its fine as is!" as the default response. I am not even sure why you would start a thread if you didn't want to hear peoples thoughts on their experiences and how they think it could be better.
I'm sorry. My point is to fix what needs the most fixing. Which I'll admit isn't much. But there it is.
To your gloomstalker and fey wanderer examples: those are newer designs and very obviously designed to take steps away from the assumption from the handbook with conjure animals. With those examples, you are so very right. Wisdom is important. Even Tasha's take on the beast master means you HAVE to have wisdom. You HAVE to. But if you do, the Tasha's beast master is putting out some very high single target resource free DPR, so in that light they have taken design steps in the direction that you and Bran are wanting. Super!
Then what does need fixing? As so far we have roughly two dozen pages filled with it for you so it is fine, it would not be quite so large a thread if so.
I never stated that my goal is "high single target resource free DPR" I am mostly focused on they ranger not being a clunky multiclass lite version of a class with poor over design focus.
I think the ranger should have options at each level in their class features, just as the hunter has in the handbook, and like how we now basically have with (if using) Tasha's. I think the ranger, more than any other class in the game, has the most diversity in regards to what players think a ranger is. Instead of trying to find a mold that everyone will be happy with (impossible), instead build on that diversity within the base class. Don't take away the handbook features, but don't force everyone into them either. That would be my fix.
I would not get your hopes up on that as that level of design is (from what we have seen beyond the scope of Wizards for any already designed class), they have almost made the base class complete disposable if favor of the subclass, we even do it here you aren't playing a ranger you a gloomstalker or a horizonwalker. As for that level of modularity I don't think that even if they went with it that is would not be more copy and paste feature that are also just taken from other classes feel ranger enough and then put at a level that is too high for them to really be good for how long they were waited for.
I would not get your hopes up on that as that level of design is (from what we have seen beyond the scope of Wizards for any already designed class), they have almost made the base class complete disposable if favor of the subclass, we even do it here you aren't playing a ranger you a gloomstalker or a horizonwalker. As for that level of modularity I don't think that even if they went with it that is would not be more copy and paste feature that are also just taken from other classes feel ranger enough and then put at a level that is too high for them to really be good for how long they were waited for.
There are multiple ways both the "bonus action" problem and the "concentration Problem" have work arounds. many ranger players never even have that as an issue. and to change core gameplay mecanics to acomidate one class sounds like you are creating huge rippling affects across the game. where ranger is already mid to high ranking for power, utility, exploration and "mcguffin locator." Not to mention tecically a beasmaster already has two concentration slots. some consessions need to be made.
"I am simply stating what is weak about ranger....they rely too much on concentration and BA is my thought."
For general design that is my thought as well. I think they overly protected their top line damage by cluttering a number of bonus action spells with concentration. Some of the subclass designs are even more aggressive to bonus actions (horizon walker for example). I think that is why fey wanderer, gloom stalker, and swarm all standout since they don't generally further clog your bonus action.
The only other thing I would dearly like fixed is making the Ranger a spells prepared class. An Arcane Trickster knows more spells at the same level as a Ranger and the Arc Trickster has cantrips. That is bad design.
I would not get your hopes up on that as that level of design is (from what we have seen beyond the scope of Wizards for any already designed class), they have almost made the base class complete disposable if favor of the subclass, we even do it here you aren't playing a ranger you a gloomstalker or a horizonwalker. As for that level of modularity I don't think that even if they went with it that is would not be more copy and paste feature that are also just taken from other classes feel ranger enough and then put at a level that is too high for them to really be good for how long they were waited for.
That argument(and some of your other ones) sounds almost like another persons argument in a diffrent place. You wouldn't be coppying someone elses homework and changing the wording so the teacher dosen't notice would you?
all jokes aside. that's why I think it will be subtle improvements and balance just like they did with tashas FF. they removed the bonus action and changed the damage to a progression. this minior change created all sorts of new benifits like concentration switching in the same turn for extra damage. or allowing the capstone to work on anybody.
"I am simply stating what is weak about ranger....they rely too much on concentration and BA is my thought."
For general design that is my thought as well. I think they overly protected their top line damage by cluttering a number of bonus action spells with concentration. Some of the subclass designs are even more aggressive to bonus actions (horizon walker for example). I think that is why fey wanderer, gloom stalker, and swarm all standout since they don't generally further clog your bonus action.
The only other thing I would dearly like fixed is making the Ranger a spells prepared class. An Arcane Trickster knows more spells at the same level as a Ranger and the Arc Trickster has cantrips. That is bad design.
+1 to being a prepared caster... I would actually give up the fight on CON saves if they could prepare spells per day as I think that makes up for it in versatility.
That and spell lists for all ranger subclasses like the XGtE ones got.
My problem with the "homework" is the spell lists are rather uninspired. Every ranger subclass in Xanathar's gave them spells that were not found on the ranger's spell list. In my opinion, Optimus didn't understand the assignment by proposing spells which they already could learn. Here's what I think they could/should have.
Beast Master Magic
Hunter Magic
3 level
Command
Heroism
5 level
Find Steed
See Invisibility
9 level
Feign Death
Slow
13 level
Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound
Phantasmal Killer
17 level
Awaken
Scrying
And before anyone asks, I've had this kicking around for years. I adjusted the list after the release of Tasha's because several spells were given to rangers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But there are some that would hurt bad with that....Gloomstalker gets +WIS to initative. you are forgoing one whole subclass feature by dumping it.
Fey Wanderer gets +WIS to charisma checks. Again you give up a whole part of the subclass by forgoing.
We have gone over this...not EVERY ranger will be hurt by it just like not every paladin will be hurt by CHA being low (Oath of Glory). But overall its still more a of a trade off for the popular and more fun ranger subclasses if you do not have good WIS.
Sure you can do fine with a dumped WIS on certain subclasses but overall the base ranger does better with a high WIS as a rule of thumb.
This means that you do give up SOMETHING to get that CON save bonus...while classes/subclasses that do not rely on it do not have as much opportunity cost to do so.
I am simply stating what is weak about ranger....they rely too much on concentration and BA is my thought.
Reduce the need for at least one of those and I think the class is better off.
Again its hard to come into a thread that is asking for ways to improve ranger and getting "its fine as is!" as the default response. I am not even sure why you would start a thread if you didn't want to hear peoples thoughts on their experiences and how they think it could be better.
I'm sorry. My point is to fix what needs the most fixing. Which I'll admit isn't much. But there it is.
To your gloomstalker and fey wanderer examples: those are newer designs and very obviously designed to take steps away from the assumption from the handbook with conjure animals. With those examples, you are so very right. Wisdom is important. Even Tasha's take on the beast master means you HAVE to have wisdom. You HAVE to. But if you do, the Tasha's beast master is putting out some very high single target resource free DPR, so in that light they have taken design steps in the direction that you and Bran are wanting. Super!
Then what does need fixing? As so far we have roughly two dozen pages filled with it for you so it is fine, it would not be quite so large a thread if so.
I never stated that my goal is "high single target resource free DPR" I am mostly focused on they ranger not being a clunky multiclass lite version of a class with poor over design focus.
I think the ranger should have options at each level in their class features, just as the hunter has in the handbook, and like how we now basically have with (if using) Tasha's. I think the ranger, more than any other class in the game, has the most diversity in regards to what players think a ranger is. Instead of trying to find a mold that everyone will be happy with (impossible), instead build on that diversity within the base class. Don't take away the handbook features, but don't force everyone into them either. That would be my fix.
I would not get your hopes up on that as that level of design is (from what we have seen beyond the scope of Wizards for any already designed class), they have almost made the base class complete disposable if favor of the subclass, we even do it here you aren't playing a ranger you a gloomstalker or a horizonwalker. As for that level of modularity I don't think that even if they went with it that is would not be more copy and paste feature that are also just taken from other classes feel ranger enough and then put at a level that is too high for them to really be good for how long they were waited for.
You don't think we have that with Tasha's?
There are multiple ways both the "bonus action" problem and the "concentration Problem" have work arounds. many ranger players never even have that as an issue. and to change core gameplay mecanics to acomidate one class sounds like you are creating huge rippling affects across the game. where ranger is already mid to high ranking for power, utility, exploration and "mcguffin locator." Not to mention tecically a beasmaster already has two concentration slots. some consessions need to be made.
"I am simply stating what is weak about ranger....they rely too much on concentration and BA is my thought."
For general design that is my thought as well. I think they overly protected their top line damage by cluttering a number of bonus action spells with concentration. Some of the subclass designs are even more aggressive to bonus actions (horizon walker for example). I think that is why fey wanderer, gloom stalker, and swarm all standout since they don't generally further clog your bonus action.
The only other thing I would dearly like fixed is making the Ranger a spells prepared class. An Arcane Trickster knows more spells at the same level as a Ranger and the Arc Trickster has cantrips. That is bad design.
That argument(and some of your other ones) sounds almost like another persons argument in a diffrent place. You wouldn't be coppying someone elses homework and changing the wording so the teacher dosen't notice would you?
all jokes aside. that's why I think it will be subtle improvements and balance just like they did with tashas FF. they removed the bonus action and changed the damage to a progression. this minior change created all sorts of new benifits like concentration switching in the same turn for extra damage. or allowing the capstone to work on anybody.
+1 to being a prepared caster... I would actually give up the fight on CON saves if they could prepare spells per day as I think that makes up for it in versatility.
That and spell lists for all ranger subclasses like the XGtE ones got.
HOMEWORK Assignment for Optimus- a spell list for the Hunter, Beast Master and Drakewarden.😳😁🤪🤡
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Hunter:
Beast Master
Awaken
Drakewarden
Thank you Optimus 😁. (I hope you realize I was mostly joking with the assignment) but well done ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Wow. Three stars? Tough crowd.
A homebrew change (since we all know WOtC would never do this is to make the Ranger’s saves Dex and Con instead of Dex and Str.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I rarely give 1star, mostly no stars
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Oh! Well, it wasn’t THAT good. LOL!
Well no one else was putting out a list so I assigned it and Optimus came through so 3 stars, if he had done it without the assignment 5 stars.😁🤪
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
My problem with the "homework" is the spell lists are rather uninspired. Every ranger subclass in Xanathar's gave them spells that were not found on the ranger's spell list. In my opinion, Optimus didn't understand the assignment by proposing spells which they already could learn. Here's what I think they could/should have.
Beast Master Magic
Hunter Magic
3 level
Command
Heroism
5 level
Find Steed
See Invisibility
9 level
Feign Death
Slow
13 level
Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound
Phantasmal Killer
17 level
Awaken
Scrying
And before anyone asks, I've had this kicking around for years. I adjusted the list after the release of Tasha's because several spells were given to rangers.