Tips on being a Ranger?

[jayjay1098]

Hello!

New to D&D and we had started the 5th edition. Our DM has played the previous editions he suggested we roll for our races and backgrounds no feats allowed. I had rolled a dragonborn noble.

Being my first time making a character I chose ranger, because who wouldn't want to be Legolas or Aragorn. I am now a level 4 ranger who has chosen the hunters path with collosal slayer. I must say while the damage is great I seem to find myself useless if there is no forest (my natural explorer terrain) and favoured enemy gives me nothing but advantage on tracking not even on attacks.

My question is how is your experience or opinion with the ranger and if you have any tips or hints on combat strategies.

[MadBear]

Hello!

New to D&D and we had started the 5th edition. Our DM has played the previous editions he suggested we roll for our races and backgrounds no feats allowed. I had rolled a dragonborn noble.

Being my first time making a character I chose ranger, because who wouldn't want to be Legolas or Aragorn. I am now a level 4 ranger who has chosen the hunters path with collosal slayer. I must say while the damage is great I seem to find myself useless if there is no forest (my natural explorer terrain) and favoured enemy gives me nothing but advantage on tracking not even on attacks.

My question is how is your experience or opinion with the ranger and if you have any tips or hints on combat strategies.

for combat, make sure you have hunters mark up, since it's your bread and butter spell for extra damage. I personally find that horde breaker works better for extra damage, since an extra attack is usually better then an extra 1d8 damage.

Depending on how strong your wisdom is, ensnaring strike can be a good way to bind an opponent to a location.

[MustacheFart]

Find out if your DM will allow multiclassing. Switch to fighter and never look back.

[jayjay1098]

for combat, make sure you have hunters mark up, since it's your bread and butter spell for extra damage. I personally find that horde breaker works better for extra damage, since an extra attack is usually better then an extra 1d8 damage.

Depending on how strong your wisdom is, ensnaring strike can be a good way to bind an opponent to a location.

My wisdom is not that great to be honest it only has an Ability Mod of +1 my Str is +3 Dex +3 Con +2 Cha & Int +0. I honestly picked the Two-hand weapon fighting instead of the archery because I wanted to try out hand to hand combat and make my ranger that way, but my AC was so weak with only 16. I had to revert back to my Longbow, but now I do not have the archery fighting style so I do not get the +2 bonus.

It seems as if they are leading the player to choose archery more as the bonuses and skills are made for range.

[MadBear]

Find out if your DM will allow multiclassing. Switch to fighter and never look back.

seriously man? The OP asks for advice on the Ranger, and your answer is to skip it? This would be ok advice if they asked which was better, or how to best optimize their damage. Heck had you at least provided an argument, your statement might have some merit.

The Ranger holds up just as well damage wise as any other class. Especially if their whirlwind lets them move and attack the whole time.

[MadBear]

My wisdom is not that great to be honest it only has an Ability Mod of +1 my Str is +3 Dex +3 Con +2 Cha & Int +0. I honestly picked the Two-hand weapon fighting instead of the archery because I wanted to try out hand to hand combat and make my ranger that way, but my AC was so weak with only 16. I had to revert back to my Longbow, but now I do not have the archery fighting style so I do not get the +2 bonus.

It seems as if they are leading the player to choose archery more as the bonuses and skills are made for range.

if you're going the two-weapon fighting route, then you'll definitely want to keep hunters mark up. The bonus damage from that one spell get's better and better the more attacks you make. I'll definitely resuggest horde breaker again since it fits that mold.

In that case by level 5, you'll be able to walk up to 2 guys and swing 4 times (1 base + 1 extra attack + 1 two-weapon fighting + 1 horde breaker) each dealing 1d8 + 3 + 1d6 damage.

In that case, you're damage will be more spread out then a single target character like a Paladin's would be. This does help set up good combos with other AOE damage types, because it means that you'll all be spreading damage around like crazy.

If you like the idea of using 2 rapiers, then grabbing the 2 weapon fighting feat isn't a terrible idea either, but you definitely want to get your dex up asap.

[Person_Man]

Ranger has some of the best at-will damage in the game at low levels. Archery Fighting Style + Hunter's Mark spell or Crossbow Expert Feat (both use Bonus Action) + Hoardbreaker subclass ability + Sharpshooter Feat + Extra Attack.

The usefulness of Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are highly dependent on your DM. Be sure to talk to your DM about what choices might be the most useful in their campaign. If the answer is "I'm not sure" then you may wish to ask for a house rule where you can change your choices as part of a Long Rest.

High Dexterity + Stealth Proficiency + Pass Without Trace spell makes you one of the best scouts in the game. (Rogue, Druid, and Shadow Monk are also great at this).

Levels 6-20 of the Ranger are thought by some to be sub-par (including me). Your spells don't progress very slowly compared to full casters, the Bard can cherry pick your best spells, and some of your mid-high level abilities are offered by (and in some cases are worse then) the Rogue at lower levels. For this reason, you may wish to consider a Ranger/Rogue, Ranger/Full Caster, or just an entirely different class.

[jayjay1098]

seriously man? The OP asks for advice on the Ranger, and your answer is to skip it? This would be ok advice if they asked which was better, or how to best optimize their damage. Heck had you at least provided an argument, your statement might have some merit.

The Ranger holds up just as well damage wise as any other class. Especially if their whirlwind lets them move and attack the whole time.

No harm done! Hahah, actually just gave me kind of a chuckle. The one thing that caught me as I kept reading up on the Ranger is the swift quiver spell that can combine with the volley attack. The only thing is I tried to talk to the DM to have a story where I switch my fighting style or train with my Bow so that I can switch to the archery fighting style, but no luck, he won't allow it. A bummer, but I will have to work with what I have.

On another note I had no idea that the whirlwind could be used in conjunction with moving forward. Would that trigger a opportunity attack for the monsters? Say I run 10 feet attack monsters around then move 20 feet and do the same?

[MadBear]

No harm done! Hahah, actually just gave me kind of a chuckle. The one thing that caught me as I kept reading up on the Ranger is the swift quiver spell that can combine with the volley attack. The only thing is I tried to talk to the DM to have a story where I switch my fighting style or train with my Bow so that I can switch to the archery fighting style, but no luck, he won't allow it. A bummer, but I will have to work with what I have.

On another note I had no idea that the whirlwind could be used in conjunction with moving forward. Would that trigger a opportunity attack for the monsters? Say I run 10 feet attack monsters around then move 20 feet and do the same?

Yes it would trigger opportunity attacks from the monsters. But if you grab the mobile feat, it mitigates it.

Check with your DM though about if he'll interpret the ability that way. Both me and my DM think it's perfectly balanced, and rules supported (the rules say you can move inbetween attacks), but some DM's will say no. I personally don't know why since whirlwind would be completely inferior to volley in that case (even with it allowed, you have to take a feat to not get hit, and you'll be in the thick of the fighting so you should get a bonus for being in their).

[Person_Man]

On another note I had no idea that the whirlwind could be used in conjunction with moving forward. Would that trigger a opportunity attack for the monsters? Say I run 10 feet attack monsters around then move 20 feet and do the same?


No.

"Whirlwind Attack: You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."


You can move only between multiple attacks. Whirlwind Attack is (as name suggests) is one attack against multiple targets with multiple attack rolls.

Also, its clearly not the RAI for it either. Otherwise, it would have been worded like the 3.5 Paimon vestige or Desert Tempest maneuver, which does exactly what you're describing.

[jayjay1098]

Yes it would trigger opportunity attacks from the monsters. But if you grab the mobile feat, it mitigates it.

Check with your DM though about if he'll interpret the ability that way. Both me and my DM think it's perfectly balanced, and rules supported (the rules say you can move inbetween attacks), but some DM's will say no. I personally don't know why since whirlwind would be completely inferior to volley in that case (even with it allowed, you have to take a feat to not get hit, and you'll be in the thick of the fighting so you should get a bonus for being in their).

Thanks! However our dm has forbided feats. He feels they are too OP and would make the game too easy.

[MadBear]

No.

"Whirlwind Attack: You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."


You can move only between multiple attacks. Whirlwind Attack is (as name suggests) is one attack against multiple targets with multiple attack rolls.

Also, its clearly not the RAI for it either. Otherwise, it would have been worded like the 3.5 Paimon vestige or Desert Tempest maneuver, which does exactly what you're describing.


yes you get to make only a melee attack, but that's per target. Read the rest of the passage. It says you make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you. It even says you make a seperate attack roll against each target.

I also suggest reading the passage where it states
If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack

and
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your , movement even further by moving between those attacks.

Then again, you'll notice that I recommend that the OP ask his DM, since I'm aware others don't see it this way.

Personally, I don't see the problem, since whirlwind attack would be objectively worse compared to volley. You'd get to make fewer attacks, put yourself in more risk, with none of the gain.

[WickerNipple]

Thanks! However our dm has forbided feats. He feels they are too OP and would make the game too easy.

Too easy? That's a new one to me.

He is aware that he controls the power of the encounters and that 'too easy' isn't possible?

Honestly I kinda suspect the problem you're having with Ranger is really more a DM created problem. They are by far the class most likely to have problems if the DM isn't willing to work with you a little bit. Sounds like this guy's the sort to just say No. As glib as the suggestion was to just switch to Fighter that tends to be my reaction to DMs like this. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

[Easy_Lee]

With +3 strength and dexterity, your character would be best served with medium armor. 16-17AC is perfectly acceptable, so you can do that and go with two weapon fighting.

Many players have trouble with Rangers at higher levels. The last time WotC asked people for feedback on the game, a large number of respondents felt that Rangers were poorly designed. That said, you won't feel it much until higher levels, 11+.

You picked an interesting race in dragonborn. Their breath attack is almost OP at low levels, but never scales and so sucks at high levels. Combined with Ranger, this is very much a low-level build.

[jayjay1098]

Too easy? That's a new one to me.

He is aware that he controls the power of the encounters and that 'too easy' isn't possible?

Honestly I kinda suspect the problem you're having with Ranger is really more a DM created problem. They are by far the class most likely to have problems if the DM isn't willing to work with you a little bit. Sounds like this guy's the sort to just say No. As glib as the suggestion was to just switch to Fighter that tends to be my reaction to DMs like this. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

You're right in a way he is a good friend, but I am very limited. He is a once its set in stone its set forever. Which is fair, but I suggested what I conpletely stop using a longsword and use a bow. Realistically my char would become proficient in it, but unfortunately it was a no. He is willing on other things but no character changes.

[jayjay1098]

With +3 strength and dexterity, your character would be best served with medium armor. 16-17AC is perfectly acceptable, so you can do that and go with two weapon fighting.

Many players have trouble with Rangers at higher levels. The last time WotC asked people for feedback on the game, a large number of respondents felt that Rangers were poorly designed. That said, you won't feel it much until higher levels, 11+.

You picked an interesting race in dragonborn. Their breath attack is almost OP at low levels, but never scales and so sucks at high levels. Combined with Ranger, this is very much a low-level build.

Our DM had us roll for our race with percantile dice.

[Submortimer]

Hot damn, man. Honestly, I'd never game with your DM. I like my options, unless i know for SURE that it's a short term adventure or one shot...then i'd accept those kind of restrictions.

That being said, stick with the bonuses you've taken. you'll feel even more underpowered than you currently do. Alternatively, dip a level or two into fighter (to pick up archery) and you can freely switch between both.

[WickerNipple]

He is willing on other things but no character changes.

Ugh. I am very sorry to hear that. Especially since you're a new player. Good DMs work with you to make sure you're having fun, and enjoying your character is a big part of that.

Then again you rolled for race and background... Was this just because you were new players and he didn't want to overwhelm you with choices? I can sorta see that, but I can't see punishing you later for the few choices you were allowed to make.

Still, you have the stats to pull off the ranger switch hitter. It's not really optimal because the game generally rewards specialization in stats, but it's not the end of the world.

I don't think I heard you mention whether multi-classing was allowed. Just one level of Fighter will buy you that Archery.

The game includes so-called options like Multi-classing to allow you to change gears later on as you learn and play and grow. But somehow I doubt he'll allow this either.

Are you having fun playing the game, outside of issues like these? That's ultimately all that matters. I'd put up with stuff like this if the DM was spinning a brilliant tale, but they're usually not. Regardless, hope this doesn't color your experience with the game. Most DMs really want you to play the character you want to.

[WickerNipple]

Hot damn, man. Honestly, I'd never game with your DM. I like my options, unless i know for SURE that it's a short term adventure or one shot...then i'd accept those kind of restrictions.

I agree, it would be totally appropriate for a Lets Learn D&D night or three. But up to Whirlwind? Jeeze.

[WickerNipple]

Hahahaha.

I just realized you're the same person posting on the Screw The Paladin thread.

Just walk away. There's tons of people to play this game with. :smallwink:

[Chronos]

I wouldn't actually recommend using Hunter's Mark all the time. The problem is that it requires concentration, and hence can't be used with Ensnaring Strike. I'd use Ensnaring until I just had one spell slot left, and then and only then start using Hunter's Mark.

[SharkForce]

Too easy? That's a new one to me.

He is aware that he controls the power of the encounters and that 'too easy' isn't possible?

Honestly I kinda suspect the problem you're having with Ranger is really more a DM created problem. They are by far the class most likely to have problems if the DM isn't willing to work with you a little bit. Sounds like this guy's the sort to just say No. As glib as the suggestion was to just switch to Fighter that tends to be my reaction to DMs like this. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

nah, screw that. switch to a full caster. someone who won't allow feats and is completely inflexible (read: the skill system is going to be basically worthless unless clearly defined, which massively reduces any expected utility you may be hoping to access) is going to result in a bad time for any non-caster. when all you've got going in your favour is damage, and your damage is being nerfed because you can't access feats, it's time to look elsewhere. unfortunately, with 4 levels already in ranger, that won't work out as well... so yeah, multiclass into another non-caster doesn't sound like a bad idea given that he's already 4 levels in. fighter or rogue both have something to offer (if you go rogue, I'd grab one final level in ranger first for extra attack).

but for your next character, I'd totally look around to find a flavour of caster that you like. even if you want to be an effective ranged or melee build, just go bard (possibly with a splash of something else).

[Psikerlord]

Hmm I think that without feats most classes are a bit bland over time. Are you allowed to multiclass? That would give you more options to make things more fun.

Otherwise, well your ranger is doing great damage, so he is effective enough. Out of combat roleplay it up as much as you can, try and obtain magic items that are interesting/create choices, use your gold to add more options like hirelings or hounds/hawks or something. You can still have fun in this game. But you will need to engage with the world/story more to keep your interest up, I think.

If you get a chance to start over, use feats next time!

[jayjay1098]

We are allowed to multiclass which is nice. I was thinking about rouge or fighter, however I did read in the RAW that you could only have one fighting style and if you multiclassed you would just get to repick. Correct me if im wrong.

[jayjay1098]

Hahahaha.

I just realized you're the same person posting on the Screw The Paladin thread.

Just walk away. There's tons of people to play this game with. :smallwink:

Haha.. that was my wife 's character problem this is mine!

[SharkForce]

We are allowed to multiclass which is nice. I was thinking about rouge or fighter, however I did read in the RAW that you could only have one fighting style and if you multiclassed you would just get to repick. Correct me if im wrong.

you're wrong. there is no limit (apart from available class levels that grant it) to how many fighting styles you can have. if you had the attributes and multiclassed appropriately, you could have as many as 3 currently, if I'm not mistaken (1 from fighter, 1 from ranger, 1 from paladin). but then, I can never remember if you get the ranger and paladin ones at first level or not. if you do, you can even have 4 (1 more from champion archetype fighter).

but yeah, if you just want to pick up the archery style, you can multiclass fighter and get that.

[WickerNipple]

We are allowed to multiclass which is nice. I was thinking about rouge or fighter, however I did read in the RAW that you could only have one fighting style and if you multiclassed you would just get to repick. Correct me if im wrong.

No you get more styles. You're just not allowed to take the same one twice.

I'm glad you get to multi-class. Either Fighter or Rogue or both work quite well with a lvl 5 ranger framework to start.

Were it I, based on what you've described above, I would probably do:
1-5 Ranger
6-7 Fighter
8+ Rogue (Assassin)

You can go back and pick up Fighter 3-4 later after you've taken Rogue up to at least 4 (you'll quite desperately need the ASI by that point, but having Archery will help).

[Vogonjeltz]

yes you get to make only a melee attack, but that's per target. Read the rest of the passage. It says you make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you. It even says you make a seperate attack roll against each target.

I also suggest reading the passage where it states

and

Then again, you'll notice that I recommend that the OP ask his DM, since I'm aware others don't see it this way.

Personally, I don't see the problem, since whirlwind attack would be objectively worse compared to volley. You'd get to make fewer attacks, put yourself in more risk, with none of the gain.

Specific trumps general. In general if you're making an attack roll it's an attack, and in general you can move between attacks (plural).

However whirlwind is specifically just one attack, which flat out contradicts the rules in general.

Cherry picking statements can certainly make things read differently, I agree.

[Gwendol]

I wouldn't actually recommend using Hunter's Mark all the time. The problem is that it requires concentration, and hence can't be used with Ensnaring Strike. I'd use Ensnaring until I just had one spell slot left, and then and only then start using Hunter's Mark.

Really? Ensnaring strike has too many restrictions for my taste: large or larger creatures save with advantage, and it seems to only affect the one creature, or do you suggest it works against multiple targets as long as the spell is active?

[MadBear]

Specific trumps general. In general if you're making an attack roll it's an attack, and in general you can move between attacks (plural).

However whirlwind is specifically just one attack, which flat out contradicts the rules in general.

Cherry picking statements can certainly make things read differently, I agree.

again, re-read the section. It's a single attack against each enemy. The singular there is to denote that you don't get to make multiple attacks against the same enemy.

It's all in how you parse the sentence out. Here let me demonstrate:

How I see it
"Whirlwind Attack: You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you,

with a separate attack roll for each target."

You combine that with the simple fact that you can move inbetween attack rolls.

how others see it:

"Whirlwind Attack: You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

So in other words, there are multiple ways to interpret this particular ability. I'm not claiming special knowledge, or that other ways are wrong. I can see exactly where you're coming from in regards to this, and I think both ways of looking at this ability are reasonable.

With that said, if I have an ability that can be interpreted 2 ways, and 1 of them is severely underpowered, and the other is moderately useful, I'll use the moderately useful interpretation.

I feel my way is way more balanced in allowing the ranger to be really decent in melee when fighting hordes and fairly mediocre vs single targets. Go ahead and compare it to volley. If it's a single attack, then at most you're hitting 8 people, and only if you're completely surrounded. Meanwhile, volley can hit 12+ people from 120 ft away.

Finally, I'll point out that whirlwinds generally aren't stationary, and the thought of a moving rangers hitting everyone along his path is way more baddass then, an attack that is generally worse then just using hordebreaker.

Using this to its fullest also requires a feat, lest you take a bunch of opportunity attacks.

[jayjay1098]

again, re-read the section. It's a single attack against each enemy. The singular there is to denote that you don't get to make multiple attacks against the same enemy.

It's all in how you parse the sentence out. Here let me demonstrate:

How I see it
"Whirlwind Attack: You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you,

with a separate attack roll for each target."

You combine that with the simple fact that you can move inbetween attack rolls.

how others see it:

"Whirlwind Attack: You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

So in other words, there are multiple ways to interpret this particular ability. I'm not claiming special knowledge, or that other ways are wrong. I can see exactly where you're coming from in regards to this, and I think both ways of looking at this ability are reasonable.

With that said, if I have an ability that can be interpreted 2 ways, and 1 of them is severely underpowered, and the other is moderately useful, I'll use the moderately useful interpretation.

I feel my way is way more balanced in allowing the ranger to be really decent in melee when fighting hordes and fairly mediocre vs single targets. Go ahead and compare it to volley. If it's a single attack, then at most you're hitting 8 people, and only if you're completely surrounded. Meanwhile, volley can hit 12+ people from 120 ft away.

Finally, I'll point out that whirlwinds generally aren't stationary, and the thought of a moving rangers hitting everyone along his path is way more baddass then, an attack that is generally worse then just using hordebreaker.

Using this to its fullest also requires a feat, lest you take a bunch of opportunity attacks.

Unfortunately, we are unable to have feats, so I will be susceptible to opp. attacks by any monsters if I do move in and out of their reach. I was thinking of swift quiver in tandem with volley attack. "You can attack up to any number of monsters you see, as long as you have the ammo for each one"

Any suggestions on this combination in the future?

[Person_Man]

@MadBear

Why do you believe the designers wrote Whirlwind Attack the way they did if they intended for it to be used against any enemy you moved past, instead of one attack against all enemies within 5 feet, which is the plain English reading of the ability?

[Easy_Lee]

Why do you believe the designers wrote Whirlwind Attack the way they did if they intended for it to be used against any enemy you moved past, instead of one attack against all enemies within 5 feet, which is the plain English reading of the ability?

I have a rather different theory. Whirlwind attack is, in every way, inferior to volley. Whirlwind has a smaller area of effect, is less accurate (archery), and cannot benefit from reach because the text explicitly states that targets must be within 5'. It also leaves the ranger in harm's way, making it difficult for allies to add follow-up AoE. And a dual wielding ranger using it not only does less damage than a longbow, but can't even use his bonus action to attack by the RAW (text says you must specifically take the attack action to qualify for the bonus attack). The one downside to volley, cover, can be largely ignored via the sharpshooter feat that just about any dedicated archer will take.

In short, Whirlwind absolutely sucks and is inferior to volley in every way imaginable.

But movement between attack rolls is allowed by the RAW. Therefore, one can move between hits of whirlwind, and arguably extend its range. This makes sense in a fashion, since one has to give up nearly ones entire round to perform the attack. Further, it gives whirlwind attack one single advantage over volley, in response to valley's numerous advantages.

So I don't think the intent matters so much here in face of the point that this interpretation is better for the game. Without this interpretation, there would never be any reason to take whirlwind. At least this version lets the ability be useful. And if one reads and notices the very different language between this and volley, and recognizes that movement between volley attacks would not change valley's range, it's very easy to assume that at least some devs were aware and approved of this tactic.

[MadBear]

@MadBear

Why do you believe the designers wrote Whirlwind Attack the way they did if they intended for it to be used against any enemy you moved past, instead of one attack against all enemies within 5 feet, which is the plain English reading of the ability?

I had a lengthy reply, but Easy stole it right out of my mouth.


I have a rather different theory. Whirlwind attack is, in every way, inferior to volley. Whirlwind has a smaller area of effect, is less accurate (archery), and cannot benefit from reach because the text explicitly states that targets must be within 5'. It also leaves the ranger in harm's way, making it difficult for allies to add follow-up AoE. And a dual wielding ranger using it not only does less damage than a longbow, but can't even use his bonus action to attack by the RAW (text says you must specifically take the attack action to qualify for the bonus attack). The one downside to volley, cover, can be largely ignored via the sharpshooter feat that just about any dedicated archer will take.

In short, Whirlwind absolutely sucks and is inferior to volley in every way imaginable.

But movement between attack rolls is allowed by the RAW. Therefore, one can move between hits of whirlwind, and arguably extend its range. This makes sense in a fashion, since one has to give up nearly ones entire round to perform the attack. Further, it gives whirlwind attack one single advantage over volley, in response to valley's numerous advantages.

So I don't think the intent matters so much here in face of the point that this interpretation is better for the game. Without this interpretation, there would never be any reason to take whirlwind. At least this version lets the ability be useful. And if one reads and notices the very different language between this and volley, and recognizes that movement between volley attacks would not change valley's range, it's very easy to assume that at least some devs were aware and approved of this tactic.

[WickerNipple]

I also don't think they Intended for whirlwind to be used this way, but I can't think of a single other reason for someone to play a melee ranger, so I'd be happy to let someone do it in one of my games.

[BootStrapTommy]

The big thing I'll say is plan for Hunter. The whole "use your action to make you animal companion use their's" makes an animal companion good for little more than flanking bonuses, making Beast Master blow...

[MadBear]

The big thing I'll say is plan for Hunter. The whole "use your action to make you animal companion use their's" makes an animal companion good for little more than flanking bonuses, making Beast Master blow...

umm, that's not a fair assessment at all. At level 3-4 (which are the only levels you have to make this choice) the beasts attacks are probably better then your own (since they typically add a rider effect). From that point onward, you both get to attack. The BM is the only one other then a fighter who will be making more then 3 attacks a turn (2 for beast, 1 for ranger). Add in hunters mark, TWF, etc. you have a pretty lethal combo.

From everything I've heard, it looks weak on paper, but plays very well.

...... with all that said, I still prefer hunter.

[jayjay1098]

As a ranger who chose the forest as my favoured terrain, now that the party has gone away from forested areas, I feel to be somewhat useless and weakened. Also the favoured enemy I find to be a useless skill, where the only advantage you have on your favoured enemy is only for tracking not for combat. You would think that as your favoured enemy you could know their weaknesses and have at least a +1 on any sort of dmg.

I will probably try speaking to our DM to change the favoured enemy as it gives little to know advantage. Ranger is more of a RP character than anything else (Which I am completely fine with it, but once I am out of my terrain or not tracking my enemy I become useless in RP also.)

Just my experience and thought on the Ranger.

[Person_Man]

In short, Whirlwind absolutely sucks and is inferior to volley in every way imaginable.

So I don't think the intent matters so much here in face of the point that this interpretation is better for the game.

So you're willing to stipulate that the designers did intend for the plain English reading of Whirlwind Attack, but what they intended sucks, so we should ignore them and DM fiat (or rules lawyer argue) it into a different ability?

OK.

But almost all of the Ranger's high levels abilities basically suck. Instead of trying to argue a DM into a reading of the rule that was clearly not intended, why not just homebrew a Ranger fix and propose it as such, insteady of muddying the RAW issue?

For example:

Rangers can change their selection of Favored Enemy/Terrains as part of a Long Rest.
Rangers can change their spell selection as part of a Long Rest.
Whirlwind Attack with a Reach weapon may be used to make an attack against all enemies within your reach. Whirlwind Attack with TWF lets you use your Bonus Action to make a second attack against all enemies within 5 ft.
Vanish (14th level ability) is replaced by Swift Spells. When using the Ranger's spellcasting ability to cast a spell from the Ranger's spell list with a casting time of a Bonus Action, the Ranger may instead choose to cast those spells as a Reaction during their turn. (In other words, Rangers get stuck with 1/2 casting and have very few spell slots per day, but can at least use their Bonus Action spells with TWF or Crossbow Expert or Animal Companion, rather then having to compete with them. This is comparable to the Paladin's ability to use Smite + Smite spells for nova damage a limited number of times per day).

[MadBear]

Instead of trying to argue a DM into a reading of the rule that was clearly not intended, why not just homebrew a Ranger fix and propose it as such, insteady of muddying the RAW issue?


Simple. Because both me and the DM thought this fit within the rules paradigm, it's simple & elegant, it's fun. I don't think any other reasons are needed. If you choose to read it the other way, that makes it suck, and then homebrew new rules for the Ranger, that's also fine. I just find that fix more bulky, and less elegant then simply allowing what the rules allow whirlwind attack to do.

[Easy_Lee]

So you're willing to stipulate that the designers did intend for the plain English reading of Whirlwind Attack, but what they intended sucks, so we should ignore them and DM fiat (or rules lawyer argue) it into a different ability?

On the contrary, I believe some designers were aware of the interpretation, and left it intentionally vague so that each DM and table might make their own ruling. It's the kind of thing I would personally leave in specifically as a reward for players who notice it. Whether those players are creative and clever for spotting it, or munchkins for trying to abuse unclear rules is largely up to one's outlook; in my opinion, it's clever.

In addition, and I regards to your question, I prefer to use the RAW rather than coming up with Homebrew, particularly when it comes to posting in forums. There are a few reasons for this:

No every table allows Homebrew. Double penalty, because it can be difficult to move your character between games for this reason.
Homebrew is often untested. The actual power of an ability, particularly how it works with other abilities, is difficult to determine. This leads to many homebrews being overpowered, underpowered, or situationally broken when used a certain way. I suspect that we all remember PRCs like this from 3.5e.
Homebrew just isn't as rewarding as building a concept within the published rules. Much like my mounted beast master build, I very much enjoy finding creative ways to make the most of "weak," unpopular options.

That said, I respect your opinion on this and can certainly see where you're coming from. I don't hold it against you, or anyone else, if a person disagrees with me. Also, you're one of my favorite posters on the forums, and I very much enjoy reading your posts for your insight and experience.

[Vogonjeltz]

again, re-read the section. It's a single attack against each enemy. The singular there is to denote that you don't get to make multiple attacks against the same enemy.

It says (and I quote) "make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you". The phrase that indicates you make seperate attack rolls for each target is offset by a comma, this makes it discrete from the quoted phrase.


I have a rather different theory. Whirlwind attack is, in every way, inferior to volley. Whirlwind has a smaller area of effect, is less accurate (archery), and cannot benefit from reach because the text explicitly states that targets must be within 5'. It also leaves the ranger in harm's way, making it difficult for allies to add follow-up AoE. And a dual wielding ranger using it not only does less damage than a longbow, but can't even use his bonus action to attack by the RAW (text says you must specifically take the attack action to qualify for the bonus attack). The one downside to volley, cover, can be largely ignored via the sharpshooter feat that just about any dedicated archer will take.

In short, Whirlwind absolutely sucks and is inferior to volley in every way imaginable.

But movement between attack rolls is allowed by the RAW. Therefore, one can move between hits of whirlwind, and arguably extend its range. This makes sense in a fashion, since one has to give up nearly ones entire round to perform the attack. Further, it gives whirlwind attack one single advantage over volley, in response to valley's numerous advantages.

So I don't think the intent matters so much here in face of the point that this interpretation is better for the game. Without this interpretation, there would never be any reason to take whirlwind. At least this version lets the ability be useful. And if one reads and notices the very different language between this and volley, and recognizes that movement between volley attacks would not change valley's range, it's very easy to assume that at least some devs were aware and approved of this tactic.

I don't accept this logic, the relative power of an ability tells us nothing at all about authorial intent. That being said, the Volley Drawbacks balance it against Whirlwind Attack, but not if you were capable of moving during Whirlwind Attack.

Volley Allows the Ranger to hit up to 16 tightly clustered targets. Whirlwind allows the Ranger to hit up to 9 targets surrounding you. If you could move between attack rolls (even though the attack is taking place from one location(!)) then the Ranger could hit up to 32 targets. It's also important to note that Volley is reliant on ammunition, Whirlwind isn't. So if you have a full quiver you could at best volley vs 20 targets, then you're out of luck. That's less targets than a single Whirlwind would be capable of targeting if we went ahead and ignored the language used.

This being the case, the interpretation offered is inherently worse for the game as Volley would be, under no circumstances, better than Whirlwind Attack.


But movement between attack rolls is allowed by the RAW.

No it isn't RAW. Here is what the rule on Moving Between Attacks states:

"If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks."

Note the bolded portion requiring attacks, plural.

And the Whirlwind Attack (note, singular) is written as:

"You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

Note the bolded portion indicating that this is a single attack, which necessitates the language after the comma, without which we would naturally make a single attack roll.

Now, the bit that's being shoehorned to try and allow movement in between is on page 194: "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."

Because Whirlwind Attacks status as an attack is not in question, this bit offers no value.

[jayjay1098]

It says (and I quote) "make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you". The phrase that indicates you make seperate attack rolls for each target is offset by a comma, this makes it discrete from the quoted phrase.



I don't accept this logic, the relative power of an ability tells us nothing at all about authorial intent. That being said, the Volley Drawbacks balance it against Whirlwind Attack, but not if you were capable of moving during Whirlwind Attack.

Volley Allows the Ranger to hit up to 16 tightly clustered targets. Whirlwind allows the Ranger to hit up to 9 targets surrounding you. If you could move between attack rolls (even though the attack is taking place from one location(!)) then the Ranger could hit up to 32 targets. It's also important to note that Volley is reliant on ammunition, Whirlwind isn't. So if you have a full quiver you could at best volley vs 20 targets, then you're out of luck. That's less targets than a single Whirlwind would be capable of targeting if we went ahead and ignored the language used.

This being the case, the interpretation offered is inherently worse for the game as Volley would be, under no circumstances, better than Whirlwind Attack.



No it isn't RAW. Here is what the rule on Moving Between Attacks states:

"If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks."

Note the bolded portion requiring attacks, plural.

And the Whirlwind Attack (note, singular) is written as:

"You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

Note the bolded portion indicating that this is a single attack, which necessitates the language after the comma, without which we would naturally make a single attack roll.

Now, the bit that's being shoehorned to try and allow movement in between is on page 194: "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."

Because Whirlwind Attacks status as an attack is not in question, this bit offers no value.

Would not the swift quiver spell combined with volley attack make it virtually unlimited?

[Easy_Lee]

if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

I rest my case. As always, DMs may rule however they choose.

[MadBear]

And the Whirlwind Attack (note, singular) is written as:

"You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

Maybe I'm not being clear, in which case I apologize. The comma and the part about the roll is completely seperate from where are difference in parsing the sentence is messing us up.

let me try bolding the relevant sect

"You can use your action to make a melee attack against any number of creatures within 5 feet of you, with a separate attack roll for each target."

To me this reads that I'm making multiple melee attacks, but only a singular attack per enemy.

Maybe my point will make sense if we use an analogy.

"You will butter one slice of the bread for every customer that has ordered dinner rolls with their pasta"

This doesn't mean that I'm only buttering 1 slice of bread total. Only that I'm buttering 1 slice of bread per person that ordered the dang roll.

In the same sense, I'm not making 1 melee attack. I'm making 1 melee attack per person within 5 feet of me.

Hopefully, that clears up where I'm coming from. From the RAW perspective, the rules works perfectly fine as I've stated, and from an RAI I think it's vague enough that it's up for each DM to decide.

[Gwendol]

The problem here is that the rules for moving between attacks seem to allow for movement between strikes when using whirlwind attack.

If you take an action that includes more than one
weapon attack, you can break up your movement even
further by moving between those attacks.

Using Whirlwind attack is taking an action, that includes more than one weapon attack. An attack roll is made for each target, thus making it a weapon attack.

The question remains if whirlwind attack only applies to those targets that are within 5' at the time the action is initiated.

[Myzz]

Can you move while Flame Breathing an area?

The answer should of course be NO

Whirlwind ATTACK, is a singular attack that effects multiple foes who must be within 5 ft of you when the attack is made. Instead of forcing each target to make a save, you as the attacker must make an attack vs their static AC value...

Using this version of Whirlwind Attack requires that you set up the attack ahead of time and tactically position foes to maximize its effectiveness.



To the OP... Have an open chat about changing to Archery if you would indeed prefer archery... Be sure to point out that you did not quite understand everything going on with the rules when you started... If he still won't allow adjustments. Just grab 2 weapons and wade into combat like you think you Can't be touched! You'll either be frickin awesome... or you'll be dead and can make a character you know more about now and will actually have fun playing!

As a DM, I'm not a fan of suiciding characters... BUT, I am also willing to work with my players to ensure they are having fun as long as its not at the detriment of the setting, and other players FUN!

[MadBear]

Can you move while Flame Breathing an area?

The answer should of course be NO

Whirlwind ATTACK, is a singular attack that effects multiple foes who must be within 5 ft of you when the attack is made. Instead of forcing each target to make a save, you as the attacker must make an attack vs their static AC value...

I totally agree that this is one perfectly valid and acceptable way to read that rule.

[Gwendol]

Myzz, fire breathing is not the same as a weapon attack vs AC. Your example is flawed. I gave a sensible explanation of the rules and left an open question. Can I thus assume you believe the enemies have to be within 5' when initiating the action?

[ChubbyRain]

On the Moving Whirlwind topic...

Do note that WotC has horrible experience in writing what they actually mean. To them it may be clear that whirlwind can be used or can not be used while moving, but to everyone else it is not.

Even if the intent is to stay still, whirlwind's writing allows for you to move during the attacks.

Intent be damned though, a moving whirlwind makes the ability awesome. And it balances it a bit better with Volley.

[jayjay1098]

OP HERE:

Spoke to DM and we will be capped at level 20. Is there even a reason to multiclass when you are being capped, any suggestions on what levels to multiclass given the circumstances?

I was thinking Ranger 15, Fighter 2, Rouge 3

[Strill]

New to D&D and we had started the 5th edition. Our DM has played the previous editions he suggested we roll for our races and backgrounds no feats allowed. I had rolled a dragonborn noble.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. How does a dragonborn manage to get a noble title?

[jayjay1098]

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. How does a dragonborn manage to get a noble title?

We rolled for our background and race. Since we were fairly new to the game DM decided that not to overwhelm us we would roll for these specific categories. Twas the fate of the die.

[Strill]

OP HERE:

Spoke to DM and we will be capped at level 20. Is there even a reason to multiclass when you are being capped, any suggestions on what levels to multiclass given the circumstances?

I was thinking Ranger 15, Fighter 2, Rouge 3

Level 20 is the default maximum. You should know that it's a very, very long way away. Don't assume that you'll even end up reaching level 20 over the course of the game.

[jayjay1098]

Level 20 is the default maximum. You should know that it's a very, very long way away. Don't assume that you'll even end up reaching level 20 over the course of the game.
I realize that, but I am expecting my character to die by 7 haha. I like to plan ahead of time, or gain suggestions in case the time comes for me to choose.

[Yagyujubei]

Hot damn, man. Honestly, I'd never game with your DM. I like my options, unless i know for SURE that it's a short term adventure or one shot...then i'd accept those kind of restrictions.

That being said, stick with the bonuses you've taken. you'll feel even more underpowered than you currently do. Alternatively, dip a level or two into fighter (to pick up archery) and you can freely switch between both.

nooo jokes man, your DM sounds like a total buzzkill, and the game he's crafted sounds like the biggest pile of not-fun that i've ever heard of...I would walk away even if he was my friend. there are plenty of games online looking for players.

I would write down the points in madbear's(i think) post about the logic of being able to move during whirlwind strike. strictly RAW it looks to me like it works taking into account the various phrasings, and if you think of it that way the move is seriously overpowered and would be fun.

otherwise, your main thing will just be to get your AC up. does your game have magic items? try to get your DM to grant you some bracers of defense as treasure to suppliment your AC, aside from that there isnt much you can do.

EDIT: oh or that, if your character were to die you could roll a full caster which would be so, so much better if you cant use feats.

[jayjay1098]

nooo jokes man, your DM sounds like a total buzzkill, and the game he's crafted sounds like the biggest pile of not-fun that i've ever heard of...I would walk away even if he was my friend. there are plenty of games online looking for players.

I would write down the points in madbear's(i think) post about the logic of being able to move during whirlwind strike. strictly RAW it looks to me like it works taking into account the various phrasings, and if you think of it that way the move is seriously overpowered and would be fun.

otherwise, your main thing will just be to get your AC up. does your game have magic items? try to get your DM to grant you some bracers of defense as treasure to suppliment your AC, aside from that there isnt much you can do.

EDIT: oh or that, if your character were to die you could roll a full caster which would be so, so much better if you cant use feats.

Nah not a buzz kill. Our entire group is enjoying the campaign, personally I just got bad rolls on my race and background, so I just wanted to know how to compensate for that.

There are magical items in his world and we are in the process of exploring an ancient temple which is said to have ancient items and treasure.

Right now I am in leather armour which is 11+dex I believe. I was thinking of purchasing new armour like scalemail but I always wondering why it says 14+Dex(Max 2) does that mean the highest AC can only be 16?

[Gwendol]

Correct on the max AC.

[SharkForce]

Nah not a buzz kill. Our entire group is enjoying the campaign, personally I just got bad rolls on my race and background, so I just wanted to know how to compensate for that.

There are magical items in his world and we are in the process of exploring an ancient temple which is said to have ancient items and treasure.

Right now I am in leather armour which is 11+dex I believe. I was thinking of purchasing new armour like scalemail but I always wondering why it says 14+Dex(Max 2) does that mean the highest AC can only be 16?

yes, maximum AC in scale is 16 (unless you spend a feat. which you shouldn't). in all likelihood, studded leather (or a friendly caster with mage armour) will be the better route to go if you're dex-based. if you're strength-based, well, go for the best medium armour you can get.

[Daishain]

Nah not a buzz kill. Our entire group is enjoying the campaign, personally I just got bad rolls on my race and background, so I just wanted to know how to compensate for that.

There are magical items in his world and we are in the process of exploring an ancient temple which is said to have ancient items and treasure.

Right now I am in leather armour which is 11+dex I believe. I was thinking of purchasing new armour like scalemail but I always wondering why it says 14+Dex(Max 2) does that mean the highest AC can only be 16?
Highest AC you can get with both leather and scale mail is 16 ( and that becomes 17 for the next and last step up in each category), but medium armor requires less investment in ability scores to get full benefit. Until you get a 20 in Dex, medium armor will remain the better option, at 20 Dex they offer the same AC, light armor just lets you avoid the stealth penalties that some medium armors carry.

The best you can do is pairing the medium armor master feat with half plate. 18 AC with no stealth penalty. Technically, that combination makes for the best non magical armor in the game (discounting maxed out unarmored defense). Some are of the opinion that the benefit is not worth the cost, and I'm not going to outright disagree with them, but it remains an intriguing option.

[jayjay1098]

Highest AC you can get with both leather and scale mail is 16 ( and that becomes 17 for the next and last step up in each category), but medium armor requires less investment in ability scores to get full benefit. Until you get a 20 in Dex, medium armor will remain the better option, at 20 Dex they offer the same AC, light armor just lets you avoid the stealth penalties that some medium armors carry.

The best you can do is pairing the medium armor master feat with half plate. 18 AC with no stealth penalty. Technically, that combination makes for the best non magical armor in the game (discounting maxed out unarmored defense). Some are of the opinion that the benefit is not worth the cost, and I'm not going to outright disagree with them, but it remains an intriguing option.

I wish that was an option but feats are not included in our campaign. But how would scalemail provide 17 AC when it is 14+DEX(+3 which is my modifier) but it says MAX2 what is max 2 referring to?

[Yagyujubei]

I wish that was an option but feats are not included in our campaign. But how would scalemail provide 17 AC when it is 14+DEX(+3 which is my modifier) but it says MAX2 what is max 2 referring to?

the medium armor master feat lets your get +3 from your dex bonus while wearing med. armor.

so like i said, if you can get your hands on studded leather and bracers of defence for a 14 base, and then pump your dex as much as you can with your ASI's. you would get 12+DEX from studded leather, and +2 to AC from the bracers. that way you could max out at 19AC with 20 DEX and still dual wield.

[MustacheFart]

the medium armor master feat lets your get +3 from your dex bonus while wearing med. armor.

so like i said, if you can get your hands on studded leather and bracers of defence for a 14 base, and then pump your dex as much as you can with your ASI's. you would get 12+DEX from studded leather, and +2 to AC from the bracers. that way you could max out at 19AC with 20 DEX and still dual wield.

I believe Bracers of Defense do not work if you're wearing any armor.

[SharkForce]

Highest AC you can get with both leather and scale mail is 16 ( and that becomes 17 for the next and last step up in each category), but medium armor requires less investment in ability scores to get full benefit. Until you get a 20 in Dex, medium armor will remain the better option, at 20 Dex they offer the same AC, light armor just lets you avoid the stealth penalties that some medium armors carry.

The best you can do is pairing the medium armor master feat with half plate. 18 AC with no stealth penalty. Technically, that combination makes for the best non magical armor in the game (discounting maxed out unarmored defense). Some are of the opinion that the benefit is not worth the cost, and I'm not going to outright disagree with them, but it remains an intriguing option.

nah, best nonmagical armour in the game is definitely full plate + heavy armour mastery. it's not as good for stealth (obviously), but you're not wearing your armour to be stealthy, you're wearing armour to keep those pointy objects on the outside of your body where they belong.

[ChubbyRain]

Quoted because of the name

I found this on reddit and thought, this is what a ranger's pet should be...

You being the last to respond when I came here was a happy accident.


http://i.imgur.com/gEmdCtK.jpg

[MrStabby]

So looking at the Whirlwind attack and how it is written I do think that it should let you move but that the eligible targets are only those within 5 ft of you when begin your action. Now one oddity here is that it doesn't specify that it is a Melee Weapon attack like every other similar ability (and lookeng at the Melee Attacks section on p195 of the rulebook includes spells as Melee Attacks). Making your whirlwind attack with a Thorn Whip (probably from Magic Initiate) would deal 3d6 damage to each creature hit at lvl 11 (when you get the ability).

I could be tempted by this - I think it could be quite a thematically strong class to have ranger and druid together. You could use Shillelagh for your close combat weapon and pump Wisdom pretty hard if you wanted. Ranger spells can be pretty good and getting more spell slots to use them in is no bad thing (especially if maxing Wisdom to make saves harder). If you wanted to you could even skip the Ranger's higher level abilities and just focus on Druid from lvl 5 onwards although it may push you towards Archery, which you may have missed.

Failing that I think that Rogue is maybe the way to go at higher levels. Assassinate + a couple of levels of sneak attack + normal damage + maybe poison + stat bonus will spread around a decent amount of damage. To be fair though this does just highlight how awesome fireball is which does 4/8 d6 at just over 1/3rd of the level.

Ideally you could do both at high enough level - use the ranger stealth bonus to get into position, assassinate to auto crit, and do 3d6 damage to everything with a thorn whip (doubled). Unfortunately it wouldn't add sneak attack dice... but you cant have everything.

[jayjay1098]

the medium armor master feat lets your get +3 from your dex bonus while wearing med. armor.

so like i said, if you can get your hands on studded leather and bracers of defence for a 14 base, and then pump your dex as much as you can with your ASI's. you would get 12+DEX from studded leather, and +2 to AC from the bracers. that way you could max out at 19AC with 20 DEX and still dual wield.

Would be nice but we cannot use feats in our party the DM feels they are OP

[Daishain]

the medium armor master feat lets your get +3 from your dex bonus while wearing med. armor.

so like i said, if you can get your hands on studded leather and bracers of defence for a 14 base, and then pump your dex as much as you can with your ASI's. you would get 12+DEX from studded leather, and +2 to AC from the bracers. that way you could max out at 19AC with 20 DEX and still dual wield.
Bracers of defense don't work if you're wearing armor of any kind. Fortunately, cloak of protection has no such restriction (and adds to saves as well as a bonus)

Of course, I suspect the point is moot. I suspect that mr "feats are OP" is unlikely to allow magic items, much less one that this guy is specifically looking for.

[jayjay1098]

There are magic items in the realm. We gotten one as part of loot in our previous campaign

[Easy_Lee]

So, if I have this straight, your DM made you randomly select a race and doesn't allow feats? I hate this guy.

[ChubbyRain]

So, if I have this straight, your DM made you randomly select a race and doesn't allow feats? I hate this guy.

Not just that, but thinks feats are OP.

Lol!

[jayjay1098]

So, if I have this straight, your DM made you randomly select a race and doesn't allow feats? I hate this guy.

Just didnt want to overwhelm us with reading. I can always leave the party haha and come back a new char

[Daishain]

There are magic items in the realm. We gotten one as part of loot in our previous campaign
That's actually rather surprising. Between feats and magic items, the latter are to a significant degree the most likely to cause a power imbalance.


Just didnt want to overwhelm us with reading. I can always leave the party haha and come back a new char
Poor excuse for a bad idea. You still have to do the reading in order to figure out what to do with your randomly determined character. In the meantime you've been robbed of your chance to make a character that actually reflects what you want to play.

[Malifice]

In short, Whirlwind absolutely sucks and is inferior to volley in every way imaginable.

Aside from when you are surrounded by monsters trying to stick sharp pointy things in you, with no means of escape.

Which happens reasonably frequently.

[SharkForce]

Aside from when you are surrounded by monsters trying to stick sharp pointy things in you, with no means of escape.

Which happens reasonably frequently.

really? what are you doing spending all your time away from walls and the rest of the party, allowing a horde of monsters to surround you and get free attacks? because i'll admit i've been in situations where i've been massively outnumbered, but the party i was in always grouped up tightly enough to make sure that we weren't individually surrounded to try and keep the number of attacks we faced. either you or they are doing something wrong if you get fully surrounded "reasonably frequently".

[Malifice]

really? what are you doing spending all your time away from walls and the rest of the party, allowing a horde of monsters to surround you and get free attacks? because i'll admit i've been in situations where i've been massively outnumbered, but the party i was in always grouped up tightly enough to make sure that we weren't individually surrounded to try and keep the number of attacks we faced. either you or they are doing something wrong if you get fully surrounded "reasonably frequently".

In mazes of dungeons featuring 10' wide corridors and 30' by 30' rooms, or mass combat or surprise situations, it happens reasonably frequently.

Maybe your DM lets you always choose the terrain or encounters to suit, and has his monsters only attack melee types while letting spellcasters and archers rain death with impunity, but from my experience this is quite rare.

[SharkForce]

In mazes of dungeons featuring 10' wide corridors and 30' by 30' rooms, or mass combat or surprise situations, it happens reasonably frequently.

Maybe your DM lets you always choose the terrain or encounters to suit, and has his monsters only attack melee types while letting spellcasters and archers rain death with impunity, but from my experience this is quite rare.

unless you have an odd fixation with not standing next to the rest of your party... no. no it doesn't. my DM does have monsters attack the casters and others behind the front line when appropriate (and are quite willing to decide that, no, 2 fighters in the front line are not going to keep 30 orcs, 5 ogres, and a couple of trolls from being able to get at least *some* of those pushing through the line).

but that's not going to get you fully surrounded. that gets you partly surrounded, because if you're not insane you're at the very least standing back to back or side by sidevor trying to put your back or sides to a wall or corner (preferably not corner, that means there's no retreat) or tree or something while trying to fend off enemies, and as such are more likely to be surrounded on only 2-3 sides, and sometimes only 1 side for some people in the formation.

a ranger (or anyone else for that matter) is unlikely to ever be surrounded on all sides. it just doesn't come up often, even if you want to get in a whirlwind attack, because having 8 targets means that 8 enemies have you as a target, and you're probably going to get killed.

[Yagyujubei]

ah lame i thought bracers worked with no armor OR light...AFB strikes again. and just for the record ASI =/= feat. if dm isnt allowing stat increases he's a straight *****. thats taking away class features for no reason, and like a third of what makes u more powerful as u level..lame lame lame

[Malifice]

unless you have an odd fixation with not standing next to the rest of your party... no. no it doesn't. my DM does have monsters attack the casters and others behind the front line when appropriate (and are quite willing to decide that, no, 2 fighters in the front line are not going to keep 30 orcs, 5 ogres, and a couple of trolls from being able to get at least *some* of those pushing through the line).

but that's not going to get you fully surrounded. that gets you partly surrounded, because if you're not insane you're at the very least standing back to back or side by sidevor trying to put your back or sides to a wall or corner (preferably not corner, that means there's no retreat) or tree or something while trying to fend off enemies, and as such are more likely to be surrounded on only 2-3 sides, and sometimes only 1 side for some people in the formation.

a ranger (or anyone else for that matter) is unlikely to ever be surrounded on all sides. it just doesn't come up often, even if you want to get in a whirlwind attack, because having 8 targets means that 8 enemies have you as a target, and you're probably going to get killed.

That's your experiences man. But it happens.

Particularly if you're a melee ranger and not a ranged one ( so you'll be up the front anyways) and particularly taking into account 5th editions love of mooks/ mob encounters.

Fighters (and by this I include barbarians etc) being surrounded by multiple enemies is not that rare in games I play.

You can argue it doesn't happen all you want, but I have no idea why, because... Well... you're wrong.

[ChubbyRain]

That's your experiences man. But it happens.

Particularly if you're a melee ranger and not a ranged one ( so you'll be up the front anyways) and particularly taking into account 5th editions love of mooks/ mob encounters.

Fighters (and by this I include barbarians etc) being surrounded by multiple enemies is not that rare in games I play.

You can argue it doesn't happen all you want, but I have no idea why, because... Well... you're wrong.

You might need to check out a book about some basic tactics, because generally it is not good tactics to plan on being surrounded. If you are going into battle to be surrounded then that is your death wish.

One would typically avoid being surrounded... Especially now when hordes of low CR creatures are still a threat at higher levels.

[MrStabby]

Heh, being surrounded is often bad but Jump + Thunderwave to open combat is pretty fun. That said if you can move out from the crowd afterwards its better.

[SharkForce]

That's your experiences man. But it happens.

Particularly if you're a melee ranger and not a ranged one ( so you'll be up the front anyways) and particularly taking into account 5th editions love of mooks/ mob encounters.

Fighters (and by this I include barbarians etc) being surrounded by multiple enemies is not that rare in games I play.

You can argue it doesn't happen all you want, but I have no idea why, because... Well... you're wrong.

multiple enemies yes. completely surrounded no. and considering how much better it is to focus damage than to spread it out (courtesy of 1 HP enemies doing just as much damage as 100 HP enemies), whirlwind attack needs to be granting you at least a couple more attacks than you'd otherwise get to be worthwhile. it just isn't nearly as commonly valuable, or even close to it, as volley. unless you can move around.

[Person_Man]

On a related note, has anyone seen or played a Beastmaster Ranger in a real game? The theorycrafting consensus seems to be "sub-par though not as terrible as it looks once you consider X, Y, Z." But I wonder if there's any unseen benefits people have been able to figure out in a real game.

[MrStabby]

I think the beastmaster is severely hampered by the Moon Druid.

A lot of things that maybe the Beastmaster could do come down to DM choice and what beasts can do. Moon druids being perceived to be very powerful tends to drive the interpretation into the narrower end of that spectrum. I also think that as the beast ability is not like abilities that affect your combat skills directly it doesnt stack well with benefits from other classes and hence to commit to it you have to be sure you want to go Beastmaster all the way.

I almost played one, but was persuaded not to in the the end as the narrowness and lack of choice of development put me off.

[Person_Man]

I think the beastmaster is severely hampered by the Moon Druid.

I agree with the general sentiment, but I'm not sure if that's completely true. But I think there are a few things a Beastmaster does that a Moon Druid doesn't do.

Ranger 5 with Giant Badger Companion gets three attacks at level 5 (one Ranger, two from Badger with Multiattack), and five attacks at level 11 (one Ranger, four from Badger with Multiattack taking two Attack Actions). Moon Druid will never get this many attacks.
Small Ranger with a Pteranodon Companion gets a flying mount (with a ridiculous speed, especially once you hit 7th level and can command it to Dash with your Bonus Action). Moon Druid can turn into flying creatures, but will never be able to match the Ranger's at-will damage (Archery Fighting Style + Sharpshooter + Hunter's Mark).

[MrStabby]

Yes sorry I agree. I was just thinking that making beasts better makes the moon druid OP therefore DMs don't give favourable interpretations to Beast abilities.

For what it's worth my character concept was to have a Ranger that was a jungle dweller stereotype - Pygamy (halfling) with blowpipes and a poisonous snake as an animal companion. I would grapple opponents and the snake would repeatedly hit them with poison attacks in close combat (snake also provides the venom to poison my darts). 3 damage + proficiency per turn just didn't get me excited though.

[ChubbyRain]

On a related note, has anyone seen or played a Beastmaster Ranger in a real game? The theorycrafting consensus seems to be "sub-par though not as terrible as it looks once you consider X, Y, Z." But I wonder if there's any unseen benefits people have been able to figure out in a real game.

Yup!

Mid to late levels they did fine, it wasn't in games that relied on optimization that much. Their level 20 capstone is fricken terrible but a little homebrewing fixed that. Seriously, all the caster get casting mod to damage way earlier than that, and on at-will abilities to boot. Weird.

Give them expertise at 6th level at least.

To bad the Moon druid can't function as your animal companion... Then the beast master ranger would be fun as hell.... Giving up your attacks so the druid can attack...

Can we make this thing?

[Easy_Lee]

Ranger 5 with Giant Badger Companion gets three attacks at level 5 (one Ranger, two from Badger with Multiattack), and five attacks at level 11 (one Ranger, four from Badger with Multiattack taking two Attack Actions). Moon Druid will never get this many attacks.
Small Ranger with a Pteranodon Companion gets a flying mount (with a ridiculous speed, especially once you hit 7th level and can command it to Dash with your Bonus Action). Moon Druid can turn into flying creatures, but will never be able to match the Ranger's at-will damage (Archery Fighting Style + Sharpshooter + Hunter's Mark).


A few things:

Rangers can command their beast to make an attack action. That does not necessarily mean the "multiattack" action; one has to ask one's DM.
A halfling riding his beast can command it to take the Dodge, disengage, or dash action as its action without spending his action or bonus action at any level. This is because the mounted combat rules allow the rider to give these commands for free, as this section of book does not indicate that directing your mount to take these three actions requires spending your own action. Further, an intelligent mount can act on its own, as clearly stated in the same section, leading to the same conclusion if one's trained companion can be considered intelligent (what if the BM gets a druid to Awaken it?). The beastmaster who rides his companion has the option of spending his action or bonus action to make these commands, as per the BM section, but does not have to due to the equally specific mounted combat rules. Anything that counts as a mount may use these rules. This may lead to the possibility of making your mount dash twice or three times in the same round via the mounted combat free command plus the BM action / bonus action command, though a savvy DM will likely reject that cheese.
Beasts are still capable of reactions and bonus attacks (as specified in the actions section of their stat blocks) unless one's DM rules otherwise. Some beast selections, such as panthers, have bonus action potential that does not conflict with the BM rules. Moving away from a mounted BM would provoke an OA from both the BM and his beast at the same time, and both have separate reactions (since the book does not say otherwise).
A mount can provoke opportunity attacks, which can target the mount or its rider, but its rider does not, as per the mounted combat section. This is important, because a halfling riding his companion and directing it (as per mounted combat rules) to disengage will not provoke opportunity attacks. A halfling riding a pteranodon will never provoke OA at all due to the pteranodon's ability.

There's more in the Breaking BM link in my signature. The gist of it is that riding one's companion is the only way to play a BM effectively, it is quite powerful to do so, and no other build is going to have nearly as many things to clarify with the DM.

[Malifice]

You might need to check out a book about some basic tactics, because generally it is not good tactics to plan on being surrounded. If you are going into battle to be surrounded then that is your death wish.

One would typically avoid being surrounded... Especially now when hordes of low CR creatures are still a threat at higher levels.

Really? Its not a good idea to get surrounded? Thanks for the advice man.

[Battlebooze]

Here's a tip.

An arrow. The pointy end goes toward the enemy.


Also, as Easy_Lee said, use your companion as a mount, if you can.

[archaeo]

Rangers can command their beast to make an attack action. That does not necessarily mean the "multiattack" action; one has to ask one's DM.

As I've noted before, if this interpretation is true, then there's no reason for the Giant Badger to exist at all. Also, Jeremy Crawford seems to agree with the idea that multiattack is an attack action (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/29/beast-master-companion-attack/).


A halfling riding his beast can command it to take the Dodge, disengage, or dash action as its action without spending his action or bonus action at any level. This is because the mounted combat rules allow the rider to give these commands for free, as this section of book does not indicate that directing your mount to take these three actions requires spending your own action. Further, an intelligent mount can act on its own, as clearly stated in the same section, leading to the same conclusion if one's trained companion can be considered intelligent (what if the BM gets a druid to Awaken it?). The beastmaster who rides his companion has the option of spending his action or bonus action to make these commands, as per the BM section, but does not have to due to the equally specific mounted combat rules. Anything that counts as a mount may use these rules. This may lead to the possibility of making your mount dash twice or three times in the same round via the mounted combat free command plus the BM action / bonus action command, though a savvy DM will likely reject that cheese.

I think it's worth pointing out that the mounted combat rules really weren't written with this BM interaction in mind, I think. It's not really clear that a "controlled" mount even has the option of attacking things; the PHB says it can "only" use the actions you mentioned.

Personally, I would treat it as an "independent" mount, regardless of awakening or not, retaining the bonus actions and whatnot of the subclass rather than the "controlled" mount rules. This would be a good question for Crawford to discuss.


The gist of it is that riding one's companion is the only way to play a BM effectively, it is quite powerful to do so, and no other build is going to have nearly as many things to clarify with the DM.

This isn't the only way to play a BM effectively. It's probably optimal, sure. But a BM played "conventionally" is still going to be perfectly strong. BMs aren't weak, they just operate on an action economy paradigm that lots of people dislike.

[Specter]

1) Get Hunter's Mark at 2nd level.

2) Unless your party has a dedicated healer and a secondary healer, don't go without Cure Wounds.

3) Go ranged; it has more support from spells and has better class features than melee. Even if you're already on melee, keep a bow or thrown weapon handy for the great AoE spells.

4) As a Hunter, the decision you have to make is whether you'll be focusing on taking on several mooks or one big enemy (and plan accordingly);

As a Beast Master, the two hottest options I've seen so far are a mobility-oriented mounted ranger (with pteranodons or other mounts at 7th level) or an exploration-focused ranger (with Beast Sense and a scouting companion, like a hawk).

Other than that, have fun. :smallsmile:

[djreynolds]

Rangers will have high stats in the big three. You may not need resilient in con or wis. Sharpshooter is a great feat. Ranger's are an intellectual's class. I hope I spelled that right. Snag a level or two in rouge and fighter . It's fair. Expertise, action surge, and cunning action can really help expand your ranger. Just two levels. Ranger is a niche chassis

[TurboGhast]

1) Get Hunter's Mark at 2nd level.

On top of this, don't get other spells using concentration, since those would waste the concentration Hunter's Mark needs.