I rais3d this in a thread in the rangers forum but it probably goes here so …
there are 2 changes I would like to see in the fighting styles for rangers and fighters:
1) Add the unarmed style to the ranger list. While I don’t see many pure rangers taking it there are a lot monk x/ranger x+ MC out there and they all suffer from the low damage of the beginning monks unarmed combat at high character levels. I am aware that the fighter indicate feat from Tasha’s will let them take it later but being able to take it as a fighting style would help the purpose built MC.
2) The Archer style should have the option in it to get off a second arrow at normal to hit instead of the +2. I have been playing from 1e on and the loss of that 2nd arrow (at low level especially) has an impact on party survival. I understand the reasoning for the single arrow only for a proficient use of the bow - an old English longbowman was supposed to be able to get off 12 shots a minute; that is 1 every 5 seconds or one a round. Fine for basic proficiency not problem. But I’ve seen a real archer fire 18 shots into torso target at 100m in a timed minute. That is a shot every 3 seconds or 2 shots a round. Yes starting at level 5 it starts to get ridiculous with 4 shots from 2 actions and by L20 it’s 8 shots a round but by L20 everyone is doing really fantasy attacks.
1) there are a lot monk x/ranger x+ MC out there? I've never seen a single one, probably because they tend suffer in general. Multiclass monks suffer from low ki reserves and monks generally want to hit lvl 6 sooner rather than later anyway, and by then their martial arts die is a 1d6 already. Rangers want to get to lvl 5 asap and lose out on spell slots if MCed with a non-casting class. In summary: start with monk levels if you want this multiclass and the unarmed damage difference will be minimal, and be prepared to suffer some mechanical consequences regardless.
2) the Archery FS is already the strongest of the lot. It does not need an upgrade, and real life archer comparison arguments should take a back seat with regards to balance concerns.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) there are a lot monk x/ranger x+ MC out there? I've never seen a single one, probably because they tend suffer in general. Multiclass monks suffer from low ki reserves and monks generally want to hit lvl 6 sooner rather than later anyway, and by then their martial arts die is a 1d6 already. Rangers want to get to lvl 5 asap and lose out on spell slots if MCed with a non-casting class. In summary: start with monk levels if you want this multiclass and the unarmed damage difference will be minimal, and be prepared to suffer some mechanical consequences regardless.
2) the Archery FS is already the strongest of the lot. It does not need an upgrade, and real life archer comparison arguments should take a back seat with regards to balance concerns.
Take a look at the monk forum and the discussions of monk/ranger multiclasses. While you may not like them as underpowered lots of folks clearly like them there. I do agree that they have their problems since both classes are extremely level dependent so you basically have to pick one to specialize in and only have a few levels in the other.
as for real life comparisons they were the basis or at least a starting point for considering what was reasonable in earlier versions. But it shows what is possible. If you don’t like the (really rather ridiculous) number of shots this gives at highest levels make a suggestion on how to curtail it because it is certainly useful and not overpowering at levels 2-4 where it is most needed.
I wouldn't have a problem with giving rangers the unarmed FS as an option, I'm just saying I don't think it'll make for a truly meaningful difference. Most damage doesn't come from the damage dice, majority ranger/minority monk MCs won't have enough ki to make a bunch of unarmed attacks and majority monk/minority ranger MCs will get more out of other styles.
Rangers with the change to Archery will get two attacks at level two without needing their bonus action, so they get them even on the round they cast Hunter's Mark (21 damage on average if both hit) if they didn't get to pre-cast. Fighters get two ranged attacks on level 1, 4 at level 2 if using Action Surge (30 damage on average if all 4 hit). I'd be wary of stating that's "not overpowering". If they got to pick up Sharpshooter at lvl 1, that expected damage goes up even more. A CR 1 Wyrmling has 16-22 hp standard, a CR 2 Wyrmling 32-33.
A Fighting Style granting Extra Attack is absolutely busted. Even without considering other buffs (like hunter’s mark or Sharpshooter) this would be about 4 times as powerful as another fighting style. Take Dueling for instance. It adds +2 damage per attack. An extra attack with a longbow deals 4.5+dex, or around 7.5 extra damage. This is nearly 4x as powerful, and becomes more than 4x if external buffs or having a higher Dex mod is taken into account. Then, at level 5 you would then always have 3 attacks every single turn, most of them with Sharpshooter probably. This “quick shot” fighting style would immediately be a must-have for every single ranged attacker in the game, and make bow/crossbow users busted. Even if it was Ranger-exclusive, it’s only a 2-level dip, and Fighting Initiate could grant it as well.
I have a hard time seeing a blind fighting ranger (or fighter for that matter) but they gave it to both where I would have made it a feat. You can take unarmed fighting as a feat (fighting initiate feat) but it (unarmed combat) should have gone to the rangers along with blind fighting IMHO.
yes action surge does give a fighter 4 shots at L2 but it’s only 1 rnd and action surge has always been about having 1 hellacious round when you have to have it. So allowing the fighter to severely hurt or take out 4 goblins/orcs/etc isn’t a biggie to me - just add an extra 4 to the minor horde your throwing at the party. Same idea works fairly well at medium to higher levels too. And the fighter doesn’t get HM so the individual damage isn’t that exceptional at low level. The +10 damage from sharpshooter at lower levels is really negated by the -5 to hit - you have 50% or less chance to hit just about anything to start with, your proficiency and Dex should counteract the -5 leaving you at 50%- chance of hitting so you need that extra 10 points of damage just to make up for all the misses while your getting hit - especially the ranger.
the biggest problems I see are from level 11 up where the fighter gets 3 attacks (6 shots - 1 every second) and has possible buffs as well. I’m hoping someone has an idea. It could sim0ly be capped but I would like a good reason for that other than just game balance.
It sounds like you're main motive is to grant fighters and rangers unarmed fighting to grant MC benefits. I don't believe any class is really designed to MC. The MC system allows it but as Pang points out both classes lose out and wind up with somewhat diminished capabilities at higher levels.
Specific to ranger lacking unarmed fighting as a class fighting style, unarmed fighting really doesn't fit the concept of a fantasy ranger. Rangers work at the boundaries of civilization warding off hostile encroachments. Some of their adversaries may be of the sort that fights tooth and nail, but the ranger doesn't. While the ranger may turn away and prefer living outside of civilization, they take the tools of civilization (weapons) to work their charge. Blindfighting makes a lot of sense as the ranger is often one of those who proverbially "walk in the dark" and are also those who protect their charge from encroaching darkness, so blind fighting actually makes a lot of sense. The fighting style available to a ranger should speak to its core archetypal combat associations. Rangers and brawling just aren't an intuitive association. I mean again going back to the guardian against threats known and unknown, some of the threats a ranger is supposed to come across in their mundane work are things they've likely never seen before, and the Ranger's default mode is supposed to be going hands on? You can show a theory craft that provides impressive numbers, but it a big leap in class conceit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
1) So allowing the fighter to severely hurt or take out 4 goblins/orcs/etc isn’t a biggie to me - just add an extra 4 to the minor horde your throwing at the party.
2) The +10 damage from sharpshooter at lower levels is really negated by the -5 to hit - you have 50% or less chance to hit just about anything to start with, your proficiency and Dex should counteract the -5 leaving you at 50%- chance of hitting so you need that extra 10 points of damage just to make up for all the misses while your getting hit - especially the ranger.
1) Anything can be made situationally balanced. I can throw more hordes at the party to balance out giving the wizard Fireball as a 1st level spell too. That doesn't make it actually balanced though. You'd still have the wizard (or in this case archer) outshine everyone else in combat.
2) Math says otherwise. Plenty of CR2 critters with an AC of 14 or less, and even with higher ACs average expected damage is higher going with Sharpshooter. Doubling the number of shots makes up more of that -5 compared to the relative +2 to hit of Archery as is.
Maybe, I haven’t played as much 5e as I have 1-3.5 ad it sure wasn’t unbalanced there but you do have a lot more ways of doing massive damage in 5e so maybe. Maybe it should be a feat not part of the archer style. Or maybe a bonus action for the archer.
Rangers can already shoot twice a round, they just have to be 5th level to do it. Seems like that is already capturing the difference between someone who is proficient vs an expert. You don’t get to be an expert at level 2, is all. It’s only level 2. You’ve barely figured out how to do anything.
As far as survivability, all characters are fragile at low levels, that’s always been part of the game I’m not sure why you think buffing archers is the solution to that. And in this edition, most characters seem to make it out of low levels just fine.
As far as unarmed fighting, I think that would be fine, nothing really game breaking. I mean, I think it’s a poor choice to spend your one and only fighting style on something that lets you do as much damage as you could with just a regular martial weapon, and gives you a grapple that won’t be too good, since rangers rarely have a high str to make it work. And if your lucky, you can find that tattoo that lets your fists be magic weapons, but otherwise you’re kind of stuck.
The Hunter ranger already gets a class feature that can let it make an extra attack each round (Horde Breaker) at 3rd level, and it comes with restrictions on how you can use it. Giving them a potential second extra attack would be OP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
1) there are a lot monk x/ranger x+ MC out there? I've never seen a single one, probably because they tend suffer in general. Multiclass monks suffer from low ki reserves and monks generally want to hit lvl 6 sooner rather than later anyway, and by then their martial arts die is a 1d6 already. Rangers want to get to lvl 5 asap and lose out on spell slots if MCed with a non-casting class. In summary: start with monk levels if you want this multiclass and the unarmed damage difference will be minimal, and be prepared to suffer some mechanical consequences regardless.
2) the Archery FS is already the strongest of the lot. It does not need an upgrade, and real life archer comparison arguments should take a back seat with regards to balance concerns.
Take a look at the monk forum and the discussions of monk/ranger multiclasses. While you may not like them as underpowered lots of folks clearly like them there. I do agree that they have their problems since both classes are extremely level dependent so you basically have to pick one to specialize in and only have a few levels in the other.
as for real life comparisons they were the basis or at least a starting point for considering what was reasonable in earlier versions. But it shows what is possible. If you don’t like the (really rather ridiculous) number of shots this gives at highest levels make a suggestion on how to curtail it because it is certainly useful and not overpowering at levels 2-4 where it is most needed.
Most of the people commenting on the monk/ranger thread are more like, "yeah that sounds cool!" or "that could totally work because both are DEX/WIS!" without really putting much thought into it beyond that. The actual buildouts aren't that impressive - which is probably why you concluded they need a boost via Fighting Style.
This is an MC where you really need to stand back and figure out what you're trying to accomplish. Does your MNK/RNG really create a unique character concept that could only be achieved with that combination, or are you just mashing two classes together because they seem to have synergy? Anyone can stand back and shoot, then pull out a sword or staff and swing it when someone engages them. Literally every class can do that - you don't need unarmed strikes.
The issue here is that both classes - but especially monk - are hurt by falling behind as you take levels in another class. Monk levels provide ki points and martial arts upgrades. Ranger is not providing armor, it's not providing new weapons. Many ranger spells and subclasses use your bonus action; monk wants to attack with their bonus action. If you're doing a ranged ranger, you're throwing away a lot of what monk is about - Kensei is not a powerful ranged attack upgrade, it's a bone they throw you in an attempt to compensate for all the benefits you are opting out of by using a bow.
I'm not saying that no one should ever play a non-optimal multiclass. If you like it, knock yourself out. But own the consequences of that choice. We don't need to change the rules - especially the Archery suggestion which would have ridiculous consequences - in order to balance a poor build choice.
My main interest in the monk/ ranger is down in my sig. I agree that while some of the ideas (a ninja style nature based monk) sound like they aught to come from a monk/ranger multiclass they don’t work that well together in 5e. Now with the martial initiate feat allowing you to take unarmed combat as a ranger at level 4 you are better off going that way probably. I think my interest in the archer changes is based on years of playing in 1-3.5e where subclasses mostly didn’t exist and the massive damage abilities of 5e were difficult to achieve ( not impossible but difficult) there you really needed the two arrow attacks you got to keep things balanced. Everyone seems to agree that is no longer needed so I’ll take you folks word on it till I play a couple of ranged characters and see for my self. I may even retcon WildBill that way since he only serves as an NPC on the rare occasions I DM today.
I think my interest in the archer changes is based on years of playing in 1-3.5e where subclasses mostly didn’t exist and the massive damage abilities of 5e were difficult to achieve ( not impossible but difficult) there you really needed the two arrow attacks you got to keep things balanced.
The Ranger gets Extra Attack by default, meaning they can fire off two arrows in one Attack Action. Or kick someone in the face and fire off an arrow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
1) Add the unarmed style to the ranger list. While I don’t see many pure rangers taking it there are a lot monk x/ranger x+ MC out there and they all suffer from the low damage of the beginning monks unarmed combat at high character levels. I am aware that the fighter indicate feat from Tasha’s will let them take it later but being able to take it as a fighting style would help the purpose built MC.
You want a change to Ranger so that Monks can be better because Multiclassing…. Well, for one thing Multiclassing is an entirely optional rule that a large minority of D&D players do not use at all. (Fears are also entirely optional and many DMs choose to not allow that option either.) Because of that optional status (among other reasons) WotC does not design things to promote/favor multiclassing. In fact quite the opposite. When WorC designs things, if they consider Multiclassing at all it is so they can design things in ways that activity restrict the benefits of multiclassing.
However, that all being said, that fighting style is a trap best avoided by monks in general. The benefits it grants are at best somewhere between redundant and useless for monks. They’ll get that d6 (and d8) eventually all by themselves. They are already M.A.D. So requiring Strength for anything is only an additional burden on a class that already scrounges for every ASI they can get and are lucky if they can ever get a Feat at all. And one of their biggest assets is their mobility so they can speed around and stun opponents, race to protect back lines, or streak forward to threaten casters and shooters. The last thing they typically want is to get in a grapple. Especially since being good at grappling requires Strength, and again, that’s something they typically don’t pursue because Dex, Wis, and Con are so much more advantageous anyway.
As others have said, it is (pretty much universally) more advantageous to reach 5th or 6th level before considering any multiclass at all. And as others have also pointed out, by then the d6 from the Fighting Stule has shifted from “redundant” to “useless.” Actively going out of their way to multiclass (to their own detriment) in order to take a trap feature is worse than “not avoiding” the trap. At that point it’s metaphorically akin to actively seeking out a live minefield for a place to skip rope….
In all honestly, I find the Thrown Weapon Style is a much more useful fighting style for a Monk since it makes darts rather useable for them. And Druidic Warrior has some appeal as does Dueling.
1) there are a lot monk x/ranger x+ MC out there? I've never seen a single one, probably because they tend suffer in general. Multiclass monks suffer from low ki reserves and monks generally want to hit lvl 6 sooner rather than later anyway, and by then their martial arts die is a 1d6 already. Rangers want to get to lvl 5 asap and lose out on spell slots if MCed with a non-casting class. In summary: start with monk levels if you want this multiclass and the unarmed damage difference will be minimal, and be prepared to suffer some mechanical consequences regardless.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. A shallow, 2-level dip into Ranger swapping Natural for Deft and Enemy for Foe is, IMO, one of the best things any monk player can consider doing for their PC. (Even after the hard nerf Favored Foe took in the transition from UA to Tasha's.) The only real bummer is the nerf to Deft Explorer caused by locking the levels for Canny/Roving/Tireless since those each benefit different Monks to varying degrees.
That’s all, just 2 li’l bitty levels in Ranger is all it takes to make just about any Monk better than they would be without Multiclassing. The first Ranger level fits nicely early into tier 2, and the other during late tier 2 to early tier 3 for that smooth finish the rest of the way down with monk.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. A shallow, 2-level dip into Ranger swapping Natural for Deft and Enemy for Foe is, IMO, one of the best things any monk player can consider doing for their PC. (Even after the hard nerf Favored Foe took in the transition from UA to Tasha's.) The only real bummer is the nerf to Deft Explorer caused by locking the levels for Canny/Roving/Tireless since those each benefit different Monks to varying degrees.
That’s all, just 2 li’l bitty levels in Ranger is all it takes to make just about any Monk better than they would be without Multiclassing. The first Ranger level fits nicely early into tier 2, and the other during late tier 2 to early tier 3 for that smooth finish the rest of the way down with monk.
Is very nice.
It is nice. However, I have some thoughts. For one, I wouldn't consider this until I reached monk 5 or likely 6. By that point the Unarmed fighting style thing is moot, as you've outlined. For another though, the expected highest level for the campaign might make a significant difference. Probably going for lvl 15? Hell yeah, I can drop monk 14-15 faster than you can say "ranger multiclass". Probably going for lvl 12? Eeeh, monk 11-12 are pretty big steps up. Not sure I want to give those up, reduce my ki reserves, slow my proficiency progression (which hurts those already not super reliable Stunning Strikes) and slow my monk progression (including that 2nd ASI) for those 2 ranger levels (nice as they are).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Actually I'm surprised Thrown Weapon style isn't in the Ranger fighting style options. That would actually make sense for a range especially one from a non bow favoring civilization.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Actually I'm surprised Thrown Weapon style isn't in the Ranger fighting style options. That would actually make sense for a range especially one from a non bow favoring civilization.
It was added to their list in Tasha's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
2) The Archer style should have the option in it to get off a second arrow at normal to hit instead of the +2. I have been playing from 1e on and the loss of that 2nd arrow (at low level especially) has an impact on party survival.
Two things:
Taking what is arguably the most overpowered fighting style in the game and juicing it with 'roids is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard in regards to this edition of D&D.
PCs are almost unkillable this edition, and all but unkillable from 5th-level on. I’m one of those DMs who thinks that occasional PC death is a good thing. Not that a DM should set out to kill a PC, or actively try to, just that it should be an inevitability. After all, if PCs never-ever die, then there is clearly no risk. Without risk, the rewards are empty and meaningless. (Like the man said: “If everyday is a sunny day, then what the eff is a sunny day?!?” Ne?) But in this edition PC survivability is so baked into the design for the entire edition as to be just short of guaranteed. Typically, whenever I hear about it happening, I usually end up attributing it to one of 3 causes: Murphy’s Law. Unanticipated, inexplicable, inevitable rotten-ass luck can still do the thing and is probably the single most common reason I have noticed. If “one of those fluke things” happens, then there’s really very little that can be done about it. Sometimes a single DC15 Athletics/Acrobatics check and some deplorable luck can snowball into a TPK. 🤷♂️ Inexperience. The second most common I have observed is that the DM is relatively inexperienced and made a miscalculation somehow because they just didn’t have enough under their belt to compensate for it. Heck, everybody gotta start somewhere. Mistakes get made, lessons get learned, life goes on, future occurrences get avoided. 🤞 The DM Sucks. The DM turns out to be either a straight up dick, or an absolute *******, or a moron. The third most common reason for PC deaths this edition that I have heard of is shitty DMs. It’s not that they haven’t had opportunities to learn, not in the slightest. It’s that either they did it on purpose, they did it through intentional negligence, or they are so grossly incompetent that one wonders how many drugs their mother must have done while pregnant, and how she survived the repeated overdoses long enough for the baby to develop lungs, let alone become a DM. The ones who do it on purpose are just malicious sadists who are probably acting out fantasies of the serial killers they would like to be, and taking character sheets as trophies instead of fingers. I am not exaggerating, some of them are legit homicidal and escalating. The ones who are incompetent have had more than enough opportunities to learn how to not eff up, but they either don’t care enough to learn, or just don’t get it. So that’s either intentional wangrodding rearing itself up and wagging itself all over poor unsuspecting players because the SoB just don’t give a hoot. In some ways this is worse than the MDK types. The trophy hunters are at least trying to use D&D to live out their homicidal fantasies instead of actually going full Lecter. The ones who are so callous and inconsiderate of others that they actively choose willful, intentional, malicious ignorance are scum. Otherwise, it’s woeful ineptitude bordering on abject stupidity. They just lack the capacity to be not stupid.
An extra arrow shot per round ain’t gonna solve any of those problems. 👆 So how is it possibly impacting party survivability to any significant degree?
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. A shallow, 2-level dip into Ranger swapping Natural for Deft and Enemy for Foe is, IMO, one of the best things any monk player can consider doing for their PC. (Even after the hard nerf Favored Foe took in the transition from UA to Tasha's.) The only real bummer is the nerf to Deft Explorer caused by locking the levels for Canny/Roving/Tireless since those each benefit different Monks to varying degrees.
That’s all, just 2 li’l bitty levels in Ranger is all it takes to make just about any Monk better than they would be without Multiclassing. The first Ranger level fits nicely early into tier 2, and the other during late tier 2 to early tier 3 for that smooth finish the rest of the way down with monk.
Is very nice.
It is nice. However, I have some thoughts. For one, I wouldn't consider this until I reached monk 5 or likely 6. By that point the Unarmed fighting style thing is moot, as you've outlined. For another though, the expected highest level for the campaign might make a significant difference. Probably going for lvl 15? Hell yeah, I can drop monk 14-15 faster than you can say "ranger multiclass". Probably going for lvl 12? Eeeh, monk 11-12 are pretty big steps up. Not sure I want to give those up, reduce my ki reserves, slow my proficiency progression (which hurts those already not super reliable Stunning Strikes) and slow my monk progression (including that 2nd ASI) for those 2 ranger levels (nice as they are).
Yes, expected endgame level is a factor, absolutely. But my group doesn’t use those self contained 1st to (11th-15th) campaigns that they lie to consumers about by referring to them as “modules.” We either use wholehog homebrew, or I am a fan of taking the older, shorter, actually modular modules and finessing them together into a campaign. (It helps that around 80ish% of the group also DMs.) The only reason we don’t anticipate hitting 20th (or epic) is because we don’t anticipate, we just play. So I’m not thinking “Should I take a level of Ranger or a 7th level in Monk? I dunno, the campaign is expected to go to around….” Nope, I ain’t thinkin’ about a “build progression” at all. I think about what would be cool now, and I’ll think about 11th-12th levels when my PC is 10th-11th level. 😉 “Carpe DM diem.”
I rais3d this in a thread in the rangers forum but it probably goes here so …
there are 2 changes I would like to see in the fighting styles for rangers and fighters:
1) Add the unarmed style to the ranger list. While I don’t see many pure rangers taking it there are a lot monk x/ranger x+ MC out there and they all suffer from the low damage of the beginning monks unarmed combat at high character levels. I am aware that the fighter indicate feat from Tasha’s will let them take it later but being able to take it as a fighting style would help the purpose built MC.
2) The Archer style should have the option in it to get off a second arrow at normal to hit instead of the +2. I have been playing from 1e on and the loss of that 2nd arrow (at low level especially) has an impact on party survival. I understand the reasoning for the single arrow only for a proficient use of the bow - an old English longbowman was supposed to be able to get off 12 shots a minute; that is 1 every 5 seconds or one a round. Fine for basic proficiency not problem. But I’ve seen a real archer fire 18 shots into torso target at 100m in a timed minute. That is a shot every 3 seconds or 2 shots a round. Yes starting at level 5 it starts to get ridiculous with 4 shots from 2 actions and by L20 it’s 8 shots a round but by L20 everyone is doing really fantasy attacks.
anyone have any thoughts?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
1) there are a lot monk x/ranger x+ MC out there? I've never seen a single one, probably because they tend suffer in general. Multiclass monks suffer from low ki reserves and monks generally want to hit lvl 6 sooner rather than later anyway, and by then their martial arts die is a 1d6 already. Rangers want to get to lvl 5 asap and lose out on spell slots if MCed with a non-casting class. In summary: start with monk levels if you want this multiclass and the unarmed damage difference will be minimal, and be prepared to suffer some mechanical consequences regardless.
2) the Archery FS is already the strongest of the lot. It does not need an upgrade, and real life archer comparison arguments should take a back seat with regards to balance concerns.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Take a look at the monk forum and the discussions of monk/ranger multiclasses. While you may not like them as underpowered lots of folks clearly like them there. I do agree that they have their problems since both classes are extremely level dependent so you basically have to pick one to specialize in and only have a few levels in the other.
as for real life comparisons they were the basis or at least a starting point for considering what was reasonable in earlier versions. But it shows what is possible. If you don’t like the (really rather ridiculous) number of shots this gives at highest levels make a suggestion on how to curtail it because it is certainly useful and not overpowering at levels 2-4 where it is most needed.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I wouldn't have a problem with giving rangers the unarmed FS as an option, I'm just saying I don't think it'll make for a truly meaningful difference. Most damage doesn't come from the damage dice, majority ranger/minority monk MCs won't have enough ki to make a bunch of unarmed attacks and majority monk/minority ranger MCs will get more out of other styles.
Rangers with the change to Archery will get two attacks at level two without needing their bonus action, so they get them even on the round they cast Hunter's Mark (21 damage on average if both hit) if they didn't get to pre-cast. Fighters get two ranged attacks on level 1, 4 at level 2 if using Action Surge (30 damage on average if all 4 hit). I'd be wary of stating that's "not overpowering". If they got to pick up Sharpshooter at lvl 1, that expected damage goes up even more. A CR 1 Wyrmling has 16-22 hp standard, a CR 2 Wyrmling 32-33.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A Fighting Style granting Extra Attack is absolutely busted. Even without considering other buffs (like hunter’s mark or Sharpshooter) this would be about 4 times as powerful as another fighting style. Take Dueling for instance. It adds +2 damage per attack. An extra attack with a longbow deals 4.5+dex, or around 7.5 extra damage. This is nearly 4x as powerful, and becomes more than 4x if external buffs or having a higher Dex mod is taken into account. Then, at level 5 you would then always have 3 attacks every single turn, most of them with Sharpshooter probably. This “quick shot” fighting style would immediately be a must-have for every single ranged attacker in the game, and make bow/crossbow users busted. Even if it was Ranger-exclusive, it’s only a 2-level dip, and Fighting Initiate could grant it as well.
I have a hard time seeing a blind fighting ranger (or fighter for that matter) but they gave it to both where I would have made it a feat. You can take unarmed fighting as a feat (fighting initiate feat) but it (unarmed combat) should have gone to the rangers along with blind fighting IMHO.
yes action surge does give a fighter 4 shots at L2 but it’s only 1 rnd and action surge has always been about having 1 hellacious round when you have to have it. So allowing the fighter to severely hurt or take out 4 goblins/orcs/etc isn’t a biggie to me - just add an extra 4 to the minor horde your throwing at the party. Same idea works fairly well at medium to higher levels too. And the fighter doesn’t get HM so the individual damage isn’t that exceptional at low level. The +10 damage from sharpshooter at lower levels is really negated by the -5 to hit - you have 50% or less chance to hit just about anything to start with, your proficiency and Dex should counteract the -5 leaving you at 50%- chance of hitting so you need that extra 10 points of damage just to make up for all the misses while your getting hit - especially the ranger.
the biggest problems I see are from level 11 up where the fighter gets 3 attacks (6 shots - 1 every second) and has possible buffs as well. I’m hoping someone has an idea. It could sim0ly be capped but I would like a good reason for that other than just game balance.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It sounds like you're main motive is to grant fighters and rangers unarmed fighting to grant MC benefits. I don't believe any class is really designed to MC. The MC system allows it but as Pang points out both classes lose out and wind up with somewhat diminished capabilities at higher levels.
Specific to ranger lacking unarmed fighting as a class fighting style, unarmed fighting really doesn't fit the concept of a fantasy ranger. Rangers work at the boundaries of civilization warding off hostile encroachments. Some of their adversaries may be of the sort that fights tooth and nail, but the ranger doesn't. While the ranger may turn away and prefer living outside of civilization, they take the tools of civilization (weapons) to work their charge. Blindfighting makes a lot of sense as the ranger is often one of those who proverbially "walk in the dark" and are also those who protect their charge from encroaching darkness, so blind fighting actually makes a lot of sense. The fighting style available to a ranger should speak to its core archetypal combat associations. Rangers and brawling just aren't an intuitive association. I mean again going back to the guardian against threats known and unknown, some of the threats a ranger is supposed to come across in their mundane work are things they've likely never seen before, and the Ranger's default mode is supposed to be going hands on? You can show a theory craft that provides impressive numbers, but it a big leap in class conceit.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
1) Anything can be made situationally balanced. I can throw more hordes at the party to balance out giving the wizard Fireball as a 1st level spell too. That doesn't make it actually balanced though. You'd still have the wizard (or in this case archer) outshine everyone else in combat.
2) Math says otherwise. Plenty of CR2 critters with an AC of 14 or less, and even with higher ACs average expected damage is higher going with Sharpshooter. Doubling the number of shots makes up more of that -5 compared to the relative +2 to hit of Archery as is.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Maybe, I haven’t played as much 5e as I have 1-3.5 ad it sure wasn’t unbalanced there but you do have a lot more ways of doing massive damage in 5e so maybe. Maybe it should be a feat not part of the archer style. Or maybe a bonus action for the archer.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Rangers can already shoot twice a round, they just have to be 5th level to do it. Seems like that is already capturing the difference between someone who is proficient vs an expert. You don’t get to be an expert at level 2, is all. It’s only level 2. You’ve barely figured out how to do anything.
As far as survivability, all characters are fragile at low levels, that’s always been part of the game I’m not sure why you think buffing archers is the solution to that. And in this edition, most characters seem to make it out of low levels just fine.
As far as unarmed fighting, I think that would be fine, nothing really game breaking. I mean, I think it’s a poor choice to spend your one and only fighting style on something that lets you do as much damage as you could with just a regular martial weapon, and gives you a grapple that won’t be too good, since rangers rarely have a high str to make it work. And if your lucky, you can find that tattoo that lets your fists be magic weapons, but otherwise you’re kind of stuck.
The Hunter ranger already gets a class feature that can let it make an extra attack each round (Horde Breaker) at 3rd level, and it comes with restrictions on how you can use it. Giving them a potential second extra attack would be OP.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Most of the people commenting on the monk/ranger thread are more like, "yeah that sounds cool!" or "that could totally work because both are DEX/WIS!" without really putting much thought into it beyond that. The actual buildouts aren't that impressive - which is probably why you concluded they need a boost via Fighting Style.
This is an MC where you really need to stand back and figure out what you're trying to accomplish. Does your MNK/RNG really create a unique character concept that could only be achieved with that combination, or are you just mashing two classes together because they seem to have synergy? Anyone can stand back and shoot, then pull out a sword or staff and swing it when someone engages them. Literally every class can do that - you don't need unarmed strikes.
The issue here is that both classes - but especially monk - are hurt by falling behind as you take levels in another class. Monk levels provide ki points and martial arts upgrades. Ranger is not providing armor, it's not providing new weapons. Many ranger spells and subclasses use your bonus action; monk wants to attack with their bonus action. If you're doing a ranged ranger, you're throwing away a lot of what monk is about - Kensei is not a powerful ranged attack upgrade, it's a bone they throw you in an attempt to compensate for all the benefits you are opting out of by using a bow.
I'm not saying that no one should ever play a non-optimal multiclass. If you like it, knock yourself out. But own the consequences of that choice. We don't need to change the rules - especially the Archery suggestion which would have ridiculous consequences - in order to balance a poor build choice.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
My main interest in the monk/ ranger is down in my sig. I agree that while some of the ideas (a ninja style nature based monk) sound like they aught to come from a monk/ranger multiclass they don’t work that well together in 5e. Now with the martial initiate feat allowing you to take unarmed combat as a ranger at level 4 you are better off going that way probably. I think my interest in the archer changes is based on years of playing in 1-3.5e where subclasses mostly didn’t exist and the massive damage abilities of 5e were difficult to achieve ( not impossible but difficult) there you really needed the two arrow attacks you got to keep things balanced. Everyone seems to agree that is no longer needed so I’ll take you folks word on it till I play a couple of ranged characters and see for my self. I may even retcon WildBill that way since he only serves as an NPC on the rare occasions I DM today.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The Ranger gets Extra Attack by default, meaning they can fire off two arrows in one Attack Action. Or kick someone in the face and fire off an arrow.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You want a change to Ranger so that Monks can be better because Multiclassing…. Well, for one thing Multiclassing is an entirely optional rule that a large minority of D&D players do not use at all. (Fears are also entirely optional and many DMs choose to not allow that option either.) Because of that optional status (among other reasons) WotC does not design things to promote/favor multiclassing. In fact quite the opposite. When WorC designs things, if they consider Multiclassing at all it is so they can design things in ways that activity restrict the benefits of multiclassing.
However, that all being said, that fighting style is a trap best avoided by monks in general. The benefits it grants are at best somewhere between redundant and useless for monks. They’ll get that d6 (and d8) eventually all by themselves. They are already M.A.D. So requiring Strength for anything is only an additional burden on a class that already scrounges for every ASI they can get and are lucky if they can ever get a Feat at all. And one of their biggest assets is their mobility so they can speed around and stun opponents, race to protect back lines, or streak forward to threaten casters and shooters. The last thing they typically want is to get in a grapple. Especially since being good at grappling requires Strength, and again, that’s something they typically don’t pursue because Dex, Wis, and Con are so much more advantageous anyway.
As others have said, it is (pretty much universally) more advantageous to reach 5th or 6th level before considering any multiclass at all. And as others have also pointed out, by then the d6 from the Fighting Stule has shifted from “redundant” to “useless.” Actively going out of their way to multiclass (to their own detriment) in order to take a trap feature is worse than “not avoiding” the trap. At that point it’s metaphorically akin to actively seeking out a live minefield for a place to skip rope….
In all honestly, I find the Thrown Weapon Style is a much more useful fighting style for a Monk since it makes darts rather useable for them. And Druidic Warrior has some appeal as does Dueling.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. A shallow, 2-level dip into Ranger swapping Natural for Deft and Enemy for Foe is, IMO, one of the best things any monk player can consider doing for their PC. (Even after the hard nerf Favored Foe took in the transition from UA to Tasha's.) The only real bummer is the nerf to Deft Explorer caused by locking the levels for Canny/Roving/Tireless since those each benefit different Monks to varying degrees.
That’s all, just 2 li’l bitty levels in Ranger is all it takes to make just about any Monk better than they would be without Multiclassing. The first Ranger level fits nicely early into tier 2, and the other during late tier 2 to early tier 3 for that smooth finish the rest of the way down with monk.
Is very nice.
Edits: spelling/typos
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It is nice. However, I have some thoughts. For one, I wouldn't consider this until I reached monk 5 or likely 6. By that point the Unarmed fighting style thing is moot, as you've outlined. For another though, the expected highest level for the campaign might make a significant difference. Probably going for lvl 15? Hell yeah, I can drop monk 14-15 faster than you can say "ranger multiclass". Probably going for lvl 12? Eeeh, monk 11-12 are pretty big steps up. Not sure I want to give those up, reduce my ki reserves, slow my proficiency progression (which hurts those already not super reliable Stunning Strikes) and slow my monk progression (including that 2nd ASI) for those 2 ranger levels (nice as they are).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Actually I'm surprised Thrown Weapon style isn't in the Ranger fighting style options. That would actually make sense for a range especially one from a non bow favoring civilization.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It was added to their list in Tasha's.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Two things:
Taking what is arguably the most overpowered fighting style in the game and juicing it with 'roids is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard in regards to this edition of D&D.
PCs are almost unkillable this edition, and all but unkillable from 5th-level on. I’m one of those DMs who thinks that occasional PC death is a good thing. Not that a DM should set out to kill a PC, or actively try to, just that it should be an inevitability. After all, if PCs never-ever die, then there is clearly no risk. Without risk, the rewards are empty and meaningless. (Like the man said: “If everyday is a sunny day, then what the eff is a sunny day?!?” Ne?) But in this edition PC survivability is so baked into the design for the entire edition as to be just short of guaranteed. Typically, whenever I hear about it happening, I usually end up attributing it to one of 3 causes:
Murphy’s Law. Unanticipated, inexplicable, inevitable rotten-ass luck can still do the thing and is probably the single most common reason I have noticed. If “one of those fluke things” happens, then there’s really very little that can be done about it. Sometimes a single DC15 Athletics/Acrobatics check and some deplorable luck can snowball into a TPK. 🤷♂️
Inexperience. The second most common I have observed is that the DM is relatively inexperienced and made a miscalculation somehow because they just didn’t have enough under their belt to compensate for it. Heck, everybody gotta start somewhere. Mistakes get made, lessons get learned, life goes on, future occurrences get avoided. 🤞
The DM Sucks. The DM turns out to be either a straight up dick, or an absolute *******, or a moron. The third most common reason for PC deaths this edition that I have heard of is shitty DMs. It’s not that they haven’t had opportunities to learn, not in the slightest. It’s that either they did it on purpose, they did it through intentional negligence, or they are so grossly incompetent that one wonders how many drugs their mother must have done while pregnant, and how she survived the repeated overdoses long enough for the baby to develop lungs, let alone become a DM.
The ones who do it on purpose are just malicious sadists who are probably acting out fantasies of the serial killers they would like to be, and taking character sheets as trophies instead of fingers. I am not exaggerating, some of them are legit homicidal and escalating.
The ones who are incompetent have had more than enough opportunities to learn how to not eff up, but they either don’t care enough to learn, or just don’t get it. So that’s either intentional wangrodding rearing itself up and wagging itself all over poor unsuspecting players because the SoB just don’t give a hoot. In some ways this is worse than the MDK types. The trophy hunters are at least trying to use D&D to live out their homicidal fantasies instead of actually going full Lecter. The ones who are so callous and inconsiderate of others that they actively choose willful, intentional, malicious ignorance are scum.
Otherwise, it’s woeful ineptitude bordering on abject stupidity. They just lack the capacity to be not stupid.
An extra arrow shot per round ain’t gonna solve any of those problems. 👆 So how is it possibly impacting party survivability to any significant degree?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, expected endgame level is a factor, absolutely. But my group doesn’t use those self contained 1st to (11th-15th) campaigns that they lie to consumers about by referring to them as “modules.” We either use wholehog homebrew, or I am a fan of taking the older, shorter, actually modular modules and finessing them together into a campaign. (It helps that around 80ish% of the group also DMs.) The only reason we don’t anticipate hitting 20th (or epic) is because we don’t anticipate, we just play. So I’m not thinking “Should I take a level of Ranger or a 7th level in Monk? I dunno, the campaign is expected to go to around….” Nope, I ain’t thinkin’ about a “build progression” at all. I think about what would be cool now, and I’ll think about 11th-12th levels when my PC is 10th-11th level. 😉 “Carpe
DMdiem.”Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting