Ranger: The most disappointing class?

[Person_Man]

Read through the PHB for the first time last night. Lots to love. Lots to argue about.

Among the classes, the weakest and least interesting appears to be the Ranger. It tracks fairly closely to the 3.X/PF Ranger in the worst possible ways.

You get a bunch of fluff exploration abilities for a limited number of favored enemies and terrains, some minor combat bonuses, 1st through 5th level spellcasting from an ok list, delayed access to some Rogue-ish abilities (Evasion, Stealth, and mobility related stuff), and maybe an Animal Companion that can only attack if you use your Action to direct it to do so (though it gets progressively better as you gain levels).

So in combat you're less useful then pretty much every other class. Out of combat you might be very useful for exploration related challenges if your DM happens to put you in the right terrain and/or face off against your Favored enemies, but your usefulness declines as many such exploration challenges tend to be handled by Ritual spells at mid-higher levels.

Please tell me I'm missing something, because I want to like the Ranger.

[Theodoxus]

It's like they ran with the idea that having an animal companion broke action economy and so decided 'you want an animal that bad? fine - but either it's useless or you're useless in the same round. That's fun, right?'

Ranger as written is going to need a LOT of homebrew to make it fun. I hope it gets the biggest modification when 5.5 comes out.

[Marius]

It sucks, it's by far the worst and most boring class in the PHB.

[Demonic Spoon]

It's not in front of me right now, but I was under the impression that the animal companion attacked when you did, or at most required a bonus action. I'm pretty sure it's not "I attack or my companion attacks". Also, with bounded accuracy, lower CR animal companions aren't as bad in 5e as they were in 3e. Also, there's always the hunter subclass. Both options let you attack more things.

Which ritual spells do you think obsolete a ranger's movement bonuses?

[Yuki Akuma]

Ranger's Companion
...

The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. ... You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action.

Until 5th level, it is in fact "I attack, or my companion does". After 5th, it's "I sacrifice one attack to let my companion attack".

[Demonic Spoon]

hm. I wonder if that is supposed to imply that the companion keeps attacking on subsequent rounds..because otherwise, yeah, that seems pretty crappy.

[Yuki Akuma]

I can't possibly imagine why you'd parse that to mean "command it once and it keeps going forever".

[Demonic Spoon]

I can't possibly imagine why you'd parse that to mean "command it once and it keeps going forever".

Ranger: "Attack this guy!"

companion: <bite>

Next turn:

Ranger: <attacks>

companion: <sits there with a confused look on its face, not sure what to do since it hasn't received an explicit order in the past 6 seconds>


I agree that your interpretation is RAW.

[Chaosvii7]

Beast Master Rangers must use their attack action to command their Animal Companion to attack. When the Ranger gains Extra Attack, he gains the ability to make an attack when his companion attacks. At 11th level, when you command the Animal Companion to attack, it makes two attacks and you make one.

All in all, Beast Masters get a third attack(which means that a TWF ranger with a companion could get 4 attacks per round between him and his beast.) Not too shabby, but the fact that you have to choose between this or Hunter kind of isn't fair, because this becomes a clearly superior option pretty fast, while Hunter makes the class even more useful.

Hunters actually sound pretty fun, but otherwise the archetype makes them look like pretty standard flavor. Their abilities are super useful, but they feel like something they gave the Ranger as a regular feature and then took back.

A quick fix I can think of would be to make a new archetype for them and give them Hunter abilities for free somewhere in their progression. Maybe swap the stealth and exploration stuff out and then make a Horizon Walker archetype if people want those abilities back. I might do that if I can think of a good set of abilities for a Horizon Walker.

Otherwise, I'll probably buy the Ranger Spell Deck last. They seem really cool, but there's so much else that they don't stack up well against.

[Madfellow]

Have a look at the animal companions before you dismiss the Beastmaster. Remember, the companion adds the ranger's proficiency bonus to attacks, AC, saves, and skills, and its HP scales with level just like a PC's.

The boar can knock its target prone and deal extra damage.
If the constrictor snake hits with an attack, it automatically grapples and restrains the target, no save.
There's also the venomous snake that poisons its target.
The panther can knock its target prone and make two attacks, all in the same round.
Then there's the riding horse, which doubles as a mount.
And the wolf gets advantage on attack rolls and can also knock targets prone.

The Beastmaster is a shockingly effective battlefield controller.

And the Hunter ranger can make more attacks per turn than the fighter.

[Demonic Spoon]

Even still, it feels silly that the ranger is just sitting in the back not doing anything while his animal companion does all of his attacking.

[Chaosvii7]

And the Hunter ranger can make more attacks per turn than the fighter.

They do, but they also have to break them up. Great when you're fighting hordes(which is, unsurprisingly, in the name of the ability - Horde Breaker), but focused damage is usually the factor of how strong a melee class is.

Beast Master is definitely better than Hunter, because another body in a fight is almost always more powerful - action economy or not. Hunters seem like really powerful maneuver masters, but I think that those abilities deserve a spotlight in the actual Ranger chassis instead of being an option.

[Kaiser Omnik]

Would it feel overpowered if the Beastmaster Ranger commanded his companion with a bonus action?

[Person_Man]

It's like they ran with the idea that having an animal companion broke action economy and so decided 'you want an animal that bad? fine - but either it's useless or you're useless in the same round. That's fun, right?'

Ranger as written is going to need a LOT of homebrew to make it fun. I hope it gets the biggest modification when 5.5 comes out.


Sadly, I think you are correct.

In addition, there's a built in reverse-synergy (discord? inefficiency?) between the Ranger's Two Weapon Fighting options (which requires that you use your Action to attack in order to trigger your Bonus Action to take an additional attack) and your Animal Companion (which requires an Action to direct).

Requiring a character Action for your Animal Companion to do stuff makes perfect sense if the Animal Companion is capable of doing awesome different stuff, like a Summons. But they're not. So you're basically just replacing your moderately useful attacks for theirs.

I think the simplest homebrew fixes are to allow Favored Enemy and Terrain benefits (which are fluff/cool but not particularly powerful) apply all the time to all enemies and terrains, and let the player choose some additional spells to add to their list. That way they always have something interesting to do outside of combat, and in combat if they're falling behind you can just patch it with new spell options. At mid-high levels if you're playing with full casters and the Ranger falls behind their high spell level awesomeness, let the Ranger have a stronger Animal Companion (or more of them) and unchain the Animal Companion from the Ranger's Actions earlier.

[Morty]

Do Rangers still get dual-wielding bonuses baked in? It looked during the playtest that they'd finally got over that.

[Demonic Spoon]

Do Rangers still get dual-wielding bonuses baked in? It looked during the playtest that they'd finally got over that.

Rangers choose a weapon style from:

-archery
-Dueling (single one-handed weapon)
-Defense (+1 AC)
-Two weapon fighting

if I recall all of them right.

[Grynning]

Have a look at the animal companions before you dismiss the Beastmaster. Remember, the companion adds the ranger's proficiency bonus to attacks, AC, saves, and skills, and its HP scales with level just like a PC's.

The boar can knock its target prone and deal extra damage.
If the constrictor snake hits with an attack, it automatically grapples and restrains the target, no save.
There's also the venomous snake that poisons its target.
The panther can knock its target prone and make two attacks, all in the same round.
Then there's the riding horse, which doubles as a mount.
And the wolf gets advantage on attack rolls and can also knock targets prone.

The Beastmaster is a shockingly effective battlefield controller.

And the Hunter ranger can make more attacks per turn than the fighter.

That would be cool, if you could actually take all those animals as companions:

"Choose a beast that is no larger than Medium and has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower."

This means you can't take a horse or the constrictor snake. I am pretty pissed that the only way to use your companion as a mount is to be a halfling or gnome ranger, because, c'mon, ARAGORN had a horse as his companion, and he's like, *the* ranger.

Also, the Hunter Ranger can make more attacks than the fighter only if the enemy clusters up into nice neat little bunches to use their abilities on them. The melee rangers can only hit guys w/in 5 feet with their multiattack options, and they have no action-surge like ability. Volley targets a 10 foot area, much smaller than what you can hit with spellcasting at comparable levels if you need ranged damage.

[Naanomi]

A halfling/gnome Beastmaster can ride it's Beast to pretty good effect.

Also, the ranger spell list is pretty good, which helps 'save' the class a little for me. Still somewhat on the lower end of interesting overall, but not as bad as my first glance made it out to be.

[TheOldCrow]

I don't have a player's handbook yet, so can't take a look at ranger. Can one of you kind souls who does have the PHB answer the following? So a ranger needs to use an their action to control their animal companion. Is this consistent with how direction in general is given in 5e-- for example, does a spellcaster with skeletons under their thrall give up their action to command one of the skeletons?

[Demonic Spoon]

I don't have a player's handbook yet, so can't take a look at ranger. Can one of you kind souls who does have the PHB answer the following? So a ranger needs to use an their action to control their animal companion. Is this consistent with how direction in general is given in 5e-- for example, does a spellcaster with skeletons under their thrall give up their action to command one of the skeletons?

A couple major differences with animate dead:

-Animate dead lets you give vague orders "Guard this hallway", so you don't need to make orders every round
-Giving this order is a bonus action.

By contrast, it seems like, RAW, rangers need to give up their full action to have their companion attack (or one of their attacks once they get Extra Attack)

[TheOldCrow]

A couple major differences with animate dead:

-Animate dead lets you give vague orders "Guard this hallway", so you don't need to make orders every round
-Giving this order is a bonus action.

By contrast, it seems like, RAW, rangers need to give up their full action to have their companion attack (or one of their attacks once they get Extra Attack)

Thanks for the info!

Rules should really be consistent. If a skeleton can be given a course of action like "guard this hallway", then so should an animal companion. If it takes a full action (or attack action) to command the animal companion, then that's what it should take with the skeleton. There is no call for these to be so different-- and the ranger is being given the short end of the stick for reasons unknown. Grrr.

[hawklost]

Thanks for the info!

Rules should really be consistent. If a skeleton can be given a course of action like "guard this hallway", then so should an animal companion. If it takes a full action (or attack action) to command the animal companion, then that's what it should take with the skeleton. There is no call for these to be so different-- and the ranger is being given the short end of the stick for reasons unknown. Grrr.

I believe that orders to the Undead are mental commands.

Orders to the Animal Companion must be spoken.

That could be the reason why it takes only a Bonus Action to command the Undead and an Action for the Animal Companion.

Also, I do not believe they state that the Animal Companion cannot take an order and continue to follow it, that is just the interpretation of some people because the other way is not explicitly called out.

think of it this way, If you can tell a Dog normally to Stay and he has been trained to listen to you. Do you have to say it every 6 seconds in this game Or does he follow your orders until told otherwise? (Or a long enough period passes he feels your order was no longer valid)

[Demonic Spoon]

Thanks for the info!

Rules should really be consistent. If a skeleton can be given a course of action like "guard this hallway", then so should an animal companion. If it takes a full action (or attack action) to command the animal companion, then that's what it should take with the skeleton. There is no call for these to be so different-- and the ranger is being given the short end of the stick for reasons unknown. Grrr.

I think the rationale is that with animate dead, it's a mental command, whereas this is verbal..and an animal companion gets all sorts of awesome bonuses.

My main objection is that giving up your attacks to let the animal companion act is boring and nonsensical.


Also, I do not believe they state that the Animal Companion cannot take an order and continue to follow it, that is just the interpretation of some people because the other way is not explicitly called out.


It mentions discrete actions (the "attack" action. The "Disengage" action) that you can order the companion to do, which is why people think it's one order per round.

Also, an argument in this thread has been made that for balance reasons it's important that animal companions take the ranger's attack. Personally, unless the Ranger is going to be seriously overpowered with it, I'd rule that the command only needs to be made once.

[Morty]

Rangers choose a weapon style from:

-archery
-Dueling (single one-handed weapon)
-Defense (+1 AC)
-Two weapon fighting

if I recall all of them right.

Ah, so it's like the Fighter styles, not the silly old ranger styles. Well, carry on, then.

[ZeshinX]

I'd have to agree that the Ranger in 5e is quite disappointing. Many of the abilities outside of the Beast Master or Hunter path are far too narrow and are generally only useful/applicable to their fullest in their terrain choice. I dunno about your games, but ones I've played in seldom dwell in any one terrain for too long. Sure, they add a few more later on....but still, it's too narrow. The Ranger will spend a LOT of time doing nothing that any other class will be doing better.

The paths....are also narrow. The Beast Master is either the Ranger doing something, or the animal companion doing something. Seldom will they actually work in tandem (both doing something useful). Granted, it simplifies things....but to the point of making some of us question the usefulness.

The Hunter is useful, but from what I'm reading, other classes have better combat options.

It needs a lot of work.

[CyberThread]

I wOuld not say rangers suck just the animalc companions have been made into decorations.

[Chaosvii7]

I'd have to agree that the Ranger in 5e is quite disappointing. Many of the abilities outside of the Beast Master or Hunter path are far too narrow and are generally only useful/applicable to their fullest in their terrain choice. I dunno about your games, but ones I've played in seldom dwell in any one terrain for too long. Sure, they add a few more later on....but still, it's too narrow. The Ranger will spend a LOT of time doing nothing that any other class will be doing better.

The paths....are also narrow. The Beast Master is either the Ranger doing something, or the animal companion doing something. Seldom will they actually work in tandem (both doing something useful). Granted, it simplifies things....but to the point of making some of us question the usefulness.

The Hunter is useful, but from what I'm reading, other classes have better combat options.

It needs a lot of work.

That was my one concern with the Ranger when I read they only got two archetypes, was that they were going to feel pretty constrained.

I think there might be a strong niche for a trapsmith archetype in a later book, but that doesn't solve the problem right here and now. Rangers just don't have as much variety as the others, short of their spell selection, but even Paladins technically get the better lot with a whole other option of subclass.

That said, the current ranger is a lot more of a jack-of-all-trades than he ever has been, or at least to me. The other editions played up the "he can hunt, he can track, he can hide, he can fight!" But I never felt it until now. The Paladin's cool but the Ranger has a lot of applications that aren't as combat-centric.

[Chubbs Malone]

If you were planning to deal respectable damage as a Ranger, think again.

The one saving grace, IMO, is Swift Quiver at lvl 17; which allows you to make 2 attacks with a bonus action. At least you're looking at some decent damage per round with that spell active.

Volley also makes the Ranger a viable option for taking down multiple foes.

[CyberThread]

Depending on future feats it could ruin the ranger as a bow men as the fighter gets so many.

[Sartharina]

Dammit WotC! How the hell did you **** this one up? At least with a 4e beastmaster ranger you had the ability to have your animal and character attack in the same round and move+fight in concert, even if the default was to try to share action economy.

This is possibly the most disappointing revelation I've ever seen - and why are they afraid of the Ranger having a bit of extra tools with the Action Economy through Beast Master? Isn't inherently messing with the action economy one of the strong points of martial characters?! (Fighters get Action Surge and new uses of interrupt. Rogues get their Cunning Action array of Bonus actions)

[Edge of Dreams]

People seriously need to take a closer look at the Ranger spell list. It's got a Hunter's Quarry spell to add another d6 to all your attacks, a whole bunch of "turn my attack into an AoE" spells, a magic trap that automatically fires arrows at anyone who enters the area, and so on.

Paladin and Ranger both got massively upgraded spell lists this edition, especially when you realize how many of their spells are exclusive to their class.

[ZeshinX]

People seriously need to take a closer look at the Ranger spell list. It's got a Hunter's Quarry spell to add another d6 to all your attacks, a whole bunch of "turn my attack into an AoE" spells, a magic trap that automatically fires arrows at anyone who enters the area, and so on.

Paladin and Ranger both got massively upgraded spell lists this edition, especially when you realize how many of their spells are exclusive to their class.

Oh I agree their spell selection is quite decent. My inherent issue is that the Ranger, traditionally, has been a weapons-user first, a spellcaster second. They didn't need the spells to be effective. The spells accented/augmented their already good combat options (usually in the form of terrain impediments or weapon-damage augments). So for me at least, having to fall back on spellcasting to make the Ranger a more effective contributor to the party (effective being very much subject to personal taste) seems completely contrary to what the Ranger, in overall feel, should be (according to my subjective and personal tastes). Frankly I generally dislike Rangers being spellcasters in the first place (Pathfinder's Skirmisher archetype is my personal definition of what a Ranger should be like).

Of course, I did not invest in 4e beyond the core rules (and abandoned it immediately after reading), so I can't speak to what the Ranger was like there over the course of 4e's evolution.

[Edge of Dreams]

Oh I agree their spell selection is quite decent. My inherent issue is that the Ranger, traditionally, has been a weapons-user first, a spellcaster second. They didn't need the spells to be effective. The spells accented/augmented their already good combat options (usually in the form of terrain impediments or weapon-damage augments). So for me at least, having to fall back on spellcasting to make the Ranger a more effective contributor to the party (effective being very much subject to personal taste) seems completely contrary to what the Ranger, in overall feel, should be (according to my subjective and personal tastes). Frankly I generally dislike Rangers being spellcasters in the first place (Pathfinder's Skirmisher archetype is my personal definition of what a Ranger should be like).

Of course, I did not invest in 4e beyond the core rules (and abandoned it immediately after reading), so I can't speak to what the Ranger was like there over the course of 4e's evolution.

So, that pretty much comes down to a question of design philosophy. With their spells right now, Ranges are a good, playable class (in my opinion at least). The question then becomes, "Should a Ranger have spells? Or should they have a long list of special abilities which defy normal human ability and break the laws of physics because they're Just That Good (TM)?"

Personally, I don't see that there's a meaningful difference between the two. Rangers get good abilities. So what if they're called "Spells"?

[Demonic Spoon]

So, that pretty much comes down to a question of design philosophy. With their spells right now, Ranges are a good, playable class (in my opinion at least). The question then becomes, "Should a Ranger have spells? Or should they have a long list of special abilities which defy normal human ability and break the laws of physics because they're Just That Good (TM)?"

Personally, I don't see that there's a meaningful difference between the two. Rangers get good abilities. So what if they're called "Spells"?

Fighters and rogues don't "break the laws of physics because they're Just That Good™", and yet they're perfectly fine classes.

[obryn]

I believe that orders to the Undead are mental commands.

Orders to the Animal Companion must be spoken.

That could be the reason why it takes only a Bonus Action to command the Undead and an Action for the Animal Companion.
Conjure Woodland Beasts also requires a spoken command to direct the creatures you summon, but takes no actions at all to do so.


The one saving grace, IMO, is Swift Quiver at lvl 17; which allows you to make 2 attacks with a bonus action. At least you're looking at some decent damage per round with that spell active.
FYI, the Bard can pick Swift Quiver up at Level 10.

[rlc]

I don't really think having a verbal component is enough of a reason for it to take up an action, because then if you want to take that at face value, every spell with a verbal component should take two actions to cast.

[andhaira]

Poor RA Salvatore. First he had to kill of his characters except Drizzt due to the massive time jump in 4e. He then had to write an entire trilogy where he brought them all back via a ridiculously contrived storyline. Now this happens. Drizzt, who was never a spellcaster apart from his Drow racial abilities nor really used a bow, now will have to cast spells and use a bow and arrow to be effective. Otherwise Wulfgar will outclass him in combat.

Anyway, in 4e Rangers rocked. This time they got a drop in power. I suggest bringing back Blade Cascade in a future splat to even things out for them. Even better, a magic less Ranger variant.

[HorridElemental]

Fighters and rogues don't "break the laws of physics because they're Just That Good™", and yet they're perfectly fine classes.

They are quite unimpressive and underwealming because they are pretty much all around " Meh".

This edition didn't fall into the "magic rules other things drool" hole but jumped right in head first.

I'm getting to the point where I'm not sure why they even had non-cadting as an option other than to be a commoner.

[EvilAnagram]

I really don't understand the disappointment. At level 1, Rangers have decent AC, HP, and have solid melee and ranged attacks. They're great for starting out with, and they have very fluffy class feats that are useful out of combat. "But they don't matter in combat," you might say. But that doesn't matter because they're already dual-wielding monsters in melee and awesome at range.

Then, at level 2, they get access to an awesome spell list full of fluffy, but incredibly useful spells. AoE, battlefield control, pure damage, interesting spells that make sense but no one will ever get... they've got it all. And it all feels right. Shooting an arrow, only for it to split into dozens of arrows and rain into my enemies is awesome. Shooting an enemy, only for thorny vines to shoot out of my arrow and constrict my enemy is awesome. Giving my arrow an ungodly damage boost that can take off a fifth of a red dragon's HP is awesome. And it all feeds into the class' basic martial function. Don't like ranged in your ranger? Well there are spells for you, too.

Now, Beastmaster Rangers are a bit different. They rely on working closely with their companion. Yeah, at first, you need to give up your action for it to attack. That sucks, and you'll need to be careful about who attacks when. However, that lasts only two levels, and then you get to split up your extra attack. "But that still sucks because-" No. Stop it. You're ignoring everything awesome that can happen with this. You can still provide each other with advantage, make op attacks from two different positions, and have whatever skills the animal has at your disposal. Then, two measly levels later, you get to both make attacks. Let's see what medium-to-tiny natural beasts can do.

Poisonous Snake: Deals poison damage and is tiny and agile enough to be useful outside of combat. Not to mention blindsight being useful against invisible foes.

Raven: Not useful in combat, but it can spy for you. You can train it to listen in on conversations, and it will accurately mimic what it heard. That's cool.

Mastiff/Wolf: Bite attacks are okay, and knocking someone prone is awesome, especially when you have Extra Attack. You just have to both walk up to the guy and have your wolf attack with advantage, knocking him prone. Then, you're short swords come out, and you get to have fun with advantage. What's that? Your rogue is up next, and he has sneak attacks to play with? Oh, joy!

Boar: Like wolves and mastiffs in that it can knock the baddies prone, but it can also charge them, deal more damage, and has better staying power. Hell yes.

Panther: Are you sensing a pattern? Because the panther will knock someone prone and make two attacks with one of your attacks, while you make two more yourself.

Reef Sharks: For more permissive DMs and nautical adventures. You can possibly talk your DM into letting you use one as a mount, especially if you're a halfling or gnome. If everyone in the group took five levels of ranger, you would be a group of shark-mounted cavalry. This is awesome.

So, Rangers of both types have great damage potential, cool spells, and strong potential for battlefield control. This does not make them disappointing.

[Meltheim]

Agreed - I am not nearly as disappointed as everyone else seems to be. For the Beastmaster, did I see that you can move your companion for free? At the very least, being able to reposition the companion on your turn can give you or an ally advantage. Is your companion able to take opportunity attacks as well? Seems like a nice trade-off.

This is in addition to all the glorious things spelled out in EvilAnagram's post.

[akaddk]

The argument that they're weak is unfounded. Crunch the numbers, they are most decidedly not weak.

Now if you're talking uninspiring and that their two primary flavour abilities have very little practical use and get negated at random by DM whim and player choice, then you have a point.

[Socko525]

I too was disappointed with Beastmaster ranger, but I think my complaint lies in the companion restrictions. I would have liked for it to be treated more like Druid wild shape.

What I mean is you get the pet right from the start and going into the beastmaster line allows you to get better pets, similar to how the the druids wild shape changes when you choose circle of the moon, allowing you to change into creatures of higher CR.

Perhaps replicating that for beastmaster would be a fitting house rule...starting at 6th? (Maybe higher) you can have a beast companion with a challenge rating as high as your ranger level divided by 3 rounded down.

Thoughts?

[EvilAnagram]

I too was disappointed with Beastmaster ranger, but I think my complaint lies in the companion restrictions. I would have liked for it to be treated more like Druid wild shape.

What I mean is you get the pet right from the start and going into the beastmaster line allows you to get better pets, similar to how the the druids wild shape changes when you choose circle of the moon, allowing you to change into creatures of higher CR.

Perhaps replicating that for beastmaster would be a fitting house rule...starting at 6th? (Maybe higher) you can have a beast companion with a challenge rating as high as your ranger level divided by 3 rounded down.

Thoughts?
I was looking through the beasts you can't use in the PH, and it really seems like the most common reason for increasing the challenge rating is increased damage output and increased HP. Those two things upgrade in your companion as your level increases. Hell, by level 9 your wolf should outclass a dire wolf. In fact, a wolf companion is more threatening than a reef shark companion would be at level 5, owing to its superior bite attack, AC, and keen senses. The only things that would be awesome that we sadly may not have are the bears, crocodile, and constrictor.

[obryn]

The argument that they're weak is unfounded. Crunch the numbers, they are most decidedly not weak.
Well, we can take a quick look at a Beastmaster's animal.

The beast works as follows...
+Proficiency to AC, Attack rolls, damage rolls, and anything it's proficient in.
Max HP = 4x your Ranger level. So here's a Mastiff through the levels...

3rd: AC 14, HP 12, Bite +5, Hit 1d6+3 damage; DC 11 Strength save against proning.
11th: AC 16, HP 44, Bite +7 (x2 attacks), Hit 1d6+5 damage; DC 11 Strength save against proning.
17th: AC 18, HP 68, Bite +9 (x2 attacks), Hit 1d6+7 damage; DC 11 Strength save against proning.

Remember - the Ranger only has to give up 1 attack for the beast to attack twice, and let's face it - the Ranger isn't really doing that much more damage, magic weapons notwithstanding. So I think that's fair, compared to the Ranger itself.

The real "meat" of the feature in my mind comes at Level 7, where the Beast can make a free Help action, which is very nice. You can either attack 2+ times yourself, with Advantage on the first attack; or you can take 1 attack and let the dog take 2.

However! Let's see how the Beast stacks up to... skeletons You knew this was coming.

11th: AC 13, HP 24, Shortbow +4, 1d6+6 damage
17th: AC 13, HP 30, Shortbow +4, 1d6+8 damage

Clearly a single skelly bro is inferior to a mastiff at every level. But your skeletons don't take any of your actions.

At 11th level, against a target with AC 19, each skeleton has a dpr of 3.025. The Mastiff has a dpr of 8 (4, x2 attacks). So it takes 3 skeletons to do better damage than a mastiff, on average. Of course, its damage isn't the only thing that's important here - your Ranger still gets an attack, and the Wizard still gets to cast spells (and I'll pick a cantrip at this level over a single weapon attack). And the skeletons attack at range, while the mastiff is melee only but prones.

So overall I value the mastiff at ... oh, call it 4 skeletons. :smallbiggrin: This is a joke. Kinda.

[Dark Tira]

I was looking through the beasts you can't use in the PH, and it really seems like the most common reason for increasing the challenge rating is increased damage output and increased HP. Those two things upgrade in your companion as your level increases. Hell, by level 9 your wolf should outclass a dire wolf. In fact, a wolf companion is more threatening than a reef shark companion would be at level 5, owing to its superior bite attack, AC, and keen senses. The only things that would be awesome that we sadly may not have are the bears, crocodile, and constrictor.


Meh, you don't need bears. Giant badgers are like burrowing bears so they're even cooler. Still not quite as awesome as a halfling using a pteradon as a mount though. Only real issue with beast companions is they can't trigger Hunter's Mark.

[pwykersotz]

Well, we can take a quick look at a Beastmaster's animal.

The beast works as follows...
+Proficiency to AC, Attack rolls, damage rolls, and anything it's proficient in.
Max HP = 4x your Ranger level. So here's a Mastiff through the levels...

3rd: AC 14, HP 12, Bite +5, Hit 1d6+3 damage; DC 11 Strength save against proning.
11th: AC 16, HP 44, Bite +7 (x2 attacks), Hit 1d6+5 damage; DC 11 Strength save against proning.
17th: AC 18, HP 68, Bite +9 (x2 attacks), Hit 1d6+7 damage; DC 11 Strength save against proning.

Remember - the Ranger only has to give up 1 attack for the beast to attack twice, and let's face it - the Ranger isn't really doing that much more damage, magic weapons notwithstanding. So I think that's fair, compared to the Ranger itself.

The real "meat" of the feature in my mind comes at Level 7, where the Beast can make a free Help action, which is very nice. You can either attack 2+ times yourself, with Advantage on the first attack; or you can take 1 attack and let the dog take 2.

However! Let's see how the Beast stacks up to... skeletons You knew this was coming.

11th: AC 13, HP 24, Shortbow +4, 1d6+6 damage
17th: AC 13, HP 30, Shortbow +4, 1d6+8 damage

Clearly a single skelly bro is inferior to a mastiff at every level. But your skeletons don't take any of your actions.

At 11th level, against a target with AC 19, each skeleton has a dpr of 3.025. The Mastiff has a dpr of 8 (4, x2 attacks). So it takes 3 skeletons to do better damage than a mastiff, on average. Of course, its damage isn't the only thing that's important here - your Ranger still gets an attack, and the Wizard still gets to cast spells (and I'll pick a cantrip at this level over a single weapon attack). And the skeletons attack at range, while the mastiff is melee only but prones.

So overall I value the mastiff at ... oh, call it 4 skeletons. :smallbiggrin: This is a joke. Kinda.

Your skeleton measurement fills me with a terrible pain. :smallsigh:

By that same bar, we should probably start referring to Fighters as Proto-Dragons since it's inevitable that's what they'll become. :smalltongue:

[obryn]

Your skeleton measurement fills me with a terrible pain. :smallsigh:

By that same bar, we should probably start referring to Fighters as Proto-Dragons since it's inevitable that's what they'll become. :smalltongue:
Excellent point. Also, I think we can effectively measure martial classes in terms of SSU's, or Standard Skeleton Units.

e: Also, I should note that in my opinion, having something like 4-6 skeletons is basically "being a necromancer" rather than an exploit or loophole or being a bad player of some sort.

[Sartharina]

I actually like the Skeleton Measuring System of Class Power.

[pwykersotz]

I actually like the Skeleton Measuring System of Class Power.

Perhaps, but it's inelegant for caster measurements. We should probably judge them in SPU's or Standard Pixie Units.

[Yagyujubei]

I actually like the Skeleton Measuring System of Class Power.

lol. guyz my build is 10 skeletons strong let me adventure with you plz

[HorridElemental]

The Hunter Ranger has been damn awesome so far I really want to see the Beast master in action.

However even the beast master so far isn't as dissapointing as the battle master. Seriously so much potential wasted on the fighter and that archetype.

[Twelvetrees]

Does Lightning Arrow plus Volley equal a storm of lightning arrows, or am I just trying to exploit the rules too much?

[EvilAnagram]

Does Lightning Arrow plus Volley equal a storm of lightning arrows, or am I just trying to exploit the rules too much?

Look deep into your heart, and you will find the answer.





The answer is no.

[akaddk]

Look deep into your heart, and you will find the answer.





The answer is no.

Gotta agree. It would explicitly state that it affects all attacks in a round otherwise. Still a powerful combination since your first attack with Volley, after using a bonus action to cast the spell, would be affected by the spell and both have a radius of 10-ft. so it's dealing a huge amount of punishment to a several foes at once.

[EvilAnagram]

I wonder though, if you cast Volley one round, but don't attack, can you attack, cast Lightning Arrow, and attack again?

[CyberThread]

lol. guyz my build is 10 skeletons strong let me adventure with you plz

Guys this adventure requires a gear score of 20 skelatons before you can tank it. Go run a few lower level dungeons too get a better score

[CyberThread]

I wonder though, if you cast Volley one round, but don't attack, can you attack, cast Lightning Arrow, and attack again?

Like a surprise round leading into a normal round? If you could it would be devestating

[akaddk]

I wonder though, if you cast Volley one round, but don't attack, can you attack, cast Lightning Arrow, and attack again?

Volley isn't a spell so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[EvilAnagram]

Volley isn't a spell so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Conjure Volley is a spell. That's what I'm talking about.

[akaddk]

Conjure Volley is a spell. That's what I'm talking about.

Then no, it wouldn't work. It spells it out in the very first sentence of the spell.

[EvilAnagram]

Then no, it wouldn't work. It spells it out in the very first sentence of the spell.

Just looked it up. You are correct.

What about Hail of Thorns, then?

[Yuukale]

all of the ranger arrow-spells are concentration. Either you have hunter's mark for mere 1d6 damage or swift quiver or lightning arrow or...

also, people seem to overemphasize the role of swift quiver.
It's a 1/day spell at 17th and 2/day at 19th.
It's the only thing that makes the archer ranger catch up in single-target damage (let's agree that spreading low damage sucks?) with the other martial classes. You can only do it 1-2/day only at the last 3 levels of your class.

Rangers seem to me more like an npc class that helps the party get through the environment during low levels and that's it.

[EvilAnagram]

all of the ranger arrow-spells are concentration. Either you have hunter's mark for mere 1d6 damage or swift quiver or lightning arrow or...

also, people seem to overemphasize the role of swift quiver.
It's a 1/day spell at 17th and 2/day at 19th.
It's the only thing that makes the archer ranger catch up in single-target damage (let's agree that spreading low damage sucks?) with the other martial classes. You can only do it 1-2/day only at the last 3 levels of your class.
With Level 3 - 4 spells, you can deal 4-10d8 a turn to a single target up to eight times a day. That's pretty good DPS, and when you factor in the Hunter options that up your DPS further, it's a pretty decent build.

[Chambers]

Read through the PHB for the first time last night. Lots to love. Lots to argue about.

Among the classes, the weakest and least interesting appears to be the Ranger. It tracks fairly closely to the 3.X/PF Ranger in the worst possible ways.

Huh. I looked at the Ranger and saw a lot that I liked. A lot of the tracking & nature type abilities you'd expect a Ranger to have got frontloaded into Natural Explorer, so that frees up space in the rest of the progression for more useful abilities. 5th level spellcasting, two distinct Archetypes, a nice mix of Fighter + Rogue abilities, etc.

I was especially pleased that they removed the extra damage function from Favored Enemy. In 3e if you pick the wrong FE you were boned; the DM basically had to tell you "these are the monsters we'll be fighting" if he/she wanted you to use your class feature. Removing the damage bump means that it's not a crucial choice for the Ranger anymore and Rangers won't be near crippled by choosing the wrong Favored Enemy. This is a good thing.

Overall I thought the Ranger looked pretty good. It gets a Fighting Style & Extra Attack, 5th level spells, Nature Theme abilities, and two solid Archetypes. What more do you want from a Nature Gish? :smallconfused:

[Demonic Spoon]

The more I look into it, the less disappointed I am in ranger, actually.

-With the way animal companions scale, it looks like beastmaster could actually be pretty strong. A charging boar is probably way better than any attack you'll make at level 3, and even if it can't attack on subsequent rounds when you do, it can block stuff.

-Favored enemies are way better. Enemy types are grouped into more broad categories, and you can select multiple types of monsterous humanoid species. There is also a bit of a meta-buff. If you choose Orcs as your favored enemy, orcs can still remain relevant enemies to fight due to bounded accuracy (as opposed to 3.5 where they'd cease to be relevant very soon). Instead of tying your damage to favored enemies, you instead get a bunch of really great support abilities that provide utility when working against them, but won't cripple you if you aren't.

-Natural explorer is deceptively good, because it's effectively a no-roll auto success in most kinds of wayfinding/exploration-type hazards.

I will say that I hope in the future we get the ability to play a ranger minus the spellcasting (I'm a big fan of the 3.5e scout), simply to add some more variety in the mundane lineup. Though, you may already be able to do something like this with the Outlander background with a fighter/rogue/barbarian.

[CyberThread]

The more I look into it, the less disappointed I am in ranger, actually.

-With the way animal companions scale, it looks like beastmaster could actually be pretty strong. A charging boar is probably way better than any attack you'll make at level 3, and even if it can't attack on subsequent rounds when you do, it can block stuff.

-Favored enemies are way better. Enemy types are grouped into more broad categories, and you can select multiple types of monsterous humanoid species. There is also a bit of a meta-buff. If you choose Orcs as your favored enemy, orcs can still remain relevant enemies to fight due to bounded accuracy (as opposed to 3.5 where they'd cease to be relevant very soon). Instead of tying your damage to favored enemies, you instead get a bunch of really great support abilities that provide utility when working against them, but won't cripple you if you aren't.

-Natural explorer is deceptively good, because it's effectively a no-roll auto success in most kinds of wayfinding/exploration-type hazards.

I will say that I hope in the future we get the ability to play a ranger minus the spellcasting (I'm a big fan of the 3.5e scout), simply to add some more variety in the mundane lineup. Though, you may already be able to do something like this with the Outlander background with a fighter/rogue/barbarian.


But lets say.. your a halfing.. on a boar, while holding a lance....

[Person_Man]

What more do you want from a Nature Gish? :smallconfused:

I would prefer that all the awesome favored enemy and terrain abilities (which I do like a lot) would just work all the time, instead of only functioning via DM fiat. Speaking as the guy who often DMs, I don't want to screw a player out of his cool class abilities, but I also don't want to dramatically change my campaign plans based on one player's class choices.

For example, lets say I tell my players that they will start the game as escaped slaves from Underdark, and we'll see where it goes from there. So a player chooses to be a Chaotic Good Drow Ranger with a favored enemy of oozes and a favored terrain of Underdark. Not a terrible decision to make given the circumstances. But lets say that the players decide to escape to the surface, or I just get sick of oozes and Underdark and what to bring the players somewhere else. Now the Drow Ranger's signature class abilities are completely useless.

And from a combat perspective I'm not seeing any positive reason to play a Ranger over other classes. What does he do better then any other class?

A big part of the problem is that so many abilities overlap between classes, and that you don't always get those things at the same levels. Spells are the most obvious example, since most spells can be cast by multiple classes, but full casters gain more spells and higher level spells then 1/2 and 1/3 casters. But mutliple classes also gain Extra Attack, Fighting Style, Crit Bonuses, bonuses to damage with slightly different triggering rules, etc. Each class only has a small number of abilities that are unique to that class. And the Ranger's unique spells and combat abilities just aren't that great.

[Demonic Spoon]

For example, lets say I tell my players that they will start the game as escaped slaves from Underdark, and we'll see where it goes from there. So a player chooses to be a Chaotic Good Drow Ranger with a favored enemy of oozes and a favored terrain of Underdark. Not a terrible decision to make given the circumstances. But lets say that the players decide to escape to the surface, or I just get sick of oozes and Underdark and what to bring the players somewhere else. Now the Drow Ranger's signature class abilities are completely useless.

And from a combat perspective I'm not seeing any positive reason to play a Ranger over other classes. What does he do better then any other class?

A big part of the problem is that so many abilities overlap between classes, and that you don't always get those things at the same levels. Spells are the most obvious example, since most spells can be cast by multiple classes, but full casters gain more spells and higher level spells then 1/2 and 1/3 casters. But mutliple classes also gain Extra Attack, Fighting Style, Crit Bonuses, bonuses to damage with slightly different triggering rules, etc. Each class only has a small number of abilities that are unique to that class. And the Ranger's unique spells and combat abilities just aren't that great.


You get more favored enemies as you level up. Also, oozes are probably the single most specific choice you could make in favored enemy.

Ranger spells are not typically available to any other class (Maybe a college of lore bard might take them?), and a lot of them are bonus actions. You get a surprising amount of utility and AOE damage out of them. This is further compounded by the subclasses; Hunters get a few abilities that lets them hit more things at once, and beastmasters get other types of attacks and possibly some utility based on the animal companion they choose.

Of course, the most unique thing about the ranger is their auto-success in everything related to wilderness travel and tracking...which is a little bit niche, but simultaneously quite powerful when it is useful. In your "Escape from the underdark" campaign, I would expect that to be quite useful.

[eastmabl]

I actually like the Skeleton Measuring System of Class Power.

The SMS fails to account for the affect of turning. A 1st to 4th level cleric can use Channel Divinity within 30 feet of the skeleton to make it cut and run, while clerics 5th level and higher will outright destroy the skeleton.

Nothing that I'm aware of makes your animal companion run away or just implode, and your opponent needs to apply weapon or magic damage to the animal to make it run/die.

[Fwiffo86]

Excellent point. Also, I think we can effectively measure martial classes in terms of SSU's, or Standard Skeleton Units.

e: Also, I should note that in my opinion, having something like 4-6 skeletons is basically "being a necromancer" rather than an exploit or loophole or being a bad player of some sort.

I support this thinking, and I'm expanding it to rating modules. Is the standard SSU four skeletons? or is it one? eh... I'll figure for both.

I am commencing ranking all of my converted 1e to 5e modules on the SSU system....

Let's see.... Tomb of Horrors is.... 4 or 16 SSU?... no... 5 or 20 SSU!

[obryn]

I support this thinking, and I'm expanding it to rating modules. Is the standard SSU four skeletons? or is it one? eh... I'll figure for both.

I am commencing ranking all of my converted 1e to 5e modules on the SSU system....

Let's see.... Tomb of Horrors is.... 4 or 16 SSU?... no... 5 or 20 SSU!
Tomb of Horrors is certainly more skeletonable than most adventures. On the other hand, any adventures featuring evil high priests will be generally less skeletonable. (Is controlling undead a thing anymore other than through spell use?)

[Jacob.Tyr]

Tomb of Horrors is certainly more skeletonable than most adventures. On the other hand, any adventures featuring evil high priests will be generally less skeletonable. (Is controlling undead a thing anymore other than through spell use?)
A few years ago I joined a new campaign where most people were playing low-op high flavor characters. I went with a Warlock, with some plans to raise undead. About 15 minutes in, we realized we were going into the Tomb of Horrors, despite not having had any warning regarding this. Things fell apart when, during people arguing about take 20, I decided my character would just go to the nearest village and slaughter everyone for trap fodder.

Sadly, I did not get to skeleton the ToH. It really is an adventure that is asking for it, though.

On Topic- Looking at the possible animal companions, I'm honestly sort of excited by ranger. There are some pretty great utility attacks in there, and I could definitely see surrendering attacks now and then to utilize them. I think an Archer/Beast Master is something I'll have to play at some point, keeping the pet close to deal with anything that attacks me and the casters.

[HorridElemental]

As a DM I allow Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain to be changeable after a long rest. During the rest the Ranger must study the new FE/FT to gain this benefit.

This has made the ranger and the party very very happy and I don't have to hold his hand. It also gives the ranger a nice incentive to get involved with the fluff of different regions and find out what lives there instead of just going into a new territory without looking into it (since they normally can't change favored enemy ad such).

[Person_Man]

As a DM I allow Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain to be changeable after a long rest. During the rest the Ranger must study the new FE/FT to gain this benefit.

This has made the ranger and the party very very happy and I don't have to hold his hand. It also gives the ranger a nice incentive to get involved with the fluff of different regions and find out what lives there instead of just going into a new territory without looking into it (since they normally can't change favored enemy ad such).

That's an excellent idea.

[HorridElemental]

That's an excellent idea.

Thank you.

So far it really hasn't unbalanced anything (ha), plus the wizard and druid help with figuring out what they will face so I've had a couple of small side missions where they go off to find said info before teleporting away (we started high level).

But I have this feeling that the Ranger and Barbarian should be one class while the Rogue and Fighter should be one class. I might run a gestalt type game before the DMG comes out (where the rules may be already) where the Babaranger gets to be played.

[Person_Man]

But I have this feeling that the Ranger and Barbarian should be one class while the Rogue and Fighter should be one class. I might run a gestalt type game before the DMG comes out (where the rules may be already) where the Babaranger gets to be played.

Yeah, there's a ton of duplication that could have been eliminated with more rational class/subclass divisions. They could have followed the 1E/2E model of making hit dice/proficiency/extra attacks/ability score increases/casting progression/etc the base classes, and then use subclasses to add a small number of potent iconic abilities. (Action Surge for Fighters, Rage for Barbarians, Sneak Attack for Rogues, etc).

But that would involve telling players that their favorite class name is now the name of a subclass, and that all the fiddly variations on each class would be in splat books (where they belong) and not in core. It could have easily cut half the pages out of the character creation section (which could then be devoted to other useful sections, like how to run a game, magic items, etc), and made the presentation and classes a lot easier and less confusing. But the 5E ship has sailed.

[HorridElemental]

Yeah, there's a ton of duplication that could have been eliminated with more rational class/subclass divisions. They could have followed the 1E/2E model of making hit dice/proficiency/extra attacks/ability score increases/casting progression/etc the base classes, and then use subclasses to add a small number of potent iconic abilities. (Action Surge for Fighters, Rage for Barbarians, Sneak Attack for Rogues, etc).

But that would involve telling players that their favorite class name is now the name of a subclass, and that all the fiddly variations on each class would be in splat books (where they belong) and not in core. It could have easily cut half the pages out of the character creation section (which could then be devoted to other useful sections, like how to run a game, magic items, etc), and made the presentation and classes a lot easier and less confusing. But the 5E ship has sailed.

I'm at the point where I'm just going to recreate all the PHB classes and spells. I love all the rules surrounding the classes but the classes (and spells) really bug me for the most part.

[CyberThread]

hmm I think am going to turn a few of those spells, and make them into once a day abilties per rest or whatever. Reduce the spell slots a little, see if becomes more eatable by the visual even if the crunch is good.

[Yuukale]

a quick solution, damage-wise, would be allowing Hunter's Mark damage to scale according to level. Also, remove the "concentration" duration, since it locks you from using any other damage spell.

This way the ranger might be able to catch up with other classes.

[CyberThread]

Can a ranger maintain concentration, while ordering its companion to attack?

[Demonic Spoon]

Can a ranger maintain concentration, while ordering its companion to attack?


There's no reason why not. The only thing you can't really do while concentrating on a spell is starting to concentrate on another spell.

[Person_Man]

I'm at the point where I'm just going to recreate all the PHB classes and spells. I love all the rules surrounding the classes but the classes (and spells) really bug me for the most part.

Yeah, I have the burning desire to take the 5E chassis, give it a tighter action economy and stacking rules, add in FATE Point mechanics, then use it to create classes with Legend style Tracks for combat, roleplaying, and exploration abilities (which can be swapped out for easy/awesome/balanced multiclass options). But then I realize I have a child who probably wants to see me occasionally (like when I feed him every night around 2am), a wife, and a job. And I think to myself, I wonder if I can find a way to write while holding a bottle?

More power to you if you do some homebrew work, especially in classes, feats, spells, items, where it's easy to do incrementally.



Back on topic, I think the Ranger would be better served using something close to the Warlocks spellcasting mechanic. You prepare a small number of spells (2-6ish). You can cast any spell you've prepared spontaneously a limited number of times (1-4ish). It is automatically cast out of the highest level spell slot you are capable of casting out of (using the existing 1st through 5th level spell progression). You can renew your spell slots with a Short Rest. You can change your prepared spells with a Long Rest. That way, the Ranger could use his spells much more often, and their resource management would be much more like the Fighter (who can Action Surge and Second Wind every Short Rest).

[Chambers]

I would prefer that all the awesome favored enemy and terrain abilities (which I do like a lot) would just work all the time, instead of only functioning via DM fiat. Speaking as the guy who often DMs, I don't want to screw a player out of his cool class abilities, but I also don't want to dramatically change my campaign plans based on one player's class choices.

That's a valid point. Favored Enemy selection is still DM dependent but it's less of a cross to bear in 5e than in 3e. I gave a few nods when I read the suggestion upthread about allowing the Ranger to change out the Favored Enemy with a long rest. I think some of the fluff for the ability would need to be modified if FE/FT were allowed to change on a Long Rest though. "Today I hate Orcs. Tomorrow, Orcs will be cool, but Oozes should watch out!"

A simple fluff revision would be to play up the Hunter aspect (not archetype) of the Ranger. Treat the ability more like a Field Guide to Dangerous Beasts and Terrains than "My most hated enemy who I probably included in my backstory as the reason they're my Favorite Enemies."


And from a combat perspective I'm not seeing any positive reason to play a Ranger over other classes. What does he do better then any other class?

I think the combination of abilities may be the strength here. The Ranger has components that are similar to Fighters, other parts that are similar to Rogues, and others typical of spellcasters.

To rephrase your question, I think you could ask: "What character could replicate what the Ranger can do?" I'd be interested to see what kind of Multiclassing and/or Feats are needed in order to make a non-Ranger Ranger. I don't think that the strength of the Ranger is any one particular ability but rather the package taken as a whole.

[akaddk]

As a DM I allow Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain to be changeable after a long rest. During the rest the Ranger must study the new FE/FT to gain this benefit.

I'm going to go one step further and simply say that it covers all terrains and all enemies.

[HorridElemental]

I'm going to go one step further and simply say that it covers all terrains and all enemies.

That works too. However I think most people would have a tough time swallowing it, but that wouldn't be broken or anything like that.

Make Favored Enemy work like hunter's quarry from 4e. You can choose as a bonus action who your favored enemy is and you get a bonus to damage against that creature. Make Hunter's Mark spell progress by slot used...

1st: 1d6
2nd: 1d8
3rd: 1d10
4th: 1d12

You would end up with a great striker right there, sadly all martial types are strikers :/

[akaddk]

However I think most people would have a tough time swallowing it, but that wouldn't be broken or anything like that.

Funnily enough the reason I wouldn't do it your way is that I can't believe they suddenly gain an insightful understanding of one type of creature/terrain and lose another solely from one hour of thinking hard about it. Not criticising your method, it's a valid rule that I think a lot of people will adopt, merely that for me, it doesn't "work".

[HorridElemental]

Funnily enough the reason I wouldn't do it your way is that I can't believe they suddenly gain an insightful understanding of one type of creature/terrain and lose another solely from one hour of thinking hard about it. Not criticising your method, it's a valid rule that I think a lot of people will adopt, merely that for me, it doesn't "work".

Please don't tell me you really don't believe research is fake and or that if you study one subject specifically then you may not know about another subject...

The hour isn't about simulating real life. The hour is about the intense focus that a fantasy hero has that they can super cram all the knowledge that they need in an hour. Later levels when they become higher level they can cram all knowledge of multiple creatures in their head at once.

A non-ranger would take a week or whatever to know this info, but the ranger? He or She is just that damn good.

Think of Favored Enemy like math courses in college. The Ranger can cram all the knowledge of Physics, Calculus, or Statistics into an hour or so. The ranger may lose out on the other two but damnit if they don't know the one they chose. They may later decide thwy need to know another math class and stop studying their initial choice and study onother choicw.

Later level the ranger can cram all three and know Physics, Calculus, and Statistics all at once by cramming all the info. The ranger became more efficient at cramming info.

Because the ranger is just that damn good.

[Demonic Spoon]

Please don't tell me you really don't believe research is fake and or that if you study one subject specifically then you may not know about another subject...

The hour isn't about simulating real life. The hour is about the intense focus that a fantasy hero has that they can super cram all the knowledge that they need in an hour. Later levels when they become higher level they can cram all knowledge of multiple creatures in their head at once.

A non-ranger would take a week or whatever to know this info, but the ranger? He or She is just that damn good.

Think of Favored Enemy like math courses in college. The Ranger can cram all the knowledge of Physics, Calculus, or Statistics into an hour or so. The ranger may lose out on the other two but damnit if they don't know the one they chose. They may later decide thwy need to know another math class and stop studying their initial choice and study onother choicw.

Later level the ranger can cram all three and know Physics, Calculus, and Statistics all at once by cramming all the info. The ranger became more efficient at cramming info.

Because the ranger is just that damn good.

Ah, yes, and a day or two after becoming a master of Calculus, the ranger decides he wants to study Physics and then forgets everything he knew about Calculus until he goes back and studies it some more. The consequences of being that damn good really do a number on your long-term memory...



The hour isn't about simulating real life. The hour is about the intense focus that a fantasy hero has that they can super cram all the knowledge that they need in an hour. Later levels when they become higher level they can cram all knowledge of multiple creatures in their head at once.


Good fantasy still needs to make sense in the context of the world.

[HorridElemental]

Ah, yes, and a day or two after becoming a master of Calculus, the ranger decides he wants to study Physics and then forgets everything he knew about Calculus until he goes back and studies it some more. The consequences of being that damn good really do a number on your long-term memory...



Good fantasy still needs to make sense in the context of the world.

Have you ever taken up a hobby and then stopped, picked up a new hobby, then went back and found that you are no longer that good at hobby 1? Yeah just like that.**

Good fantasy needs to make sense in the context of the world that has been created, not in our real world. The whole point of fantasy is that it has elements that doesn't make sense within our world. Like, idk, magic for an example. Magic makes no sense in terms of our world and yet it is readily believed in when given as part of a fantasy world and yet someone being "just that damn good" is so far out in left field that it blows people's perception of reality.

It is quite sad that people can't handle anything other than magic being awesome. No wonder we have some craptastical beast master sub class.

**edit: the ranger speeds this process up compared to what real world people do this. The ranger is more efficient and fantasy in that way.

[Dark Tira]

.

It is quite sad that people can't handle anything other than magic being awesome. No wonder we have some craptastical beast master sub class.


Hey now, no need to take out your aggression on the superior Ranger sub-class. At least it can do some interesting things, unlike the wanna-be fighter sub-class.

[Mootsmcboots]

So is everyone's complaint is that Rangers cannot deal as much damage as other martial classes? Cause they shouldn't.

Not every class should be able to do everything. That means some classes will shine in places others don't. That also means some classes will not have as high of a damage out put as others.

Look past best vs worst. At class vs class. At Dmg vs Dmg. And look at just fun. I can fight, I can cast spells, I can have an animal companion, etc. I don't need to hit as hard as a Barb as well. Being the top line baddie murderer isn't my priority, nor the reason I chose a ranger. I'm not a Rail Gun that uses arrows.

[akaddk]

It is quite sad that people can't handle anything other than magic being awesome.

No, what's sad is that you have to resort to this level of antagonism.

[HorridElemental]

No, what's sad is that you have to resort to this level of antagonism.

Thanks for the nice laugh.

[JamesT]

I hear people saying that the Ranger can't keep up with the damage potential of other classes. It makes me wonder if those people haven't looked at the spell list yet, which isn't surprising given how hard it is to sort through.

Ranger plus Archery style plus Colossus Slayer, along with Crossbow expert and Hunter's mark on a target means basically the most consistently accurate attack in the game (+7 to hit), and on a tough mob doing 1d6+1d6+3 with the first attack, then 1d6+1d8+1d6 with the second attack. Not sure if you get your ability modifier on damage with the second attack, depending on how you interpret crossbow expert I guess.

That's an optimal situation of course, and you'd have to apply the Hunters Mark one round before you are able to get your bonus action for Crossbow Expert, but I'm talking about going against tougher bad guys. It's a ranged attack which adds a lot of flexibility. And if we are talking about a battle against lots of creatures, having multiple ranged attacks is a big boost there as well.

And with Hunter's Mark, that's just one spell. The ranger gets others that boost his damage output.

The more I read the PHB, the more impressed I am that every class is viable and competitive.

[HorridElemental]

The more I read the PHB, the more impressed I am that every class is viable and competitive.

Sadly half and Non-Caster classes are built to be strikers almost by default in this edition.

Oooh look another way to get 63758373 damage -_-, I'm so impressed.

[Person_Man]

It's also worth mentioning that classes were not designed with specific roles in mind. They specifically rejected that design philosophy, because that's what they did in 4E, and they didn't want to put in anything that reminded players of 4E. Instead, they basically just made a list of all the most popular classes from previous editions, made those classes do the same things that they previously did, and then added some additional goodies to make them seem better.

Since classes are not balanced against each other and don't have clear roles, it was inevitable that WotC would print some loser classes that need to be tweaked in order to be effective, or rules that undermine the entire rationale of another class (like Ritual spells that basically replace Skill uses, and the 10th level Bard's ability to take spells from every list, such as 5th level Ranger/Paladin spells).

[Demonic Spoon]

It's also worth mentioning that classes were not designed with specific roles in mind. They specifically rejected that design philosophy, because that's what they did in 4E, and they didn't want to put in anything that reminded players of 4E. Instead, they basically just made a list of all the most popular classes from previous editions, made those classes do the same things that they previously did, and then added some additional goodies to make them seem better.

I normally find some value in your criticism, but here I think you're being pessimistic for the sake of it. Seem better? Are you saying that the 5e fighter only seems better than the 3e fighter? That the 5e monk only seems better than the 3e monk?

[Marius]

I normally find some value in your criticism, but here I think you're being pessimistic for the sake of it. Seem better? Are you saying that the 5e fighter only seems better than the 3e fighter? That the 5e monk only seems better than the 3e monk?

They're better, just maybe not as better as some of us hoped (I hoped for a fighter as badass as the 3.5 warblade for example). The same goes for the ranger.

[Human Paragon 3]

I'm really starting to come around to Ranger. With his spells and the horde breaker style, he does end up getting the most attacks in the game (sans action surge). The ability to totally pepper a crowd of monsters with arrows is appealing.

The out-of-combat abilities are actually pretty cool too, if the DM and players are following the actual rules of the game. Being able to track or forage AND remain vigilant while moving is actually a pretty good ability. I like that it skips the middle man of having you add bonuses to your rolls and just lets you auto-succeed on everything in your favored terrain. So if you have a ranger in your party, you are automatically a great outdoors party. If your campaign focuses on non-dungeon encounters, it could prove very valuable.

I've seen this reaction on some other class' features before, such as the Assassin's auto-succeeding alter-egos, which I think are great. If the ranger's class features just gave him advantage on all ability checks made in his favored terrain, I think people would think it sounded great (because it's a mechanical bonus to a roll). Since it's auto-success, which is even better (the best, in fact) people get the impression that all it's doing is codifying the DM-hand-waving that has always happened. Maybe this is the case, but if so, isn't that a good thing, too? Now players can at least feel agency for this instead of feeling like the DM just doesn't want to bother with their class features.

One last thing I will throw out there, is that somebody earlier in this thread mentioned they let rangers change their favored enemies and terrains on a long rest. I think this is a good idea. I might require some downtime research to do this, or allow rangers to "train" into terrains like other classes train with tools. This sounds like a fun thing for players to do, and fun mini-goals they can set for themselves.

[Caelic]

They're better, just maybe not as better as some of us hoped (I hoped for a fighter as badass as the 3.5 warblade for example). The same goes for the ranger.


At the risk of being excessively cynical, they can't do that. They need room for power creep.

Third edition was initially supposed to be driven by the "evergreen" model: third-party companies would support the line with ancillary content, and WotC would make a steady profit on the "evergreen" books--the PHB, the MM, and the DMG.

They quickly discovered that this model didn't work, because there's no such thing as an evergreen book in an industry with a limited customer base.

3.5 shifted to a model which was driven by sales of new books every month, and necessitated dynamic imbalance--that is, "power creep"--as an engine to drive those sales.

Fourth edition represented an attempt to drastically shift that profit model to a monthly fee-for-service model not unlike those employed by MMORPGs. That failed, and failed badly. The online content didn't come at all until late in the game, and never delivered what was initially promised.

So now, they're right back to the tried-and-true "Generate profit by generating new books on a regular basis"--and, again, after the first few, that's going to require some sort of an incentive to get players to buy them. Dollars to donuts says that engine is power creep.

[Person_Man]

I normally find some value in your criticism, but here I think you're being pessimistic for the sake of it. Seem better? Are you saying that the 5e fighter only seems better than the 3e fighter? That the 5e monk only seems better than the 3e monk?

I'm was comparing all of the 5E classes to all of their equivalents from all other editions. Not just the weakest 3.X classes to their 5E equivalents.

First, remember that in 2E you had kits, and in 3.X you had prestige classes. So when you read 5E classes and compare it to a previous edition, remember that all the subclass options should essentially be left out of the comparison.

Also, consider that there were rules in other editions beyond the class charts and descriptions. For example, in 2E only Warriors (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) could gain bonus hit points above +2 from high Constitution. Only Fighters could have Exceptional Strength (above 18 at 1st level). Similarly, in 4E Healing Surges existed and were a big deal, and melee classes got more.

Futhermore, I would say that mid-high level Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers, and Clerics are weaker and less versatile then their 5E equivalents, because magic has been toned down and somewhat limited by Concentration. Each of those classes appear to get more stuff in 5E, because their class descriptions are filled with new-ish abilities. But really, they're weaker and less versatile in the long run, because their spells, prestige classes, and Metamagic options have been nerfed or removed.

Finally, I would say that the 5E Fighter is inferior to the 4E Fighter, or a 2E Fighter with the right Kit. Similarly, the 5E Monk is inferior to the 1E Monk.

So you're correct that the 5E Fighter or Monk is better then the 3E Fighter or Monk. But I'm looking at the broader picture.

[Demonic Spoon]

So then what do you mean when you say "Seem better?" If you're referring to all prior D&D editions, in which class balance has varied significantly throughout each, I suppose you don't mean "better" as in "more powerful"

[Sharogy]

Just a theocraft concept

Say I'm a Ranger 15(beastmaster) || 5 (random caster with haste)

Can I Haste myself and my pet using the Shared spell feature?

If so , can I make 2 attacks while my pet makes 3?

Can I then take crossbow expert feat and use my bonus action to do another attack?

All together that gives me 6 attacks in 1 turn against any single target. I believe that is pretty good dmg??

[hymer]

Just a theocraft concept

Say I'm a Ranger 15(beastmaster) || 5 (random caster with haste)

Can I Haste myself and my pet using the Shared spell feature?

If so , can I make 2 attacks while my pet makes 3?

Can I then take crossbow expert feat and use my bonus action to do another attack?

All together that gives me 6 attacks in 1 turn against any single target. I believe that is pretty good dmg??

You can share Haste, but then it starts to break down. The extra attack from Haste comes from an extra Action which allows you to make one weapon attack (or dash, or disengage, and I don't remember what else). Your beast would get the same, but the beast is pretty dumb, and only takes actions when you tell it to, using your own action to do so. And since you can't use the Haste action to command your beast, the overall effect would be less than one could hope for.

[Sharogy]

You can share Haste, but then it starts to break down. The extra attack from Haste comes from an extra Action which allows you to make one weapon attack (or dash, or disengage, and I don't remember what else). Your beast would get the same, but the beast is pretty dumb, and only takes actions when you tell it to, using your own action to do so. And since you can't use the Haste action to command your beast, the overall effect would be less than one could hope for.

wait, but i did command my beast to attack? surely it would then use all its actions to attack?

[hymer]

wait, but i did command my beast to attack? surely it would then use all its actions to attack?

The beast isn't very sensible. In fact, it's downright foolish. When you command the beast to attack using an action, it attacks using an action. And since you can't command it twice in one round, it can't use that extra haste action.

[obryn]

Similarly, the 5E Monk is inferior to the 1E Monk.
I am not certain. The 1e monk really does take off after a while, but it takes a long time. Check out all the things they don't get their stat modifiers to, like AC. At 1st, they're basically a weak thief who can use polearms.

[Person_Man]

I am not certain. The 1e monk really does take off after a while, but it takes a long time. Check out all the things they don't get their stat modifiers to, like AC. At 1st, they're basically a weak thief who can use polearms.

That's true. But pretty much all the classes suck at low levels in 1E. Thief gets 10-40%ish chance to success on most Skills (other then Climb Walls), Magic User gets 1ish spell and then you suck rocks, and so on. But by mid-high levels the 1E Monk can Stun for 1d6 rounds with every attack, gets 3-4 attacks per round, can deflect most ranged attacks and gets Evasion, and a bunch of other cool special abilities.

Anywho, I actually like a lot of the improvements they've made to the classes in 5E. I'm just disappointed that they weren't more thorough and balanced with them. I would prefer that all classes be special and different and somewhere in the Tier 3ish range, instead of a replication of the Caster/Non-Caster dyad with somewhat fewer auto-win buttons for the casters and somewhat better options for the non-casters.

[obryn]

Anywho, I actually like a lot of the improvements they've made to the classes in 5E. I'm just disappointed that they weren't more thorough and balanced with them. I would prefer that all classes be special and different and somewhere in the Tier 3ish range, instead of a replication of the Caster/Non-Caster dyad with somewhat fewer auto-win buttons for the casters and somewhat better options for the non-casters.
I'm right there with you, but I think the monk overall looks pretty good. It's conceptually very similar to the 5e Warlock, believe it or not. It's not on my own list of classes that need help; my main concern is that Stunning Fist is so obviously the best cost/value ratio, it will be spammed all the time instead of using more flavorful options. (I have similar concerns with the Battlemaster, FWIW; Menacing Strike is good.)

[EvilAnagram]

I'm right there with you, but I think the monk overall looks pretty good. It's conceptually very similar to the 5e Warlock, believe it or not. It's not on my own list of classes that need help; my main concern is that Stunning Fist is so obviously the best cost/value ratio, it will be spammed all the time instead of using more flavorful options. (I have similar concerns with the Battlemaster, FWIW; Menacing Strike is good.)

I have to say, I'm going straight for the WoE and never looking back. I've never been one to maximize my characters. I prefer to build flavorful characters that I can use effectively.

[BW022]

Please tell me I'm missing something, because I want to like the Ranger.

The game hasn't been out long enough nor have I played it to say. However, a few counter points...

First, you get decent weapons and armour and medium armour and shields no longer necessarily impose a penalty on stealth. Those 'fluff' abilities are not so minor... especially the ability to move at full speed while at stealth. You are also back to a d10 for hit points and have more (and more useful) skills than a fighter or barbarian. You get the same extra attack ability.

Second, as odd as having to command the animal companion each round to attack may be, it is still useful. Effectively your opponents have to fight your companion while you move or you and then your companion while you cover them. For ranged, it gives you time while you move to safety or climb a tree. For melee the animal blocks enemy movement, forces them to choose which of you to attack, etc. Many animals have speeds which allow them to easily outrun opponents. Finally, the companion is still useful for perception, guard duty, etc. Add speak with animals and it has a lot of use as a spy, scout, messenger, etc.

It is also now the only class with any combat creatures. Druids no longer get them and only wizards, spell thieves, and ritual casters can get familiars -- which can't attack.

Lets face it... in 3.x, ranger animal companions were extremely week. A wolf at 4th-level was pretty much fodder to take into combat. Even at higher levels, other than mounts, keeping one alive was difficult. Realistically, you were using them mostly in non-combat situations. In 5E, at 3rd, a panther is 19hp, while a hawk is 12hp. At 10th both are 40hp.

Third, you get spells at a low level and they are fairly useful.

I think if you compare the ranger to a fighter or barbarian... it comes out ahead. The ability to use stealth and spells easily makes up for the heavy armour -- especially if ranged. The animal companion is just icing. It is especially useful if you needs to solo or in a small group. You are likely a better scout, especially if caught alone where you have most armour and hit points than a bard, monk, or rogue... plus an animal companion to cover your retreat or tie up enemies while the rest of the party comes up.

[obryn]

I have to say, I'm going straight for the WoE and never looking back. I've never been one to maximize my characters. I prefer to build flavorful characters that I can use effectively.
Is that Way of Elements? If so, yeah, I think it's pretty spiffy.

[Grynning]

It is also now the only class with any combat creatures. Druids no longer get them and only wizards, spell thieves, and ritual casters can get familiars -- which can't attack.


This isn't really correct. Familiars can still deliver touch spells, so they effectively can attack for you, for one thing. Secondly, Wizards, Clerics and Druids all have access to several summoning spells that let you get multiple creatures you don't have to take actions to command. The Animate Dead spell is probably the most controversial of these because the minions are permanent and with enough castings you can maintain control of over 100 of them at high levels. Paladins have access to Find Steed, which gets them a Warhorse that can attack and move independently. Casters still are very much better at having combat buddies than the Ranger is.
The Beast Master ranger has to burn actions to make his beast attack, and his damage is not very good because it would be better in almost every case to make those attacks yourself. The animal choices in the book are very limiting from both a mechanical and a flavor perspective. The Share Spells ability is a waste because Rangers have very little in the way of self buffs, and the Find Steed spell Paladins get has it built in.
I wanted Rangers to be good in this edition. They just aren't - they're a messy combination of mediocre abilities. They require a lot of house-rules. It's just a disappointment compared to most of the other things in the book.

[TomPliss]

What I really don't like with the Ranger, is the lack of cantrip.
It means that, at low leve, you can't really use your spells when you don't know you're going to sleep right away, because you only have 2-3 spells per day :(
Look at the spell progression : at level 5, you double your spell number (and you get the extra attack). It really seems like you can finally use a spell before 6 PM only at the 5th level.
A simple cantrip list, without any damage one, would have been nice. Because currently a "half caster" can not cast as many spells as "third caster"....

[Demonic Spoon]

What I really don't like with the Ranger, is the lack of cantrip.
It means that, at low leve, you can't really use your spells when you don't know you're going to sleep right away, because you only have 2-3 spells per day :(
Look at the spell progression : at level 5, you double your spell number (and you get the extra attack). It really seems like you can finally use a spell before 6 PM only at the 5th level.
A simple cantrip list, without any damage one, would have been nice. Because currently a "half caster" can not cast as many spells as "third caster"....

Rangers do not rely nearly as heavily on spells as full caster classes. They don't need a backup spell conservation mechanism. The ranger analogue to being able to cast fire bolt is just using your attack

[akaddk]

...and they didn't want to put in anything that reminded players of 4E.

At what point does a person say to themselves, "I'm going to reject all evidence and believe something I made up instead," and then run with that?

[MeeposFire]

That's true. But pretty much all the classes suck at low levels in 1E. Thief gets 10-40%ish chance to success on most Skills (other then Climb Walls), Magic User gets 1ish spell and then you suck rocks, and so on. But by mid-high levels the 1E Monk can Stun for 1d6 rounds with every attack, gets 3-4 attacks per round, can deflect most ranged attacks and gets Evasion, and a bunch of other cool special abilities.

Anywho, I actually like a lot of the improvements they've made to the classes in 5E. I'm just disappointed that they weren't more thorough and balanced with them. I would prefer that all classes be special and different and somewhere in the Tier 3ish range, instead of a replication of the Caster/Non-Caster dyad with somewhat fewer auto-win buttons for the casters and somewhat better options for the non-casters.

One thing to remember also about 1e monks is that they have a bad XP table as I recall. They take longer to level than most classes I believe in addition to the fluffy mechanical restriction that they had to duel other monks to gain levels eventually. Living to those high levels was very difficult though rewarding if you could.

[JamesT]

Beastmaster with a Giant Badger is pretty awesome - multi attack means 2 attacks at level 1 and 4 at level 11. You also get your own attack at level 5.

[Grynning]

Beastmaster with a Giant Badger is pretty awesome - multi attack means 2 attacks at level 1 and 4 at level 11. You also get your own attack at level 5.

It's debatable as to whether you can command the beast to multiattack. If you can...eh, ok, you can make a bunch of attacks, and that's fine, but that's all you can do. It's basically like playing a companion-dependent version of the Champion fighter that does less damage.

[hymer]

Beastmaster with a Giant Badger is pretty awesome - multi attack means 2 attacks at level 1 and 4 at level 11. You also get your own attack at level 5.

Well, you don't get your beast until level 3. At level 5, you can attack twice, so you'll be doing mostly your own attacks there (presuming you do more damage than your beast). At level 7, you get the ability to attack once while you order your animal to attack, so that's three attacks with the multiattacking giant badger. At level 11 you're still at three attacks, as the beast attacks twice when commanded, and you still get to attack once when you command and attack. And that's as far as it gets - two attacks from you (beginning at level 5) or one attack from you and two from your beast (from level 11).

I don't have stats on a Giant Badger, and I have a feeling beastmaster eligible beasts won't be having multiattack, but then I don't know how official the dire badger stats are. But if it attacks an extra time per attack action (and it does seem to do so until you get to level 11, when you can order it to attack twice - which is what it does naturally so no improvement there, but let's take the generous interpretation for this), you'll be choosing between A: three beast attacks and one of your own or B: two of your own attacks. At that point your attack stat is highly likely to be 20 and your proficiency bonus +4, meaning the beast may well do more damage than you - again depending on its precise stats and on things like feats and magical weapons.

So I'd say it sounds pretty good if it holds, but there are quite a few ifs and buts.

[Xetheral]

And from a combat perspective I'm not seeing any positive reason to play a Ranger over other classes. What does he do better then any other class?

Overall, I tend to agree with you: Rangers are extremely disappointing. On the other hand, Horde Breaker appears to be one of the only ways to get an extra attack that doesn't require a bonus action. This makes a 3-level Ranger dip incredibly appealing to weapon-using builds, but the rest of the class is so lackluster that three levels is a high price to pay. The cost-benefit ratio actually improves a bit with more levels in Ranger, with a feat at fourth level, and extra attack at 5. (Actually, with half caster progression, this wouldn’t be a bad dip for full casters looking to gish. With Horde Breaker and Extra Attack they’re looking at (up to) three attacks per round without touching their bonus action. Are two extra attacks worth the loss of three levels worth of spell slots? It’s no Mystic Ranger, but might still be viable.)

So in response to the quoted text, I'd have to agree that there is indeed no combat reason to play a Ranger over other classes, but that for certain builds Ranger might still have utility making those other classes even better.

[Falka]

Reading through the Ranger, he doesn't seem to be that terrible. It seems reasonable that you should forfeit your action for it to take its Attack one, especially considering how it gains bonus actions to Dash, Dodge, etc. later on. Birds get Multiattack, which means they will do several attacks when they take the Attack action and at higher levels they can Multiattack several times, racking up small strikes with high to hit bonus and your proficiency (which will be +4 so they dish 5 per hit, which is not even really bad).

Adding stuff like Sharpshooter as a feat and the damage some spells dish, if you use them right, really add up. And he can be stealthy, unlike the average Fighter.

Homebrewing a free action for the pet could be slightly overkill, imo.

The problem the Ranger has is that he's highly fluff based, so if DMs don't actually give a **** about Exploration RP he's not that good. Still, I like making PCs getting lost if they don't have a good tracker. :smalltongue:

[JamesT]

It's debatable as to whether you can command the beast to multiattack. If you can...eh, ok, you can make a bunch of attacks, and that's fine, but that's all you can do. It's basically like playing a companion-dependent version of the Champion fighter that does less damage.

Plus you don't get bonuses for your beast from your ability scores or from magic items. Yeah, it's not that great, more flavorful than anything.

[Demonic Spoon]

There is also some value in having another body available. Being able to attack with either a companion or yourself means you can make two slightly different kinds of attacks on two different targets. The companion can move for free if I recall right, so he could hypothetically abuse opportunity attacks or screw ranged attackers by sitting next to them and making them take disadvantage.