Ranger Hate??

[fatbaby]

I am a bit confused guys. I got into D&D about a year ago and fell in love with it. I now DM a campaign, and play in another campaign. My first character was a half-elf ranger, that I built with no knowledge of D&D whatsoever. After getting into D&D, I keep seeing and hearing that rangers SUCK. I don't get it. I played my ranger from 1st level to 10th level, taking a 1 level dip in rogue at level 10. I had the strongest character at the table, which included (over the course of the game) : 3x Fighter, 2x Druid, 1x Rogue, 1x Warlock, 1x Sorcerer, 1x other Ranger.

I never died, never went unconscious that I remember (lol). Even when we stopped the campaign because we were TPK'ed, I had 14 hp and was banished back to my home plane. (We were on the Plane of Fire). I took Hunter, and Archery fighting style.

stats: 14 18 13 12 14 10
AC: 16
feats: sharpshooter
+10 to hit with longbow

In one round of combat I could hit for massive damage.
1d8 arrow x2
1d6 hunter's mark
1d8 colossus slayer
1d10 hail of thorns
1d6 sneak attack
+4 dex
+10 sharpshooter
37 avg if my calculations are correct, not including magic items, like the arrow of dragon slaying I had against a green dragon. I hit for like 85 damage that turn if I remember correctly.

The only UA we used were hit dice 2d6 per level, DM and I agreed with the explanation on the UA about survivalism and stuff. I had +12 stealth, +9 investigation, +8 acrobatics, +8 sleight of hand, and +8 on thieves tools. I carried the party a lot of times. So why do people dislike the Ranger?

[LudicSavant]

level 10

...

In one round of combat I could hit for massive damage.

...

37 avg if my calculations are correc

37 average damage per round isn't really "massive" for level 10, especially if it's not sustained damage and you're not factoring in miss chance.

I've seen level 10 characters doing more than 5x that on a regular basis. It sounds like your table may not have been taking full advantage of their characters' abilities.

[Paeleus]

Make that that 31. There's a concentration issue with Hail of Thorns and Hunter's Mark. With your Sneak Attack from Rogue; are you having advantage constantly or are allies adjacent to enemy when making these attacks??

But anyways, Rangers are sick. It's just Beast Master that sucks.

[djreynolds]

Paeleus

Have you played the new beastmaster? I haven't yet.

It seems the new Beast master should get more spells

[ChubbyRain]

37 average damage per round isn't really "massive" for level 10, especially if it's not sustained damage and you're not factoring in miss chance.

I've seen level 10 characters doing more than 5x that on a regular basis. It sounds like your table may not have been taking full advantage of their characters' abilities.

A level 6 Sorcerer can pull off Hold Person, walk up to the creature, then blast them with a control that crust for... 4d10+4 damage (26 damage)

Next round, if target is still there, you are looking at a critical hit scorching ray doing a buttload of damage.

Or that Sorcerer could just cast scorching ray (4 rays) 8d6 + 4 Cha damage (cha to one target only).

Thata 28 damage before charisma... Add in a quicken firebolt... That's 2d10+ 4 Cha (15 damage) ... 47

This is just the top of my head btw, and at 4 levels earlier tha the ranger at 10.

[Alatar]

I never died, never went unconscious that I remember (lol).

Wait for it...


Archery fighting style.

So everyone else bled for you, protected you, cherished and nurtured you, and you thought, "Oh, what a fine boy am I."

[Paeleus]

Oh, I should mention that I am referring to the PHB Beast Master.

I haven't had a chance to play the Revised Ranger. It looks like they solved a lot of the issues plaguing the original's Action economy, durability of the beast, and actual usefulness throughout a BM's career in general. I'm planning to play one next time I get a chance. From a powergaming perspective, having another initiative to work during a round is amazing, let alone having another "entity" on the battlefield (i.e. Spiritual Weapon). I think that alone, makes this subclass viable without extra spells. Maybe make healing your beast more efficient using spells slots (vs a cure wounds or what not)?

[Foxhound438]

rangers do get a lot of damage potential, but there are some problems with it:

1st off, the PHB ranger gets two flavor ribbon abilities at 1st, and thus starts as a "basic bow guy". Down the line this is less of an issue in itself, except for the fact that there are in fact multiple levels later on that just give more of the same flavor ribbons. Having a lot of dead levels makes the character less fun than other things that are on similar plans.

2nd, there's the lack of top end improvement. After level 5, you get:
-flavor ribbons, as mentioned above
-a defensive feature option, all of which are pretty narrow in usage. Multiattack defense is the only one that you can expect to use a lot, and even then it's not really that good when a lot of things restrain you with the first hit, giving themselves advantage on later hits
-a niche movement ability (specifically only works against plants)
-a selection of bad 3rd level spells, with a few that are only bad because they come so late
-more flavor ribbons
-the ability to split your damage, aka things take longer to die if you use them
-a selection of 4th level spells that are bad at the level you get them
-a flavor ribbon and 1/3 of that feature rogues get at level 2
-a defensive ability that rogues could get at level 5 or 7, depending on what you pick
-a selection of bad 5th level spells (the only good one is swift quiver, but that has a high cost and shuts you out of using hunter's mark)
-an ability that lets you have neutral attacks on invisible foes (rare)
-a capstone that you can only use on certain creature types for a boost that isn't even necessarily good

The UA revised ranger fixes a lot of this by making the "flavor ribbon" abilities that I've mentioned a lot more affective (made up word that isn't to be confused with effective; calling it effective would imply that it does a better job of what it originally did, but something that's affective would be a thing that actually affects the game, unlike the original), and expanded the capstone to all creatures, so that it can be a thing you actually look forward to in the late game regardless of what your favored enemies are. There are still issues with it, it's not perfect at every level, but the revised version has at least as much meat to it as base fighter or paladin do now.

Anyways, the biggest thing is that it suffers from the issue of being just worse at all the same things that a fighter can do in combat, and worse than a rogue at all the things a rogue can do. Again, this changes to some degree with the UA ranger, but the base class is just so much worse than either that I'd rather see one of the others at any given time.

[Foxhound438]

37 average damage per round isn't really "massive" for level 10, especially if it's not sustained damage and you're not factoring in miss chance.

I've seen level 10 characters doing more than 5x that on a regular basis. It sounds like your table may not have been taking full advantage of their characters' abilities.

just as an example (5x is more than a bit of an exaggeration) a "polearm fighter" can...

attack action, 2x d10+15 (41)
bonus action, d4+15 (17.5)

that's 58.5 damage already. They also get maneuver dice to drop extra damage, or alternatively turn any narrow miss into a hit after swinging.

With action surge, add in another 41 for once at the start of every fight about 100 damage if you don't miss.

And then there's the fact that the fighter gets a jump to about 80 sustained dpr at level 11, while the ranger is stuck in place until 17th.

[LudicSavant]

just as an example (5x is more than a bit of an exaggeration) It is no such thing. There are a number of combos that will grab you upwards of 185 damage at level 10.

[Kileonhardt]

The PHB Ranger is quite lackluster is why it gets hate. BM is useless because of action economy and Hunter is just so/so. Your damage may look all nice and shiny when compared to your party but more than likely none of them were optimized for damage output. A ranged fighter at 10 has 3d6+45 (56) damage with a +6/7 to hit, not counting any maneuvers he could use, and then that goes up to 4d6+60 (74) at 11.

Though Wizards has done Ranger some good by overhauling the class through Unearthed Arcana to a place where I think there are scarce few who actually hate it.


It is no such thing. There are a number of combos that will grab you upwards of 185 damage at level 10.

Can confirm. Quickened Hold Person into 2 attacks with level 3 spell slot divine smites can really wreck an NPC's day.

[djreynolds]

But a ranger can do this with a bow, from range all day long.

Hunter's mark lasts a hour, that is a long time.

A beast with flyby makes a great way to obtain advantage, now sharpshooter has a better chance to land. I recommend find familiar for any ranger and grab an owl.

Rangers, like fighters with archery style are very powerful. You can use SS every shot. A simple dip of cleric grabs you bless for another 1d4 to hit.

Archery is nice. Rangers make great back-up healers. Its good class, their damage is consistent. SS is a static +10, not 1d10.

And you can use a longbow for 1d8, or crossbow expert for 1d6

Rangers can easily dip rogue for SA and expertise, fighter BM for 3 levels, and cleric for extra spells.

And you don't have to step into the fray to deal this damage, it can all be done from range

[Harrumphreys]

"Rangers are a great class! Make sure that you have levels in Cleric and Rogue. Rangers are a great class!"

[djreynolds]

"Rangers are a great class! Make sure that you have levels in Cleric and Rogue. Rangers are a great class!"

Very good advice, its to easy to grab 1 level of rogue and cleric

It just so happens that most classes will need to multiclass and that's why its there.

[Vogonjeltz]

I am a bit confused guys. I got into D&D about a year ago and fell in love with it. I now DM a campaign, and play in another campaign. My first character was a half-elf ranger, that I built with no knowledge of D&D whatsoever. After getting into D&D, I keep seeing and hearing that rangers SUCK. I don't get it. I played my ranger from 1st level to 10th level, taking a 1 level dip in rogue at level 10. I had the strongest character at the table, which included (over the course of the game) : 3x Fighter, 2x Druid, 1x Rogue, 1x Warlock, 1x Sorcerer, 1x other Ranger.

I never died, never went unconscious that I remember (lol). Even when we stopped the campaign because we were TPK'ed, I had 14 hp and was banished back to my home plane. (We were on the Plane of Fire). I took Hunter, and Archery fighting style.

stats: 14 18 13 12 14 10
AC: 16
feats: sharpshooter
+10 to hit with longbow

In one round of combat I could hit for massive damage.
1d8 arrow x2
1d6 hunter's mark
1d8 colossus slayer
1d10 hail of thorns
1d6 sneak attack
+4 dex
+10 sharpshooter
37 avg if my calculations are correct, not including magic items, like the arrow of dragon slaying I had against a green dragon. I hit for like 85 damage that turn if I remember correctly.

The only UA we used were hit dice 2d6 per level, DM and I agreed with the explanation on the UA about survivalism and stuff. I had +12 stealth, +9 investigation, +8 acrobatics, +8 sleight of hand, and +8 on thieves tools. I carried the party a lot of times. So why do people dislike the Ranger?

The complaint was always that some people didn't like the beast master mechanics.

It's been long known that the Ranger was functionally great (the revised UA version is actually worse at damage dealing, it just tapped into the desire for different mechanics).

[StoicLeaf]

A beast with flyby makes a great way to obtain advantage, now sharpshooter has a better chance to land. I recommend find familiar for any ranger and grab an owl.


Rangers don't get find familar, you're going to have to dip!


I think most of the important points have been covered; ranger on its own isn't going to be blowing any damage charts out of the water, multiclassing will give you more options.
Having said that, I think the game (as a whole) is fine the way it is. Melee 2h users can crank out silly damage, but will likely fall prey to wisdom saves (hello dominate person! go murder your friends, would you kindly?). If you MC ranger with fighter, you can have extra damage dice and use soft CC to affect the battlefield or help out your buddies. The list goes on!

[War_lord]

Very good advice, its to easy to grab 1 level of rogue and cleric

It just so happens that most classes will need to multiclass and that's why its there.

"most classes will need to multiclass"

No, no they don't. Sure it's usually worth taking a one or two level dip considering that capstone abilities are often either mediocre or the game isn't running up to 20th level, but most classes are totally viable just taken straight. If a class "needs" a dip to work, it's by definition weaker then others. If anything the problem is that multiclassing is too powerful.

[Willie the Duck]

I am a bit confused guys. I got into D&D about a year ago and fell in love with it. I now DM a campaign, and play in another campaign. My first character was a half-elf ranger, that I built with no knowledge of D&D whatsoever.
...
37 avg if my calculations are correct, not including magic items, like the arrow of dragon slaying I had against a green dragon. I hit for like 85 damage that turn if I remember correctly.



37 average damage per round isn't really "massive" for level 10, especially if it's not sustained damage and you're not factoring in miss chance.

I've seen level 10 characters doing more than 5x that on a regular basis. It sounds like your table may not have been taking full advantage of their characters' abilities.

I think this highlights where a lot of the issue is. Even though 5e is a far cry from 2e* and 3e**, it still has two very distinct power levels at which one can play. It is really at that higher level of play where the ranger doesn't keep up with other classes. We can give all sorts of specifics as to why. But basically, the ranger is one of two "half-casters" (along with paladin), but unlike the paladin, their spells, class abilities, and martial capacity don't directly synergize all that well, leading to a lackluster character (for many). Lackluster is the primary issue, not weak. As you say, your character survives just fine, it's just that people expect them to be able to contribute more. 10th level is hard to judge, but at 11th level, the fighter that your character could have been is getting their third attack (and fourth or fifth, when they can find ways to use their bonus action and reactions as attacks as well, which is part of their schtick). The things that your ranger character has picked up instead of those attacks are just, well, fine but not impressive. That I think is the main issue.


* - where in one group might be lots of rogues and bards and clerics from the Complete book of Priests gods of love where they have 1d4 hp/level just for flavor reasons and another group might be playing with the Player's Options books
** - where one group might be playing Monks and non-early-entry Mystic Theurges and the next with have Spell-to-Power Erudites and Dread-Necromancer/Rainbow Servant Ice-Assassin clones projecting from personal demiplanes

[djreynolds]

Rangers don't get find familar, you're going to have to dip!

Flying snake was once a legal beast, but i was suggesting grab magic initiate. Good feat for an archer


"most classes will need to multiclass"

No, no they don't. Sure it's usually worth taking a one or two level dip considering that capstone abilities are often either mediocre or the game isn't running up to 20th level, but most classes are totally viable just taken straight. If a class "needs" a dip to work, it's by definition weaker then others. If anything the problem is that multiclassing is too powerful.

Hey, the ranger needs to dip. And rogue cleric fighter and monk are right there.

Unfortunately not all classes are equal with each other end game, but Rangers pre 11th-12th level are strong as archers

[Contrast]

Rangers are mostly fine, beast master was pretty rubbish.

The main problem I have with rangers (and the reason I'm personally unlikely to ever play one) is that depending on what I'm aiming for I think a valor bard or fighter of some kind do the same sorts of things but better. If the flavour abilities appeal to you though you're going to be fine. As others have said, the damage output for rangers is on par with other martials.

I would also point out that not dying is not always the mark of the 'strongest' character. I have had to make the decision in the past to not disengage my rogue from combat to safety in an effort to stop the opponents just focusing on one character and mullering them into the ground. You may be doing slightly more damage standing back with your bow but its much better for the combat to end with you on half health and another character on half health than you on full health and the other character dead (as always, the important thing is to strike a balance - forunately our crossbow wielding fighter does seem to have learned this and started using his sword when the time calls for it!).

[tieren]

Rangers don't get find familar, you're going to have to dip!



He had already dipped one level of rogue, taking two more to go AT is an option, can take find familiar as off school spell, get more SA dice and other rogue goodies, etc...

I really like a deep rogue ranger MC though. As has been stated most of the ranger crunch is achieved by about level 7. And some of the high level ranger stuff (uncanny dodge or evasion) are actually low level rogue stuff (uncanny dodge AND evasion).

SA was achieved mostly in my groups by shooting at whatever was in melee with the front liners, with sharpshooter negating the effect of the partial cover issues. Another option would be to conjure up some boars or something to get close to the enemy to enable SA.

[Specter]

Yeah, this is getting old already. "No uber damage!!! :(((("

1) The ranger deals damage just fine, with Sharpshooter or two weapons with Hunter's Mark. The fact that it's not on the top damage charts doesn't hurt the class's utility in the exploration part of the game. I'm guessing the naysayers play in campaigns where the DM just waves survival and wilderness altogether.
2) Original Beastmaster blows. Sold.
3) The only bad thing going on for the ranger is that levels 6, 10 and 14 are very lackluster. If you can live with that, good.
4) If you do want more damage, then there's nothing with taking a few fighter/rogue levels, but they're not mandatory at all.

[Tanarii]

After getting into D&D, I keep seeing and hearing that rangers SUCK. I don't get it.Welcome to viral group-think.

Furthermore, incorrect viral group-think. ie everyone has talked themselves into believing something that just flat-out isn't true, and it's self-reinforcing because they keep hearing and seeing others propagate the same wrong information.

Just think "FB Feed" and you'll understand how it happens instantly.

[ChubbyRain]

But a ranger can do this with a bow, from range all day long.

Fighters can do it all day long and get class features starting at level 1.

Rogues can do everything a ranger does, all day long, and not be in the perfect environment. A rogue can pick and choose their mental score that they want to gocud in, the ranger is lovked into Wis and a bit of Int.

[ChubbyRain]

Welcome to viral group-think.

Furthermore, incorrect viral group-think. ie everyone has talked themselves into believing something that just flat-out isn't true, and it's self-reinforcing because they keep hearing and seeing others propagate the same wrong information.

Just think "FB Feed" and you'll understand how it happens instantly.

I'm sorry but just because you have an opinion on something doeesnt me me everyone else wrong.

You can be oh so edgy teenager if you want, but it rewlly isnt worth taking the time out of my day to further explain the many levels of ack basswards you are.

[DireSickFish]

Rangers do fine damage. Especially Hunter Rangers. At lvl11 every class gets a big damage bump except 2. Hunter Ranger and Barbarian. Barbarian's get the class feature to roll con saves to avoid death instead. Hunter rangers get a garbage AoE attack and there single target damage doesn't go up.

Sharpshooter is also a really powerful feat. If no one else in your group is using Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter then you are going to be a cut above the rest in terms of damage.

So basically you're playing the ranger in an optimal level range using the best feats and only focusing on combat ability.

There is a big argument on how good the ranger is at utility stuff. The abilities they get for tracking and detecting favored enemies just don't seem useful.

[Tanarii]

There is a big argument on how good the ranger is at utility stuff. The abilities they get for tracking and detecting favored enemies just don't seem useful.The biggest problem with Rangers is they're pretty campaign dependent. (This holds for many spells, feats, features and subclasses. For the Ranger this primarily applies to Natural Explorer, but to it also applies to a fair number of things across the class.

Specifically, if it's a Combat-as-Sport campaign, they're less useful. Because you can just wade into combat without worrying too much about scouting & planning, ambushing, retreating & regrouping, etc. Rangers are excellent in Combat-as-War environments where all that stuff comes into play, especially in their Natural Explorer Terrain. In addition to excelling at scouting, they also make logistics & navigating a LOT easier, which another component that basically doesn't exist in very CaS games, and is core to very CaW games.

Also, if it's a sandbox campaign with highly variable terrains, or any campaign set almost exclusively in urban/indoor environments, they're less useful. In the released adventure paths so far, they're actually pretty good because you'll be in one of just a few environments most of the time. Or if you set it (for example) in the north Sword Coast of Faerun, it's primarily Forest, Mountain and Swamp terrain. The edges are Arctic (north), Desert (east), Plains (south), and Coast/Islands (west). But the central north is just 3 terrains.
Similarly, DMs that rule that walking into a meadow counts as plains and into stand of trees count as forests, as opposed to using the macroscopic terrain, will screw over any Rangers too.

The UA ranger fixed the second issue with it's changes to Natural Explorer. I don't like Rangers losing what's effectively limited Expertise, but making it not terrain limited will probably be a good chance (assuming it sees release eventually). But not the first problem. Of course, Combat-as-War vs Combat-as-Sport changes almost everything about the balance of things in D&D.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The Ranger suffers in quick comparisons for a few main reasons:

Some of their best abilities (Hunter's Mark, Pass Without Trace) are hidden in their spell list, and
Their offense does fall behind at higher levels.
The Beastmaster just looks and feels off for many players, to say nothing of the whole your-class-feature-can-die issue.
The Hunter's best schtick is mundane-AoE (Horde Breaker, Volley/Whirlwind Attack), which is an unusual and unexpected role.

[Trum4n1208]

The PHB Ranger is okay, the UA Ranger is good. They're probably not great if you like to optimize, but I've never personally found optimizing to be super fun. If it works with your play style then don't worry what other people say.

[coredump]

stats: 14 18 13 12 14 10
AC: 16
feats: sharpshooter
+10 to hit with longbow

In one round of combat I could hit for massive damage.
1d8 arrow x2
1d6 hunter's mark
1d8 colossus slayer
1d10 hail of thorns
1d6 sneak attack
+4 dex
+10 sharpshooter
37 avg ?

Not quite.... If you are talking max per round (which is easy, but not the best)

2D8
2D6
1D8 (bad choice for archer)
1D6
+8
+20

Average assuming no misses: 52 hp per round


Ranger Hunters are fine, I don't know about melee, but at archery they can be about as good as anyone.

The 'problem' with Rangers is they are a mix class....they don't fight as well as fighters, or sneak as well as rogues, or cast as well as Druids. But..... they can do a little of all 3. Hunter's Mark, Pass without Trace, Fog Cloud, Spike Growth, lightning arrow, etc are all pretty useful, but the fighter with a somewhat higher DPR gets none of those.
The Rogue doesn't get 2 attacks, nor Archery fighting style
etc
etc

Not sure why you would leave right before getting Volley.... that is basically a 22pt fireball you can use every round. (but no half damage)

[Foxhound438]

Can confirm. Quickened Hold Person into 2 attacks with level 3 spell slot divine smites can really wreck an NPC's day.

that isn't sustainable DPR tho. it's burst. It's good, but it's apples and oranges.

[Foxhound438]

It just so happens that most classes will need to multiclass and that's why its there.

not really. All of them can, but fighters never need to, paladins never need to, rogues never need to, clerics never even want to...

Ranger is really good... for like 3 levels, then it's only average for a while, and then it's bad.

[Deleted]

The PHB Ranger is okay, the UA Ranger is good. They're probably not great if you like to optimize, but I've never personally found optimizing to be super fun. If it works with your play style then don't worry what other people say.

From personal experience, you need to optimize to make the PHB ranger okay, while the UA ranger is decent out of the box.

The issue with the PHB ranger is that without picking things carefully, your DM will have to change things up to make sure you get use out of your character.

You pick a character that must be a sailor and is all about aquatic combat... Then your group, due to the game being more sandboxish, ends up being in a desert. Well, in a few levels you can pick a new terrain... But by then you will be in a jungle or mountain area.

The hunter styles are the same way, if the DM doesn't play to Horde Breaker or Giant Killer, then you are wasting your character. being a ranger typically means good dex, which means you will go first a lot, which means Colossus Slayer can be useless unless you have more than one attack.

There are just so many nitpicky things about the Ranger that almost no other class has.

[Kileonhardt]

that isn't sustainable DPR tho. it's burst. It's good, but it's apples and oranges.

I know it's burst, that's why the whole first part of my post included the DPR of a ranged Fighter at 10th level :smalltongue:

[MrFahrenheit]

I think a lot of people mistook the phb ranger for something which should've been the equivalent of a paladin early on, given the half spell progression.

Problem is, they're not. A paladin - no matter the subclass - will be more akin to a heavy armored rogue in combat (given the similarities between smite damage dice and sneak attack damage dice), and something of a fighter or bard out of it.

Rangers - no matter the subclass - are more akin to an archer fighter in combat. Not a rogue. Sure they can go more support (battlemaster/beastmaster) or more DPR (champion/hunter) routes, but at the end of the day, their spells compensate for the lack of extra (extra) attacks the fighter gets. Out of combat, then they're more roguelike.

Finally, what I've realized, and long held, is that, in a grand campaign that takes you past level 5, the subclass matters less and less. Your class is your steak, your subclass is your seasoning. Sure you get cool abilities from your subclass, but you wouldn't sit at the dinner table with the intention of downing a thing of Mrs. Dash...

[LudicSavant]

that isn't sustainable DPR tho. it's burst. It's good, but it's apples and oranges.

The OP's DPR isn't sustainable either (or even possible. You can't use Hail of Thorns and Hunter's Mark at the same time, for instance). And Kileonhardt is obviously well aware that he's talking about burst damage.

[EvilAnagram]

I've played as multiple rangers, and the sustained damage is excellent. Hunter's Mark regularly lasts multiple encounters in my experience, and Colossus Slayer is a decent early damage boost. Playing the new UA Ranger in Adventurer's League, I feel downright OP.

In a direct comparison, I prefer the original Hunter over a Fighter for a DPS archer. Granted, I think the Battle Master archer has cooler control options, but otherwise I would go Hunter.

[Tanarii]

Hunter's Mark regularly lasts multiple encounters in my experience
Archer Ranger not taking any damage?

Edit: The reason I ask is like a warlock with Hex, I find that for a melee-oriented character finds it FAR more difficult to keep these spells up than a ranged one. I've had a few people call me on that when I've pointed out that Hex is automatically upcast to last a long time, and I have to admit it's a fair point.

[EvilAnagram]

Archer Ranger not taking any damage?

Edit: The reason I ask is like a warlock with Hex, I find that for a melee-oriented character finds it FAR more difficult to keep these spells up than a ranged one. I've had a few people call me on that when I've pointed out that Hex is automatically upcast to last a long time, and I have to admit it's a fair point.

Yes, melee rangers tend to take hits more often. Of course, if you put effort into a Con save that doesn't matter as much. I'm currently playing a UA Stranger that switches between javelins and a battle axe, and I still rarely lose concentration. Granted, I put effort into boosting my Con and AC, and that lovely Goliath racial ability helps out a lot.

[Tanarii]

Yes, melee rangers tend to take hits more often. Of course, if you put effort into a Con save that doesn't matter as much. I'm currently playing a UA Stranger that switches between javelins and a battle axe, and I still rarely lose concentration. Granted, I put effort into boosting my Con and AC, and that lovely Goliath racial ability helps out a lot.
Fair enough, but you optimized for it.

I mean, I think the current beastmaster is okay. Because my beastmaster ranger was a sentinel with a heavy weapon in breastplate, and my wolf (in barding) did most of the actual attacking, and I smacked anyone that attacked him as well as getting in my one attack. Another good alternative would have been Shield & Rapier for a Dex version. The problem is ... beastmaster is a little clunky for melee, because you can't use TWF with it as written.

Again, something the new UA tidied up a bit, if it ever sees print, by changing the Beastmaster to single attack and letting the beast act. It's very close to identical in that regard ... but it allows Rangers to TWF.

I like the PHB ranger. It's not weak. But the UA definitely found a few spots that could use improvement. Although IMO it also made a horrible mess with the rest of the companion creatures stat rules, especially the advancement rules.

[coredump]

Playing the new UA Ranger in Adventurer's League, I feel downright OP.


Um.... the UA Ranger is not legal in AL. Nothing in UA is legal in AL..... I am pretty sure it says that on every UA product.

[EvilAnagram]

Um.... the UA Ranger is not legal in AL. Nothing in UA is legal in AL..... I am pretty sure it says that on every UA product.

It's absolutely illegal, and the local AL DMs in Cinci don't care. They let me know that my character wouldn't be playable at any other official games and let me play.

[djreynolds]

Hunter/battlemaster/rogue (your choice)

However you stack it, awesome.

Don't get stuck with the term multiclassing or classes... you are just Bob the bowman in the end and have fun.

When you play some people are their character or their class, go with the former

You do not have to be a 5 hunter/11 battlemaster/ 4 rogue... you can be just 20th level awesome archer

[Rhedyn]

Beastmaster Ranger is the strongest. People just don't like how it controls.

[Yagyujubei]

hunter ranger is really strong dps up to around lvl 8-10 so for the majority of games (which dont last very long) ranger will probably have unbeatable at will DPS. The problem with Hunter ranger is that after lvl 10 it falls off compared to other classes.

beastmaster ranger did suck, but the UA rework for it is actually totally baller. play away.

other UA/SCAG/etc. versions are pretty legit across the board, the UA "new Ranger" has one of the most broken abilities in all of 5e in ambuscade (which sadly means it's certainly gonna be banned during any game lol). the UA "Revised Ranger" however is in a really good place with the tweaks to favored enemy and foe slayer.

anyway at this point with an open minded DM there are a ton of great options for rangers that are useful all the way through to 20 and are alot of fun to play. in a game with base PB rules I would avoid it though personally.

[Tanarii]

beastmaster ranger did suck, but the UA rework for it is actually totally baller. play away.
only if you wanted to play a TWF ranger. Otherwise it is quite strong ... which is the opposite of 'suck'.

[Yagyujubei]

only if you wanted to play a TWF ranger. Otherwise it is quite strong ... which is the opposite of 'suck'.

yeah possibly if you use the one VERY specific build that makes beastmaster ranger playable and also requires alot of rule bending and liberties that you have to check with the DM before hand to pull off. yeah I read the beastmaster optimization thread, Having that one super restrictive option to play a beastmaster that isn't gimped doesnt mean the class is designed well.

[MBControl]

The beastmaster seems unimpressive, I agree, but once again, it's about class balance and flavour.

Game designers don't limit a class in order to make the option weaker, the do it to sustain balance, knowing the rules and loop holes of the edition.

Do certain classes and archetypes end up being stronger? You bet, but you have options.

I believe The Ranger: Hunter is one of the most versatile and deadly martial classes. DEX is such a master stat in 5e, and the Ranger lives and dies (literally) with DEX. It's your AC, ATK, and INIT. Stealth, Acrobatics, and ton of saves depend on it as well. You want to be a thieving ranger, guess what you want a stat in.

You also have a small variety of spells. Though restricted, I think some of the best, in Hunter's Mark, Pass Without Trace, heals and Lesser Restoration, and Silence. Though some are concentration based, none rely on your spell save DC, so you don't even have to build towards that stat.

On top of that, they can start to rack up a ton of DMG.

There is nothing wrong rangers, I think they are fine, and I believe that they have released the UA options to make the Beastmaster archetype more powerful and enjoyable.

[Tanarii]

yeah possibly if you use the one VERY specific build that makes beastmaster ranger playable and also requires alot of rule bending and liberties that you have to check with the DM before hand to pull off. yeah I read the beastmaster optimization thread, Having that one super restrictive option to play a beastmaster that isn't gimped doesnt mean the class is designed well.
No. It's perfectly powerful for any build except TWF. And that's because you can't use your bonus action attack in conjunction with the beast attack.

I mean, that's a pretty damn huge restriction when you're talking about modern ranger classes, because at some point in D&D history Ranger & TWF became synonymous. So it's not nothing. But it's still a single build out of four possible builds (archery, 2H, S&B & TWF)

[Contrast]

Beastmaster Ranger is the strongest. People just don't like how it controls.

I would be very interested to hear you defend that claim. With particular reference to the survivability of your beast companion.

[EvilAnagram]

I would be very interested to hear you defend that claim. With particular reference to the survivability of your beast companion.

I've had a pteradon, a panther, and a flying poisonous snake, and none have died.

[Tanarii]

I would be very interested to hear you defend that claim. With particular reference to the survivability of your beast companion.
What's wrong with beast companion survivability? They have tits AC due to barding, and about 1/2 the Ranger's HPs. That's plenty unless you're trying to have them act as a primary tank.

[Deleted]

I would be very interested to hear you defend that claim. With particular reference to the survivability of your beast companion.

Some people have DMs that won't kill animal companions so that the player(s) won't wine about being targeted by "DM versus Player" tactics.

Other times the DM won't kill animal companions because the ranger needs all the breaks they can get, might as well give this to them.

[EvilAnagram]

Some people have DMs that won't kill animal companions so that the player(s) won't wine [sic] about being targeted by "DM versus Player" tactics.

Other times the DM won't kill animal companions because the ranger needs all the breaks they can get, might as well give this to them.
The only danger that truly threatens the beast companion is AoE spells. They have high AC with minimal investment, so attacks don't matter much in comparison. It takes very little preparation and some clever tactics to keep a beast out of harm.

[Harrumphreys]

yeah possibly if you use the one VERY specific build that makes beastmaster ranger playable and also requires alot of rule bending and liberties that you have to check with the DM before hand to pull off. yeah I read the beastmaster optimization thread, Having that one super restrictive option to play a beastmaster that isn't gimped doesnt mean the class is designed well.

What build is this?

[Rhedyn]

No. It's perfectly powerful for any build except TWF. And that's because you can't use your bonus action attack in conjunction with the beast attack.

I mean, that's a pretty damn huge restriction when you're talking about modern ranger classes, because at some point in D&D history Ranger & TWF became synonymous. So it's not nothing. But it's still a single build out of four possible builds (archery, 2H, S&B & TWF)

TWF works great actually. Bonus action command is for everything but attacking. Once you hit level 5, you both can attack at level 11 the beast can attack twice. My two favorite beast are wolf and flying snake.

I would grab twf style but I wouldn't hesitate to use a bow. With your spells you need to adjust to the encounter. Sometimes that means diving in with twf and hunters mark and unloading 4 attacks on a thing. Other times it means tying people up with vines from distance and letting your wolf tear out their throat.

Yeah your pet can die but getting a new wolf is pretty easy and you didn't take that damage (I would also give the pet death saving throws).

[Tanarii]

TWF works great actually. Bonus action command is for everything but attacking. Once you hit level 5, you both can attack at level 11 the beast can attack twice. My two favorite beast are wolf and flying snake.It doesn't work at all. Because to be able to make your bonus action TWF attack, you need to take the Attack Action. So if you command your beast to attack (one or two attacks), you get one attack from the sub-class feature, but not the TWF attack, because it's not the Attack action.

It's easy to house-rule that to fix it of course. But RAW it doesn't work.

[Rhedyn]

It doesn't work at all. Because to be able to make your bonus action TWF attack, you need to take the Attack Action. So if you command your beast to attack (one or two attacks), you get one attack from the sub-class feature, but not the TWF attack, because it's not the Attack action.

It's easy to house-rule that to fix it of course. But RAW it doesn't work.

”Once you have the Extra Attack feature,
you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action.”

You're still making the attack Acton. That whole sharing actions thing cuts both ways. You commanding the beast to attack is still you taking the attack Acton.

[Tanarii]

”Once you have the Extra Attack feature,
you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action.”

You're still making the attack Acton. That whole sharing actions thing cuts both ways. You commanding the beast to attack is still you taking the attack Acton.
That sentence you quoted very clearly says the beast takes the attack action. So no, you are not taking the Attack action because of some kind of assumption about shared actions you're making that doesn't actually exist RAW. That's be a house-rule.

Most likely it's just a corner case rules interaction the developers missed considering. But it's RAW.

[Rhedyn]

That sentence you quoted very clearly says the beast takes the attack action. So no, you are not taking the Attack action because of some kind of assumption about shared actions you're making that doesn't actually exist RAW. That's be a house-rule.

Most likely it's just a corner case rules interaction the developers missed considering. But it's RAW.
I disagree with your interpretation. Your arguments have not persuaded me.

[Tanarii]

I disagree with your interpretation. Your arguments have not persuaded me.
That's nice. It's not an interpretation, and I'm not trying to persuade you. It's RAW and I'm correcting you on it.

[Zeprido]

Currently rolling a dual wielding beastmaster halfing that rides a wolf using the new beastmaster rules at 3rd level. With good rolls I'm pumping out 8-11 (rapier) + 6-9 (short sword) + 8-12 (wolf) + 3-6 (hunters mark) per round for 25-38 damage per round. Wolf gets advantage all the time cuz I'm riding him and at 4th level I'll be able to take hits for him with mounted combatant until I get some barding going. Rest of the party is made up of a druid cleric MC, a wizard, and a Paladin and I've been our main source of damage so far.

Pretty happy with the results so far and my DM rages a bit since he considers new ranger to be pretty overpowered and thinks what I do to be pretty disgusting.

I do think that hunter ranger is still better than beastmaster, but beastmaster adds more flavor for roleplay options, and with the new beastmaster being significantly better combat wise than the PHB beastmaster, I think it's a fairly legit option to consider if you can use the new ruleset.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm sorry but just because you have an opinion on something doeesnt me me everyone else wrong.

You can be oh so edgy teenager if you want, but it rewlly isnt worth taking the time out of my day to further explain the many levels of ack basswards you are.

Math isn't an opinion. Do the math on a Constrictor BM, it beats the pants off alternatives from the word go.

[Zeprido]

Math isn't an opinion. Do the math on a Constrictor BM, it beats the pants off alternatives from the word go.

How so? Please, do go on, I'd like to hear more.

[coredump]

That's nice. It's not an interpretation, and I'm not trying to persuade you. It's RAW and I'm correcting you on it.

I disagree... it is your interpretation of what the RAW is... and I do not think it is correct.

[Willie the Duck]

And I have not formed an opinion on whose interpretation I agree with, but do agree that what Tanarii posited is not RAW, but his interpretation of what RAW states.

I'm disappointed. Declaring one's interpretation of RAW into ones' argument for what is RAW is begging the question.

[Saggo]

It's as much an interpretation as telling someone to roll a d20 for a strength save is an interpretation. Your action is very clearly commanding the beast, even more obvious when the UA Beastmaster is very clearly designed not to.

When you command it to Dash, you don't get 30' too.

[Vogonjeltz]

How so? Please, do go on, I'd like to hear more.

You're asking how numbers aren't opinions? Or how the BM deals more damage? This question is unclear.

For the former, because they aren't subjective, opinions are;

For the latter, because the abilities add more overall damage.

[Gwendol]

The ranger is fine in actual play, and typically very strong early on. The UA revision makes the Beastmaster more fun or intuitive, and the favored enemy and natural explorer abilities more broadly applicable (but removes expertise). The class very strongly supports the exploration and combat pillars of the game.

[ChubbyRain]

The ranger is fine in actual play, and typically very strong early on. The UA revision makes the Beastmaster more fun or intuitive, and the favored enemy and natural explorer abilities more broadly applicable (but removes expertise). The class very strongly supports the exploration and combat pillars of the game.

My biggest issue with the PHB Beast Master is this right exactly this. You don't need to do Barbarian DPR to keep up with the game, I just don't want my beast to be a robot.

Though it would have been nice if the BM ranger got a few more spells so you can support your beast a bit better... But whatever.

[Tanarii]

It's as much an interpretation as telling someone to roll a d20 for a strength save is an interpretation. Your action is very clearly commanding the beast, even more obvious when the UA Beastmaster is very clearly designed not to.

When you command it to Dash, you don't get 30' too.Exactly. It's all very well to try and claim any reading of RAW is an interpretation. But there's a limit to that. Some things are clear, and it takes an intentional mis-reading to try and claim that the reading is an 'interpretation'. There's absolutely no leeway here. If your beast takes the Attack action, that cannot be you taking the Attack action. And TWF bonus action attack requires the latter. It's cut and dry.

Now RAI is a totally different thing. And generally more important. But as far as I know JC/Sage Advice/Mearls has never commented on the PHB Ranger Beast Master RAI with regards to TWF, and it's probably a moot point now.

I've long been curious what RAI for Whirlwind with TWF is too, for the exact same reason. RAW, PHB or UA Whirlwind, you cannot use it and also get the TWF bonus action attack, because it's not the Attack Action. Is that intended?