By request: Workshopping another Ranger

[Kane0]

The core of the problem you're seeing isn't with the Quarry or beast or spell or really anything with the ranger, it's with getting a bonus action attack.
No matter how you get one, a bonus action attack essentially doubles your combat potential as a martial until level 5 when it drops to a 'mere' +50%. Balancing the different forms of bonus action attack against each other AND against not having a bonus action attack is no small task.
It's something at the system level rather than the class level, and not something we should punish the Ranger for specifically. Honestly, that sort of thing is just beyond the scope of this thread and deserves its own.

[Fnissalot]

The easiest way to buff the hunter is to change the level 3 ability from having "advantage" on the quarry damage to just getting 2 quarry dice on the attack action. It is far simpler than adding a bonus action, still a bit weaker than the other 2 classes in the earlier levels but starts outperforming warden between level 5-13 depending on AC and fighting style. Hunter also has the largest damage boost of the subclasses at level 18, even if it is a bit unpredictable.

The core of the problem you're seeing isn't with the Quarry or beast or spell or really anything with the ranger, it's with getting a bonus action attack.
No matter how you get one, a bonus action attack essentially doubles your combat potential as a martial until level 5 when it drops to a 'mere' +50%. Balancing the different forms of bonus action attack against each other AND against not having a bonus action attack is no small task.
It's something at the system level rather than the class level, and not something we should punish the Ranger for specifically. Honestly, that sort of thing is just beyond the scope of this thread and deserves its own.

I agree! This is a systemic issue with the bonus action in 5e, not with this class.

In addition, hunter is the only subclass that does not have to question how it uses its bonus action. For the other sub-classes, choosing with bonus action to use becomes something the player needs to weigh against eachother. The hunter can always do the bonus action search to get a better grip of the combat that goes on etc.

[Bjarkmundur]

I agree! This is a systemic issue with the bonus action in 5e, not with this class

.

Huh, I never thought about it that way. I guess that's why official content avoids giving at-will damage feature through subclasses as best it can, except for a few outliers (which I think are mostly Barbarian). I did whip this up, which gives a good idea on what the problem looks like: The Beastmaster pretty much eats the Hunter for breakfast.

I can accept bonus action attack being a problem with the system, but we have to realize we are facilitating the problem.

I mean, one subclass being 5-8 points behind in damage because of a base feature with no redeeming features to help him compete is unacceptable IMO.

I'm still working things out, but limiting Quarry to 1/turn and giving the Hunter double Quarry damage or Cull the Herd would without a doubt be a step in the right direction.

Edit: CHECK THE LINK! Limiting Quarry to once per turn and giving hunter double Quarry damage solves the problem perfectly! The hunter is still less effective than the Beastmaster on the first round of combat, and is generally two points of damage behind. Those are both acceptable, since you have to gain SOME power from using your bonus action.

[Fnissalot]

.

Huh, I never thought about it that way. I guess that's why official content avoids giving at-will damage feature through subclasses as best it can, except for a few outliers (which I think are mostly Barbarian). I did whip this up, which gives a good idea on what the problem looks like: The Beastmaster pretty much eats the Hunter for breakfast.

I can accept bonus action attack being a problem with the system, but we have to realize we are facilitating the problem.

I mean, one subclass being 5-8 points behind in damage because of a base feature with no redeeming features to help him compete is unacceptable IMO.

I'm still working things out, but limiting Quarry to 1/turn and giving the Hunter double Quarry damage or Cull the Herd would without a doubt be a step in the right direction.

Edit: CHECK THE LINK! Limiting Quarry to once per turn and giving hunter double Quarry damage solves the problem perfectly! The hunter is still less effective than the Beastmaster on the first round of combat, and is generally two points of damage behind. Those are both acceptable, since you have to gain SOME power from using your bonus action.

Once per turn or every attack on the attack of the attack action should scale equally between the subclasses. Having on both attacks should even buff the hunter more than the other two sub-classes due to rerolls or extra dice. Lessening it to once per turn will mainly nerf the class as a whole compared to other classes.

[Bjarkmundur]

Once per turn or every attack on the attack of the attack action should scale equally between the subclasses. Having on both attacks should even buff the hunter more than the other two sub-classes due to rerolls or extra dice. Lessening it to once per turn will mainly nerf the class as a whole compared to other classes.

You say "Should" even though I have provided comparisons between the hunter and the beastmaster, using both mechanics, and compared it to other classes. This makes me feel your are objecting for the sake of objecting, rather than as means on understanding one another and reaching the truth, or at least a shared conclusion.

For clarity for future readers, I've added some other-class damage comparisons over here

You can clearly see how the 2x quarry once per turn not only brings the classes closer together, but also makes it more in line with other consistent damage dealers, namely the Rogue and Barbarian.

I might be just being a drama queen here, but I really don't see why bringing the damage output of the subclasses closer together, and the class' damage closer to those of other classes in a similar role, is a bad thing?
We don't even have to sacrifice flavor to do it. If something is free, and makes things better, it's a good thing, right?

EDIT oh... every attack of the attack action. Ok, sorry, my bad. I guess I got confused because the beastmaster still states that the beast can trigger the Quarry damage. Having it only affect attacks of the attack actions would lower the damage of all subclasses equally, but that would still leave the beastmaster multiple points ahead of the Hunter, so the problem persists. Note that this damage discrepancy means that if the beast were to die, the Beastmaster would still deal damage competitive to the Hunter.

Basically a Beastless Beastmaster is a Hunter without the ability to reroll quarry dice, which only adds up to 1 or 2 points of damage per turn.

EDIT 2: I added the "Quarry only applies to attacks made as a part of the attack action" to the link here on the far right. The results are pretty much identical to my suggested fix, except it does a worse job of leveling out the subclasses. It only manages to reduce the discrepancy by a little less than half, while my version manages to reduce it by 80%.

Your hunter does exactly 2 more points of damage then mine, but your beastmaster does 4 more damage than mine. Which is still unacceptable.

Is my fix so crazy? Changing a couple of lines of text at no cost of theme or niche? I feel like I'm defending something that should speak for itself. But then again, I have done so multiple times over the course of this thread and always ended up being proven wrong with time. I guess I just have to let the data speak for itself, and hope that everything turns out alright.

[Fnissalot]

You say "Should" even though I have provided comparisons between the hunter and the beastmaster, using both mechanics, and compared it to other classes. This makes me feel your are objecting for the sake of objecting, rather than as means on understanding one another and reaching the truth, or at least a shared conclusion.

For clarity for future readers, I've added some other-class damage comparisons over here

You can clearly see how the 2x quarry once per turn not only brings the classes closer together, but also makes it more in line with other consistent damage dealers, namely the Rogue and Barbarian.

I might be just being a drama queen here, but I really don't see why bringing the damage output of the subclasses closer together, and the class' damage closer to those of other classes in a similar role, is a bad thing?
We don't even have to sacrifice flavor to do it. If something is free, and makes things better, it's a good thing, right?

EDIT oh... every attack of the attack action. Ok, sorry, my bad. I guess I got confused because the beastmaster still states that the beast can trigger the Quarry damage. Having it only affect attacks of the attack actions would lower the damage of all subclasses equally, but that would still leave the beastmaster multiple points ahead of the Hunter, so the problem persists. Note that this damage discrepancy means that if the beast were to die, the Beastmaster would still deal damage competitive to the Hunter.

Basically a Beastless Beastmaster is a Hunter without the ability to reroll quarry dice, which only adds up to 1 or 2 points of damage per turn.

EDIT 2: I added the "Quarry only applies to attacks made as a part of the attack action" to the link here on the far right. The results are pretty much identical to my suggested fix, except it does a worse job of leveling out the subclasses. It only manages to reduce the discrepancy by a little less than half, while my version manages to reduce it by 80%.

Your hunter does exactly 2 more points of damage then mine, but your beastmaster does 4 more damage than mine. Which is still unacceptable.

Is my fix so crazy? Changing a couple of lines of text at no cost of theme or niche? I feel like I'm defending something that should speak for itself. But then again, I have done so multiple times over the course of this thread and always ended up being proven wrong with time. I guess I just have to let the data speak for itself, and hope that everything turns out alright.

It is not so crazy but you only check 3 of the four combinations of quarry once per turn/quarry on attacks part of attack action and reroll/double. You have not added a column for double and all attack action attacks. I have the double quarry only attacks in the sheet I posted earlier, and it is fairly equal at most levels. The worst level of difference is at level 3-4 so you choose the most extreme place to do the comparison as well.

And as I at least stated earlier, having beasts both scale with proficiency to hit and quarry damage on attacks is too much damage. I honestly thought we removed the quarry die on it and assumed that through all my calculations. That said, letting the BM have slightly higher damage is not a big issue due to the risk of the beast biting the dust.

[Bjarkmundur]

What then meets your criteria of "unbalanced" and "fixed"?
I really want to help, but I feel like I'm being put to an unreasonable standard.

I think it's trivial what hasn't been calculated, when I have shown it quite clear that the current system doesn't work, and my suggested system does work. What else do you want?

- It doesn't change the theme
- It doesn't add or remove an existing mechanic
- It removes a major flaw between subclasses
- It brings the entire class in line with player expectations.
- It brings the class in line with damage expectations created by official material.
- It scales with only a single outlier, present for two levels, as opposed to other mechanics that have multiple persistent outliers.
- It has twelve green cells, where other tested mechanics only have a third of that.

I mean sure, I haven't tasted a dragon fruit, but I can tell you that oranges are sour and grapes are sweet. I don't think I have to taste a dragon fruit to show you that I'm right in both cases.

Edit: I have a feeling I'm about to eat my hat, as they say....

[Fnissalot]

What beast are you using for the beastmaster?
Edit2: horses hit like trucks, wolf's have pack tactics. I don't know if you consider to hit at all, but both those animals with hit more often than you for rather many levels.

Edit: Also, thanks for taking the time writing it out.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm using flat 5 damage.

Now that you mention it, I don't remember where that came from. I'll check real quick. Sec.

[Fnissalot]

I'm using flat 5 damage.

Now that you mention it, I don't remember where that came from. I'll check real quick. Sec.

Wolf's do 2d4+2 with a base +4 to hit without your proficiency or pack tactics. I would calculate with 7 if you ignore attack rolls. Edit: a draft horse should do 9 not including to hit calculations.

[Kane0]

Also, its worth noting that levels 1-4 are pretty much considered 'introductory'. The DMG or most adventures assume you go through these levels pretty quickly and so we need to account for that when looking only at level 3 features and their effectiveness.


Also also, don't forget we can't look at just damage numbers for a full evaluation.

A hunter gains bonus damage, skill expertise, variable damage resistance and whirlwind attack.
A BM gains bonus damage with their bonus action, can speak with animals, can call creatures to help in noncombat situations and has a once per round disadvantage to attack until the beast is lost in which case the damage and disadvantage is stripped away.

If you perfectly equalise damage output from these two subclasses, mechanically speaking why would you pick the beastmaster over the hunter? The fact that the beast can be taken out of the fight is a significant liability.

[Bjarkmundur]

I thought wolf was the high-end of the spectrum, an outlier. The chart in my signature says that the average damage on a 1/2 CR creature is 5.

In that case, double Quarry is definitely a win.
Only attacks within the attack action is an unprecedented mechanic, a bit wordy, but works beautifully. Using that mechanic you'd have to forgo the Quarry dice size increase at level 5 in order to stay in line with Rogue, Barbarian and Warlock (the non-nova consistent damage dealers).

I guess at this point it's up to Sir Kane0 to make a executive decision.

Option A
- Only attacks made with the attack action can trigger quarry
- Hunter's Focused Targeting replaced with "Deal double Quarry damage"

Option B
- Quarry 1/turn
- Hunter's Focused Targeting replaced with "Deal double Quarry damage"

Also, its worth noting that levels 1-4 are pretty much considered 'introductory'. The DMG or most adventures assume you go through these levels pretty quickly and so we need to account for that when looking only at level 3 features and their effectiveness.

And when introducing a new player to the game, I prefer not to showcase gaping flaw in a homebrewed class with mine and my friend's names on it.

Also also, don't forget we can't look at just damage numbers for a full evaluation.

A hunter gains bonus damage, skill expertise, variable damage resistance and whirlwind attack.
A BM gains bonus damage with their bonus action, can speak with animals, can call creatures to help in noncombat situations and has a once per round disadvantage to attack until the beast is lost in which case the damage and disadvantage is stripped away.

If you perfectly equalise damage output from these two subclasses, mechanically speaking why would you pick the beastmaster over the hunter? The fact that the beast can be taken out of the fight is a significant liability.

Alright, I'll get working on those.
And by all means, let's keep moving the goal post.
The Burden of Proof in this thread is too damn high.
At least I've managed to prove what doesn't work. This is starting to feel like an episode of House.

Even though talking to animals was superduper good, 7 damage discrepancy is still. too. much.

[Fnissalot]

I thought wolf was the high-end of the spectrum, an outlier. The chart in my signature says that the average damage on a 1/2 CR creature is 5.

In that case, double Quarry is definitely a win.
Only attacks within the attack action is an unprecedented mechanic, a bit wordy, but works beautifully. Using that mechanic you'd have to forgo the Quarry dice size increase at level 5 in order to stay in line with Rogue, Barbarian and Warlock (the non-nova consistent damage dealers).

I guess at this point it's up to Sir Kane0 to make a executive decision.

Option A
- Only attacks made with the attack action can trigger quarry
- Hunter's Focused Targeting replaced with "Deal double Quarry damage"

Option B
- Quarry 1/turn
- Hunter's Focused Targeting replaced with "Deal double Quarry damage"



Alright, I'll get working on those.
And by all means, let's keep moving the goal post.
The Burden of Proof in this thread is too damn high.

Even though talking to animals was superduper good, 7 damage discrepancy is still. too. much.

I dunno, going through the 1/4 beasts, very few deals less than 1d6+2. The worst seems to be either 1d4+2 or 1d6+1 and but most seem to deal more?

Also, how did you calculate barbarian? I don't get it to add upp
level 5
2 attacks, great sword (2d6), 18 str
2* (7+4) = 22

2 attacks, great sword (2d6), 18 str, raging
2* (7+4+2) = 26

2 attacks, great sword (2d6), 18 str, raging, frenzy (berzerker)
3* (7+4+2) = 39

Edit: sorry for pushing the math/evidence.

[Bjarkmundur]

I dunno, going through the 1/4 beasts, very few deals less than 1d6+2. The worst seems to be either 1d4+2 or 1d6+1 and but most seem to deal more?

Also, how did you calculate barbarian? I don't get it to add upp
level 5
2 attacks, great sword (2d6), 18 str
2* (7+4) = 22

2 attacks, great sword (2d6), 18 str, raging
2* (7+4+2) = 26

2 attacks, great sword (2d6), 18 str, raging, frenzy
3* (7+4+2) = 39

I think I did

Weapon, Strength, Rage x 2
2(2d6+4+2) = 26

Zealot
1d6+level = 34

Everyone okay with using 7 for beast damage, or want me to use the given average of 5?

[Fnissalot]

I think I did

Weapon, Strength, Rage x 2
2(2d6+4+2) = 26

Zealot
1d6+level = 34

Everyone okay with using 7 for beast damage, or want me to use the given average of 5?

I am ok with it but checking the average beast 1/4 damage in the mean time.

Also, don't have xanathars in front of me but is not zealot 1d6+ half level rounded down once per round?

[Bjarkmundur]

I am ok with it but checking the average beast 1/4 damage in the mean time.

Also, don't have xanathars in front of me but is not zealot 1d6+ half level rounded down once per round?

Yeah, you're right. I'll adjust.

I'll have to assume the non-combat features don't apply, based on the assumption that they are non-combat features.

Spoiler: Don't mention these

Show

I'll have to assume that casting mass suggestion on 12 animals is roughly equivalent to gaining resistances to two damage types in terms of player experience. I personally think the former gives a more awesome spotlight than the latter.

I'll have to assume that gaining inside information from animals grants a player roughly the same amount of important information as would be revealed by a +prof bonus to investigation.

I'll have to assume that when travelling talking to animals helps you survive just as much as +prof to survival.

I'll have to assume that having an extra chance on perception rolls via an animal companion with a super-sniffer is roughly equivalent to gaining +prof to perception.

I'll also have to remember than the Hunter can only gain one expertise while the Beastmaster gains all the roughly equivalent features at no opportunity cost.

I'll also have to assume that the unique utility or powers (trample, pack tactics) are enough to make up for the time an animal companion spends dead.

I personally want to go back to using BlogOfHolding's monster stat avarages. What was the result of your research on beast damage output?

My version still has the least amount of red <:Þ

Most players spend majority of their game time playing at levels >10. Besides, we don't need to keep adding ones and twos to realize there's an issue here.

Reasons why the Beastmaster should deal less damage than the hunter:
- Gains more utility through talking with animals and using his beast's senses.
- Gains additional abilities through his beast's stat block.
- Gains pounce, and can use various other actions with great action economy.

Reasons why the Beastmaster should deal more damage than the hunter:
- The beast can die
- It uses a bonus action, which should hold some value.

Sir Kane0, what is your consensus? Should the BM be more combat-effective in terms of damage, or

[Fnissalot]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

6.66 is the average of 1/4 beasts in MM+volos excluding special abilities and poison damage. With poison damage you are up at 7.78 as average per beast. Haven't included charges, swallows, pact tactics etc. Also, haven't checked beasts from other books.

Only 3 of 26 beasts has an average damage of less than 5 and all of those has 4.5.

7 seems like a fair or maybe even low assessment for the average.

Edit: high barbarian should be with berzerker frenzy, not zealot.

Edit2: TFtYP has Guthash that has in practice endless damage on a disease... (If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or contract a disease. Until the disease is cured, the target can't regain hit points except by magical means, and the target's hit point maximum decreases by 3 (1d6) every 24 hours. If the target's hit point maximum drops to 0 as a result of this disease, the target dies.)

[Kane0]

Option A
- Only attacks made with the attack action can trigger quarry
- Hunter's Focused Targeting replaced with "Deal double Quarry damage"

Option B
- Quarry 1/turn
- Hunter's Focused Targeting replaced with "Deal double Quarry damage"

I do honestly prefer Option A but it limits you to the attack action so you can't use it with Opportunity Attacks or in the case of a Warden things like Thorn Whip which I'd like to see. It opens up interesting options rather than shoehorning you into the attack action (a repeat criticism of martial classes)
That leaves option B but it just feels like a lesser sneak attack in that case.

I agree that Hunter does less raw damage than Beastmaster, the numbers don't lie. I disagree that it's too much and a serious flaw.

[Bjarkmundur]

I do honestly prefer Option A but it limits you to the attack action so you can't use it with Opportunity Attacks or in the case of a Warden things like Thorn Whip which I'd like to see. It opens up interesting options rather than shoehorning you into the attack action (a repeat criticism of martial classes)
That leaves option B but it just feels like a lesser sneak attack in that case.

I agree that Hunter does less raw damage than Beastmaster, the numbers don't lie. I disagree that it's too much and a serious flaw.

Pffft, 'lesser sneak attack'. Shame on you. *posh english accent* It is, in fact, a SUPERIOR sneak attack, my good sir.

Edit: Don't worry, it has enough unique uses to be different. Let's not get too hipster and find something better just because it's different.

[Fnissalot]

9.46 if you count both poison and charge damage for the beasts.

[Bjarkmundur]

9.46 if you count both poison and charge damage for the beasts.

7 works just fine, thanks for putting in the work <3

And yeah, 1 per turn does leave it open to some fun shenanigans.

[Fnissalot]

7 works just fine, thanks for putting in the work <3

No problem!

Edit: a frenzying raging barbarian at level 3 does stupid amount of damage i.e. 22? 18 is not that bad.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm starting to think you kill a lot of animal companions in your campaigns, Kane0.

It's not so much the difference that's the issue, it's the fact that a beastmaster without a beast is pretty much just as effective as the hunter :/
Like he said, the beast deals seven points of damage. And if you look a the current table (far left) if you remove 7 damage from the Beastmaster, you get the same numbers as the Hunter. That's just not cool, in any way shape or form.

A frenzying raging barbarian at level 3 does stupid amount of damage i.e. 22? 18 is not that bad.

Frenzy barbarian? Is that one of those non-existing builds, like Hexblade, Mystic and Lore Wizard?

Looking at the context, 22 is an outlier. And yes, I know the Base Damage document is unfinished, I've been busy.

P.S. Did you guys even read what I wrote below the tables in the document?

EDIT: I'm off to watch a movie with the missus before bed. I hope that over the last few hours we've managed to change the Ranger to the better. <3

[Fnissalot]

Oh, didn't check that document.

If we should start to cheese it.
A TWF barbarian has 14 at 1-3; Main(3.5+3+2)+ Offhand(3.5+2)
Battlerager barbarian has 19.5 at level 3. Main(7+3+2)+Bonus(2.5+3+2) Most OP subclass ever!?!

Old ranger would be TWF hunters mark lvl 3; (3.5+3.5+3)*2=20 Most OP subclass ever!?!
Old ranger would be Sword + shield hunters mark lvl 3; (4.5+3.5+3+2)=13
(if you trigger colossus slayer, add 4.5 to these values)

Hunter does not really have any nova damage. Warden and beastmasters have a few tricks to nova it up abit. The old ranger(hunter) out-damaged warrior a good bit but no one cared for it anyway.

If we calculate to hit, rogue benefits even more with the extra attack from TWF since it gives an additional chance to get the sneak attack every turn.

I read most of the things below.

Now I need to sleep... Good luck!

[Bjarkmundur]

Hunter does not really have any nova damage.

This is a good point. The subclass doesn't have burst, needs an attack to set up and has fewer tricks up it's sleeve. I don't know if that's enough to say it should do more damage than the beastmaster, but it should at least be enough to be able to do more than a beast-less beastmaster.

Cheers!

[Fnissalot]

Ignoring poison damage beasts, the PHB beast masters best beast at lvl 3 (dimetrodon) does at average 11 damage.

Giant badger with multiattack for PHB BM, would only do 14.5 at level 3. Weird that they nerfed it.

[Kane0]

I'm starting to think you kill a lot of animal companions in your campaigns, Kane0.

Oddly enough not really, the current game I’m DMing is corerules with a party of Dragonborn dragon sorc, half-elf trickery cleric, half orc beastmaster ranger and elf ancients pally. Currently level 4 and the ranger has lost his boar and replaced it with a wolf. He’s the only one that has taken a feat so far too, he picked up PAM.

I’m currently on a road trip but i should be able to sit down and pore over things later.

[Kane0]

So thinking about options to replace the Quarry damage reroll:

- Add quarry damage when you mark a creature
- Once per turn add a quarry die to damage (stacking, marked or not)
- Max result on quarry die damage
- Exploding quarry die
- Quarry die damage ignores damage resistance and treats immunity as resistance

Not counting for possible use limitations like wis mod times per rest, once per short/long rest, etc.

[Fnissalot]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

Added a page for comparing how much they affect different options, just counting the quarry; not the to hit, other subclasses, etc.

- Add quarry damage when you mark a creature

Better than rerolls the first 3-4? turns of combat vs single creature. A lot better when fighting many small creatures. Averaged single target on 3 turns; rerolls do 2.09, this 2.5.

- Once per turn add a quarry die to damage (stacking, marked or not)

Interesting at low levels. Equal to marking in short fights, equal to double in long fights. It peaks less on level 5. Better than rerolls but worse than doubles if the fight takes more than 1 turn on the same target from 5th. This is this versions hunter's mark but scales;starts worse, ends better.

- Max result on quarry die damage

Better than rerolling (4 on a d4) but worse than extra dice (5 on 2d4). Very consistent.

- Exploding quarry die

Average 3.33 compared to 3.13 on rerolling a d4. Not a big difference but a bit better. A lot worse though on higher levels. 14.18 compared to 16.98 on rerolling a 2 d12s every turn.

- Quarry die damage ignores damage resistance and treats immunity as resistance

Situational but can be very good, less so once you get magic weapons.

[Bjarkmundur]

- Add quarry damage when you mark a creature

Not enough to solve the problem by itself, but an interesting quality of life bonus. Perfect for the hunter.

- Once per turn add a quarry die to damage (stacking, marked or not)

Although this works, this actually makes the hunter less fun to play, since it decides your next move for you and discourages you for doing anything else.

- Max result on quarry die damage

This is the same as double quarry dice, but less fun since you don't get to roll the dice. If you're okay with this, why not just use double quarry dice. Where is all this coming from? Why are you so desperately trying to avoid using my suggestion

- Exploding quarry die

Definitely fun. Might work when combined to the "You can mark and trigger your Quarry with the same attack"

- Quarry die damage ignores damage resistance and treats immunity as resistance

Not counting for possible use limitations like wis mod times per rest, once per short/long rest, etc.

We are fixing a math problem. There is no problem with the experience of fun value of the class, so no need to break your back trying to making an interesting mechanic. Just use the simplest solution of 2x quarry and call it a day.