Optimization How to make a decent ranger (maybe hybrid) build? [Archive]

Zmeoaice

2015-10-25, 07:55 PM

sophontteks

2015-10-25, 08:24 PM

I'm a big rangers fan from 3.5 and pathfinder. I looked at these and turned my head in shame. Its not all about the fact that they aren't strong, in fact they may be strong. Heck I felt the same way when I saw the bard and everyone loves those guys.

Anyway, Heres what caught my eye.

1. Rangers don't have a unique fighting style. They are just stealing bits and pieces from the fighter.
2. Rangers are loaded with niche abilities that'll likely never see the light of day.
3. favored enemy, nerfed. No damage bonus? no improvement as the ranger levels? No. You get a bonus to track them and a bonus language. Weak.
4. Rangers hide related skills, nerfed. Hide in plain sight requires the ranger not moving at all, and takes a minute to set up. You get a bonus action hide at 14. too little too late. Its not capturing the silent tracker, at all.

Now the archtypes deserve special attention.
You got 2 choices:

1. Pick Beast master- rangers are famous for their animal pets. My favorite part of them, sadly, now you have to pick an archtype in order to get them (not available to all rangers anymore).
But thats not the bad part.
Ranger pets are not autonomous. They are robots that require the use of your actions to do anything.
Still reading this?
Well, how about the fact that they are 1/4 CR, and never improve?
Freaking awesome. We got a pet that makes no sense for roleplay or mechanics.

2. Pick hunter- The hunter has a bunch of 'powers' that may be good, but they are absolutely random and senseless. Collosses slayer? Gaint Killer? Yo, we already picked a favored enemy. They don't capture what a ranger represents. They sound like skills a fighter subclass should have.

Beyond this, well, there isn't much left that's really a ranger at all. I highly recommend homebrewing changes if ya want to be a ranger.

Yorrin

2015-10-25, 08:27 PM

The problem with rangers is their general lackluster class abilities. That and a Bard can cast your best spells more often than you can. Beastmaster is just broken, in the sense of not really working, leaving you with Hunter. Personally, I think Ranger 5 is a fine base for an archer, picking up Colossus Slayer at 3. Ranger 5/Rogue X, for example, is a fine archer build. Slap Crossbow Mastery on that and you're golden. Ranger 2/Tempest or War Cleric X is a more caster-focused ranged build that can work just fine.

Eragon123

2015-10-25, 08:41 PM

Alright what are you looking for in a ranger. You mentioned bows so let's start with that.

That mean you are probably want to go down the hunter archetype.
Grab Colossus Slayer
either Escape the Horde or Steel Will.
Volley
Evasion.

Cool thats the archetype down. Let's focus on the rest of our options.
Fighting style.... Archery. easy enough.

Spells.
HUNTER'S MARK!!!!! This is your bread and butter. From here it's mainly a choice of what your party is missing.
Healer? Cure wounds or goodberry.
Battlefield Control, Ensarning Strike or Fog Cloud
Damage? Hail of Thorns.
OR just fill with flavor.

Now better spells by level.

2
Pass without Trace
Animal Messenger
Spike Growth
(Really just fill niche that party is missing or save slots for hunter's mark be careful of too much concentration though)

3
Conjure Animals
Conjure Barrage (I like the flavor of this one even if damage isn't optimal)
Lightning Arrow
Water walk/breathing

4
All of these are good IMHO

5
I like all of them. Especially Swift Quiver and Tree Stride.

FEATS! I forgot about feats

Alert (if scout)
Athelete (situational but the prone thing can be good if going against other archers)
Crossbow Expert (if you want to use a crossbow)
Dungeon Delver (Not the best but it CAN help)
Keen Mind (situational but very flavorful with the whole north bit but depends on whole character)
Lucky (this is just a good feat)
Magic Initiate (can be fun if you want to pick up True Strike or another good cantrip but since the spell won't scale make sure it's a utility one)
Martial Adept (Disarming, goading, maneuvering, menacing, precision, pushing, rally, and trip are all good options that can help with your options)
Mobile (if you liked that kiting option)
Sharpshooter (depends on how often the DM uses cover but even then this feat is SOLID)
Skulker can be fun.
Pros of Archer Ranger

Very easy to fill niches of party even if another class COULD have been better. Like both rogues and rangers can sneak and the rogue is often better but the ranger CAN sneak better than a fighter.

Adaptable. If you pick a smart variety of spells you have back ups for when "shoot it" isn't a great option

Range. Never underestimate the power of kiting. May not work ALL of the time but it is a valid straegy.

Cons

Getting surprised into melee. With much of your class built for range it sucks when that option is taken from you.

Lower Damage being at range means that the downside is lower damage. You won't nova like the paladin or the fighter but hey if idiots want to die on the front lines you're not going to get in their way.

RealCheese

2015-10-25, 08:49 PM

I actually disliked rangers as written, but I've finished the first book of the hoard of the Dragon queen as a ranger/rogue, ending at ranger 5 rogue 3 and enjoying it immensely. One memorable moment had me critting on both attacks on an enemy, having me roll 6d6 and 6d8 plus 3 for damage (2d8 per attack for rapier damage, 2d8 for one attack having colossus slayer, 2d6 for sneak attack on one attack and 2d6 per attack for hunters mark. ) I'm a hunter ranger with a rapier and am offhand handaxe, mostly for getting a ranged attack on when needed.

Goodberry

2015-10-25, 08:57 PM

If you want to play an archer, go Fighter(Champion) 5/Rogue(Assassin) X. Start with one level of Rogue, the 5 Fighter levels, then the rest Rogue. All the skills and powers a ranger needs with none of the suck.

Mara

2015-10-25, 09:28 PM

Rangers are half casters. Things like ensnaring strike are general better than hunters mark. Especially for an Archer. If you go Archer do it for BFC and utility not amazing damage.

I would play a ranger who just has a bow. The +2 to-hit is not important to me since I don't recommend sharpshooter. I say go TWF beast master. Your pet wolf isn't really useful until level 5, then you attack twice and your pet attacks once. At 11 the pet now attacks twice. This chassis can make go use of hunter's mark. It boost your scimitar damage to that of greatswords and at 15 it applies to your pet.

That's 6d6+4d4+26 points of damage at max between you both.

I would max dex then wisdom. I also wouldn't always be in full damage mode. Sometimes some pixies or bears or bow CC is more desired than slightly more damage. I would go woodelf. Outlander benefits stack with your ranger abilities.

That puts your skills at Athletics, Survival, Handle Animal, Stealth, Insight, and Perception.

I could see this going very well.

Shining Wrath

2015-10-25, 09:32 PM

There's one thing the Ranger gets that the archer-specialist Fighter does not: spells. And some of them are Ranger only, which means no path to them other than Ranger; and they are very helpful to the archer fighter.

Hunter's Mark: Bonus cast, +1d6 to every time you hit an enemy.
Hail of Thorns: Bonus cast, +1D10 damage when next you hit - and everyone within 5' of your target
Ensnaring Strike: Bonus cast, target restrained until they make a Strength save. Your melee friends will thank you for pinning the enemy hit and move types down.
Conjure Barrage: 60' cone, 3d8 or Dex save for half; effectively, you can cast a 3/8 Cone of Cold with a 3rd level slot
Lightning Arrow: 4d8 lightning on a hit with a 10' radius 2d8 damage; almost a fireball

And so on.

Are these spells better than Wizard spells? Of course not. Are these spells pretty good for a martial class, and much better than anything the Fighter gets (Eldritch Knight gets nothing anywhere near as good). Yep.

Unfortunately, most of them don't scale, and the Ranger doesn't get the 3rd and 4th attacks the Fighter gets. At some point the Ranger does fall behind, and the Favored Enemy / Natural Explorer bit simply doesn't even begin to make up for it.

Crusher

2015-10-25, 10:05 PM

So I talked with one of my friends and ze said that in 5E rangers kind of suck because they haven't been developed much and someone is better off playing a fighter or rogue if they want to use bows.

I'd like to know exactly what the disadvantages of rangers are, and how to avoid them. I'd also like to know the general gist of rangers in the party, some Ranger Feats (both general and combined with race), which race is good for being a ranger, and which class is good to multiclass with them. I'm not sure what I will play as but I would like to see whether this option is good.

I have to say, while Favored Enemy is a shadow of what it used to be in prior editions, it can still add some value. Its like ESP for whatever the monster class is. For example, I'm DMing a party of very new players, one of whom is playing a BM Ranger (archer), who took Undead as her favored enemy.

The party is still pretty bad at a lot of things, but they put a lot of value on knowing what they're facing. Wherever they go, they have the Ranger check for tracks to at least try and find out what's been wandering around lately. In this campaign undead have been a pretty common opponent (appearing in maybe 1/3 of their adventures) so that tracking can end up telling the party quite a bit (In Wave Echo Cave, it was "Rolled a 14? Ok, you see tracks for zombies and ghouls, plus you're sensing something else you can't quite identify. The zombie tracks are old, and there was a big group of ghouls long ago, but more recently a small pack of ghouls came through." The unidentified things turned out to be a Wraith and a Flameskull, which don't leave tracks).

Its also handy for bringing new parties up to speed on what they're dealing with. When the party encounters something new (like ghouls, which the party generally knew what they were, but didn't know the specifics), I'd have the Ranger roll. If she rolled reasonably well then I'd tell the party what exactly the undead was (Flameskull!) and some of its abilities or lore.

MinaBee

2015-10-25, 11:12 PM

I would heartily recommend that you build a switch hitter:

Single-classed Ranger
16 Strength
14 Dexterity
Medium Armor
Archery Fighting Style

Take a longbow and any two-handed melee weapon that calls out to you. You can't go wrong. You'll take only -1 to hit and damage, compared to singularly-focused archers, and you'll gain the ability to participate in melee combat. 5th edition rewards versatility.

Archetype is really up to you. If you want to emphasize Combat, be a Hunter. (The Hunter's path benefits are entirely irrelevant outside of the initiative count.) If you want to emphasize Exploration, be a Beast Master. (Since having an animal companion opens up new ways of interacting with the environment.)

Also, collaborate with your DM when picking creature types and environments for your Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer features. They shouldn't be picking for you, but having them recommend a few to choose from can prevent serious disappointment. (At the very least, they should rule out creatures and environs that they know will not be making an appearance.)

Zmeoaice

2015-10-26, 11:28 AM

Beyond this, well, there isn't much left that's really a ranger at all. I highly recommend homebrewing changes if ya want to be a ranger.

I might talk to the DM about this. Know any acceptable changes or additiona for the 5e ranger to make it more competitive?

One thing I heard is to expand the favored terrain so you'd get a small bonus when on a terrain that is similar to your favored. So aince both rainforest and deserts are hot so you'd get a smaller bonus in deserts if you has rainforest.

Crossbow Expert (if you want to use a crossbow)

How does crossbows compare with other bows in terms of damage, accuracy and range. Also are they 1h or 2h?

I would heartily recommend that you build a switch hitter:

Single-classed Ranger
16 Strength
14 Dexterity
Medium Armor
Archery Fighting Style

Take a longbow and any two-handed melee weapon that calls out to you. You can't go wrong. You'll take only -1 to hit and damage, compared to singularly-focused archers, and you'll gain the ability to participate in melee combat. 5th edition rewards versatility.

Any reason STR needs to be so high? I think using a Dex based melee weapon might be sufficient enough for close combat even if it damages less than a 2h.

Yorrin

2015-10-26, 11:35 AM

How does crossbows compare with other bows in terms of damage, accuracy and range. Also are they 1h or 2h?

Any reason STR needs to be so high? I think using a Dex based melee weapon might be sufficient enough for close combat even if it damages less than a 2h.

All crossbows are 2h except the hand crossbow, and they are one damage die bigger than the equivalent bow, with a bit less range.

If you're doing the "switch hitter," as it was put, you're best off with heavy crossbow and rapier and dumping Str, which is realistically your best setup. You can use a shield while in rapier mode too, which is nice.

MinaBee

2015-10-26, 01:13 PM

Any reason STR needs to be so high? I think using a Dex based melee weapon might be sufficient enough for close combat even if it damages less than a 2h.
It would totally work with a strength score of 14, if your choice of race doesn't support that high of a strength score, or if you need those stat points somewhere else.

But the strength score is that high for a few reasons:

The "high DEX, light armor, and a rapier" melee playstyle is possible, but the ranger's class features don't support it well. Compare it to the Rogue, who gets class features like Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge that greatly improve their survivability in close combat. What Rangers DO have is proficiency with Martial Weapons, Medium Armor, and Shields. You'll want to make use of all of those. You'll probably only have a dexterity score of 14 if you use medium armor. Even if you only manage to make your strength score match your dexterity score, it's worth it. Swinging in at +4 with a greatsword or glaive will feel better than doing the same with a rapier. (You can also use a versatile martial weapon and shield, if that suits your character concept better.)
Your DM might be using encumbrance rules, and Rangers are a backcountry class. Dumping strength means that a forty-pound backpack will HALVE your speed.
Your DM might not be using feats, and this build is plenty robust without any of them.
Athletics proficiency. You can't climb a cliff face or swim across a swiftly running river with a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. Athletics is a fantastic Exploration skill, and the Ranger is an Exploration class. In combat, Strength (Athletics) checks allow you to initiate grapples, escape grapples, shove your opponents around, and knock your opponents down. (In close combat, these are often better uses of your action than a weapon attack.)

The ranger, by virtue of their class features, is not a focused class. I've found this class to be more fun when you play a build that buys into that expansiveness, instead of playing a build that tries to force the ranger into some specific, focused speciality. It's not a class that lends itself well to specialization; it's a class that encourages being useful in as many different situations as you can manage. It's a teamwork class.

Yorrin

2015-10-26, 01:31 PM

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but lets not misdirect the new guy.

The "high DEX, light armor, and a rapier" melee playstyle is possible, but the ranger's class features don't support it well. Compare it to the Rogue, who gets class features like Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge that greatly improve their survivability in close combat. What Rangers DO have is proficiency with Martial Weapons, Medium Armor, and Shields. You'll want to make use of all of those. You'll probably only have a dexterity score of 14 if you use medium armor. Even if you only manage to make your strength score match your dexterity score, it's worth it. Swinging in at +4 with a greatsword or glaive will feel better than doing the same with a rapier. (You can also use a versatile martial weapon and shield, if that suits your character concept better.) This point is completely invalid. 20 Dex + Studded Leather gives you as much AC as the best medium armor and increases both your to-hit and your damage numbers as well as initiative. Your 2d6+2 greatsword is doing average 9 damage vs a 1d8+5 rapier doing average 9.5, and is more consistent.

Your DM might be using encumbrance rules, and Rangers are a backcountry class. Dumping strength means that a forty-pound backpack will HALVE your speed. Outside of AL I've never met a DM who strictly enforces these.

Your DM might not be using feats, and this build is plenty robust without any of them. If you're not using feats switch the Crossbow for a Longbow and you're set. No big.

Athletics proficiency. You can't climb a cliff face or swim across a swiftly running river with a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. Athletics is a fantastic Exploration skill, and the Ranger is an Exploration class. In combat, Strength (Athletics) checks allow you to initiate grapples, escape grapples, shove your opponents around, and knock your opponents down. (In close combat, these are often better uses of your action than a weapon attack.) This is the only point in favor of not dumping Str, and it's outweighed by the above problems.

The only classes that should use Str are Barbarians and some Paladin or Fighter builds. Other than that it's always a suboptimal choice.

MinaBee

2015-10-26, 02:52 PM

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but lets not misdirect the new guy.
No jerkness heard on my end, friend, we're just geeking out about builds. (Also, Zmeoaice is a girl.)

This point is completely invalid. 20 Dex + Studded Leather gives you as much AC as the best medium armor and increases both your to-hit and your damage numbers as well as initiative.
It's my understanding that she's making a new character, so endgame math is a little irrelevant. She could reach 20 dexterity by end game with my build, and switch out the medium for light when it makes sense to do so.

Your 2d6+2 greatsword is doing average 9 damage vs a 1d8+5 rapier doing average 9.5, and is more consistent.
That's...comparing 14 Strength and 20 Dexterity; the Strength score you start with versus the Dexterity score you might get to eventually. (It could be 16 dexterity with Dueling, but Zmeoaice already said she wanted Archery.) Besides, the point isn't maxed melee damage output, it's good melee damage output. Switch hitters won't outperform purpose-built melee characters, that's not the point.

Outside of AL I've never met a DM who strictly enforces these.
I've never met an AL DM who does enforce encumbrance, and I've played with about a dozen. I mean, at my table, I run homebrew encumbrance rules. Who calculates their load down to the pound? (Rules aside though, I just cannot wrap my head around a wilderness operator with 8-10 Strength.)

This is the only point in favor of not dumping Str, and it's outweighed by the above problems. Rangers don't get expertise without multi-classing (which is another optional rule), so they need good stats or a reliable source of advantage to stay competitive on checks. (Reliable sources of advantage for ability checks include: Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, Hunter's Mark, Land's Stride, Beast Master's companion animal, and, as always, player ingenuity.)

The only classes that should use Str are Barbarians and some Paladin or Fighter builds. Other than that it's always a suboptimal choice.
Heard. You are not incorrect, but suboptimal isn't as crippling as it was in previous editions. Like, in third, suboptimal builds were actually useless and therefore, no fun to play. That isn't the case in this edition. There is mechanical support for spread-out builds that was absent in previous editions. There are diminishing returns for focused builds, where before there were none. There is a lot you need to give up in order to get a 20 in your main stat by 8th level; the game remains playable if you grab a 16 in your main stat at 4th. There are certain race/class combinations that can't start with a 16 in their main stat, but the game system doesn't punish you for choosing them.

bid

2015-10-26, 07:43 PM

Any reason STR needs to be so high? I think using a Dex based melee weapon might be sufficient enough for close combat even if it damages less than a 2h.
Str-only melee ranger builds can be loads of fun. You can even completely get rid of the bow that way.

If you want to play ranged, Str10 is more than enough. It all depends if you want to have Str20 or Dex20 later on.

bid

2015-10-26, 07:46 PM

This is the only point in favor of not dumping Str, and it's outweighed by the above problems.
And even then you're better with expertise in athletics.

Zmeoaice

2015-10-30, 11:24 PM

I'd like to add that this campaign multi-classing and feats are used.

Tanarii

2015-10-31, 12:23 AM

You specifically want to be an archer specialist? If so Eragon123 & Shining Wrath give a good breakdown on spells and feats, and you definitely want to go Hunter. Although I'd put some thought into your first Hunter pick: colossus slayer is a great damage boost but a whole extra attack from horde breaker is better if you're fighting multiple enemies that mob a lot.

A build I'm looking at right now as a Dex Ranger that switches up between archery and rapier/Sheild: Beastmaster, take the Defense Fighting Style, and Sentinel, and stay with the companion in melee. The wolf makes the regular attacks, but if he gets attacked, get a free Sentinel attack as a reaction. My main concern is donning/doffing a shield takes an action, so I'll be in melee mode or archery mode depending on the terrain and expected encounter distance most likely, not changing during a given combat.

(Note you can do that as a melee only build as a Str GWM ranger too, but you'll probably be making the main attacks instead of your companion, and will have lower AC. The reason to Beastmaster in that case would be for Advantage, and to (hopefully) get trigger Sentinel attacks.)

The Shadowdove

2015-10-31, 12:40 AM

https://twitter.com/jeffvmahar/status/609931625112182784

mearls says pets arent robots.

sure, take an action to tell it to attack before positioning in round 1.

but in round 2 your pets keeps attacking while u get a full round.

however, youll still need to use an action to redirect it to other opponents or do a different class specified action.

also, yeah 1/4cr for pet sucks... but at least ac/damage/to hit/save proficiencies scale with your ranger level (hp) or proficiency modifier.

also, investing in barding helps the pets ac.

not to mention the few special animal abilities some animals have.

djreynolds

2015-10-31, 01:56 AM

So I talked with one of my friends and ze said that in 5E rangers kind of suck because they haven't been developed much and someone is better off playing a fighter or rogue if they want to use bows.

I'd like to know exactly what the disadvantages of rangers are, and how to avoid them. I'd also like to know the general gist of rangers in the party, some Ranger Feats (both general and combined with race), which race is good for being a ranger, and which class is good to multiclass with them. I'm not sure what I will play as but I would like to see whether this option is good.

Beast master requires investment in levels. At 7th level the beast can use your bonus action to help. That can be helpful. But for a dungeon crawl, you might be out of your element. Beast bond is a cool spell, but is concentration and you need hunter's mark. Their spells are actually very good.

You can dip in barbarian or monk for unarmored AC, but its unlikely your wis or con will be maxed out, because a ranger wants both of those. 5th level ranger is very competitive for DPR. I like rogue dip because you lose nothing except for your spell progression which is nice. And fighter is nice for an archetype. 15 ranger, 2 rogue, 3 fighter is very effective and multiclass friendly.

But the question is when. Up til 5th level, you are a terror with a bow on the battlefield. That's a good point to dip a level of rogue for expertise, but for what? Stealth and perception usually, and then 2nd for cunning action which you may not need if your are using a bow. Now battle-master is nice for precision and trip, IMO but that's 3 levels and now you down on your caster levels and spell progression.

If you are starting a level 1, go rogue first but you will be late on that second attack and getting sharpshooter or a maxed dex by a level. I say you have to look at your party and find your place. Rangers make acceptable secondary healers, good scouts, and can help the melee combatants out.

Check out the guides posted, and find your niche in the party. If you find that after 5th level, you need more damage remember lighting arrow is around the corner but this is where you would grab something else.

Cleric is viable class to take after 5th level, but you are a cleric dipping ranger. 3 levels of battle-master is good for combat. 2 levels of rogue will give expertise and cunning action. Wizard can provide some good spell and utility.

Who else is in your party will help out fleshing out your ranger?

MinaBee

2015-10-31, 02:04 AM

I'd like to add that this campaign multi-classing and feats are used.

What level are you starting at, and about how many levels are you going to gain over the course of the game? (The DM will sometimes know, and will sometimes let the party know.)

DivisibleByZero

2015-10-31, 10:56 AM

The hate for the 5e Ranger almost exclusively comes from theorycrafters. Some people think it looks bad on paper, and are very vocal about it, but they've never played one. Others have read what these very vocal theorycrafters have said, and never bothered to try one for themselves because of what he vocal theorcrafters have stated about it.

The 5e Ranger is perfectly fine in actual pay at the table.

Our table made one minor tweak to the class, not because it needed it mechanically, but because we felt it needed it thematically.
We changed Beast Master from a subclass. Every Ranger is a Hunter archetype. We gave every ranger an altered version of the Animal Friendship spell which summons an animal companion, and they learn this spell automatically.
If they cast this to gain a companion, then the Beast Master abilities engage, and they have both subclasses.
If the companion dies, the Beast Master abilities disengage until they cast it again.
Ranger has become the most popular class choice at our table.

Tanarii

2015-10-31, 11:54 AM

mephnick

2015-10-31, 12:22 PM

The hate for the 5e Ranger almost exclusively comes from theorycrafters. Some people think it looks bad on paper, and are very vocal about it, but they've never played one. Others have read what these very vocal theorycrafters have said, and never bothered to try one for themselves because of what he vocal theorcrafters have stated about it.

I've DMed a couple Rangers now. The subclasses are decent mechanically and you won't feel out of place for the most part, but the base Ranger class is a complete mess. The Beast Master gets a lot of hate, but it's the general class abilities that really drag the Ranger down. I'm no theory-crafter, it's easily the worst designed class in the game. I feel the Outlander Rogue/Fighter captures the Ranger a lot better. Spells are like...the eighth thing I think about when I think of a Ranger, so it's joke spell list (including spells that should just be wrapped into the base class) doesn't make up for the rest.

It looks bad on paper because it's a bad Ranger. Just because it keeps up mechanically (at least until level 11) doesn't make it a well designed Ranger class.

Tanarii

2015-10-31, 01:13 PM

I feel the Outlander Rogue/Fighter captures the Ranger a lot better. Spells are like...the eighth thing I think about when I think of a RangerWell then, you must not be thinking about D&D rangers, because spells are an iconic part of them.

MaxWilson

2015-10-31, 05:49 PM

So I talked with one of my friends and ze said that in 5E rangers kind of suck because they haven't been developed much and someone is better off playing a fighter or rogue if they want to use bows.

I'd like to know exactly what the disadvantages of rangers are, and how to avoid them. I'd also like to know the general gist of rangers in the party, some Ranger Feats (both general and combined with race), which race is good for being a ranger, and which class is good to multiclass with them. I'm not sure what I will play as but I would like to see whether this option is good.

Decent ranger: that's easy.

Go variant human for Sharpshooter. Pump Dex and Con.

Take archery style at 2nd level.

Take your pick between Colossus Slayer and Horde Breaker based on your DM's style. I like Horde Breaker for 3 attacks per round at level 5, but if your DM doesn't use hordes much Colossus Slayer might get used more often.

At 7th level, take Escape the Horde.

At 4th and 8th level, boost Dex to 20.

For spells, take special note of Hunter's Mark (efficient if minor damage boost), Longstrider (combos with Escape the Horde to get you out of melee so you can keep shooting, taking only one opportunity attack at disadvantage instead of a full multiattack sequence), Spike Growth (obstruct enemy movement and deal up to 40 points of damage to each enemy in the process, like a slow-acting Fireball), and Conjure Animals (meat shields).

Tactically, you want to stay out of melee (use Escape the Horde + Longstrider as necessary) while raining arrows on everything and eventually Volleys of arrows or crossbow bolts for d10+15 damage each. That's what you do in easy fights anyway where you don't want to spend resources. When you do want to spend resources, conjure eight CR 1/4 creatures and have them mob the enemy while you keep shooting, hopefully from behind partial or total cover. By the time any level-appropriate enemy fights his way through all of your boars/elks/giant owls/whatnot, he'll have taken 50 to 100 points of damage from the animals and another 100 points of damage from you personally, plus whatever your fellow PCs do. And of course you can always summon more animals.

Voila, a simple but very effective ranger who could easily solo a CR 9 monster at level 9.

You can improve on this somewhat with multiclassing (e.g. Ranger/Assassin) but even this simple sketch is very effective.

DivisibleByZero

2015-10-31, 11:41 PM

How does Animal Friendship work in your game? Is it like a Conjure spell? Does it require Concentration to balance it against other Ranger spells?

Copied directly from our Houserules PDF:

- Ranger -
–- The Beast Master Archetype is being rolled into the Ranger base class. The Ranger's "companion" for the day would be the target of a modified Animal Friendship spell, called Summon Animal Companion (the companion is hereby referred to as the Ranger's Beast Friend), which would need to be renewed each day, and the BM features only apply if the Ranger has a Beast Friend.
–- The Summon Animal Companion spell is only available to Rangers, and all Rangers learn this spell automatically. A Ranger can only have one companion at a time. When first cast, or when a companion needs to be replaced, the DM tells you which beasts are in the area for you to befriend at the time, so he has some control over which beasts are available, to keep abuse to a minimum. Basically, companions need DM approval.
–- The CR of a Ranger's Beast Friend is set by the spell level used to befriend the companion beast.
---- 1st level slot = companion max CR 1/8 or lower
---- 2nd level slot = CR 1/4 or lower
---- 3rd = CR 1/2 or lower
---- 4th = CR 1 or lower
----- 5th = CR 2 or lower
*note: This means that All Rangers are both Hunters and Beast Masters, but the Beast Master abilities are only usable if the Ranger sacrifices one (or more, if the beast dies) spell slots each day to gain a Beast Friend.

I've DMed a couple Rangers now. The subclasses are decent mechanically and you won't feel out of place for the most part, but the base Ranger class is a complete mess. The Beast Master gets a lot of hate, but it's the general class abilities that really drag the Ranger down.

It looks bad on paper because it's a bad Ranger. Just because it keeps up mechanically (at least until level 11) doesn't make it a well designed Ranger class.

And if the BM subclass was part of the base Ranger, as we've done? How bad does the base Ranger look then? Because our table is loving it.

djreynolds

2015-10-31, 11:53 PM

I had a revelation about ranger.

He is not a substitute for your barbarian, paladin or fighter. Nor is he a substitute for rogue or bard. He is a substitute for a monk. He, like a monk, can really fight multiple enemies well. A monk can literally run around at 60-70 and just stun people. But both ranger and monk lack that pop of the rogue with DPS. But they both can really force people into area and pick off stragglers, with a bow or speed or "beast", and can stop a rogue possibly.

Its always Drizzt and his cat and then his gang killing off baddies. Funnel the bad guys to the fighter and barbarian and they kill them, and pick off stragglers, and then protect from counter ambushers.

Think a wolf hounding their prey into the others or a sheep dog trying to stop a coyote from picking off the flock one by one.

mephnick

2015-10-31, 11:56 PM

And if the BM subclass was part of the base Ranger, as we've done? How bad does the base Ranger look then? Because our table is loving it.

Sure, I guess? Consuming a subclass into the base class kind of proves the original base class is crap, doesn't it?

mephnick

2015-10-31, 11:57 PM

Well then, you must not be thinking about D&D rangers, because spells are an iconic part of them.

I know there's no way to prove this, but if you asked most long time players to name a couple iconic things about D&D Rangers I bet "Spellcasting" is rarely mentioned.

DivisibleByZero

2015-11-01, 12:14 AM

Sure, I guess? Consuming a subclass into the base class kind of proves the original base class is crap, doesn't it?

Once again:

The 5e Ranger is perfectly fine in actual pay at the table.

Our table made one minor tweak to the class, not because it needed it mechanically, but because we felt it needed it thematically.

We didn't make the change because we felt it needed it mechanically. We did it because we felt it needed it thematically.
But for your purposes it amounts to the same thing.

Mara

2015-11-01, 12:15 AM

I actually prefer the ranger this edition over the 3.5 and PF incarnations.

djreynolds

2015-11-01, 12:36 AM

3.5 had some add ons, where you got the power attack cleave supreme cleave instead of archery or two weapon fighting. I like that. Not a beast master, or many enemy guy, but a straight up dueler. He could get GWS at 3rd level but for any one melee weapon, no dual wield, used one or two handed and then at 11 GWM for that weapon vs their natural enemy.

Tanarii

2015-11-01, 05:08 AM

I know there's no way to prove this, but if you asked most long time players to name a couple iconic things about D&D Rangers I bet "Spellcasting" is rarely mentioned.
It wasn't the *most* iconic thing. Favored enemy (originally damage to Giants) is probably the most iconic. Followed by tracking/nature related abilities. 5e effectively gets the latter with the Favored Enemy/Natural Explorer abilities right at level one. Sadly the damage aspect of Favlred enemy is restricted to one sub-class, the Hunter. And I do think that's something that could have been handled differently.

But spellcasting has always been a part of the class. Admittedly, it was usually late(ish) levels, and not particularly useful in the grand scheme of things. It went from 8th level (1e & 2e) to 4th (3e) to 2nd (5e). Hell, the original ranger cast Magic-user spells as well as Druid spells. It was only in 2e that they effective got the 'all nature spells' theme. So requesting a spellless Ranger is asking for a fairly radical departure from the traditional D&D Ranger.