They cant possibly have designed the 2024 Ranger only use meleeweapons, to have a caster alwasy keep Haste up on them and having another player have their character constantly around them to always trigger Sentinel.
They cant possibly have designed the 2024 Ranger only use meleeweapons, to have a caster alwasy keep Haste up on them and having another player have their character constantly around them to always trigger Sentinel.
1) You can get more than 3 attacks without any of those things.
2) They have to design for the ceiling, not just the floor.
They cant possibly have designed the 2024 Ranger only use meleeweapons, to have a caster alwasy keep Haste up on them and having another player have their character constantly around them to always trigger Sentinel.
1) You can get more than 3 attacks without any of those things.
2) They have to design for the ceiling, not just the floor.
1) So can other characters that the ranger would be being compared with.
2) Balancing even low level design around maxed out end game characters seems not the wisest of design strategy.
At least we're having people admit that the new Ranger is only interesting to people who want to optimize to make several more attacks per turn than the average player will make.
That topic is around damage potential, not interest in the ranger. I have been talking to you about why I find the ranger interesting for 4 pages and none of it had to do with damage output or number of attacks. Are you ever going to actually try to engage in good faith?
The problem with 2024 is that their class redesigns do nothing but create a huge difference between the floor and the ceiling.
There's always been a huge difference between floor and ceiling for Ranger; 2024 didn't create that gap. For the 5.0 Ranger, the ceiling was things like Conjure Animals for 8+ Charging Elk, XBE + Sharpshooter (+ Guardian of Nature), Spike Growth + Crusher... i.e. way, way higher than it is now. If anything, they brought the ceiling and floor closer together, which you'd know if you understood the first thing about how rangers were optimized before now.
If the 2024 Ranger is only good if you are a "ceiling" player, then it is a horrible class for people who don't cheese the game to get far more attacks than intended.
Sure, but the the floor feel very low and the ceiling hard to reach.
You don't need to reach the ceiling to be "good." That's why it's a ceiling. But WotC needs to understand the ceiling in order to design properly. Your unoptimized tables will be just fine without all that stuff.
Sure, but the the floor feel very low and the ceiling hard to reach.
You don't need to reach the ceiling to be "good." That's why it's a ceiling. But WotC needs to understand the ceiling in order to design properly. Your unoptimized tables will be just fine without all that stuff.
Yes, but Im thinking of all the rangers at those tables that will look at all the other players around them that have much higher floors than them and will feel sad. I just want the floor for 2024 Ranger to feel equal to the other 2024 classes. But with the info we have right now, the floor feels low compared to others.
Out of combat I think theyve done the best they could have done to fix Rangers issues, Im just being nit picky when i say I wish they solved it with some fun features instead of just more spells and expertise. But again, they probably did the best thing for Ranger in the long run and for costumization. Its only combat that Im not sure how 2024 Ranger will work and its HM features looking lackluster compared to other 2024 classes.
But youre probably right, 2024 will probably be fine and Im just worried after watching some D&D content creators. Im hoping the 2024 Rangers new spells are buffed as ****.
I don't think you understand simple mathematics. There's not a single other class that has a 4th of their entire core class abilities centered around a spell. Sure, Hunter's Mark can be a good spell, for sure, but it puts Rangers in such a box that no other class is in, and I can't understand how you don't see it. Either you build around Hunter's Mark and make a pretty good damage dealing character, or you decide to roleplay some other way and miss out on ONE FOURTH of you entire class. No other class does it, and it makes the Ranger a bad design when it comes to the game as a whole. It vastly limits options, as if you don't build around Hunter's Mark, you are outright weaker than every other class from the getgo.
But what about three? What about four? What about five or six, even?
You don't get that as a pure-classed Ranger.
Yes you can, and I already explained how. To which you and TinCan yelled "ceiling!" and proceeded to pretend nothing was said.
I would put 3-4 attacks per round as the minimum for most rangers without going heavy optimization: Extra Attack + TWF + reactions. For Beastmaster the minimum is more like 4-6. Even at the bare minimum of 3 attacks per round, that's +3d6 damage per round out of a 1st-level slot, which you might not even be spending a slot on most of the time - that's easily worth the expense.
If you can get more than that three-attack minimum, anything extra is gravy, and it's still only costing you a 1st-level slot. Will higher-level spells do more damage than that? Absolutely - but those have higher opportunity costs too. The slot I spend throwing on Swift Quiver could have just as easily been spent on Steel Wind Strike per instance. That's a calculation I'll have to make plenty of times at high levels, and that is the source of mechanical depth.
But what about three? What about four? What about five or six, even?
You don't get that as a pure-classed Ranger.
Yes you can, and I already explained how. To which you and TinCan yelled "ceiling!" and proceeded to pretend nothing was said.
I would put 3-4 attacks per round as the minimum for most rangers without going heavy optimization: Extra Attack + TWF + reactions. For Beastmaster the minimum is more like 4-6. Even at the bare minimum of 3 attacks per round, that's +3d6 damage per round out of a 1st-level slot, which you might not even be spending a slot on most of the time - that's easily worth the expense.
If you can get more than that three-attack minimum, anything extra is gravy, and it's still only costing you a 1st-level slot. Will higher-level spells do more damage than that? Absolutely - but those have higher opportunity costs too. The slot I spend throwing on Swift Quiver could have just as easily been spent on Steel Wind Strike per instance. That's a calculation I'll have to make plenty of times at high levels, and that is the source of mechanical depth.
If im using a longbow, how would I get more attacks out on the regular?
I don't have the PHB yet if that's what you're asking, but TM and the other content creators didn't indicate any kinds of big nerfs to the subclass from the UA.
Also, you bring up "All the new Ranger gets is improved Hunter's Mark, as long as we ignore Expertise, Roving, Tireless, Nature's Veil, and Feral Senses."
Dude, every single feature you mentioned, the 2014 Ranger already had with Tasha's. You know what we don't have anymore at all?
No more Natural Explorer. You know what Wizards tells you to do instead to fill that "role" that was already built in? Just take expertise in Survival and take a few spells... No more Primeval Awareness, one of the most niche but interesting abilities the Ranger had that is just GONE. Not even built into something else or anything, just gone. Know what they tell you to do instead?? Just take expertise in Perception and take a few spells... No more Land's Stride, an actual unique feature that did something other classes could only semi replicate using spells or items. Wanna know what they replaced it with??? You guessed it, expertise! No more Hide in Plain Site or Vanish. A version still being there, Nature's Veil, but it was already an option from Tasha's, so nothing new, but Vanish is gone? Something actual useful that a Ranger could actually use, just gone...ok.
Let's go over the "new" features though, shall we? Expertise is the exact same thing. Roving is the exact same thing. Tireless is the exact same thing. Nature's Veil is the exact sa- Oh wait, no, it starts 4 levels later. Feral Sense now gives you a keyword that does the exact same thing.
but hey, we get the abilities to go off of our Wisdom Modifier instead of proficiency bonus, so it's better, right? our Wisdom Mod will always be better than our proficiency bonus, right??
oh, and Hunter's Mark damage changing from your weapons damage to force is pretty cool actu- oh...it only happens at level 20...
I don't have the PHB yet if that's what you're asking, but TM and the other content creators didn't indicate any kinds of big nerfs to the subclass from the UA.
Yeah, thats what I meant, if the new videos or any other new source other than the UA has mentioned the pet still having 2 attacks.
Let's go over the "new" features though, shall we? Expertise is the exact same thing. Roving is the exact same thing. Tireless is the exact same thing. Nature's Veil is the exact sa- Oh wait, no, it starts 4 levels later. Feral Sense now gives you a keyword that does the exact same thing.
Wrong.
- You get three times as many Expertises as Tasha's. - The bonus from Roving is doubled relative to Tasha's. - Nature's Veil lasts twice as long per use relative to Tasha's. - Unlike Tasha's, 2024 Feral Senses now works even if you're blinded, and it counts as sight so you can target spells.
Also, all the other stuff you conveniently omitted:
- 2024 Rangers get more spell slots more quickly than they did in Tasha's. - 2024 Rangers can swap spells on a long rest, unlike Tasha's. - 2024 Rangers get Weapon Mastery, unlike Tasha's. - 2024 Rangers can use rituals, unlike Tasha's.
I put all of this on page 1 of the very thread we're posting in.
If a class feature mandates using a specific subclass to make using it worthwhile, it absolutely should not be treated as a focal feature of the entire class.
You don't need a specific subclass for HM to be worthwhile. 3 attacks per round is already enough to exceed the damage curve of a level 1 slot, anything more than that is gravy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They cant possibly have designed the 2024 Ranger only use meleeweapons, to have a caster alwasy keep Haste up on them and having another player have their character constantly around them to always trigger Sentinel.
1) You can get more than 3 attacks without any of those things.
2) They have to design for the ceiling, not just the floor.
1) So can other characters that the ranger would be being compared with.
2) Balancing even low level design around maxed out end game characters seems not the wisest of design strategy.
You just described the entire internet in fewer than 10 words!! You win!!
Sure, but the the floor feel very low and the ceiling hard to reach.
That topic is around damage potential, not interest in the ranger. I have been talking to you about why I find the ranger interesting for 4 pages and none of it had to do with damage output or number of attacks. Are you ever going to actually try to engage in good faith?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
There's always been a huge difference between floor and ceiling for Ranger; 2024 didn't create that gap. For the 5.0 Ranger, the ceiling was things like Conjure Animals for 8+ Charging Elk, XBE + Sharpshooter (+ Guardian of Nature), Spike Growth + Crusher... i.e. way, way higher than it is now. If anything, they brought the ceiling and floor closer together, which you'd know if you understood the first thing about how rangers were optimized before now.
You don't need to reach the ceiling to be "good." That's why it's a ceiling. But WotC needs to understand the ceiling in order to design properly. Your unoptimized tables will be just fine without all that stuff.
Yes, but Im thinking of all the rangers at those tables that will look at all the other players around them that have much higher floors than them and will feel sad. I just want the floor for 2024 Ranger to feel equal to the other 2024 classes. But with the info we have right now, the floor feels low compared to others.
Out of combat I think theyve done the best they could have done to fix Rangers issues, Im just being nit picky when i say I wish they solved it with some fun features instead of just more spells and expertise. But again, they probably did the best thing for Ranger in the long run and for costumization. Its only combat that Im not sure how 2024 Ranger will work and its HM features looking lackluster compared to other 2024 classes.
But youre probably right, 2024 will probably be fine and Im just worried after watching some D&D content creators. Im hoping the 2024 Rangers new spells are buffed as ****.
I don't think you understand simple mathematics. There's not a single other class that has a 4th of their entire core class abilities centered around a spell. Sure, Hunter's Mark can be a good spell, for sure, but it puts Rangers in such a box that no other class is in, and I can't understand how you don't see it. Either you build around Hunter's Mark and make a pretty good damage dealing character, or you decide to roleplay some other way and miss out on ONE FOURTH of you entire class. No other class does it, and it makes the Ranger a bad design when it comes to the game as a whole. It vastly limits options, as if you don't build around Hunter's Mark, you are outright weaker than every other class from the getgo.
Yes you can, and I already explained how. To which you and TinCan yelled "ceiling!" and proceeded to pretend nothing was said.
I would put 3-4 attacks per round as the minimum for most rangers without going heavy optimization: Extra Attack + TWF + reactions. For Beastmaster the minimum is more like 4-6. Even at the bare minimum of 3 attacks per round, that's +3d6 damage per round out of a 1st-level slot, which you might not even be spending a slot on most of the time - that's easily worth the expense.
If you can get more than that three-attack minimum, anything extra is gravy, and it's still only costing you a 1st-level slot. Will higher-level spells do more damage than that? Absolutely - but those have higher opportunity costs too. The slot I spend throwing on Swift Quiver could have just as easily been spent on Steel Wind Strike per instance. That's a calculation I'll have to make plenty of times at high levels, and that is the source of mechanical depth.
If im using a longbow, how would I get more attacks out on the regular?
Beastmaster with Longbow = 4 attacks without a single feat or buff. +4d6 per round from HM.
I get the 2 attacks from the attack action and the bonus action pet attack. I dont see where the fourth attack is coming from.
Have you read the UA? The pet gets two attacks per Bonus Action at level 11 (Bestial Fury). 2+2=4.
I have not in a long time. lol Thank you. Do we know if they kept that?
I don't have the PHB yet if that's what you're asking, but TM and the other content creators didn't indicate any kinds of big nerfs to the subclass from the UA.
You don't need BM to get 3+ attacks. It's the easiest way if you insist on a longbow, but you don't need to do that either.
Also, you bring up "All the new Ranger gets is improved Hunter's Mark, as long as we ignore Expertise, Roving, Tireless, Nature's Veil, and Feral Senses."
Dude, every single feature you mentioned, the 2014 Ranger already had with Tasha's. You know what we don't have anymore at all?
No more Natural Explorer. You know what Wizards tells you to do instead to fill that "role" that was already built in? Just take expertise in Survival and take a few spells...
No more Primeval Awareness, one of the most niche but interesting abilities the Ranger had that is just GONE. Not even built into something else or anything, just gone. Know what they tell you to do instead?? Just take expertise in Perception and take a few spells...
No more Land's Stride, an actual unique feature that did something other classes could only semi replicate using spells or items. Wanna know what they replaced it with??? You guessed it, expertise!
No more Hide in Plain Site or Vanish. A version still being there, Nature's Veil, but it was already an option from Tasha's, so nothing new, but Vanish is gone? Something actual useful that a Ranger could actually use, just gone...ok.
Let's go over the "new" features though, shall we?
Expertise is the exact same thing.
Roving is the exact same thing.
Tireless is the exact same thing.
Nature's Veil is the exact sa- Oh wait, no, it starts 4 levels later.
Feral Sense now gives you a keyword that does the exact same thing.
but hey, we get the abilities to go off of our Wisdom Modifier instead of proficiency bonus, so it's better, right? our Wisdom Mod will always be better than our proficiency bonus, right??
oh, and Hunter's Mark damage changing from your weapons damage to force is pretty cool actu- oh...it only happens at level 20...
Yeah, thats what I meant, if the new videos or any other new source other than the UA has mentioned the pet still having 2 attacks.
Wrong.
- You get three times as many Expertises as Tasha's.
- The bonus from Roving is doubled relative to Tasha's.
- Nature's Veil lasts twice as long per use relative to Tasha's.
- Unlike Tasha's, 2024 Feral Senses now works even if you're blinded, and it counts as sight so you can target spells.
Also, all the other stuff you conveniently omitted:
- 2024 Rangers get more spell slots more quickly than they did in Tasha's.
- 2024 Rangers can swap spells on a long rest, unlike Tasha's.
- 2024 Rangers get Weapon Mastery, unlike Tasha's.
- 2024 Rangers can use rituals, unlike Tasha's.
I put all of this on page 1 of the very thread we're posting in.
You don't need a specific subclass for HM to be worthwhile. 3 attacks per round is already enough to exceed the damage curve of a level 1 slot, anything more than that is gravy.