What am I missing about rangers?

[charlesk]

So I've read a fair bit in this board and rangers seem to be much maligned as the weakest class. We recently had a player leave our party and a new one show up with a level 6 ranger. He has sharpshooter and decimates enemies -- he does a lot of damage, can shoot into a crowd, and can stay so far out of combat range that he almost never gets hit. And he's hardly min-maxed; an experienced player but he's new to 5e. He hasn't even been using Hunter's Mark (which I told him about).

Am I missing something? Maybe it's just the beastmaster rangers that people hate? Or are they like moon druids that peak early and then taper off?

[Fwiffo86]

So I've read a fair bit in this board and rangers seem to be much maligned as the weakest class. We recently had a player leave our party and a new one show up with a level 6 ranger. He has sharpshooter and decimates enemies -- he does a lot of damage, can shoot into a crowd, and can stay so far out of combat range that he almost never gets hit. And he's hardly min-maxed; an experienced player but he's new to 5e. He hasn't even been using Hunter's Mark (which I told him about).

Am I missing something? Maybe it's just the beastmaster rangers that people hate? Or are they like moon druids that peak early and then taper off?

People are having difficulty letting go of their caster supremacy beliefs. My experience mirrors yours.

[Knaight]

People are having difficulty letting go of their caster supremacy beliefs. My experience mirrors yours.

Hardly. Most of the people who consider the casters particularly overpowered also consider it a problem and want them to be toned down, and the criticisms of the ranger are based on two things. One is on them being fairly boring in combat (which they are, if having highly variable explicitly defined round to round choices matters to you), one is on the damage being on the low side with relatively few major perks to offset it, particularly in campaigns with enough dungeon crawling to heavily mitigate the advantage of range.

[heavyfuel]

"Weakest class" is probably the wrong word here. Yeah, it's much weaker than the Bard or the Druid, but when you compare it to non full-casters, they're pretty good, up until level 11, which is when they start falling off. You get an ok-ish AoE, while every other "mundane" class is getting major blasting (3rd attack for the Fighter, 6d6 SA for the Rogue, Smite on every attack for the Pally, you get the deal), and every full caster now has 6th level spells.

So, untill level 10, you're pretty good, afterwards, you're still good, just not so much.

That, of course only applies to Hunters. Beastmasters got the short end of the stick because they have to spend their action to command the beast, which means your Extra Attack goes to waste. He's only good at levels 3 and 4, when the beast's attack is better than your own, but when you get two, it almost never worthy

[Fwiffo86]

Hardly. Most of the people who consider the casters particularly overpowered also consider it a problem and want them to be toned down, and the criticisms of the ranger are based on two things. One is on them being fairly boring in combat (which they are, if having highly variable explicitly defined round to round choices matters to you), one is on the damage being on the low side with relatively few major perks to offset it, particularly in campaigns with enough dungeon crawling to heavily mitigate the advantage of range.

I can see the first point (caster supremacy), which coincides with what I was thinking but not wording in specific. But I am not seeing your second point (damage) in my experiences. The rangers tend to deal more damage short of AoE spellcasting than most. There are exceptions of course, but they are the minority.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

partly it's just sharpshooter. it breaks the game a little IMO. Infinity range as far as the game is concerned and ignores cover to boot.


That, of course only applies to Hunters. Beastmasters got the short end of the stick because they have to spend their action to command the beast, which means your Extra Attack goes to waste. He's only good at levels 3 and 4, when the beast's attack is better than your own, but when you get two, it almost never worthy

beast masters can use their second attack if the beast attacks.

95% sure. away from book.

[Shining Wrath]

Yeah, beastmaster is inferior because your beast's action isn't worth as much as yours is, for the most part. Adding a feature where the ranger can teach the beast verbal commands that can be given with a bonus action would be an improvement.

[Giant2005]

Yeah, beastmaster is inferior because your beast's action isn't worth as much as yours is, for the most part. Adding a feature where the ranger can teach the beast verbal commands that can be given with a bonus action would be an improvement.

the Beast attacks tend to be worth more than yours is unless you choose a really lame companion. Things like Giant Badgers or Giant Poisonous Snakes do at least as much damage (Usually more-so) by default but unlike everyone else they also get the proficiency bonus to damage which puts them ahead.

[xyianth]

The Ranger class is, imho, poorly designed. It starts out stronger than most other classes. (either path) By around level 7 or so, the beast master ranger starts falling behind other classes, due solely to the poor scaling of the beast companion. By around level 10-11, the hunter ranger starts falling behind other classes as well, unless the DM allows some liberal interpretations of some hunter abilities. (no idea if those interpretations are RAI, but they are definitely ambiguous RAW)

This poor scaling leads to the confusion people have. Most games appear to start before the ranger starts falling behind, giving the impression that rangers are perfectly fine. However, most online discussion tend to focus on high level builds, where rangers are pretty much the weakest class. This does not mean they are useless, just that nothing they do can't be done better by someone else. (Also note, this is not a universal opinion, there are many people that have defended the ranger even for high level games.)

The ranger was the second class I rewrote entirely for my games, in an attempt to bring it up in potency to approximately the same level as the paladin and bard classes. (first was the cleric) I plan on posting all of my homebrew in the homebrew forums eventually, right now it is just a bunch of notes. For brevity, I'll only point out the major issues I see affecting the ranger's poor scaling.


Favored enemy and terrain have lost nearly all combat effects this edition. So much wasted potential.
5e has this nasty habit of disguising vital class features as spells. A ranger that doesn't take both hail of thorns and hunter's mark is missing vital features of their class. This is not good design. The ranger is by far the worst victim of this habit, with two disguised features on a half caster chassis that knows spells.
Why did rangers get the shaft in terms of spellcasting? Compare the paladin's spellcasting to the ranger's spellcasting and the ranger may as well just go home.
Beast companions are so much less capable than familiars, despite the fact that familiars can be summoned by a first level ritual. This just seems wrong.
When a half-caster trades a spell slot to activate an ability, the ability should be significant. (see primeval awareness vs divine smite)
Go read the hide in plain sight ability. I'll wait til you are done laughing at its uselessness.
Now go read foe slayer. That is not a capstone.

[calebrus]

The hate for Rangers in 5e comes from theorycrafters that see Beast Master as being suboptimal on paper. But in actual play they're perfectly fine.
Hunters, on the other hand, are absolute powerhouses at early levels that taper off a bit later. They're still effective later, but they won't decimate things like they did at early levels.
Rangers are perfectly fine.

[dev6500]

My main problem with rangers is they do not seem to have many combat boosting abilities that compare well with those of other classes.

For beast master rangers, the pet is only a situationally better option since it requires that you use actions to command it to attack. Meaning you are expending an action to get the same action from someone else. Even if the pet has a better attack than you, its not likely significantly better thus making it a small improvement.

If you go hunter, you can get +d8 damage once per turn on an attack against an injured enemy and that is the end of the damage increasing abilities. There are some multiattack options at level 11 but they are pretty situational( you have to be surrounded to get maximum attacks, or you can make a 10ft aoe attack at range.

+d8 damage on one attack per round does not compare favorably to a rogue or a paladins smite. Fighters get more attacks later on, and gain more feats throughout level progression and all 3 of their archetypes improve combat ability, meaning they should out class a ranger in combat. Barbarians get a rage bonus to damage on each hit, +4 str at level 20, and has ways to gain advantage on attacks and give advantage to allies.

To me, the ranger just seems slightly weaker in combat than the other non-full caster melee and ranged classes.

[mephnick]

Favored enemy and terrain have lost nearly all combat effects this edition. So much wasted potential.


I'm mostly fine with favoured enemy. People seem to forget that the combat bonuses in 3.5 were completely useless. I like the significant tracking and knowledge bonuses instead. Favoured terrain is also pretty decent. Stealth at normal speed? Yes, please. Never get lost? Ok. Perfect tracking knowledge, uh yeah.

I feel like everyone bashing these two abilities either plays 99% face to face combat, oOr they glance over the abilities and never give a second though to actual play.




Now go read foe slayer. That is not a capstone.


This I do agree with. A.) It's weak. B.) You've already decided not to do combat advantages for favoured enemies, or this would have been a level 3 ability. Stick to that and give rangers a universal capstone that is actually fun. I think they got to 20th and had no idea what to do, so they said "eh, screw it. Give them damage to favoured enemies. See you Monday!"

[Giant2005]

By around level 7 or so, the beast master ranger starts falling behind other classes, due solely to the poor scaling of the beast companion.

That is a myth. That Companion scales exceptionally well.
Even at level 20 its damage per round with a Giant Badger against AC 20 is: 35.6 (2 attacks of 1D6+7 = 10.85, + 2 attacks of 2D4+7 = 12.5, +1 Ranger attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125, +1 Ranger bonus attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125)
A level 20 Champion Fighter with his 4 attacks and one bonus (Polearm Mastery) against AC 20 inflicts: 33.375 (4 attacks of 1D10+5 = 28.5, + 1 attack of 1D4+5 = 4.875)

Even at the Fighter's peak his damage isn't as good as the Ranger's and I didn't even bother including things like Hunter's Mark which give the Ranger even more of an advantage.

[xyianth]

I'm mostly fine with favoured enemy. People seem to forget that the combat bonuses in 3.5 were completely useless. I like the significant tracking and knowledge bonuses instead. Favoured terrain is also pretty decent. Stealth at normal speed? Yes, please. Never get lost? Ok. Perfect tracking knowledge, uh yeah.

I feel like everyone bashing these two abilities either plays 99% face to face combat, oOr they glance over the abilities and never give a second though to actual play.

For the record, I did not mean to imply that we should bring back 3.5's handling of favored enemies. I was simply indicating that I think favored enemies and terrains could have played a larger role for the ranger class, to include some combat effects.


That is a myth. That Companion scales exceptionally well.
Even at level 20 its damage per round with a Giant Badger against AC 20 is: 35.6 (2 attacks of 1D6+7 = 10.85, + 2 attacks of 2D4+7 = 12.5, +1 Ranger attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125, +1 Ranger bonus attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125)
A level 20 Champion Fighter with his 4 attacks and one bonus (Polearm Mastery) against AC 20 inflicts: 33.375 (4 attacks of 1D10+5 = 28.5, + 1 attack of 1D4+5 = 4.875)

Even at the Fighter's peak his damage isn't as good as the Ranger's and I didn't even bother including things like Hunter's Mark which give the Ranger even more of an advantage.

A) That is 1 single beast companion option. It's not quite so favorable on average. B) Champion fighter is widely considered subpar as well, but there are threads of people who disagree so YMMV. C) That same companion is fairly fragile at high levels and a perfectly viable target for enemies. The only way to fix this is either by mounting it (meaning you have to be small) or by investing into magical barding.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The barding doesn't have to magical.

At higher levels the beast gets a considerable boost from spell doubling.

[Giant2005]

A) That is 1 single beast companion option. It's not quite so favorable on average. B) Champion fighter is widely considered subpar as well, but there are threads of people who disagree so YMMV. C) That same companion is fairly fragile at high levels and a perfectly viable target for enemies. The only way to fix this is either by mounting it (meaning you have to be small) or by investing into magical barding.

Even normal barding would make it one of the tankiest things in the party. With Plate Barding that Giant Badger has an extremely impressive AC of 24.

[dev6500]

That is a myth. That Companion scales exceptionally well.
Even at level 20 its damage per round with a Giant Badger against AC 20 is: 35.6 (2 attacks of 1D6+7 = 10.85, + 2 attacks of 2D4+7 = 12.5, +1 Ranger attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125, +1 Ranger bonus attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125)
A level 20 Champion Fighter with his 4 attacks and one bonus (Polearm Mastery) against AC 20 inflicts: 33.375 (4 attacks of 1D10+5 = 28.5, + 1 attack of 1D4+5 = 4.875)

Even at the Fighter's peak his damage isn't as good as the Ranger's and I didn't even bother including things like Hunter's Mark which give the Ranger even more of an advantage.

I am not entirely certain as to why you think 35.6 dpr at level 20 is exceptional... Most of the threads for optimized dpr I have seen have had upwards of 50 dpr at level 20 at least.

[Shining Wrath]

I am not entirely certain as to why you think 35.6 dpr at level 20 is exceptional... Most of the threads for optimized dpr I have seen have had upwards of 50 dpr at level 20 at least.

DPR does not mean DP attack. You burn one attack to command, get 35.6 out of the Badger, and then do the rest of the Ranger's attacks.

So I must withdraw my earlier comment; unless a single attack by the Ranger is good for 30 or more points on average, unleashing a badger with one of them is a good move.

[calebrus]

That is a myth. That Companion scales exceptionally well.
Even at level 20 its damage per round with a Giant Badger against AC 20 is: 35.6 (2 attacks of 1D6+7 = 10.85, + 2 attacks of 2D4+7 = 12.5, +1 Ranger attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125, +1 Ranger bonus attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125)
A level 20 Champion Fighter with his 4 attacks and one bonus (Polearm Mastery) against AC 20 inflicts: 33.375 (4 attacks of 1D10+5 = 28.5, + 1 attack of 1D4+5 = 4.875)

Even at the Fighter's peak his damage isn't as good as the Ranger's and I didn't even bother including things like Hunter's Mark which give the Ranger even more of an advantage.

I am not entirely certain as to why you think 35.6 dpr at level 20 is exceptional... Most of the threads for optimized dpr I have seen have had upwards of 50 dpr at level 20 at least.

As Shining Wraith noted, Giant is counting misses, whereas most calculations done in this manner do not take them into account.

If calculated in the same manner as the ones you're comparing them to, it looks like this:
"Even at level 20 its damage per round with a Giant Badger against AC 20 is: 35.6 (2 attacks of 1D6+7 = 10.85 21, + 2 attacks of 2D4+7 = 12.5 24, +1 Ranger attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125 8.5, +1 Ranger bonus attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125 8.5)" = 35.6 62

edit:
Add on a second bonus attack for swift quiver (another 8.5) and three procs of hunter's mark (another 3.5 each, for 10.5 total) and that 62 becomes 81.
You can assume that a 20th level ranger will have a +2 or +3 magic weapon, so that 81 becomes 87 or 90.
If he has sharpshooter, that potential becomes 120.

And that's with the subclass that theorycrafters complain is the weakest in the game (on paper).
Ranger is absolutely 100% perfectly fine, Beast Master included.

edit2:
I just realized that he couldn't have both swift quiver and hunter's mark going at the same time, so it's slightly less than what I said, but you get the point.
It comes to 75 melee with hunter's mark (with potential advantage on attacks for a possibly prone enemy).
It comes to 79.5 ranged with swift quiver, or 79 with hunter's mark, adding another potential 30 for sharpshooter, for 109.
A Beast Master Ranger (whether melee or ranged, it doesn't matter) is a force to be reckoned with.
If he has a companion that can trip, melee is the way to go. If he has a companion that can't trip, ranged is the way to go. But either way, he has the capabilities to demolish his enemies. And people that complain about the BM-R simply haven't seen one in action and are basing it on the fact that they don't like giving one of their attacks up, even though the companion's attack(s) is/are almost always better than one single attack roll of their own is.

[Drake S.]

I'm mostly fine with favoured enemy. People seem to forget that the combat bonuses in 3.5 were completely useless. I like the significant tracking and knowledge bonuses instead. Favoured terrain is also pretty decent. Stealth at normal speed? Yes, please. Never get lost? Ok. Perfect tracking knowledge, uh yeah.

I feel like everyone bashing these two abilities either plays 99% face to face combat, oOr they glance over the abilities and never give a second though to actual play.
I agree with this. From a role-playing perspective and playing as a Ranger, these features are incredibly helpful for me. I've helped the entire party keep on track on numerous occasions because of this. Plus, while playing the caravan in HotDQ, the scene with the stag was just awesome as a Hunter Ranger. If you ask me, what the Ranger lacks in combat abilities, 5e does a good job of making the Ranger a fun class to play from a roleplaying perspective. It wasn't long before I became the spokesman for our party since it leads to the Ranger becoming a natural leader. Outdoors, the Ranger is boss, especially in their Favoured Terrain. Leaders of a group don't always have to outdamage everyone else, but they provide so many opportunities to add flavor to the story overall.



This I do agree with. A.) It's weak. B.) You've already decided not to do combat advantages for favoured enemies, or this would have been a level 3 ability. Stick to that and give rangers a universal capstone that is actually fun. I think they got to 20th and had no idea what to do, so they said "eh, screw it. Give them damage to favoured enemies. See you Monday!"
DM went ahead and decided to give me advantage in combat to Favoured Enemies. Makes this very helpful since one of my Favoured Enemies are Dragons. We ran a side-quest once in which we faced a blue dragon, and so when I leveled, it made sense from a storyline perspective that my Hunter Ranger would favor killing Dragons. He's also planning on joining the Emerald Enclave soon enough which will make sense as well with the story. Since he and the party are opposed to the cult and to Tiamat, Draketooth fits right in as a Dragon Hunter.

[SharkForce]

that's a pretty poorly optimized fighter if you don't have great weapon mastery as well. increases your DPR to around 48 as i recall assuming an AC of 19.

that said, fighter with 4 base attacks per melee isn't really a great comparison since that doesn't come until level 20.

in any event, i've seen mixed reviews of the ranger, but have never yet had a 5e ranger in one of my groups. if they start falling off relative to casters around level 11, well, that's kinda where everyone starts falling off relative to full casters (this is not to say they become useless, merely that their relative usefulness starts to decrease; they'll still contribute, they just won't contribute as much as a high level caster).

[dev6500]

lvl 20 half orc champion fighter w/ 20 str , a +3 glaive, great weapon fighting, superior critical, savage attacker, sentinel, polearm master, great weapon master, and magic initiate(hex) has 1 ability raise from levels left over.

+14 to hit and d10 + d6(when hex is up) + 8 damage

This fighter gets OAs when an enemy enters reach, leaves reach(even when they disengage), and when they attack someone other than you. So OAs most turns. He can make an attack with a bonus action whenever he criticals or kills an enemy. Out of every 5 attacks he makes, he has a 55 % chance of a critical. If you also factor in killing an enemy, then his chance goes even higher. So most turns he can make an extra attack at d10 + d6 + 8 damage with the glaive. When he doesn't get an extra attack thru great weapon master, he can still make an extra attack thru polearm master. If hasted from a party buff, not a bad idea since a 2 handed weapon user has higher damage per hit.


great weapon fighting = reroll 1,2
d6 = (3.5 +3.5 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6)/6 = 4.16666
savage attacker= reroll damage choose either
d6 = (4.1666 + 4.1666 + 4.1666+ 4.1666 + 5 + 6)/6 = 4.61

gwf d10 =(5.5 +5.5 + 3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10)/10 = 6.3 vs 5.5
savage attacker d10 = (6.3 + 6.3 + 6.3 + 6.3 + 6.3+ 6.3+ 7+8+9+10)/10 = 7.18


Best scenario, hasted, get an OA, and crit = 7 attacks
with savage attacker benefit and hex
.15 ( 21.54 + 9.22 + 8) + .6 ( 7.18 + 4.61 + 8) = 5.814 + 11.874 = 17.688

w/o savage attacker = .15 ( 18.9 + 8.3332 + 8) + .6(6.3 + 4.16666 + 8) = 5.285 + 11.08 = 16.365

1 attack every round will use savage attacker and the rest will be regular.
dpr = 115.878 vs 20 ac enemy

Same scenario as before but w/o haste
dpr = 99.513

Without haste and the round you apply Hex:
dpr = 83.148

You can still also go nova with action surge twice per short rest for between 10 and 11 attacks in a round.

This is what I meant when I said 30ish dpr at lvl 20 is terrible. Without even multiclassing, a champion fighter can get 80 dpr minimium. If he already has hex up on his target and gets to keep his bonus action, he is now up around 100 dpr. Then if he is hasted, his dpr goes up to 115 vs 20 ac. This is not even a fully filled out fighter. He still has stat points to throw around and he only has 1 of his magic items selected. The only player in the party that would be a better target for haste might be a barbarian since the extra dpr from 1 attack might exceed the 16 the champion gets.

[Rowan Wolf]

One thing I didn't like about this editions version of the Ranger is the way they handled spell casting. It seems to me they did it arbitrarily to make the ranger's casting different from the paladin's.

On beast master's they got the short end of the development stick (in my opinion) based on the problems that summoning based characters brought to action economy/turn speed of 3rd edition (funny thing that they basically encourage that playstyle in the druid of 3.5). I may have make some type of adjustment to how that archetype plays.

It does seem kind of odd that Ranger (along with Barbarian/Bard/Druid/Sorcerer) only got two archetypes to work with. I guess they could come up with much more to do with them.

[Gwendol]

Archer hunter ranger is one of the best ranged damage dealers in the game, especially vs clusters of foe's, and only marginally worse off vs single targets (and only after lvl 11 or so). They also get useful out of combat utility, and are generally stealthy.

[xyianth]

Archer hunter ranger is one of the best ranged damage dealers in the game, especially vs clusters of foe's, and only marginally worse off vs single targets (and only after lvl 11 or so). They also get useful out of combat utility, and are generally stealthy.

At long range and/or versus clusters, yes. At short range, fighters and rogues can surpass them with crossbows. As for utility outside combat, valor bards give them a serious run for their money. (all this assumes moderately competent feat, stat, spell, and equipment choices; and is referring to levels 11+, rangers are actually quite strong in the early levels)

In a game without feats, warlocks do quite well as a kind of arcane archer from mid range. (rangers greatly benefit from the sharpshooter feat, if it is not available or an equivalent feat is made for boosting spell damage, this advantage mostly disappears)

Having thought some more about it, I think at least some of my issues with the ranger class is how much easier it is to screw up compared to other classes. If you take a sub-optimal beast companion, don't learn hunter's mark and hail of thorns, select the sub-optimal hunter path features, pick enemies and terrains that aren't relevant, etc... When you make a paladin, if you mess up your prepared spells one day, you can fix it the next. All your abilities are just laid out and generally just work. About the only way to screw them up is to ignore the important stats. (which is true for every class) In general, I don't like 'trap' choices in things; and it feels like the ranger class is full of them.

[Gwendol]

The hunter archetype does offer a few chances to "correct" the character up to level 15, and it can be argued that spell selections could be reviewed during level up (considering the ranger learns so very few). I agree that the difference between ranger and paladin spellcasting is strange and difficult to motivate.
As has been pointed out in previous discussions, once poison is factored in (and the ranger has built-in abilities to maximize the use of poison) the ranger damage is expected to soar.

The ranger is likely not the best choice for a player not wanting to carefully weigh options during character building and development. For those that do it does have some rewards.

[Chronos]

What can a ranger do at range that a fighter or rogue can't?

And as for those "great class features disguised as spells": A ranger can use an action and a spell slot to do 1d8+1d10+5 damage to a primary target, plus 1d10 to anything else in a small area of effect. A full caster can do 3d6 damage to everything in a larger area of effect. Yeah, the damage to the primary target is a little less (unless you're an evoker), but the damage to the secondaries is greater, and casters get more first-level slots than rangers do. Burning Hands is not considered an amazing spell, so why is Hail of Thorns?

Now, Hunter's Mark or Ensnaring Strike, OK, I can see those as pretty good, but even then, you can only have one of those, due to concentration.

[Gwendol]

In terms of ranged damage dealers, rangers, fighters and rogues operate somewhat differently. I guess that ultimately the verdict will depend on what your design goals are. It is equally true that each class bring something unique to ranged damage dealing (and we can safely include at least the warlock in that collection) that the others will have a hard time emulating.

[Balor777]

That is a myth. That Companion scales exceptionally well.
Even at level 20 its damage per round with a Giant Badger against AC 20 is: 35.6 (2 attacks of 1D6+7 = 10.85, + 2 attacks of 2D4+7 = 12.5, +1 Ranger attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125, +1 Ranger bonus attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125)
A level 20 Champion Fighter with his 4 attacks and one bonus (Polearm Mastery) against AC 20 inflicts: 33.375 (4 attacks of 1D10+5 = 28.5, + 1 attack of 1D4+5 = 4.875)

Even at the Fighter's peak his damage isn't as good as the Ranger's and I didn't even bother including things like Hunter's Mark which give the Ranger even more of an advantage.

Totaly agree.People overlook many Ranger abilities or possible multiclass combinations that can come from Ranger.
For example.2 level dip in fighter for heavy armor+GW+action surge or 1 to 3 level dip n barbarian for rage/recless/totem.
Key abilities
Colossus Slayer: a good 4,5 DPR boost.MORE boost from -5+10 GW feat at 90% of the times.
Giant Killer: barbarrian's retaliation at level 3.Yes 11 levels earlier and you DONT have to be hit to attack back.Enemy must be Large or larger.If you think thats compromise
look how many of the monsters in MM are large or larger.
Multiattack Defense.Take Duelist style and have 22AC or 24 if you have fighter dip.Again look how many enemies have 2 or more attacks.Combine this with barbarian rage/recless attack and you rock.If you want to be hit only 1 time max per enemy get defensive duelist and enable the prof to armo bonus at the second hit.This way you have a good +8AC on the second hit once per round at level 9 fro some crazy 30 AC if you have plate+shield or 26AC with medium armor and shield.That difficult encounter wont take you down.It stack crazy well with Barbarian damage resistance.
Whirlwind Attack I realy cant get why people rate this ability as just OK.Ok ill try.2 level fighter dip.You are surrounded and got the GW style.Up to 16 attacks.Wow 2 whirlwind attacks on one round.What an action surge usage right?What about rage damage?More attacks per round-more times the rage damage.Another realistic scenario, because people will say "ok how many times ill be flooded by 8 enemies?".Lets go for 3 enemies.You are TWF style and have Horde Breaker.3 attacks with main hand using whirwing attack.You attack one guy with off hand and the guy near him with horde breaker.Bam 5 attacks at level 11.You want GW?Add one attack more on a crit or on a kill.You still retain the horde breaker attack since its not a
bonus action,but you obviously dont attack with the off-hand at this setup.Mind that with polearm master you pull some crazy moves and i didnt even added the damage per target from hunter's mark.Youll need warcaster tho.Yes the stylish polearm wide attack warlord is created from the Ranger.



To finish this post, Ranger is very nice.Endless combinations of 3-7-11 level features and with a small dip in barbar or fighter you become a defensive or attacking monster.
If you do the DPR math, the BeastMaster is very nice too.

[Chronos]

Whirlwind Attack I realy cant get why people rate this ability as just OK.Ok ill try.2 level fighter dip.You are surrounded and got the GW style.
And that's why people rate it as just OK. Just how often do you get completely surrounded? Heck, how often do you have even three enemies next to you? And if you have that many enemies next to you, it probably means you've already eaten at least one attack from each of them. Any ability that starts with "First, get attacked eight times" is a bad ability.

[pwykersotz]

And that's why people rate it as just OK. Just how often do you get completely surrounded? Heck, how often do you have even three enemies next to you? And if you have that many enemies next to you, it probably means you've already eaten at least one attack from each of them. Any ability that starts with "First, get attacked eight times" is a bad ability.

For the sake of fairness, I'll point out that you can charge into a group of goblins, make your attack. They haven't necessarily attacked you first.

Your point about "how often are you surrounded" is fair by itself. It's pretty DM dependent.

[Talderas]

So I've read a fair bit in this board and rangers seem to be much maligned as the weakest class. We recently had a player leave our party and a new one show up with a level 6 ranger. He has sharpshooter and decimates enemies -- he does a lot of damage, can shoot into a crowd, and can stay so far out of combat range that he almost never gets hit. And he's hardly min-maxed; an experienced player but he's new to 5e. He hasn't even been using Hunter's Mark (which I told him about).

Am I missing something? Maybe it's just the beastmaster rangers that people hate? Or are they like moon druids that peak early and then taper off?

You're playing ranger right in its peak performance range.

[MadBear]

First, I'll also point out that there's serious contention that the ranger can attack in-between his whirlwind attack, since the book does state you're allowed to move in-between attacks. This may or may not have been intended, but it does make it a very potent ability if allowed. It also make more sense in my head since a whirlwind isn't stationary.

Second, keep in mind that with lightning arrow + volley the ranger can get a truly ridiculous AOE damage hit on a group.

[Person_Man]

My opinion of the Ranger:


At 1st level Ranger gets zero class abilities related to combat other then weapons and armor.
Favored enemy and terrain are entirely dependent upon the DM to be useful. Speaking as the guy who often DMs, I don't want to screw a player out of his cool class abilities, but I also don't want to dramatically change my campaign plans based on one player's class choices.
Between levels 2-5 the Ranger does offer some of the best damage potential in the game if you know what you're doing.
The Ranger's spellcasting mechanic is terrible. It locks him into a very small number of spells known, it scales poorly, and some of the Ranger's most important abilities are buried on his spell list. So if you don't select the "right" spells you're pretty much stuck with sub-par abilities. And even if you do pick the right spells, there's little benefit to playing a strait Ranger over a Ranger/Bard or strait Bard, who can cherry pick spells off of any list.
There's a built in reverse-synergy (discord? inefficiency?) between Two Weapon Fighting (which requires that you use your Action to attack in order to trigger your Bonus Action to take an additional attack) and your Animal Companion (which requires an Action to direct). And Beast companions are so much less capable than Conjured minions, especially at high levels.
Similarly, some of the Ranger's most useful spells require a Bonus Action to cast, which means that you can't use them with Two Weapon Fighting or Crossbow Expert.
Most of the Ranger's mid level class abilities are worse then the low-to-mid level class abilities of all other classes.
The Ranger gets very few worthwhile high level class abilities. (Although this is a problem shared by most non-full casters).

[Psikerlord]

So I've read a fair bit in this board and rangers seem to be much maligned as the weakest class. We recently had a player leave our party and a new one show up with a level 6 ranger. He has sharpshooter and decimates enemies -- he does a lot of damage, can shoot into a crowd, and can stay so far out of combat range that he almost never gets hit. And he's hardly min-maxed; an experienced player but he's new to 5e. He hasn't even been using Hunter's Mark (which I told him about).

Am I missing something? Maybe it's just the beastmaster rangers that people hate? Or are they like moon druids that peak early and then taper off?

Yeah it's just beastmasters folks hate.

Your issue is probably with sharpshooter (specifically the -5/+10 mechanic, also present in GWM feat) rather than the ranger. We removed the -5/+10 in our game and things are more fun for the table overall. I recommend considering the same at your table if you find the ranger doing damage outside the usual PC ballpark and other players or DM are finding it annoying.

[Talderas]

My opinion of the Ranger:
Most of the Ranger's mid level class abilities are worse then the low-to-mid level class abilities of all other classes.


The most egregious one that comes to mind....

Vanish - Ranger(14) - You can use Hide as a bonus action on your turn. Can't be tracked by non-magical means.
Cunning Action - Rogue (2) - You can use Hide/Dash/Disengage as a bonus action on your turn.

[Xetheral]

That is a myth. That Companion scales exceptionally well.
Even at level 20 its damage per round with a Giant Badger against AC 20 is: 35.6 (2 attacks of 1D6+7 = 10.85, + 2 attacks of 2D4+7 = 12.5, +1 Ranger attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125, +1 Ranger bonus attack of 1D6+5 = 6.125)
A level 20 Champion Fighter with his 4 attacks and one bonus (Polearm Mastery) against AC 20 inflicts: 33.375 (4 attacks of 1D10+5 = 28.5, + 1 attack of 1D4+5 = 4.875)

Even at the Fighter's peak his damage isn't as good as the Ranger's and I didn't even bother including things like Hunter's Mark which give the Ranger even more of an advantage.

Don't forget that it's controversial how multiattack works with a Beastmaster, and that at many tables the ranger won't get a bonus action attack on any round in which they command their companion to attack because they didn't take the Attack action (unless they are a multiclass berserker barbarian). The potential DPR of a Beastmaster will vary a LOT from table to table.

[Giant2005]

Don't forget that it's controversial how multiattack works with a Beastmaster, and that at many tables the ranger won't get a bonus action attack on any round in which they command their companion to attack because they didn't take the Attack action (unless they are a multiclass berserker barbarian). The potential DPR of a Beastmaster will vary a LOT from table to table.

Those are fair points but the same is probably true of any class.

[Maxilian]

People are having difficulty letting go of their caster supremacy beliefs. My experience mirrors yours.

I had the same experience too

[Talderas]

The most egregious one that comes to mind....

Vanish - Ranger(14) - You can use Hide as a bonus action on your turn. Can't be tracked by non-magical means.
Cunning Action - Rogue (2) - You can use Hide/Dash/Disengage as a bonus action on your turn.

Oh and the thing I forgot to mention, Ranger 14 basically gives him the ability of one of the spells he can start casting at level 5.