One of the most annoying thing about the Ranger is that they are very MAD. If you want to be good with attack rolls, you're going to have to sacrifice your spell casting as a result. This leaves every spell with a weak saving throw. If you want to avoid being MAD, you cast Shillelagh or True Strike with your WIS score. You lose your extra attack as a result. I don't think Rangers should have to choose between DEX and WIS, nor take Magic Initiate to become stuck as a melee combatant.
What if the spell casting score for Rangerspells was DEX? My first thought is multi-class mechanics. No other class uses DEX for spells. A Rune Knight uses CON for runes, so why not DEX for Ranger spells? A Ranger typically has a high DEX regardless for their AC, finesse/ranged weapons, and it's one of their proficient saving throws. It would make Rangers just that little bit stronger. Ensnaring strike would suck so much less. It doesn't even affect concentration. I can't see any reason to not use DEX instead, except WoTC being married to only using "mental" ability scores to spell casting.
Not sure why you think using Shillelagh causes you to lose your extra attack? Druidic Warrior Fighting Style can give you Shillelagh freeing up the feat for something else.
The real problem with all MAD classes/MCs is that everyone( mostly) is using standard array for stats. For single stat classes it’s not bad as your dump stat(s) can be cleaned up fairly easily. For MAD PCs this is impossible - you end up with 3very good stats and 3 very bad stats. Something that , realistically, should never make out of tier 1 because of the dump stats. While it can be fun occasionally to play such PCs it’s not normally enjoyable. I suspect most of us would prefer to play fairly heroic PCs most of the time - ones who don’t have glaring holes holding them down and fairly quickly killing them off. rolled stats can be just as bad if not worse - your as likely to roll 6 3s as you are to roll 6 18s.and if you only get one roll you may not get the minimum stats you need for your idea. When my table creates new PCs I have them roll with the following rules - roll as many times as needed to get a set of stats with at least 3 13+s and no scores below a 9.. this provides the minimum base stats needed for any concept without having major deficiencies anywhere. Yes it also provides chances at very powerfully stated PCs but the. Those types should be possible as PCs and your never going to get them with standard array. This also means you generally need to use fewer of your limited stat boosts on actually boosting them and are more likely to be able to actually take a few feats.
I once played a all 14 ranger(doable with point buy + race) but I was using solely archery fighting style making my attacks equivalent to a starting 16. Which is kind of my point if everyone attacks at what a 16 stat would provide, Is the stat the important part of the equation?
The MAD Problem wasn't as big of a deal when we just had 2014 PHB because pretty much all classes had difficult choices to make Number of known spells, stat distribution the importance of skills and tools. As new books came out the "toys" of new forms of advantage and bypassing "normal" stat weaknesses kind of undermined the function of a lot of stats. the game got off the path of stats being the important choice but rather a limiting framework.
Dex is the one stat that carries a lot of weight for armor, initiative, common skills and common weapon attacks. so that being the case it would kind of be silly broken as a casting stat unless it came with heavy restrictions. The community has kind of shown they don't like restriction trade offs because it maths out funny. (especially with rangers my2014 Beastmaster poisoner maths out real well but few people will play with the restrictions of 2014 beasts. (On a side note 2014 beasts can help solve mad issues because of the beast stats I've literally dumped wisdom on a ranger and had a fine time)
One of the most annoying thing about the Ranger is that they are very MAD. If you want to be good with attack rolls, you're going to have to sacrifice your spell casting as a result. This leaves every spell with a weak saving throw. If you want to avoid being MAD, you cast Shillelagh or True Strike with your WIS score. You lose your extra attack as a result. I don't think Rangers should have to choose between DEX and WIS, nor take Magic Initiate to become stuck as a melee combatant.
What if the spell casting score for Rangerspells was DEX? My first thought is multi-class mechanics. No other class uses DEX for spells. A Rune Knight uses CON for runes, so why not DEX for Ranger spells? A Ranger typically has a high DEX regardless for their AC, finesse/ranged weapons, and it's one of their proficient saving throws. It would make Rangers just that little bit stronger. Ensnaring strike would suck so much less. It doesn't even affect concentration. I can't see any reason to not use DEX instead, except WoTC being married to only using "mental" ability scores to spell casting.
Dex just doesn’t make thematically sense for casting spells. Wouldn’t buy into it personally. Just my 2 cents. Everyone wants to make Superman and Wolverine characters but don’t want the pain of having weaker abilities.
The real problem with all MAD classes/MCs is that everyone( mostly) is using standard array for stats. For single stat classes it’s not bad as your dump stat(s) can be cleaned up fairly easily. For MAD PCs this is impossible - you end up with 3very good stats and 3 very bad stats. Something that , realistically, should never make out of tier 1 because of the dump stats. While it can be fun occasionally to play such PCs it’s not normally enjoyable. I suspect most of us would prefer to play fairly heroic PCs most of the time - ones who don’t have glaring holes holding them down and fairly quickly killing them off. rolled stats can be just as bad if not worse - your as likely to roll 6 3s as you are to roll 6 18s.and if you only get one roll you may not get the minimum stats you need for your idea. When my table creates new PCs I have them roll with the following rules - roll as many times as needed to get a set of stats with at least 3 13+s and no scores below a 9.. this provides the minimum base stats needed for any concept without having major deficiencies anywhere. Yes it also provides chances at very powerfully stated PCs but the. Those types should be possible as PCs and your never going to get them with standard array. This also means you generally need to use fewer of your limited stat boosts on actually boosting them and are more likely to be able to actually take a few feats.
In that case, I would propose that Rangers not have spells at all, but switch to a system similar to maneuvers. Give them a number of dice to use maneuvers that mimic or emulate magical effects that exist in their spell list. Ensnaring Strike would become "Snare Shot". On a failed save, the arrow would pin their foot to the ground and deal extra damage based on the roll. Summoning spells would become more like a "call" that animals would respond to and provide aid, such as calling a pack of wolves with a howl. Other things might be done through ritual spells, as if praying to the spirits of the wild outside of combat. No spell slots, just materials, somatic components, and time. Then, making DEX be the stat that calculates the DC would make way more sense and relieve class from the burden of being MAD. Now, you can focus on DEX and CON while giving your mental stats an even distribution that doesn't require anything being a "dump" stat. If DEX determined the DC of Ranger "maneuvers", you could do a distribution of 10/15/14/10/13/10 instead, for example.
I once played a all 14 ranger(doable with point buy + race) but I was using solely archery fighting style making my attacks equivalent to a starting 16. Which is kind of my point if everyone attacks at what a 16 stat would provide, Is the stat the important part of the equation?
The MAD Problem wasn't as big of a deal when we just had 2014 PHB because pretty much all classes had difficult choices to make Number of known spells, stat distribution the importance of skills and tools. As new books came out the "toys" of new forms of advantage and bypassing "normal" stat weaknesses kind of undermined the function of a lot of stats. the game got off the path of stats being the important choice but rather a limiting framework.
Dex is the one stat that carries a lot of weight for armor, initiative, common skills and common weapon attacks. so that being the case it would kind of be silly broken as a casting stat unless it came with heavy restrictions. The community has kind of shown they don't like restriction trade offs because it maths out funny. (especially with rangers my2014 Beastmaster poisoner maths out real well but few people will play with the restrictions of 2014 beasts. (On a side note 2014 beasts can help solve mad issues because of the beast stats I've literally dumped wisdom on a ranger and had a fine time)
Well, the Battle Master uses DEX for its maneuvers DC. I don't see how it would be all that different for a Ranger spell, as long as it only applies to spells chosen from the Ranger spell list. They're not full casters. Their spells are nothing on the level of what Wizard and Druid spells can do at the same character levels. If you gave a Druid DEX as their casting stat, I would say that's broken.
I also don't think using a specific subclass to "fix" the issue of the base class is a reasonable solution. What if a player doesn't want to go with a Beastmaster? What if they prefer Hunter and want to get the full potential of their Ranger spells relative to ranged weapons?
One problem with removing the Ranger's dependency on WIS is that Wisdom governs multiple skills that are vital to the Ranger class fantasy. Being a ranger who can't forage for food, follow tracks, notice hidden enemies, work with animals, or heal minor injuries doesn't feel much like being a ranger at all. Moving the ranger's casting stat from WIS to somewhere else might make the ranger less MAD mechanically, but it doesn't make them less MAD flavor-wise, if that makes sense.
Paladins can be built to be more Might or more Magic pretty effectively, and I think that is what the Ranger needs. Rangers can kind of do that with Shillelagh, but that spell severely limits the ranger's weapon options and can't be used for a classic archery ranger build at all, even though, as a caster-leaning ranger, you probably don't want to be in melee range. I mean, heck, rangers don't even have tools to protect their concentration without a feat, which just makes them more MAD for giving up an ASI.
A Ranger-specific cantrip or two might not be a terrible idea. Something like, say, Thornshot that lets you loose an arrow with your WIS score. Give it good damage and let it scale with Extra Attack. A Magic Ranger would take Druidic Warrior for the cantrip, while a Martial Ranger would take Archery Style.
Beyond that, a few more spells that don't need a save would be nice for Martial Ranger.
As an aside, another big issue with Ranger MADness is how it affects STRanger builds. It kind of sucks to have Weapon Mastery and full access to all martial weapons and be limited to just ranged and Finesse weapons. An idea I had was to give Ranger the ability to use Thrown and Versatile weapons using DEX, which would let one build a more martially inclined ranger that can make good use of a variety of weapon masteries without giving them a Finesse Greatsword or something that might be unbalanced.
Longsword Ranger is fairly iconic in modern media, between Aragorn, Jon Snow, and Geralt. Plus, spears and axes are both common weapons for the woodsman archetype. I just want to play these archetypes without being an objectively worse Ranger.
One problem with removing the Ranger's dependency on WIS is that Wisdom governs multiple skills that are vital to the Ranger class fantasy. Being a ranger who can't forage for food, follow tracks, notice hidden enemies, work with animals, or heal minor injuries doesn't feel much like being a ranger at all. Moving the ranger's casting stat from WIS to somewhere else might make the ranger less MAD mechanically, but it doesn't make them less MAD flavor-wise, if that makes sense.
The reason being MAD is difficult for a Ranger is that they can't invest in WIS to boost their spell DC while still being viable with weapons/armor. Using DEX for casting solves that. You're going to max DEX on a Ranger regardless. So, you can invest in WIS, get the skills bonuses, and have a decent DC on spells. The point being that you don't have to choose between DEX or WIS. You can have both.
Paladins can be built to be more Might or more Magic pretty effectively, and I think that is what the Ranger needs. Rangers can kind of do that with Shillelagh, but that spell severely limits the ranger's weapon options and can't be used for a classic archery ranger build at all, even though, as a caster-leaning ranger, you probably don't want to be in melee range. I mean, heck, rangers don't even have tools to protect their concentration without a feat, which just makes them more MAD for giving up an ASI.
Paladins aren't as dependent on their DC as Rangers. They can smite all of their spell slots and still feel effective and their smites are not very DC dependent. Rangers, on the other hand, have a lot of saves that depend on a strong DC.
Some weapon cantrips that pertain to archery would be great though. I could sacrifice an extra attack for one round if the cantrip gave a good return on investment. An archery version of "Thorn Whip" would be nice. So as to say, the target hit with the arrow would sprout a thorn whip that pulls in one hostile target up to 30 ft. away 10ft. closer, setting them up for an AoE attack from an ally.
The problem there is that if you’re going to give rangers a cantrip what they will probably want is some version of Eldritch blast with the extra blast attacks at L 5,11,15. And then you don’t need the bow pretty much.
The problem there is that if you’re going to give rangers a cantrip what they will probably want is some version of Eldritch blast with the extra blast attacks at L 5,11,15. And then you don’t need the bow pretty much.
I think that Rangers should get at least a couple cantrips as a base feature - they could could draw primarily from the Druid list or have some that are unique to them. Shillelagh and druidcraft would make a lot of sense. There could be a ranged version of Shillelagh (obviously with a different name) that magically imbues nature's power into your arrows making shortbow do 1d8 (instead of 1d6) or longbow 1d10 (instead of 1d8). Just something to add a bit of damage to a single target without having to burn a spell slot. Or some cantrip version of hail of thorns that's not an AOE.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
The problem still is that from L5 on your better off using your second shot than a cantrip - except for Eldritch blast which gives you additional blasts.
Still, shillelagh has a casting time of a Bonus Action and lasts for 1 minute. An equivalent cantrip for ammunition would still allow you to use that second shot and reap the benefit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
One of the most annoying thing about the Ranger is that they are very MAD. If you want to be good with attack rolls, you're going to have to sacrifice your spell casting as a result.
Since the 1970s they have always been this way. I agree with Wild Bill, this newfangled way of getting abilities (standard or even point buy) is the issue with all MAD. With point buy as an alternative to make it more MAD friendly, you can increase the points into the 30s and/or allow for a higher ability above 15.
Yes it’s always been that way but then if you stop to really think about it a ranger should be MAD. We are talking about someone strong or dexterous enough to be able to fight effectively, healthy enough to survive in the wild alone rarely suffering from incapacitating illnesses, smart enough to develop and learn the myriad skills need to thrive (not just survive) in the wilderness, wise enough to spot and avoid most problems before they occur and charismatic enough to deal successfully with “native groups” they do encounter.i generally think of the American mountain men as exemplars ( since we have no real world analogs including spellcasting), fully capable combatants, generally able to make friends with at least some natives, able to navigate across huge swaths of wilderness, capable of making reasonably accurate maps of the places they had been, able to live, survive and thrive in the wilderness areas for years in some cases. Rangers are truly “ the cowards never left, the weak and unlucky died and only the best survived” so of course they are MAD.
Yes it also provides chances at very powerfully stated PCs but the. Those types should be possible as PCs and your never going to get them with standard array.
Have you ever considered that even an ability score of 16 is exceptional? A PC that starts with even just one 18 is practically superhuman. The standard array is perfectly fine, you get all the scores you need, you just need to be smart about where you put them.
See this thread: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/62751-what-would-your-irl-stats-class-be?page=7#c136 for my thoughts on stats. I’m not saying that rangers are superhuman, I am saying that rangers are supposed to be MAD because they are, when played “right” very powerful characters. If anything 5e downgrades rangers. For that matter I suspect that most of us want to play truly exceptional PCs most of the time. Assuming that, standard array doesn’t really allow that. At best you are a bit above average overall and need all your ASIs to bring your main stats out of “ slightly above average” and into well above average/ exceptional and never getting any feats. Point buy is better somewhat but it to never really allows the possibility of a truly exceptional low level MAD PC. To provide that possibility I have my players roll for stats and keep rolling until they get a set of rolls that are all above 9 and have at least 3 rolls of 13+. That provides a set of stats that allows the player to create pretty much any concept they have. It also means that they have no serious holes and a better than average chance of actually getting some interesting feats. 2024 makes that easier with the various half stat/ half feature feats. You also have a decent chance of getting something exceptional to start with which nothing else really provides.
Yes it also provides chances at very powerfully stated PCs but the. Those types should be possible as PCs and your never going to get them with standard array.
Have you ever considered that even an ability score of 16 is exceptional? A PC that starts with even just one 18 is practically superhuman. The standard array is perfectly fine, you get all the scores you need, you just need to be smart about where you put them.
This is a fantasy game and I want to play someone that is close to a superhuman hero. If I want to play the average Jane/Joe, I would play an under defined NPC and die a miserable painful death of disease or starvation. Get murdered if I was lucky as then death would be quick and a better existence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One of the most annoying thing about the Ranger is that they are very MAD. If you want to be good with attack rolls, you're going to have to sacrifice your spell casting as a result. This leaves every spell with a weak saving throw. If you want to avoid being MAD, you cast Shillelagh or True Strike with your WIS score. You lose your extra attack as a result. I don't think Rangers should have to choose between DEX and WIS, nor take Magic Initiate to become stuck as a melee combatant.
What if the spell casting score for Ranger spells was DEX? My first thought is multi-class mechanics. No other class uses DEX for spells. A Rune Knight uses CON for runes, so why not DEX for Ranger spells? A Ranger typically has a high DEX regardless for their AC, finesse/ranged weapons, and it's one of their proficient saving throws. It would make Rangers just that little bit stronger. Ensnaring strike would suck so much less. It doesn't even affect concentration. I can't see any reason to not use DEX instead, except WoTC being married to only using "mental" ability scores to spell casting.
Not sure why you think using Shillelagh causes you to lose your extra attack? Druidic Warrior Fighting Style can give you Shillelagh freeing up the feat for something else.
The real problem with all MAD classes/MCs is that everyone( mostly) is using standard array for stats. For single stat classes it’s not bad as your dump stat(s) can be cleaned up fairly easily. For MAD PCs this is impossible - you end up with 3very good stats and 3 very bad stats. Something that , realistically, should never make out of tier 1 because of the dump stats. While it can be fun occasionally to play such PCs it’s not normally enjoyable. I suspect most of us would prefer to play fairly heroic PCs most of the time - ones who don’t have glaring holes holding them down and fairly quickly killing them off. rolled stats can be just as bad if not worse - your as likely to roll 6 3s as you are to roll 6 18s.and if you only get one roll you may not get the minimum stats you need for your idea. When my table creates new PCs I have them roll with the following rules - roll as many times as needed to get a set of stats with at least 3 13+s and no scores below a 9.. this provides the minimum base stats needed for any concept without having major deficiencies anywhere. Yes it also provides chances at very powerfully stated PCs but the. Those types should be possible as PCs and your never going to get them with standard array. This also means you generally need to use fewer of your limited stat boosts on actually boosting them and are more likely to be able to actually take a few feats.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I once played a all 14 ranger(doable with point buy + race) but I was using solely archery fighting style making my attacks equivalent to a starting 16. Which is kind of my point if everyone attacks at what a 16 stat would provide, Is the stat the important part of the equation?
The MAD Problem wasn't as big of a deal when we just had 2014 PHB because pretty much all classes had difficult choices to make Number of known spells, stat distribution the importance of skills and tools. As new books came out the "toys" of new forms of advantage and bypassing "normal" stat weaknesses kind of undermined the function of a lot of stats. the game got off the path of stats being the important choice but rather a limiting framework.
Dex is the one stat that carries a lot of weight for armor, initiative, common skills and common weapon attacks. so that being the case it would kind of be silly broken as a casting stat unless it came with heavy restrictions. The community has kind of shown they don't like restriction trade offs because it maths out funny. (especially with rangers my2014 Beastmaster poisoner maths out real well but few people will play with the restrictions of 2014 beasts. (On a side note 2014 beasts can help solve mad issues because of the beast stats I've literally dumped wisdom on a ranger and had a fine time)
Dex just doesn’t make thematically sense for casting spells. Wouldn’t buy into it personally. Just my 2 cents. Everyone wants to make Superman and Wolverine characters but don’t want the pain of having weaker abilities.
I have to disagree. It is thematic. The majority of Ranger spells possess a somatic component, which fits with dexterity.
The loss of extra attack was in reference to using True Strike, actually. I may not have made that clear.
In that case, I would propose that Rangers not have spells at all, but switch to a system similar to maneuvers. Give them a number of dice to use maneuvers that mimic or emulate magical effects that exist in their spell list. Ensnaring Strike would become "Snare Shot". On a failed save, the arrow would pin their foot to the ground and deal extra damage based on the roll. Summoning spells would become more like a "call" that animals would respond to and provide aid, such as calling a pack of wolves with a howl. Other things might be done through ritual spells, as if praying to the spirits of the wild outside of combat. No spell slots, just materials, somatic components, and time. Then, making DEX be the stat that calculates the DC would make way more sense and relieve class from the burden of being MAD. Now, you can focus on DEX and CON while giving your mental stats an even distribution that doesn't require anything being a "dump" stat. If DEX determined the DC of Ranger "maneuvers", you could do a distribution of 10/15/14/10/13/10 instead, for example.
Well, the Battle Master uses DEX for its maneuvers DC. I don't see how it would be all that different for a Ranger spell, as long as it only applies to spells chosen from the Ranger spell list. They're not full casters. Their spells are nothing on the level of what Wizard and Druid spells can do at the same character levels. If you gave a Druid DEX as their casting stat, I would say that's broken.
I also don't think using a specific subclass to "fix" the issue of the base class is a reasonable solution. What if a player doesn't want to go with a Beastmaster? What if they prefer Hunter and want to get the full potential of their Ranger spells relative to ranged weapons?
One problem with removing the Ranger's dependency on WIS is that Wisdom governs multiple skills that are vital to the Ranger class fantasy. Being a ranger who can't forage for food, follow tracks, notice hidden enemies, work with animals, or heal minor injuries doesn't feel much like being a ranger at all. Moving the ranger's casting stat from WIS to somewhere else might make the ranger less MAD mechanically, but it doesn't make them less MAD flavor-wise, if that makes sense.
Paladins can be built to be more Might or more Magic pretty effectively, and I think that is what the Ranger needs. Rangers can kind of do that with Shillelagh, but that spell severely limits the ranger's weapon options and can't be used for a classic archery ranger build at all, even though, as a caster-leaning ranger, you probably don't want to be in melee range. I mean, heck, rangers don't even have tools to protect their concentration without a feat, which just makes them more MAD for giving up an ASI.
A Ranger-specific cantrip or two might not be a terrible idea. Something like, say, Thornshot that lets you loose an arrow with your WIS score. Give it good damage and let it scale with Extra Attack. A Magic Ranger would take Druidic Warrior for the cantrip, while a Martial Ranger would take Archery Style.
Beyond that, a few more spells that don't need a save would be nice for Martial Ranger.
As an aside, another big issue with Ranger MADness is how it affects STRanger builds. It kind of sucks to have Weapon Mastery and full access to all martial weapons and be limited to just ranged and Finesse weapons. An idea I had was to give Ranger the ability to use Thrown and Versatile weapons using DEX, which would let one build a more martially inclined ranger that can make good use of a variety of weapon masteries without giving them a Finesse Greatsword or something that might be unbalanced.
Longsword Ranger is fairly iconic in modern media, between Aragorn, Jon Snow, and Geralt. Plus, spears and axes are both common weapons for the woodsman archetype. I just want to play these archetypes without being an objectively worse Ranger.
The reason being MAD is difficult for a Ranger is that they can't invest in WIS to boost their spell DC while still being viable with weapons/armor. Using DEX for casting solves that. You're going to max DEX on a Ranger regardless. So, you can invest in WIS, get the skills bonuses, and have a decent DC on spells. The point being that you don't have to choose between DEX or WIS. You can have both.
Paladins aren't as dependent on their DC as Rangers. They can smite all of their spell slots and still feel effective and their smites are not very DC dependent. Rangers, on the other hand, have a lot of saves that depend on a strong DC.
Some weapon cantrips that pertain to archery would be great though. I could sacrifice an extra attack for one round if the cantrip gave a good return on investment. An archery version of "Thorn Whip" would be nice. So as to say, the target hit with the arrow would sprout a thorn whip that pulls in one hostile target up to 30 ft. away 10ft. closer, setting them up for an AoE attack from an ally.
The problem there is that if you’re going to give rangers a cantrip what they will probably want is some version of Eldritch blast with the extra blast attacks at L 5,11,15. And then you don’t need the bow pretty much.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I think that Rangers should get at least a couple cantrips as a base feature - they could could draw primarily from the Druid list or have some that are unique to them. Shillelagh and druidcraft would make a lot of sense. There could be a ranged version of Shillelagh (obviously with a different name) that magically imbues nature's power into your arrows making shortbow do 1d8 (instead of 1d6) or longbow 1d10 (instead of 1d8). Just something to add a bit of damage to a single target without having to burn a spell slot. Or some cantrip version of hail of thorns that's not an AOE.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
The problem still is that from L5 on your better off using your second shot than a cantrip - except for Eldritch blast which gives you additional blasts.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Still, shillelagh has a casting time of a Bonus Action and lasts for 1 minute. An equivalent cantrip for ammunition would still allow you to use that second shot and reap the benefit.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Since the 1970s they have always been this way. I agree with Wild Bill, this newfangled way of getting abilities (standard or even point buy) is the issue with all MAD. With point buy as an alternative to make it more MAD friendly, you can increase the points into the 30s and/or allow for a higher ability above 15.
Yes it’s always been that way but then if you stop to really think about it a ranger should be MAD. We are talking about someone strong or dexterous enough to be able to fight effectively, healthy enough to survive in the wild alone rarely suffering from incapacitating illnesses, smart enough to develop and learn the myriad skills need to thrive (not just survive) in the wilderness, wise enough to spot and avoid most problems before they occur and charismatic enough to deal successfully with “native groups” they do encounter.i generally think of the American mountain men as exemplars ( since we have no real world analogs including spellcasting), fully capable combatants, generally able to make friends with at least some natives, able to navigate across huge swaths of wilderness, capable of making reasonably accurate maps of the places they had been, able to live, survive and thrive in the wilderness areas for years in some cases. Rangers are truly “ the cowards never left, the weak and unlucky died and only the best survived” so of course they are MAD.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Have you ever considered that even an ability score of 16 is exceptional? A PC that starts with even just one 18 is practically superhuman. The standard array is perfectly fine, you get all the scores you need, you just need to be smart about where you put them.
See this thread: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/62751-what-would-your-irl-stats-class-be?page=7#c136 for my thoughts on stats. I’m not saying that rangers are superhuman, I am saying that rangers are supposed to be MAD because they are, when played “right” very powerful characters. If anything 5e downgrades rangers. For that matter I suspect that most of us want to play truly exceptional PCs most of the time. Assuming that, standard array doesn’t really allow that. At best you are a bit above average overall and need all your ASIs to bring your main stats out of “ slightly above average” and into well above average/ exceptional and never getting any feats. Point buy is better somewhat but it to never really allows the possibility of a truly exceptional low level MAD PC. To provide that possibility I have my players roll for stats and keep rolling until they get a set of rolls that are all above 9 and have at least 3 rolls of 13+. That provides a set of stats that allows the player to create pretty much any concept they have. It also means that they have no serious holes and a better than average chance of actually getting some interesting feats. 2024 makes that easier with the various half stat/ half feature feats. You also have a decent chance of getting something exceptional to start with which nothing else really provides.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
This is a fantasy game and I want to play someone that is close to a superhuman hero. If I want to play the average Jane/Joe, I would play an under defined NPC and die a miserable painful death of disease or starvation. Get murdered if I was lucky as then death would be quick and a better existence.