Ranger spell list feels incomplete?

[Spacehamster]

So the ranger have 3 styles of fighting to choose from weapon wise, twf, dueling and archery yet a wast wast majority of their attack strengthening spells are for archery only, a while since I looked through it but seems like it's only hunters mark and ensnaring strike that help melee for them or am I remembering wrong?

[Eragon123]

The Ranger class feels very rushed and forced. It honestly could be its own subclass under Druid, fighter, rogue. Hell PALADINS have a nature oriented class now.

[tieren]

So the ranger have 3 styles of fighting to choose from weapon wise, twf, dueling and archery yet a wast wast majority of their attack strengthening spells are for archery only, a while since I looked through it but seems like it's only hunters mark and ensnaring strike that help melee for them or am I remembering wrong?

There are more spells that affect archery than melee (hail of thorns, conjure barrage, conjure volley, swift quiver, lightning arrow), but the majority of the spells help neither or would be classified as control or healing spells. Overall I think its pretty balanced, even the conjure barrage or volley you could always keep a thrown weapon or two about your person to cast as a primarily melee character.

[Spacehamster]

The Ranger class feels very rushed and forced. It honestly could be its own subclass under Druid, fighter, rogue. Hell PALADINS have a nature oriented class now.

I agree, it has some nice features at level 3(horde breaker or colossus slayer) and hunters mark is really nice, but how much work would it have been to come up with couple more spells to make all fighting styles equally good choices, does not sound like much work to me.

[Lines]

So the ranger have 3 styles of fighting to choose from weapon wise, twf, dueling and archery yet a wast wast majority of their attack strengthening spells are for archery only, a while since I looked through it but seems like it's only hunters mark and ensnaring strike that help melee for them or am I remembering wrong?

Rangers get the weakest spell list and can only know a very limited amount of spells, less spells than the paladin can choose to prepare each day. The class is so badly designed that letting my players have both the beastmaster and hunter subclasses has meant they merely reach even footing with the warlock and paladin.

[Spacehamster]

Rangers get the weakest spell list and can only know a very limited amount of spells, less spells than the paladin can choose to prepare each day. The class is so badly designed that letting my players have both the beastmaster and hunter subclasses has meant they merely reach even footing with the warlock and paladin.

To be fair ranger is a very underestimated 3 dip class tho, good level 1 spells, fighting style, horde breaker or colossus slayer, all goes nicely to any martial type player, 17 monk 3 hunter ranger comes to mind. :)

[mephnick]

Rangers get the weakest spell list and can only know a very limited amount of spells, less spells than the paladin can choose to prepare each day. The class is so badly designed that letting my players have both the beastmaster and hunter subclasses has meant they merely reach even footing with the warlock and paladin.

Eh, I run a group with a pally, warlock, rogue and hunter ranger and the ranger completely shreds monsters in combat while barely getting hit. He also basically can't miss. With our focus on overland travel I wouldn't hesitate to say he's the most valuable character so far. Now they're only level 10 and I hear they drop off at high levels, but allowing both subclasses seems a bit ridiculous.

[Lines]

To be fair ranger is a very underestimated 3 dip class tho, good level 1 spells, fighting style, horde breaker or colossus slayer, all goes nicely to any martial type player, 17 monk 3 hunter ranger comes to mind. :)
A 3 level fighter dip seems a lot stronger on most martials. Heavy armour, fighting style, 4 superiority dice, action surge.


Eh, I run a group with a pally, warlock, rogue and hunter ranger and the ranger completely shreds monsters in combat while barely getting hit. He also basically can't miss. With our focus on overland travel I wouldn't hesitate to say he's the most valuable character so far. Now they're only level 10 and I hear they drop off at high levels, but allowing both subclasses seems a bit ridiculous.
Worked fine, did it as a stopgap measure before I just made the animal companion act on its own and gave hunter some useful abilities and separated the subclasses again. They have the worst spellcasting, a pretty poor chassis and two fairly underwhelming subclasses, combining them didn't seem to do anything but bring him to the level of everyone else in combat. Keeping in mind the level 11 hunter feature is mutually exclusive with having your beast attack, how do you see combining them being too strong? The damage is ok, but it's basically on par with that of the paladin and sorclock (really shouldn't have said warlock before, only had 2 levels in it) and the ranger has less utility than either of them.

[Spacehamster]

A 3 level fighter dip seems a lot stronger on most martials. Heavy armour, fighting style, 4 superiority dice, action surge.

Depends what you are after I suppose, also forgot mc into ranger also gives one extra skill proficiency which is neat. :)

[Tanarii]

The class is so badly designed that letting my players have both the beastmaster and hunter subclasses has meant they merely reach even footing with the warlock and paladin.Then you're woefully underestimating both the in-combat power, and the out-of-combat utility, of the Ranger. Unsurprising, since you're choosing to compare them to two high-damage output classes. One of which is explicitly a combat-primary character (paladin) with extreme nova capability. And the other of which has a specific optional role of high at-will damage. Rangers are designed primarily to be utility combat characters as well as utility out-of-combat character, just like Monks and Rogues. Despite that they can put out respectable damage with the right build, especially Archery Hunters.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, the two rangers we've had in our parties have contributed more than any other single class. It might be that both games were overland sandboxy where we relied on the ranger's terrain utility - perhaps in a more dungeon crawly campaign (especially one with multiple critter types, so the favored enemy isn't so stacked in the ranger's favor) their holistic package becomes less valuable...

But in the right situations, I'd prefer a ranger (even with a slightly lower DPR output) to a Fighter who simply takes resources to keep alive than providing them...

[Ralanr]

Considering how rangers get extra attacks and how you're more likely to find magic melee weapons (I know 5e is suppose to have less magic items, but you're probably gonna find a few) I'd wager that spells that enhance their melee abilities would be a waste of the action.

I've also noticed that rangers have a lot of concentration spells. Kinda forces you to grab resilient:Con if you want to use them often in combat.

Course I haven't actually played the Ranger yet (first one will be Wednesday) so I can't say much.

[Citan]

Considering how rangers get extra attacks and how you're more likely to find magic melee weapons (I know 5e is suppose to have less magic items, but you're probably gonna find a few) I'd wager that spells that enhance their melee abilities would be a waste of the action.

I've also noticed that rangers have a lot of concentration spells. Kinda forces you to grab resilient:Con if you want to use them often in combat.

Course I haven't actually played the Ranger yet (first one will be Wednesday) so I can't say much.
Well, you're probably right for a melee-oriented Ranger (although I don't see how this would not be true also for an Eldricht Knight planning to use Haste or a Paladin, probably a bit less necessary for an Arcane Trickster hiding every turn).

But considering that ranged fighting is where the Ranger can shine the most easily (Volley and spells) I'd daresay a careful play would be enough to keep concentration most of the time, unless you are in a party with noone to guard the front line. :)

[Ralanr]

Well, you're probably right for a melee-oriented Ranger (although I don't see how this would not be true also for an Eldricht Knight planning to use Haste or a Paladin, probably a bit less necessary for an Arcane Trickster hiding every turn).

But considering that ranged fighting is where the Ranger can shine the most easily (Volley and spells) I'd daresay a careful play would be enough to keep concentration most of the time, unless you are in a party with noone to guard the front line. :)

I prefer to play melee, so I can't really say much for ranged plays (I tried a ranged character once, found it a bit boring thematically). Ranged obviously has an easier time keeping up concentration though.

I'm pretty excited for when I get to try my ranger. Going axe and shield dwarf ranger with the hunter subclass. I've been seeing that TWF is probably better for melee, but TWF kinda falls off later and I don't want to mainly invest in a dex build (I know you can TWF with a strength build, but it feels more MAD).

[EvilAnagram]

Sometimes I forget that all of the fun I had playing a perfectly competent Ranger for 12 levels didn't happen because the class is so terribly designed and awful in every way.