Ranger?

[Eko]

Has WoTC released an actually proper Ranger yet? There are 3 different ones in the UAs, and I'm not sure what to pick for my players to use.

What do the people in the forum use? How have your experiences been? Anything particularly annoying or great you've discovered?

[mephnick]

Has WoTC released an actually proper Ranger yet?

Sure did. Hunter Ranger is in the PhB.

[Specter]

The PHB Hunter is fine, it's just levels 6, 10 and 14 that are disappointing. In my signature I tried to fix this problem.

[Arkhios]

Honestly, I don't think PHB ranger is all that bad. It feels to me that people who complain about the class only look at the combat prowess, giving little or no regard to non-combat features which are just as important for play. While, yes, D&D's roots are in war games and combat is essential part, it's worthwhile to remember that not everything has to be solved by the edge of a blade or by the destructiveness of a spell. In fact, to me it seems that in 5e the designers have tried to encourage playgroups to explore the other possibilities more than before. I say this because combat is largely simplified compared to previous editions.

[Kane0]

UA revised ranger is accepted around here as the 'default fix'

I did a custom one in my sig but i'm biased.

[Foxhound438]

It feels to me that people who complain about the class only look at the combat prowess, giving little or no regard to non-combat features which are just as important for play.

the problem is that those features are only as good as your DM lets them be. If you have favored terrain: forests that's cool and all, but if the DM designs adventures that have a singular clear path with a static objective and no challenge in navigating the forest you're in, the feature is useless. And while a good DM might "tailor the challenges" to make that ability feel useful, it's still irksome to me that I could have chosen another class and that DM wouldn't have made that "niche situation" for that ability happen, and thus I would lose nothing and gain something in actively usable features like second wind or sneak attack.

[JNAProductions]

My issue with ranger is pretty much just Beastmaster. Mathematically, both subclasses are fine. Beastmaster just feels wrong.

[mephnick]

UA revised ranger is accepted around here as the 'default fix'

I think it made the Hunter Ranger much stronger than it needed to be. Default PhB Hunter was a perfectly acceptable in combat and all the Revised Ranger did was improve combat ability.

Better attempt at the Beastmaster though.

[Arkhios]

the problem is that those features are only as good as your DM lets them be. If you have favored terrain: forests that's cool and all, but if the DM designs adventures that have a singular clear path with a static objective and no challenge in navigating the forest you're in, the feature is useless. And while a good DM might "tailor the challenges" to make that ability feel useful, it's still irksome to me that I could have chosen another class and that DM wouldn't have made that "niche situation" for that ability happen, and thus I would lose nothing and gain something in actively usable features like second wind or sneak attack.

Frankly put, any features are as good as your DM lets them be. A DM might favor non-combat game over combat game (and still prefer D&D over other systems).
You simply can't (or shouldn't) evaluate a class with only one aspect in mind, but rather take it all into account at once, disregarding whether or not a DM does something situational. Instead, assume that every situational circumstance applies to evaluate a class.


My issue with ranger is pretty much just Beastmaster. Mathematically, both subclasses are fine. Beastmaster just feels wrong.

I think it made the Hunter Ranger much stronger than it needed to be. Default PhB Hunter was a perfectly acceptable in combat and all the Revised Ranger did was improve combat ability.

Better attempt at the Beastmaster though.

So, technically (and I agree, Beast Master feels a bit "wrong", so it could use a little face lift) all you need is to replace PHB beast master features with those of the revised and you're pretty much all set. No need to change the whole class.

[Vorpalchicken]

I found from actual play the phb ranger was great for the levels that are most commonly played- in and out of combat. It's capstone is terrible (and level 6 is pretty meh) but for many a game that's not relevant.

[Mortheim]

PHB Beastmaster is somewhat lackluster. You can have some decent damage output and have advantage every turn, but Hunter will outperform you. You give more targets for enemies, yes, but your pet can go down pretty quickly.
UA Beastmaster focuses more on beast, than on master, so your companion can outperform you. But feels much better.

PHB Ranger can choose favored terrain, which could never play, until (as it was said earlier) DM tailored it into campaign. All of them are so situational, that you either will be useful, or be useless. Bad design.
UA Ranger have bonuses EVERYWHERE and, on top of that, has adv on ini and first attack roll against targets that haven't acted. It feels like black-and-white patter. Now it always works, but destroyes logic. If ranger had advantage everywhere, but for other bonuses choose terrain - it would be better.

I think the right thing that was done is changes to Favored Enemy.

Primeval Awareness is still good as fluff, but in UA it is clearly better than in PHB.

UA Land's Stride is clearly better, cause PHB variant is soooo strange.

PHB Hide in Plain Sight feels more logical. UA is strange - feels like semi-magical ability.

Vanish is noice.

Feral Senses is one thing my party would cheer for. Cause i LOVE to use different blinding and invisible enemies if players feel like that they deal with encounters too easy.

Foe Slayer is still "meh". But it gives us ability to get a dip in class we want :)



Hadn't looked into Hunter and Deepstalker. Overall - UA is clearly better, but not ideal.

[Gryndle]

we use a the latest version in UA and everyone seems much more satisfied with that. Most of my group comes from the AD&D days and because of their fondness for that ranger, would not touch the 5E PHB version at all. They are much happier with the last UA version.

[Fishybugs]

we use a the latest version in UA and everyone seems much more satisfied with that. Most of my group comes from the AD&D days and because of their fondness for that ranger, would not touch the 5E PHB version at all. They are much happier with the last UA version.

Did any of them actually play it? I find people don't like the way it looks on paper, but playing it is actually just fine. I use the PHB version and everyone is happy with it once they have a chance to play...to contribute and be a part of the team.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Did any of them actually play it? I find people don't like the way it looks on paper, but playing it is actually just fine. I use the PHB version and everyone is happy with it once they have a chance to play...to contribute and be a part of the team.
I've had the complete opposite experience. I've known five different players that tried playing the PHB ranger in games I either DM'd, helped with, or played with, and only one enjoyed his character. He was a goblin archer that took beast master to get a pterodactyl mount. But even he preferred the latest UA ranger when forced to play one as the same concept in a different game- he had to trade his pterodactyl for an ape, but loved the added oomph.

The other four all said they felt underwhelming and kept asking me for help fixing their characters. I've yet to hear the same complaints about the new ranger.

[Gryndle]

Did any of them actually play it? I find people don't like the way it looks on paper, but playing it is actually just fine. I use the PHB version and everyone is happy with it once they have a chance to play...to contribute and be a part of the team.

two of them, one up to level 5, one stuck it out to 8th. and both hated it really. they both said they kept the characters only because of the storyline and their characters roles in it.

[mephnick]

It really depends on how much the DM uses travel and exploration. In my games the Ranger is probably the most important class someone can choose.

If you're just playing combat as sport, hand-waving travel and survival, then yeah, it is pretty underwhelming. For classic D&D (I won't say "real" D&D even though that's what I mean), they're pretty great. Although I make sure as a DM to inform them on what terrains and creatures will be most prominent because..why wouldn't you?

[Naanomi]

Base ranger is too campaign dependent for me... if you are fighting the same enemies in the same places for a long time, then great... if you are traveling around the world (or in urban/planar environments) fighting a variety of foes you lose the bulk of your class unique abilities.... also I notice that I always seem to be a few skills short to really use my class abilities well (those 'enemy knowledge checks' I get bonuses in... rarely have the skills there to begin with!). There isn't much a Valor Bard with expertise in Survival can't do better than a PHB Ranger, often at an earlier level

[Easy_Lee]

PHB ranger is not good. UA Revised Ranger is very good, and borderline OP if you know what you're doing. Say you take UA Hunter Ranger on a Vhuman with Sharpshooter. You take Humanoid and Giant as your Favored enemies, Archery fighting style, then show up to a Storm King's Thunder game. Nearly everything you fight in that campaign is a human or a giant. Starting at level 6, you're now effectively wielding a +4 weapon compared to any melee character in the group, and can shoot foes from farther away than you can even see them. And that's before you add any Hunter features, spells, or magic items. I've seen this exact thing happen. That character had more kills than the group's two Vengeance Paladins combined.

And as for UA Beast Conclave, as I've shown and linked in my signature, you can consistently get four attacks per round starting at level 5, two of those with guaranteed advantage and a forced save-or-prone.

If they release a revised Ranger in +1 AL material, I don't expect it to be the UA version. The UA version is quite good and can quite easily overshadow many other classes.

[Chugger]

Easy_Lee fixed Ranger ------> http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?376418-Breaking-BM

Enjoy!

[GlenSmash!]

I quite like the Deepstalker Ranger. It works well for a Geralt of Rivia type Ranger. It'd be nice if we got a published version of it, but there's nothing stopping me from using it as is in my games. So I do.

[Citan]

the problem is that those features are only as good as your DM lets them be. If you have favored terrain: forests that's cool and all, but if the DM designs adventures that have a singular clear path with a static objective and no challenge in navigating the forest you're in, the feature is useless. And while a good DM might "tailor the challenges" to make that ability feel useful, it's still irksome to me that I could have chosen another class and that DM wouldn't have made that "niche situation" for that ability happen, and thus I would lose nothing and gain something in actively usable features like second wind or sneak attack.
Such situation usually arise only when there is a big communication problem between player and DM.
Normally, as a DM during session 0 you define with your players the kind of game you'll play: one-shot/scenario/campaign, world "parameters" (high/low magic, mostly urban or outdoors etc) and player's expectations (serious/fun, brawny/smarty, etc).

If a player plays a Forest Ranger in a campaign which features little exploration and as little "green", problem lies in player, or DM, or most likely both: not on the class.
Same as a Warlock in a game with little to no short rests, or a game full of short rests with Warlocks/Monks/Battlemaster and a single Wizard: one player will feel left out. :)

[Sigreid]

Frankly put, any features are as good as your DM lets them be. A DM might favor non-combat game over combat game (and still prefer D&D over other systems).
You simply can't (or shouldn't) evaluate a class with only one aspect in mind, but rather take it all into account at once, disregarding whether or not a DM does something situational. Instead, assume that every situational circumstance applies to evaluate a class.




So, technically (and I agree, Beast Master feels a bit "wrong", so it could use a little face lift) all you need is to replace PHB beast master features with those of the revised and you're pretty much all set. No need to change the whole class.

The big change revised ranger did that I liked was natural explorer applying to all terrains. I like my rangers to be all terrain gods of survival and navigation. And that was an easy house rule on the basic model so...