Loving everything... but the Ranger

[HammerCrush]

First of all, I'm in love with 5 ed. My group (my elf druid, a fighter, a paladin and TWO warlocks) had two sessions of play, and we are at 3rd level. Even at 1st level, each class had a very unique feeling, and was very different from another (well, maybe not the aforementioned warlocks…)

I’ve read all the classes, and think that this is true for all of them, except one: the Ranger.

A 1st level Ranger gets Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, but his Favored Enemy feature does not makes him any better in fighting that type of monster. In fact, only in the 20th level (!) the Ranger gets something that makes him better at fighting his favored enemy: Foe Slayer, that makes him add his Wis mod in the attack or in the damage.

That should be in the Favored Enemy description! Or at least, something that makes the Ranger more usefull.

Think about it: a 1st level Ranger is worst in combat against his favored enemy than a 1st level fighter. The Ranger can track them, smell them, even talking to them. But not fight them better. No, that’s only for the Big League.

The favored enemy feature is one that the player does not control. It’s up to the DM to put them in the adventure, and the player may take one or two sessions of play before he finally encounters some of his prey. And then he can’t do anything about it! There is nothing in the class (aside from the 20th level feature) that makes it more powerful against its favored enemy.

The Ranger was one of the fewer playtested classes, and I believe that this result reflects this.

One fun thing to do would be giving the Ranger a “dice pool” that he could use to increase the damage against his Favored Enemy. At 1st level, he could have 2 d4, that he could use to boost his damage against his favored enemies. Once expended, he would have to take a short or long rest. At higher levels, he would gain more Hunting dices, and the dice wound go up to d10.

Dammit, I think I will houserule that. Better that an underrated fighter that can track gnolls. What do you guys think?

[Grynning]

I made a thread with some "improvements" I cooked up, including to the ranger:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?368606-Easy-Martial-Character-quot-fixes-quot-with-houseruling

[CyberThread]

Ranger damage wise keeps up with other two attack melee types.

[Falka]

Spells give Rangers a lot of hidden strength.Also, in adventures I'm getting the feeling that his skillset is going to be really useful (in HotDQ at least, the Ranger would have a lot of opportunities to do some neat stuff).

[Scirocco]

I dunno, removing the Ranger's "powered by racism" bonus damage isn't necessarily a bad thing. But definitely agreed that they seem lackluster as a whole and could use some stronger class features.

[HammerCrush]

Ranger damage wise keeps up with other two attack melee types.

Yes, but Fighters get more attacks, and Rogues gets SA. Monks can use ki, and have at least an extra attack per turn. Paladins have Lay on hands at first level, and can expend spell slots for smite. The ranger just doesn't feel like an expert in hunting something, or at least, not in killing it. His damage should be higher than avarage against his Favored enemy. Or so I believe.

[Falka]

Yes, but Fighters get more attacks, and Rogues gets SA. Monks can use ki, and have at least an extra attack per turn. Paladins have Lay on hands at first level, and can expend spell slots for smite. The ranger just doesn't feel like an expert in hunting something, or at least, not in killing it. His damage should be higher than avarage against his Favored enemy. Or so I believe.

He has spells that can enhance his damage. He can also have a permanent ally by his side (which is by no means useless if you use it wisely).

[HylianKnight]

Yes, but Fighters get more attacks, and Rogues gets SA. Monks can use ki, and have at least an extra attack per turn. Paladins have Lay on hands at first level, and can expend spell slots for smite. The ranger just doesn't feel like an expert in hunting something, or at least, not in killing it. His damage should be higher than avarage against his Favored enemy. Or so I believe.

Don't forget the Hunter is designed so that you choose which bonuses you want that will make you more effective against different types of enemies.

[HammerCrush]

He has spells that can enhance his damage.

Yep, but is a 2nd level feature. At 1st level, he is just a weaker fighter who don't get lost.



He can also have a permanent ally by his side (which is by no means useless if you use it wisely).

This is just one of the paths that the Ranger can get (and for me is the best one)

Also, don't get me wrong: I think that a Ranger can be really fun to play, even if I personally don't like the "Caster Ranger" archetype. But at 1st level, a ranger have nothing special in combat, and at higher levels, the fact that he is an expert in hunting something is not mentioned until level 20.

[HammerCrush]

Don't forget the Hunter is designed so that you choose which bonuses you want that will make you more effective against different types of enemies.

That's the other build (Hunter). The core ranger don't get to do anything special against his favored enemies, and even the Hunter build don't adress the Favored Enemy feature (with I think is good). But I would like to see something, even if it was an "Smite Enemy" class feature.

[Falka]

Yep, but is a 2nd level feature. At 1st level, he is just a weaker fighter who don't get lost.

This is just one of the paths that the Ranger can get (and for me is the best one)

Also, don't get me wrong: I think that a Ranger can be really fun to play, even if I personally don't like the "Caster Ranger" archetype. But at 1st level, a ranger have nothing special in combat, and at higher levels, the fact that he is an expert in hunting something is not mentioned until level 20.

Most Level 1 characters are glorified peasants, anyway. Level 1 is hardly a good reference to gauge a character's power.

Paladins need at least Smite in order to be something else than a peasant with a 5 HP heal.

[akaddk]

I highly recommend houseruling favoured enemy and natural terrain to simply work with all enemies and all terrains. It's still heavily reliant on the DM but at least it doesn't straight-jacket the player or DM to certain terrains.

These two features can be quite useful and even powerful but I think it's up to the player to remind their DM of how useful they can be by trying to use them all the time.

Mechanics-wise I don't think they're underpowered but they're definitely problematic relying so heavily on the DM's implementation of their core features.

[EvilAnagram]

Yep, but is a 2nd level feature. At 1st level, he is just a weaker fighter who don't get lost.
I disagree. At first level, thanks to DEX and WIS being the only important abilities, he gets to have a high AC, high ranged attack, high melee attack, and exceptional physical skills. Besides that, no one is that good in first level. It's first level. You're not supposed to be great, yet. After second level the ranger, through his spells and class features, gains spike and mass damage abilities that make him a real threat. The Hunter path can give him more attacks than the fighter depending on enemy grouping, and his skills outside of combat are awesome.



But at 1st level, a ranger have nothing special in combat, and at higher levels, the fact that he is an expert in hunting something is not mentioned until level 20.
Again, no one's great at first level. Also, the Hunter's first ability choices all increase damage output, as do his level 11 features.

[EvilAnagram]

I highly recommend houseruling favoured enemy and natural terrain to simply work with all enemies and all terrains. It's still heavily reliant on the DM but at least it doesn't straight-jacket the player or DM to certain terrains.
That just pulls all the flavor out of it. You get more terrain and enemy selections later, and besides that you should talk to the DM about what terrain would be useful. Being great in all terrain is a bigger mechanical advantage, but reduces the importance of your character's background.

[MadBear]

The beastmaster subclass, seems to get much better as levels go by as well.

Later you can make 1 attack, and have the companion attack once, then you can attack once, followed by the animal attacking twice. Then at later levels, swift quiver means you'll be attacking 3 times, and the animal 2 times. It's situational, but it's a pretty useful ability. Outside the fighter, it's one of the highest # of attacks that can be made, and it's not taking into account other means the ranger has of attacking multiple enemies.

(and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you can use TWF to attack 2 times, followed by the animal attacking 1-2 times at levels 5+/11+ respectively.)

[Falka]

The beastmaster subclass, seems to get much better as levels go by as well.

Later you can make 1 attack, and have the companion attack once, then you can attack once, followed by the animal attacking twice. Then at later levels, swift quiver means you'll be attacking 3 times, and the animal 2 times. It's situational, but it's a pretty useful ability. Outside the fighter, it's one of the highest # of attacks that can be made, and it's not taking into account other means the ranger has of attacking multiple enemies.

(and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you can use TWF to attack 2 times, followed by the animal attacking 1-2 times at levels 5+/11+ respectively.)

Actually if you play with a Bird companion, they have Multiattack, so they can attack twice each time they take an Attack action. So the Bird could attack four times at level 11, hitting with proficiency (that's about 5 damage with each hit).

[Human Paragon 3]

Paladin doesn't get any bonus damage at level 1 either, just a healing power and a utility power. Ranger gets two utility powers and an extra skill proficiency. If you are interested in playing a skilled outdoorsman, you have everything you need to do that out of the box.

[Sartharina]

I actually like that Favored Enemy doesn't give damage bonuses against non-favored enemies, then have the class be balanced on the assumption that it's only ever fighting its favored enemy. It means Rangers don't suck against non-favored enemies.

And if a Ranger isn't adventuring against his Favored Enemies, it means he's a crappy ranger. The ranger has significant power to take control of where the campaign's going. "Nah, we're not going that way. We're going somewhere else instead".

[hymer]

Actually if you play with a Bird companion, they have Multiattack, so they can attack twice each time they take an Attack action. So the Bird could attack four times at level 11, hitting with proficiency (that's about 5 damage with each hit).

The language is "Starting at 11th level, your beast companion can make two attacks when you command it to use the Attack action." Which is much the same thing multiattack does: "The [creature] makes two attacks, one with its [one weapon] and once with its [other weapon]." So how exactly those two rules interact is not clear. They could be said to do the same and so there is no stacking; or they could multiply each other like you suggest; or the compromise, letting it attack twice with one of its weapons.


And if a Ranger isn't adventuring against his Favored Enemies, it means he's a crappy ranger. The ranger has significant power to take control of where the campaign's going. "Nah, we're not going that way. We're going somewhere else instead".

In some cases, perhaps. When a DM buys a module and follows that, the ranger will simply be walking out of the story if he doesn't try to play along. Or if the ranger actually has priorities, he may want to pursue certain goals despite there being no sign of his favoured enemies in that direction. That wouldn't make him 'crappy'.

[Malifice]

Personally I would love to make the Ranger get Hunters Mark as a class ability rather than a spell. Only works against favored enemies. Up all day long.

Far from breaking the class, it would make it nearly as good as the Paladin (who still has better burst damage) and comparable with the Fighter.

It sucks that high level Rangers have to switch off Hunters mark to activate Swift quiver.

[UHF]

Spells dude. Spells. Conjure Barrage looks like fun. (I'd build that up like a Rogue and toss a dagger.)

I think the best way to understand characters is to look at strengths vs variety. Rangers got variety, not so much for the fighter. And by that I mean that the fighter isn't so hot out of combat.

He's not just a weak fighter who doesn't get lost. He has spells, and they aren't all combat spells.

The 5e Ranger has mobility, stealth, useful senses, spells, and a reasonable combat ability. He's only really the best with senses and tracking.

Many of those Hunter abilities add up to a lot of fun. Now how about those spells.

[Person_Man]

Yeah, my Ranger: The most disappointing class? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?367790-Ranger-The-most-disappointing-class) thread has slipped to the second page of the forum, but rereading through it, clearly a number of Playgrounders aren't happy with the class, including me.


Favored Enemy/Terrain is awesome/fluffy but useless if the DM doesn't use your preferred Enemy/Terrain choices.
Ranger spells are useful, but have very limited uses which require a Long Rest to renew, and scale very poorly compared to full casters. Getting 4th or 5th level spells as a class ability at the same level that another class is getting 8th or 9th level spells is a very clear, apples to apples, imbalance where the Ranger is getting weaker abilities with nothing to compensate for it other then +1ish hit point per level. Plus full casters have Cantrips, Rituals, and better spell lists.
Bards can get 5th level Ranger (or Paladin) spells (their coolest high level capstone-ish magic) at 10th level.
The rest of the base class abilities are basically things that the Rogue, Fighter, or Barbarian get, but the Ranger almost always gets them later in his progression, or a more watered down version.
The subclass options are underwhelming, for a variety of reasons.


It's a real shame. But as Grynning's thread shows, there a variety of ways you could make it much better with minimal rewrites. Make Favored Enemy/Terrain universal or changeable with a Long Rest. Let Ranger spells be renewed with a Short Rest. Fiddle with the subclass options to make them slightly better.

[EvilAnagram]

Ranger spells are useful, but have very limited uses which require a Long Rest to renew, and scale very poorly compared to full casters. Getting 4th or 5th level spells as a class ability at the same level that another class is getting 8th or 9th level spells is a very clear, apples to apples, imbalance where the Ranger is getting weaker abilities with nothing to compensate for it other then +1ish hit point per level. Plus full casters have Cantrips, Rituals, and better spell lists.
That's apples to oranges. Rangers have excellent attacks, making blasty cantrips useless, and their capstone spells provide a ton of damage. They're primarily martial with magic that makes their martial abilities better, and that's really not comparable to what a Sorcerer or Wizard does.

[Person_Man]

That's apples to oranges. Rangers have excellent attacks, making blasty cantrips useless, and their capstone spells provide a ton of damage. They're primarily martial with magic that makes their martial abilities better, and that's really not comparable to what a Sorcerer or Wizard does.

At 9th level the only class ability the Ranger (and Paladin) gains is two 3rd level spells. At 9th level, a Cleric, Druid, Bard, Wizard, and Sorcerer gains one additional 4th level spell use and one 5th level spell.

At 13th level the only class ability the Ranger (and Paladin) gains is 4th level spells, when full casters are getting 7th.

At 17th level the only class ability the Ranger (and Paladin) gains is one 5th level spell, when full casters are getting 9th.

Nothing else is gained at that level by any of the classes except for hit dice (+1ish hit point per level in favor of the Ranger). Which class ability is more valuable to gain at each of those levels?

So even if you stipulate that a Ranger's "excellent attacks" make them better prior to those class levels, clearly every full caster is gaining more then the Ranger at those specific levels.

Separately, I would say that the Ranger's attacks aren't excellent. Ranger attacks produce marginally better average damage per round, assuming that the full spellcaster is limiting themselves to normal attacks and cantrips, and not spells. (Which are limited in number, but can produce dramatic encounter winning results).

Also, Bards also get 2 attacks per round plus a variety of ways to magically buff them. Druids can get multiple attacks from long lasting Wild Shape plus a variety of ways to buff them.

[Demonic Spoon]

You can't possibly compare classes that way. Spells are not cast in a vacuum. The ranger gains the ability to cast new spells in the context of a martial character with multiple attacks and other stuff to make him more fight-ty. The spells augment what he already does. Wizards gain new spells in the context of that being the only thing they do

[CyberThread]

Wizards get full bab though
They are clearly op.

[EvilAnagram]

Pure caster spells and Ranger/Paladin spells are not comparable because Rangers and Paladins are physical damage dealers whose spells are meant to augment that. If they were only meant to be spellcasters, only having 5th level magic would be terrible. They are not, though. They are warriors with unique spells that allow plenty of extra damage and can augment their attacks. Hunter's Quarry, Lightning Arrow, Conjure Barrage, etc. all increase damage output utilizing the Ranger's primary means of attacking an enemy. This is quite unlike fireball, or any other wizard spell.

[Person_Man]

Pure caster spells and Ranger/Paladin spells are not comparable because Rangers and Paladins are physical damage dealers whose spells are meant to augment that. If they were only meant to be spellcasters, only having 5th level magic would be terrible. They are not, though. They are warriors with unique spells that allow plenty of extra damage and can augment their attacks. Hunter's Quarry, Lightning Arrow, Conjure Barrage, etc. all increase damage output utilizing the Ranger's primary means of attacking an enemy. This is quite unlike fireball, or any other wizard spell.

I don't have the time for a level by level multi-variable analysis at the moment, but I don't see how the Ranger's combat outcomes are different or better in any way from any other classes combat outcomes.

A Ranger deals slightly more melee or ranged weapon damage when he makes normal attacks. (Though typically on par with or less then a Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, or Paladin). When he uses his limited spells, these attacks deal more damage or can effect a larger number of targets.

Any full spellcaster deals comparable but slightly less damage when making normal attacks. (Though not always. Again, Bard and Druid are comparable to Ranger). When they use their less limited spells, their attacks deal more damage or can effect a larger number of targets. Plus they can do a wide variety of other things that magic can do. (Which is pretty much everything).

[Sartharina]

A ranger's comparable to a fighter, paladin, and barbarian in ability, with a splash of spellcasting. For some reason, though, as soon as someone gives a splash of spellcasting on a class, it gets compared to a Wizard.

[HammerCrush]

A ranger's comparable to a fighter, paladin, and barbarian in ability, with a splash of spellcasting. For some reason, though, as soon as someone gives a splash of spellcasting on a class, it gets compared to a Wizard.

No, my point is that the ranger have nothing special about it BESIDES spellcasting. The core Ranger (as I will call the class without the archetype) is only a spellcaster that can track. Hell, it gets less ability score improvements than the Rogue, for exemple, as his spells were as good as the Sorcerer's.

A Paladin can heal, and can uses his spells solts as fuel to Smite. Rogues have sneak attack. Monks have ki. Barbarians have Rage. Fighters gets lots of extra attacks. All this are core class mechanics, without the archetype.

What does the Ranger gets?

An extra language, advantage on track, don't get lost sometimes.

At higher levels, they gain:

6th - Awareness (OMG there is a type of creature in a Mile. I don't know what it is, or even how much they are. Let's look/avoid them. Oh, and I have to burn a spell slot for that)
8th - Land stride (OMG I now can walk over difficult terrain, and advantage agains plant-type pokem... I mean, spells)
10th - Hide in plain sight (It's sound good, but it takes a minute, and you must stay motionless)
14th - Vanish (first cool ability, and that is usefull in combat, provided that the ranger can take cover).
18th - Feral senses (second cool ability, you don't have disadvantage against invisible creatures, and senses then at 30 feet)
20th - Foe slayer (HEY, remember that Favored Enemies that you chose? NOW you can add your Wis mod to attack OR damage, once per turn).

So, the Ranger don't get anything combat-usefull until much later in the game, and only at top-level he is more effective against his favored enemies. If he could burn spell slots to cause extra damage against them (like an Smite FE, as I've said somewhere before), it would be something unique to the class. But as it is, it just seems underpowered and generic, specialy at lower levels.

[MadBear]

No, my point is that the ranger have nothing special about it BESIDES spellcasting. The core Ranger (as I will call the class without the archetype) is only a spellcaster that can track. Hell, it gets less ability score improvements than the Rogue, for exemple, as his spells were as good as the Sorcerer's.

A Paladin can heal, and can uses his spells solts as fuel to Smite. Rogues have sneak attack. Monks have ki. Barbarians have Rage. Fighters gets lots of extra attacks. All this are core class mechanics, without the archetype.

What does the Ranger gets?

An extra language, advantage on track, don't get lost sometimes.

At higher levels, they gain:

6th - Awareness (OMG there is a type of creature in a Mile. I don't know what it is, or even how much they are. Let's look/avoid them. Oh, and I have to burn a spell slot for that)
8th - Land stride (OMG I now can walk over difficult terrain, and advantage agains plant-type pokem... I mean, spells)
10th - Hide in plain sight (It's sound good, but it takes a minute, and you must stay motionless)
14th - Vanish (first cool ability, and that is usefull in combat, provided that the ranger can take cover).
18th - Feral senses (second cool ability, you don't have disadvantage against invisible creatures, and senses then at 30 feet)
20th - Foe slayer (HEY, remember that Favored Enemies that you chose? NOW you can add your Wis mod to attack OR damage, once per turn).

So, the Ranger don't get anything combat-usefull until much later in the game, and only at top-level he is more effective against his favored enemies. If he could burn spell slots to cause extra damage against them (like an Smite FE, as I've said somewhere before), it would be something unique to the class. But as it is, it just seems underpowered and generic, specialy at lower levels.

They also get 1 extra skill, and I'd argue a more useful subset of skills to choose from. Also their spell list seems more versatile in and out of combat compared to other martial's (though, I'd have to actually sit down and crunch the numbers on this, and I could be wrong).

I also feel ignoring the subclass is a bit misleading since the amount of power it adds to a class varies considerably between classes.

[Durazno]

If the DMG is going to have an oathbreaker variant to the Paladin, I wonder if there will be a powered-by-racism Ranger where all of its archetype abilities are based on killing favored enemies. Seems like a good option for the forces of evil. Exterminator Rangers!

[HammerCrush]

They also get 1 extra skill, and I'd argue a more useful subset of skills to choose from. Also their spell list seems more versatile in and out of combat compared to other martial's (though, I'd have to actually sit down and crunch the numbers on this, and I could be wrong).

I also feel ignoring the subclass is a bit misleading since the amount of power it adds to a class varies considerably between classes.

I'm not talking about raw power, or dpr. I'm talking about flavor. The Ranger is bland, as it doesnt get to do anything unique. The class does not have that unique feature that makes it cool. And I feel that this is a pity, cause I realy like the archetypes, but I feel that they could be apllied to the barbarian or the fighter, and it would feel just the same.

[...]

At least it wasn't what they did to his older brother, the druid. Rest in peace, wild shape, your ability to affect combat will be missed. Going back to the ranger, I think a divine spontaneous caster other than the favored soul, who's gimmick was being a spontaneous caster, should prepare spells.

[Cibulan]

At least it wasn't what they did to his older brother, the druid. Rest in peace, wild shape, your ability to affect combat will be missed. Going back to the ranger, I think a divine spontaneous caster other than the favored soul, who's gimmick was being a spontaneous caster, should prepare spells.You did see the Moon Druid, yes?

[Malifice]

At least it wasn't what they did to his older brother, the druid. Rest in peace, wild shape, your ability to totally overshadow the game, bog it down while the druid flicks through multiple books, cherry picks the best abilities, and runs around as a talking dinosaur in monks robes while casting 9th level spells will be missed.

Fixed that for you ;)

[Sartharina]

No, my point is that the ranger have nothing special about it BESIDES spellcasting. The core Ranger (as I will call the class without the archetype) is only a spellcaster that can track. Hell, it gets less ability score improvements than the Rogue, for exemple, as his spells were as good as the Sorcerer's.

A Paladin can heal, and can uses his spells solts as fuel to Smite. Rogues have sneak attack. Monks have ki. Barbarians have Rage. Fighters gets lots of extra attacks. All this are core class mechanics, without the archetype.

What does the Ranger gets?

An extra language, advantage on track, don't get lost sometimes.

At higher levels, they gain:

6th - Awareness (OMG there is a type of creature in a Mile. I don't know what it is, or even how much they are. Let's look/avoid them. Oh, and I have to burn a spell slot for that)
8th - Land stride (OMG I now can walk over difficult terrain, and advantage agains plant-type pokem... I mean, spells)
10th - Hide in plain sight (It's sound good, but it takes a minute, and you must stay motionless)
14th - Vanish (first cool ability, and that is usefull in combat, provided that the ranger can take cover).
18th - Feral senses (second cool ability, you don't have disadvantage against invisible creatures, and senses then at 30 feet)
20th - Foe slayer (HEY, remember that Favored Enemies that you chose? NOW you can add your Wis mod to attack OR damage, once per turn).

So, the Ranger don't get anything combat-usefull until much later in the game, and only at top-level he is more effective against his favored enemies. If he could burn spell slots to cause extra damage against them (like an Smite FE, as I've said somewhere before), it would be something unique to the class. But as it is, it just seems underpowered and generic, specialy at lower levels.The ranger is a soldier-scout that can Track and survive in the wilderness, not a Spellcaster that can track. Its environmental stuff is what makes it stand out, not its spellcasting.

It has as many Proficient Skills as a bard, plus unique exploration and wilderness-survival-based abilities. It's also a competent Soldier (Good HD, Good weapon proficiency, Good Armor Proficiency, Extra Attack), with a decent splash of spellcasting.
I'm not talking about raw power, or dpr. I'm talking about flavor. The Ranger is bland, as it doesnt get to do anything unique. The class does not have that unique feature that makes it cool. And I feel that this is a pity, cause I realy like the archetypes, but I feel that they could be apllied to the barbarian or the fighter, and it would feel just the same.I find the flavor to be extremely unique and effective. IF you take it for granted, that's your problem, not a problem with the class.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I do think the Ranger lacks some obvious 'killer app' ability to make it seem immediately appealing. Maybe there's some gems in the spell list or options that works well but I'm just not sure it can't be adequately subsumed by other classes.



Favored Enemy/Terrain is awesome/fluffy but useless if the DM doesn't use your preferred Enemy/Terrain choices.


To be fair... when has that not been the case? Basically have to metagame either by going with more likely types then hope your not screwed or by asking the DM for some suggestions and the understanding you'll get to use them.

[MadBear]

I do think the Ranger lacks some obvious 'killer app' ability to make it seem immediately appealing. Maybe there's some gems in the spell list or options that works well but I'm just not sure it can't be adequately subsumed by other classes.



To be fair... when has that not been the case? Basically have to metagame either by going with more likely types then hope your not screwed or by asking the DM for some suggestions and the understanding you'll get to use them.

I kinda feel like this is the way it needs to be from a RP perspective though. Rangers are supposed to be quite guardians of their domain. If you give them the bonuses over all terrain, it detracts from the fact that they're supposed to have specialized in the land they've guarded. It's kinda a double edge sword. It's the same reason that I'm happy they moved the damage dealing portion of favored enemy out of the ability for the most part (barring lvl 20). Rangers are usually depicted as master hunters of particular creatures, so giving it to any old foe detracts from the RP perspective. On the other hand it made it a poor design choice to take the rangers main boost of damage and have it be extremely situational. At least now, the favored enemy is more about what the ranger knows, and not his damage ability. So yeah, you do need to work with the DM, but I figure it's the best solution in keeping the flavor of the character without completely screwing his ability to contribute.

tldr: you're right Soras, but I think it's the lesser of two evils in this case.

[LordVonDerp]

You can't possibly compare classes that way. Spells are not cast in a vacuum. The ranger gains the ability to cast new spells in the context of a martial character with multiple attacks and other stuff to make him more fight-ty. The spells augment what he already does. Wizards gain new spells in the context of that being the only thing they do
But they weren't being compared in a vacuum. Most of the rangers fighting abilities are worse than that of a fighter or paladin, and most of their spells don't do much to improve their fighting abilities, and those that do are often concentration spells meaning they will likely break when you get hit (as people who wind up surrounded by enemies often are)

[Demonic Spoon]

But they weren't being compared in a vacuum. Most of the rangers fighting abilities are worse than that of a fighter or paladin, and most of their spells don't do much to improve their fighting abilities, and those that do are often concentration spells meaning they will likely break when you get hit (as people who wind up surrounded by enemies often are)


It was being compared in a vacuum. The ranger's spellcasting ability that he gains at a particular level was being directly compared with the spellcasting ability gained by a wizard. There's no way you could remove context from that comparison more completely.

In what way are Rangers worse at fighting than paladins?

[LordVonDerp]

It was being compared in a vacuum. The ranger's spellcasting ability that he gains at a particular level was being directly compared with the spellcasting ability gained by a wizard. There's no way you could remove context from that comparison more completely.

In what way are Rangers worse at fighting than paladins?
1) Go read the post before yours, it outlines everything.

2 - defense) paladins get better saving throws, immunity to a disease and fear, healing, and condition removal, plus all the bonuses from whatever oath they choose.



3 - damage) Paladins gets +1d8 radiant damage to every single melee attack


Rangers get +wis mod to attack or damage 1/round against certain creatures AT LEVEL 20

Hunter rangers can choose from either +1d8 damage 1/turn under specific conditions, a free reaction attack when a Large+ creature makes a melee attack from 5 feet away, or 1/round free attack against a target other than the one you want dead under highly specific circumstances.
Whirlwind attack is useless by the time you get it, and althouh volley is slightly less terrible, it still doesn't have much going for it.
Hunters Mark adds a decent damage boost but it requires giving up an attack, it requires a daily spell slot, and it requires concentration so don't expect it to last long.
Swift quiver also requires concentration and lets you use a bonus action to go from making 2 ranged attacks to making 4 ranged attacks, but by the time you can cast it more than once per day you're only 1 level away from a fighter being able to make 4 attacks whenever he wants. Oh, and by Tue time you get swift quiver, you're already at the point where it's impossible to make concentration saves anyway, unless you spend 2 of the few feats you have to partially fix that problem.


You could make hunters mark and swift quiver at will abilities and the ranger wouldn't even be overpowered.

[Shining Wrath]

It appears that Rangers are the jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none class for this edition.

Melee, yes, but not as good as Fighters or Monks. Edit: Or barbarians.
Spells, yes, but not very powerful ones. Certainly nothing to compare to full casters.
An animal companion, but not as good as a Druid's.
Skills, but not like a Rogue.

As the first character added to a party, they are lackluster. As the fifth, they provide a lot of ability to fill in gaps.

Don't give up hope on them.

[Human Paragon 3]

An animal companion, but not as good as a Druid's.


Druids don't get animal companions. Rangers are the only class that gets an animal friend as a class feature.

[Shining Wrath]

Druids don't get animal companions. Rangers are the only class that gets an animal friend as a class feature.

Damn.

Druids get to turn into animals, but don't get their very special friend?

I read through the class just last night and never noticed that.

[Tengu_temp]

And if a Ranger isn't adventuring against his Favored Enemies, it means he's a crappy ranger. The ranger has significant power to take control of where the campaign's going. "Nah, we're not going that way. We're going somewhere else instead".

That's a very strange approach. If there was a child lost in the swamp, would your ranger say "screw that, we're going to the mountains instead because that's where my favored enemies are"?


A ranger's comparable to a fighter, paladin, and barbarian in ability, with a splash of spellcasting. For some reason, though, as soon as someone gives a splash of spellcasting on a class, it gets compared to a Wizard.

Every class will be compared to the wizard because wizards and other full casters are the most overpowered classes - not to the same extent as in 3e, but still. Choosing a non-caster, or a partial caster, shouldn't be the same as choosing to suck in comparison to the almighty Batman.

[Giant2005]

Depending on how your GM rules multi-attacks, Rangers are actually really good fighters if they have a good pet like a Giant Badger. Before considering reactions or bonus attacks, the Beast gets 4 attacks and the Ranger 1, which is more than any other melee class can get with consistency. Their magic is pretty good too and can both get more attacks and increase the damage of each attack.

[hymer]

Depending on how your GM rules multi-attacks, Rangers are actually really good fighters if they have a good pet like a Giant Badger. Before considering reactions or bonus attacks, the Beast gets 4 attacks and the Ranger 1, which is more than any other melee class can get with consistency. Their magic is pretty good too and can both get more attacks and increase the damage of each attack.

Two-weapon fighting fighter gets 5 consistently as well with no rules ambiguity. Dual wield lances as a small character for maximum ridiculousness. :smallbiggrin:

[MadBear]

1) Go read the post before yours, it outlines everything.

If you read Person-Man's posts that Demonic Spoon was directly addressing, you'll see that spell casting was being compared in a vacuum.

[Person_Man]

You could make hunters mark and swift quiver at will abilities and the ranger wouldn't even be overpowered.

Yup.

I think that the larger point I was trying to make before is that the Ranger gets cool and useful stuff, I like that stuff, but all of the stuff comes with strings attached to using it that make the Ranger nerfed compared to all other classes.

Favored Enemy/Terrain is awesome, but only functions when your DM chooses.

Hunter bonuses are useful, but situational, and not as nice as the stuff Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, or Rogues get.

Animal Companion is useful, but tied to your action economy in a way that makes it not very useful until mid-high levels, and even then its comparatively a lot less useful then Animated creatures.

The spells are cool and useful, but only usable a very limited number of times between Long Rests, and some are limited by Concentration, and the Bard can do your best 17th level stuff at 10th level.

And the overall pacing of when you get class abilities is just terrible. 1st level includes no combat benefits, you gain mid level Rogue at high levels, you gains low level spells when other classes gain higher level spells, your capstone is cool but really should be a 15thish level ability, and so on.

The Ranger would be a great class if they just removed most of the strings that are holding it back.

[HorridElemental]

Hunter rangers totally keep up with other martial classes damage wise. The only thing they really need (this is an old 3.P fix) is allowing favored enemy and favored terrain to be a choice per long rest due to study and research. Fluff it however you want but it helps.

[pwykersotz]

It's rare that this happens by default, I'm pretty tolerant of gamist constructs in my simulationist fantasy, but the ranger needing to use an action to get the pet to attack is downright silly. I could see needing to use an action to cause it to target something that's not directly attacking you initially...but that's about it. Siccing your wolf on an enemy and then it being unable to make another attack because you didn't order it yet just seems silly. A bit off-topic, but it was a thought I felt fit the theme of the thread.

[akaddk]

I just discovered something on the WotC boards. A halfling or gnome beastmaster ranger can have a pteranodon as a pet and thus a flying mount. At 4th-level, they can take Mounted Combatant. HELLO!

[...]

Fixed that for you ;)

Isn't that the reason that people play druid in the first place?

I understand taking things like natural spell out, but (as far as I can see) having the best wild shape option being a flying, swimming, CR 1 monster!? The wild shape ability is useless in combat as soon as you get it!

[Sartharina]

Moon druids get excellent combat utility out of Wildshape - and remember, when your Wildshape runs out of HP, instead of dying, you revert to your pre-wildshape status. So, it also provides a pile of HP.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Isn't that the reason that people play druid in the first place?

I understand taking things like natural spell out, but (as far as I can see) having the best wild shape option being a flying, swimming, CR 1 monster!? The wild shape ability is useless in combat as soon as you get it!

You've been spamming this around and you really need to go read Moon Druid archetype because it changes all of that. Also CR1 seems to be rather more robust in 5E anyways.

[Sartharina]

Yeah - a CR 1 monster = 4 level 1 PCs.

[Chambers]

At 5th level and above, Extra Attack + Hunter's Mark spell + Colossal Slayer seems to be a good combo. Almost reminds me of Twin Strike.

Attack 1 damage (longbow): 1d8 weapon +Dex +1d6 Hunter's Mark
Attack 2 damage (longbow): 1d8 weapon +Dex +1d6 Hunter's Mark +1d8 Colossal Slayer

Average of 18 + (Dex mod x2) damage. Only requires a 1st level spell in terms of resources (90 minute duration, Concentration).