Why is Ranger considered underpowered?

[ToastyTobasco]

This is something I read from time to time and I cant really see it other than Beastmaster being underwhelming. The damage from abilities and spells looks good. We've got a ranger in the party and she does good damage and hits pretty often.

Whats with the hate?

[suplee215]

The base class, not counting the subclass or spells, abilities are underwhelming and built more for an exploration character than combat. Favored Enemy and Favored Terrains are only good out of combat and only if you meet the requirement. If you don't predict correctly you never use those abilities that feel like ribbon abilities. Even the capstone requires it to meet this requirement. And while in a favored terrain they can be good skill monkeys, that is only in there and the bard and rogue does whatever you wanna do better. The Hunter Class does make up for this with it's abilities and is actually pretty awesome but you rely so little on the class itself.

[Arkhios]

People who complain about things like these tend to compare similar things with each other (and sometimes with all things that share the same design space) and the most similar class to a ranger (in terms of chassis) in 5th edition is probably paladin which is – ironically – considered to be one of the strongest classes in the game.

[DanyBallon]

Mostly because the way the companion acts through your actions it feels like if you were commanding a robot. And also because there are many that would had like that the companion was independent and act on it’s own, outside of your turn, no matter if it was breaking the action economy. Also, the ranger is one, if not the only class, that cover more the exploration pillar of the game, and a bit less the combat pillar. For those reasons principally, the ranger was dubbed as weak class.

As you can see from the tone of my answer, I don’t feel,that the ranger is a weak class, but I’m glad that the complains incited the D&D team to come up with the revised ranger, as it opens new takes on the features, and can bring forth something interesting in the future, either through the ranger, or another wilderness class.:smallsmile:

[strangebloke]

What everyone has said is fair, but here are my additions:

1. The ranger lacks singular, powerful abilities. They get a little bit of everything. Half-casting, bonus at-will damage, stealth abiltiies, small skill boosts... but they don't have an area they dominate. Druids are sometimes considered to be underpowered for similar reasons.

2. rangers have a few very anemic levels. Specifically people like to point out vanish as a bad level. Weak levels incentive multiclassing.

Overall, I think they're fine. I actually peg them as stronger than the fighter. They have out of combat utility and they can get four attacks in a round as early as fifth level, as well as having the abilitiy to add damage riders.

[Naanomi]

Several reasons... I’ve played one from 1-20, and had a fair number at my table, and this is what I noticed:

- their unique core abilities are situational, and often not impressive even when the situation does occur
- many of their class abilities and spells are things other classes could do many levels earlier
- most rangers feel skill-starved because how many skills are needed to utilize class abilities (perception, Survival, Stealth, Int skills related to racial enemy), leaving many unable to realize other characterization skills or classic ranger abilities (nature, animal handling) if you select the ‘wrong’ background
-spell list is very tight and filled with niche situational spells that are hard to justify with low numbers known
-little/no resourceless damage boosts compared to other martial classes
-supremely disappointing capstone

[ToastyTobasco]

Wow, that is a lot more lacking than I was expecting

[Luccan]

Several reasons... I’ve played one from 1-20, and had a fair number at my table, and this is what I noticed:

- their unique core abilities are situational, and often not impressive even when the situation does occur
- many of their class abilities and spells are things other classes could do many levels earlier
- most rangers feel skill-starved because how many skills are needed to utilize class abilities (perception, Survival, Stealth, Int skills related to racial enemy), leaving many unable to realize other characterization skills or classic ranger abilities (nature, animal handling) if you select the ‘wrong’ background
-spell list is very tight and filled with niche situational spells that are hard to justify with low numbers known
-little/no resourceless damage boosts compared to other martial classes
-supremely disappointing capstone

Bolding by me. This reminds me of something I noticed today: if you multiclass into ranger, you get an extra skill which means a fighter 1/ranger 1 has more skills than a straight ranger. How does that make any sense? There was definitely a lapse when the class was made, even if gaps in this edition aren't as wide.

[Naanomi]

Bolding by me. This reminds me of something I noticed today: if you multiclass into ranger, you get an extra skill which means a fighter 1/ranger 1 has more skills than a straight ranger. How does that make any sense? There was definitely a lapse when the class was made, even if gaps in this edition aren't as wide.
They get the same as a ranger, because rangers get 3 skills from class, not 2 like most classes... but still feel skill starved despite getting one extra

[Luccan]

They get the same as a ranger, because rangers get 3 skills from class, not 2 like most classes... but still feel skill starved despite getting one extra

Guess i need to check the book more often. d20SRD lists them at 2. Still, agreed they need more skills.

[Jerrykhor]

My main beef with Ranger is that there is no reason not to multi-class once you get past 5th level. Their high level stuff is just so underwhelming.

At level 6 you get one more Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer choice, which is so meh, more guessing game. Level 7 is not so bad for Hunter, but BM is still bad. Your pet still can't act on its own, and its damage is lower than yours so there's no reason to sacrifice your own attack. At least it can grant you advantage.... Level 8 is ASI and Land's Stride, not bad, and Level 9 its 3rd level spells, also good.

Level 10 is where it starts to truly lag behind. Hide in Plain Sight is so bad, if your party knows anything about D&D spells at all, they will be asking 'why don't you just cast Pass Without Trace?' Yes, its that stupid.

Level 11 is decent for Hunters, but bad for BM. What do you mean my bear don't have multi-attack until now?? And why would I ask my pet to attack again? When its damage is non-magical and most of the enemies worth a damn are resistant or immune to non-magical damage?

Level 12 is ASI and 13 is 4th level spells, they are ok, but you get the feeling that by now, if you had taken levels in other classes, your damage would be a lot higher. The monsters hp continue to scale but your damage is lagging behind.

Level 14 is Vanish, and yes its very bad. Its basically 1/3 of Cunning Action, a level 2 feature. What, you mean I ignored the 'Can't be tracked by non-magical means'? Yes I did, its simply useless. By this stage, any creature trying to track you by non-magical means is simply no threat to you or your party. It won't come up. This is the level where you realise if you had taken Rogue levels earlier, you would have not only Cunning Action, but also Expertise, Sneak Attack, prof in 1 skill and Thieve's Tools, and probably Uncanny Dodge.

There really is no point in looking past these levels, because its just not worth it.

[Naanomi]

A classic ranger (not that every ranger needs to be stereotypical but) needs what... Athletics, Stealth, Survival, Perception, Animal Handling, Nature?

Meaning you have to have a race with at least one as a bonus skill (Elf, V Human, Half-Elf, Kenku, Tortle, Tabaxi, Bugbear, Goliath); and have a background that covers two as well (Folk Hero, Outlander, Sailor/Pirate; or custom; or Caravan Specialist, Cormanthor Refugee, Earthspur Miner, Hillsfar Smuggler, Ironroute Bandit, Phlan Insurgent, Ticklebelly Nomad, Uthgard Tribemember) to cover everything; and still most likely leaves you without tools to identify your racial enemy with any regularity

[TheUser]

When playing a ranger it's pretty much just better to multi-class into a rogue after level 5

Every player I've ever seen play the class I've asked them to try the a multi-class to Rogue after level 5 instead of their ranger levels (meaning they've tried the ranger post 5 and we just back track them and rebuild the character to see how it feels) and they have all been way happier with the change; more skills, some expertise, bonus action hiding/dashing/disengaging and -much- more sustained damage (sneak attack).

The biggest shortcoming of the ranger is that the damage flat line's after level 5; the spell slots don't increase enough and the spells are not effective enough to make up for their lacking in martial scaling. The other issue is that they are being held up next to the paladin which keeps getting solid features with each subsequent level (and better spells).

[Tanarii]

Because the Internet hive mind is good at talking itself into mistaken impressions and bad information.

Rangers are not underpowered. Not even Beastmaster Rangers. They have some issues where they can be tweaked to make specific features a little more use friendly. They even came up with a good one in the revised ranger UA, making the non-pseudo-expertise functions of Natural Explorer work in all terrains. But overall power wise, they're fine.

(Another good example of the Internet hive mind talking itself into bad info is "4E monks don't have enough Ki". They are properly balanced as 1/3 casters if they spend 1/2 their Ki on elemental abilities. Their problems lie elsewhere.)

[Specter]

Ranger is the martial against hordes. Whatever you hear out there, no one can say otherwise.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Ranger is the martial against hordes. Whatever you hear out there, no one can say otherwise.

i....don't see this at all. Whats the reasoning behind this?


For me personally i find the ranger having issues with identity and function working together. But thats because I see the Ranger as the true Survivalist class with a definite man vs nature/man one with nature theme. That and i feel like the ranger should be good anywhere not just in specific terrains or up against certain enemies only. The should adapt to their surroundings and have strong instincts they follow.

Somewhere along the lines theirs a disconnect mechanically.

[strangebloke]

(Another good example of the Internet hive mind talking itself into bad info is "4E monks don't have enough Ki". They are properly balanced as 1/3 casters if they spend 1/2 their Ki on elemental abilities. Their problems lie elsewhere.)
You mean the issue that they have an awful 'spell' selection? Or the issue that they're only a 1/3 caster if they give up most of their base class features?

i....don't see this at all. Whats the reasoning behind this?

Well, there's nothing in the base class, but...

A melee hunter can get off something like eleven attacks in a round if there are enough minions around, via horde breaker and whirlwind attack.

Horizon walker's blink-step attack sequence is all about hitting multiple enemies.

Beastmaster's animal companion is a nice HP sponge and helps with controlling the flow of melee combat. (mostly due to OAs and just getting in the way in general.)

MonsterMage Slayer is single-target lockdown and Deepstalker is most comparable to an assassin, so they don't fit the mold so well.

[Tanarii]

Or the issue that they're only a 1/3 caster if they give up most of their base class features?
Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. In terms of mistaken arguments that misrepresent the situation, repeated over and over again in the Internet hive mind until people come to believe they are truth.

[Naanomi]

As someone who played the class and had run several other people playing it, my complaints are from (admittedly anecdotal) experience not ‘hive mind’

[strangebloke]

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. In terms of mistaken arguments that misrepresent the situation, repeated over and over again in the Internet hive mind until people come to believe they are truth.
Well, I mean, saying "They don't have enough ki points to use both their monk abilities and their elemental disciplines" is a fair point though.

As someone who played the class and had run several other people playing it, my complaints are from (admittedly anecdotal) experience not ‘hive mind’

true, however...

Personal experience isn't a perfect guide, either. A lot of people think that the sorcerer is grievously underpowered based off of their own games, and they're kinda wrong. Not saying that applies in your case, but it could. Obviously an armchair theorist doesn't have more ground to stand on, but to me, they seem pretty good?

Pretty much every subclass pseudo-grants a 3rd attack per round, which means that until you get to very high levels, you'll have as many attacks as the fighter.

They all get half-casting, and while some of their stuff is niche, hunter's mark, pass without trace, zephyr's strike, and similiar spellls all seem pretty great.

[MxKit]

Given how popular Revised Ranger is, I'd say that a lot of people don't understand what role a Ranger is supposed to fit in the party, just like the people who complain about Druids and Monks being underpowered. :smalltongue:

Okay, okay, that was mostly tongue-in-cheek. I do think, though, that Rangers are just fine for what they seem to be made for. They're strong in the exploration pillar of the game, still completely respectable in their choice of melee and/or archery combat, and decent-to-good at support spellcasting and buffing themselves. I don't think they're really supposed to be keeping up with full martials when it comes to DPR.

I will, however, say that the base class doesn't give a Ranger nearly as much as their subclasses do... Which isn't necessarily bad, this is true of a few different classes, but the biggest problem with the Ranger, I think, is their capstone. It's super underwhelming because, while undeniably good, it feels like something that should have come many, many levels before. I'll also say that lv10 is the one that feels like a "dead level" to me; Vanish is useful and while it comes much later than Cunning Action does for the Rogue, its secondary effect is very useful in a game that is using the exploration pillar of the game, but Hide in Plain Sight is incredibly underwhelming and choosing your fourth and fifth favored terrain type at that point in the campaign doesn't really make up for it.

And since they do get so much of their good stuff from their subclasses, it's a shame that their subclasses only give them things through lv15. That doesn't make five levels of another class necessary, though, per se, even if you game makes it up to lv20; lv16 is an ASI/feat, and lv17 gives 5th level spells, of which the Ranger gets a few great ones. Feral Senses really isn't bad, either, especially for a melee ranger, and especially in the right campaign. Ranger's biggest problem is that the last two levels are so underwhelming for nearly every Ranger that a one- or two-level dip is nearly always going to be better for you, and if you don't care about 5th level spells or Feral Senses, you might as well take 4-5 levels of something else.

But when it comes to their actual abilities and their place in the game and in a party, I think they're pretty much fine the way they are. Beast Master could really stand to be tweaked, though it's not a trap option like a lot of people say it is; Hunter and Beast Master could stand to have a bonus spell list like the Xanathar's subclasses do; but as it is, Rangers are fine. They're a good class that's decently strong in several areas without dominating in any of them except for the exploration pillar, but their dominating the exploration pillar is useless in games that ignore that pillar and tends to get ignored in places where people are overwhelmingly focused on combat. Only the Scout Rogue can hope to keep up with them, and they just don't have the magic options, and have different enough priorities that I don't think it's that big a deal.

[Luccan]

Well, I mean, saying "They don't have enough ki points to use both their monk abilities and their elemental disciplines" is a fair point though.


true, however...

Personal experience isn't a perfect guide, either. A lot of people think that the sorcerer is grievously underpowered based off of their own games, and they're kinda wrong. Not saying that applies in your case, but it could. Obviously an armchair theorist doesn't have more ground to stand on, but to me, they seem pretty good?

Pretty much every subclass pseudo-grants a 3rd attack per round, which means that until you get to very high levels, you'll have as many attacks as the fighter.

They all get half-casting, and while some of their stuff is niche, hunter's mark, pass without trace, zephyr's strike, and similiar spellls all seem pretty great.

Really, I think Sorcs would be fine if they just did the same thing they did with cleric: couple of bonus spells* every two levels until 9th level. The problem people have (and this was even pointed out by Mearls on his Happy Fun Time Hour) is that they lack versatility. You have to be sure to pick spells that will at least be good for an entire level, unlike most other full casters who can change daily (or bards, who get more spells known). A few bonus spells, nothing too powerful, would do wonders on their perception without stepping on too many toes.

As for Ranger, I think the main issue really is skills and the fact that many tables do not do exploration/travel as part of their games. It also doesn't help that the usefulness of any Favored Enemy/Terrain choice is entirely adventure dependent (which is something they should have realized after 3rd edition and fixed, instead of just making it less useful in a fight). I think an extra skill would be good. And while I know some people argue against it, if they're gonna be giving Ranger subclasses bonus spells now, Hunter and Beastmaster really need an official list. Neither of them is so much better than other Ranger subclasses that they shouldn't have them.

*Edit: Scratch that, make it one bonus spell per. I think they could use it, but I don't think they need more spells known than bard.

Edit 2: Actually, I'm not sure bards should have more spells known. They're already better at everything that isn't spellcasting, so I'm not sure why the jack-of-all-trades class has more spells known than a class focused entirely around its magical ability.

[MrStabby]

Ranger gets a lot of ok abilities, but rarely those consistent level after level abilities that makes you want to play the class. There is just nothing that sets you apart to be awesome.

Your best spells make you as good using a resource as others are without. Your most in theme spell (and arguably best) is pass without trace, better able to be cast by shadow monks, second is probably hunters Mark, also on the vengeance list. Seeing a ranger in a campaign alongside a shadowmonk, a warlock and a vengeance paladin is just sad.

[Citan]

What everyone has said is fair, but here are my additions:

1. The ranger lacks singular, powerful abilities. They get a little bit of everything. Half-casting, bonus at-will damage, stealth abiltiies, small skill boosts... but they don't have an area they dominate. Druids are sometimes considered to be underpowered for similar reasons.

2. rangers have a few very anemic levels. Specifically people like to point out vanish as a bad level. Weak levels incentive multiclassing.

Overall, I think they're fine. I actually peg them as stronger than the fighter. They have out of combat utility and they can get four attacks in a round as early as fifth level, as well as having the abilitiy to add damage riders.
I'll disagree with you on some point here.
1. They have an area in which they dominate: at-will AOE damage: nothing bests a Sharpshooter (plus potentially Crossbow Expert) Hunter with Volley against crowds. Problem is, crowds don't happen that often because at the level you get it, Fireballs are a common occurence, so intelligent enemies (usually) know better than to cluster up.
With that said, Volley has two competitive advantages: friendly (no collateral since you choose targets -not every party has an Evoker or people with Evasion) and buffable (if you have someone with Magic Weapon / Elemental Weapon it can become really impressive).

Also, they can compete fairly well with Fighter as far as ranged attacks go, right up until Fighter gets his capstone. They do use resources for that, but imx you don't feel constrained by resources most days unless your DM really makes a harsh day. ;)
And they also get a situationally good AOE with Conjure Barrage (much lower damage than Fireball but interesting shape and big scale).

2. They have actually another area in which they dominate: INT and WIS skills: you are talking about "small skill bonuses": let me say, this is utterly ridiculous. They get "auto-expertise" in EVERY skill they are proficient in, on up to three environments. This is actually huge! Considering that you can start with easily 8 skills combining race+background+class, you can easily cover all the important ones (Perception, Insight, Investigation, Arcana) and still get some space for Athletics/Acrobatics and Stealth.

3. As far as martial go, they are also the kings of the party as far as adventuring/exploring/tracking is in general (obviously you cannot beat a Druid on its own terrain. ;)). AND they are the kings of versatility, because they take on Druid spells: EK and AT can get some very nice spells, but the most versatile ones like Polymorph are there only at level 17. Paladin has a few great party spells as soon as level 3 (Aura of Vitality, Revivify) but they are kinda focused on something specific. Ranger has enough variety to build however he want, either purely versatile (Goodberry, Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit, Conjure Animals, Plant Growth, Ensnaring Strike etc) or focused on one aspect.

IMO the main problem of Ranger is that in many games the exploration pillar is totally put aside, so many of their features are de facto made useless.

Exactly like a GWM Champion would be as useful as a chair in a campaign heavily focused on social interactions or infiltration. ;=)

But the Ranger can be as strong as a Paladin if you want him to, although it won't express in the same ways, much more in a sustained way than in nova way (you cannot beat smite on that).

[Gryndle]

I don't think the PHB ranger is necessarily underpowered, though the beastmaster companion could use some love.

What I do see is that some of the base class abilities are so situational and campaign dependent that in a wilderness/exploration game they can come across as overpowered even. but in other types of games those same abilities may be entirely useless. I don't think of the PHB ranger as underpowered, just "pigeon holed" into a specific niche more so than most other classes. To some folks this is fine, to others not so much.

[Willie the Duck]

People who complain about things like these tend to compare similar things with each other (and sometimes with all things that share the same design space) and the most similar class to a ranger (in terms of chassis) in 5th edition is probably paladin which is – ironically – considered to be one of the strongest classes in the game.

The paladin is a great way to compare it, and why the ranger might ping as harder to pull off-

Let's look at the paladin: it is Strength&Heavy-Armor-based. Because of that, no thinking is required to get them into fighting trim-- with point buy or array, you can start with the 15+ strength needed to max out your AC. You can pick what order to take ASIs for Strength bonus, Charisma bonus, Con bonus (if you ever do), and feats (none of which are vital, but resilient:con, war caster, and combat boosters being obvious choices. The answer to the question 'so what do you do for ranged combat?' is 'Suck. Next question?' You get extra attack at 5th, and then improved divine smite instead of any other added attack mechanics. Smite in general is a simple, straightforward method of using your spell slots to increase your effectiveness.

Then look at the ranger: it is Dexterity&Light-Armor-based. While nice in that it takes care of ranged and melee, you max out on AC less, and then only at Dex 20 (unlike Str 15). That really incentivizes early ASIs (in point buy or array) on Dex, but ranged feats (SS or Crossbow expert) also compete for those early spots. You get extra attack at 5th as well, but also have animal companion (for beast master) which competes for your own attack actions, and volley or whirlwind, all of which are probably more than the paladin's '+d8 at 11' damage, but are significantly harder to capitalize upon. And while you too have spells (including Hunter's Mark, which is as straightforward as combat boosters get), but nothing nearly as straightforward as 'pump spell slots into damage after you hit.'

So is the ranger less effective than a paladin? Nnnnn.... actually yes, but only because paladins are standout successes from a design standpoint. Compared to fighters or barbarians or rogues, a ranger is just fine. But it is significantly harder to make work. And the wizard is still the only 'difficult' class that the internet routinely judges based on how it works when you have it working well, as opposed to how it plays right out the gate.

[Specter]

i....don't see this at all. Whats the reasoning behind this?


For me personally i find the ranger having issues with identity and function working together. But thats because I see the Ranger as the true Survivalist class with a definite man vs nature/man one with nature theme. That and i feel like the ranger should be good anywhere not just in specific terrains or up against certain enemies only. The should adapt to their surroundings and have strong instincts they follow.

Somewhere along the lines theirs a disconnect mechanically.

The spells speak for themselves, but not many listen to them other than HUNTERSMARKHUNTERSMARKHUNTERSMARK.

Hail of Thorns - up to 8 dudes other than the attacked. For low-level mooks it does the trick just fine.

Spike Growth - up to how many dudes try to reach your party from one direction.

Conjure Barrage - up to 72 dudes (rough calculation).

Lightning Arrow - up to 24 dudes other than the attacked if you attack a Medium-sized creature, more if the creature is larger. Also the hit target suffers from a 'ranged smite' (4d8 damage).

Wind Wall - up to 10 dudes in a line, also protects from ranged attacks and creatures smaller than medium.

Plant Growth - can stop any melee horde from reaching your party; especially good if your party is primarily ranged.

Conjure Volley - up to 200 targets i.e. very likely anyone that's in the battlefield. This has more area than any 5th-level spell (even Wizards' and the like). With 8d8 for average 36dmg, armies fear you.

Steel Wind Strike - up to 30d10 damage if you have five foes close to each other.

Some subclass features (especially Hunter's) double down on this. Volley? Yes please.

You can contrast the Ranger's spells to the Paladin's: they are focused on bringing down one powerful enemy fast, while Rangers are focused on bringing down many enemies fast.

[Citan]

The paladin is a great way to compare it, and why the ranger might ping as harder to pull off-

Let's look at the paladin: it is Strength&Heavy-Armor-based. Because of that, no thinking is required to get them into fighting trim-- with point buy or array, you can start with the 15+ strength needed to max out your AC. You can pick what order to take ASIs for Strength bonus, Charisma bonus, Con bonus (if you ever do), and feats (none of which are vital, but resilient:con, war caster, and combat boosters being obvious choices. The answer to the question 'so what do you do for ranged combat?' is 'Suck. Next question?' You get extra attack at 5th, and then improved divine smite instead of any other added attack mechanics. Smite in general is a simple, straightforward method of using your spell slots to increase your effectiveness.

Then look at the ranger: it is Dexterity&Light-Armor-based. While nice in that it takes care of ranged and melee, you max out on AC less, and then only at Dex 20 (unlike Str 15). That really incentivizes early ASIs (in point buy or array) on Dex, but ranged feats (SS or Crossbow expert) also compete for those early spots. You get extra attack at 5th as well, but also have animal companion (for beast master) which competes for your own attack actions, and volley or whirlwind, all of which are probably more than the paladin's '+d8 at 11' damage, but are significantly harder to capitalize upon. And while you too have spells (including Hunter's Mark, which is as straightforward as combat boosters get), but nothing nearly as straightforward as 'pump spell slots into damage after you hit.'

So is the ranger less effective than a paladin? Nnnnn.... actually yes, but only because paladins are standout successes from a design standpoint. Compared to fighters or barbarians or rogues, a ranger is just fine. But it is significantly harder to make work. And the wizard is still the only 'difficult' class that the internet routinely judges based on how it works when you have it working well, as opposed to how it plays right out the gate.
Hmm, I'll have some counter-arguments here on the assertion that Ranger may be harder to pull off.

1. Ranger has medium armor (and shield): no need for higher than 14 DEX as far as AC is concerned, you can get 17 (or 19 AC, or 20 AC) by level 3 or so.
So STR or DEX builds are equally viable depending on how you picture your character's fighting style.
Ranger also has a wider array of Fighting Styles available, all of them being equally good with STR and DEX except Archery.
So you could actually decide, for example, to make a STR-based sword&board character and pick Archery to offset that choice when you actually need to rely on ranged weapons. Only the Devotion Paladin has a better alternative to that thanks to Sacred Weapon working on any weapon. ;)

2. Ranger has no intrinsical MADness: Paladin's CHA affects some Oaths CD or abilities, number of spell prepared, Divine Sense, Aura of Protection, Cleansing Touch, and spell DC of his smite spells.
So every time you decide to take a feat or bump another stat instead of CHA, this is a heavy choice, even if you prepare non-CHA spells (Bless, Haste, etc).
Ranger's WIS affects only the spell DC of a few offensive spells, but even the emblematic Hunter's Mark doesn't care about it.
So "dumped WIS" and "big caster" are equally viable depending on the spells you intend on using the most.

3. Paladin's Divine Smite gives a false sense of simplicity, but can actually make it harder to manage resources for (unexperienced?) players: the instant nova can lead to a cruel lack sometimes later in the day. In addition to the usual "on what spend my concentration" conundrum, most of his spells being concentration.
Ranger, although being unable to change prepared spells at will, and most of the best being concentration, gets a bit more versatile array to choose from every level, so he can easily decide to pick only a handful concentration spells if he so wishes.

4. The "all in melee" of Paladin makes him extremely good in many situations, but utterly useless in other.
Not only can the Ranger be more versatile in essence, if built as a DEX character, it also has spells that keep him relevant in a much much wider array of situations: need more action economy? Conjure Animals / Feys. Need hard control? Plant Growth. Need mobility? Longstrider/Jump/Conjure Animals/Tree Stride. Need healing? Healing Spirit (better than Aura of Vitality imo, and earlier). Need to avoid direct confrontation? Pass Without Trace or Water Breathing may do the trick nicely. Need a party-wide buff through environment? Fog Cloud then Wind Wall will do the trick. Need to bring down a flying to allow party to beat him up? You'll like Ensnaring Strike.
AND you can at least swap a learned spell for another as you level up, so you can keep your whole list relevant while still having the freedom to try out some more situational spells for a while.
AND if you make a ranged character, the need of proficiency for Concentration saving throws, while still there, is obviously much less pressuring because you will be usually targeted much less often.

In short, I'd argue that Ranger is actually *much easier* to play one way or another, and much easier to integrate into a party partially thanks to that. The hard part comes only if you want to truly shine in a particular aspect (like, 100% optimization ^^). ;)

[Tanarii]

As for Ranger, I think the main issue really is skills and the fact that many tables do not do exploration/travel as part of their games. It also doesn't help that the usefulness of any Favored Enemy/Terrain choice is entirely adventure dependent (which is something they should have realized after 3rd edition and fixed, instead of just making it less useful in a fight). I think an extra skill would be good. And while I know some people argue against it, if they're gonna be giving Ranger subclasses bonus spells now, Hunter and Beastmaster really need an official list. Neither of them is so much better than other Ranger subclasses that they shouldn't have them.This is the key IMO. If you hand-wave wilderness travel and logistics, Rangers will seem underpowered. Likewise if you purely adventure in dungeons or urban environments.

Just like if you ignore Short Rests or have 1 Big Encounter, Long Rest classes seem more powerful and Short Rest characters 'underpowered'. Or to use an extreme example, if you were to hand-wave combat, skill monkey and casters with all utility spells would seem more powerful, and Fighters and Barbarians would be 'underpowered'.

I agree it didn't help to make Natural Explorer entirely terrain dependent. I strongly suspect they meant for it to work at a macro-level. And that they figured most games would be using their adventure paths, which would be somewhat focused and the players would have idea of what they'd be facing. ie you make an Underdark ranger for OotA, or Forest for Tomb of Annihilation. Storm king would be the hardest to pick, but even so the macro features of the FR Swordcoast north are mostly Forest or Moor (swamp), with some mountains around, and arctic at the farthest north.

[Spacehamster]

They kind of lame out after level 5 and don’t gain much in power, this makes them a good class to get extra attack for tho since they are pretty front loaded, go five ranger and remaining levels in rogue and you would be much better all round than a pure ranger for example.

[TheUser]

Ok I did this write up before but I'll rehash the same points from another post of mine on a different forum.

Favored Enemy/Terrain are signature bilities which do not grant player agency; they are dependant on the DM putting you in the right place against the right foes.

Primeval Awareness is terrible; if you already suspect a particular type of foe is present spending a spell slot to confirm your suspiscions but gain no relevant information (distance and numbers) is a pointless feature. What's more it doesn't activate or trigger like an alarm you need to use it actively.

Their spells are soso, with a few gems but very little good ones and very little # of spells prepared. (Entangling Strike, Pass W/o Trace, Absorb Elements, SwiftQuiver, that new Xanathar's spell and Stoneskin).

Hide in Plain sight looks great at first glance but is terrible because it requires 1 minute of prep for 1 hide action.

A host of mediocre features and lackluster options with ok damage in tier 2 they fall of quickly in tier 3.

Gloomstalker is probably the only good subclass and should be multi-classed to Rogue after level 5 anyway.

[mephnick]

As for Ranger, I think the main issue really is skills and the fact that many tables do not do exploration/travel as part of their games.

Exactly. The Ranger is one of the most important classes in my games. If you play "real" D&D the Ranger's class abilities are invaluable. It's not the Ranger's fault that lazy modern DMs handwave travel, resources and exploration and just warp PCs from scene to scene .

[Luccan]

Exactly. The Ranger is one of the most important classes in my games. If you play "real" D&D the Ranger's class abilities are invaluable. It's not the Ranger's fault that lazy modern DMs handwave travel, resources and exploration and just warp PCs from scene to scene .

The problem is, Rangers are limited by their environment and enemies anyway. You could have a great exploration game, that doesn't feature the Ranger's terrains and enemies enough to matter. Or what about a city-based game? Ranger is the only class whose niche is dependent on how much sunlight, heat, and rain the area they're in gets per year.

What I'm saying is, they could have been designed better where the only reason they're bad is DM handwaving, but even if the DM doesn't handwave, if you need to go to the cold north and you're a swamp based Ranger, you're SOL.

[mephnick]

What I'm saying is, they could have been designed better where the only reason they're bad is DM handwaving, but even if the DM doesn't handwave, if you need to go to the cold north and you're a swamp based Ranger, you're SOL.

I'm assuming the group/DM is competent enough to discuss where the majority of game play will take place before the first session and guide the player to make worthwhile choices. If it's a globe-spanning campaign just choose grassland, forest, mountain in whatever order and you probably just covered 90% of the game. If you have to go to the arctic for a few sessions it isn't a big deal. That being said, I am a fan of the house-rule I've seen where Rangers can take 8 hours to change their favoured terrain by scouting out/communing with the land. It isn't necessary though.

[Tanarii]

The problem is, Rangers are limited by their environment and enemies anyway. You could have a great exploration game, that doesn't feature the Ranger's terrains and enemies enough to matter. Or what about a city-based game? Ranger is the only class whose niche is dependent on how much sunlight, heat, and rain the area they're in gets per year.Agreed on the limited functionality of Natural Explorer. But druids, and to a lesser extend depending on build Barbarians, are also limited in a heavy dungeon delving or urban campaign. Just as Bards and certain kinds of Rogues will find themselves less than optimal in a dungeon-delving or wilderness exploration game with no social interactions. Or a caster in a "magic is evil/rejected by society" campaign. Although why you'd want to use 5e D&D for that is a little beyond me.

[Luccan]

Agreed on the limited functionality of Natural Explorer. But druids, and to a lesser extend depending on build Barbarians, are also limited in a heavy dungeon delving or urban campaign. Just as Bards and certain kinds of Rogues will find themselves less than optimal in a dungeon-delving or wilderness exploration game with no social interactions. Or a caster in a "magic is evil/rejected by society" campaign. Although why you'd want to use 5e D&D for that is a little beyond me.

To a degree, but their supposedly class defining base features are not. You can always choose skills which are bad for the type of game you're in, of course, but most characters have class abilities outside of that where they can still measure up to or even outclass other classes in some way. Sure a Bard might not be as good in a game with little social interaction, but they're still assisting allies with their class features and are full casters. Likewise, Druids are still wildshaping and casting spells as well. Any Rogue can contribute well enough in a fight with 5e's removal of many limitations on Sneak Attack and all of them have proficiency in thieve's tools, so an exploration game would be where they're weakest. And Barbarians are almost exclusively combat focused, so unless you completely omit that, they still contribute plenty.

The problem is, Rangers are the worst of the two half-casters and fight worse than most of the other warriors and don't do anything unique in actual combat. Bards and Druids can contribute heavily in their niche and competently outside of it. Barbarians have a harder time outside their niche, but unless you're in a pretty weird D&D game, chances are you'll have combat. A Ranger should be somewhat similar, if contributing better in combat than a Barbarian outside of it. The problem is, they're limited even in their own niche. That's probably their biggest issue: they aren't good enough at what they're supposed to do, the way other classes are. I've said it before, the gap isn't as bad as past editions, but the only reason they are the best in the exploration pillar is because other classes can only take Survival and feats to be any good at it, which a Ranger can also do. But they could stand to have their exploration abilities significantly improved.


I'm assuming the group/DM is competent enough to discuss where the majority of game play will take place before the first session and guide the player to make worthwhile choices. If it's a globe-spanning campaign just choose grassland, forest, mountain in whatever order and you probably just covered 90% of the game. If you have to go to the arctic for a few sessions it isn't a big deal. That being said, I am a fan of the house-rule I've seen where Rangers can take 8 hours to change their favoured terrain by scouting out/communing with the land. It isn't necessary though.

Seems like a good houserule to me: During a long rest you study the land and it becomes your new favored terrain, replacing an current one. You can even fluff it differently: one ranger communes with nature and a more studious one reviews his notes on the terrain he's in.

Ideally, yes, your group will discuss before hand, but I still don't understand why Ranger is the only class that gets hit so hard in the very thing they're supposed to be good at.

I still think Favored Enemy could be improved, either giving you other bonuses against them or giving you more favored enemies. Three creature types (or six if you just do humanoid groups) seems a bit limited, especially depending on the types you pick.

[Tanarii]

The problem is, Rangers are the worst of the two half-casters and fight worse than most of the other warriors and don't do anything unique in actual combat.Well, I disagree with 3 of those 3 statements, at least in the level 1-10 range.

[Luccan]

Well, I disagree with 3 of those 3 statements, at least in the level 1-10 range.

I do mean in the base class. I know the subclasses can give unique combat abilities, but Paladin, Fighter, and Barbarian (and even Rogue and Monk) all have combat-useful base class features, while Ranger has... I guess it does have Land's Stride, but that's at 8 levels. I suppose there's an argument for their spellcasting, but Paladins do that too and, as should be the case, full casters do it better.

Edit: And Rangers should be worse at fighting than Fighters and Barbarians at fighting, since they're supposed to focus on another niche. But that was part of my complaint: they aren't as good at those other things, so their niche should be where they really shine above the rest, but that's limited in a way other classes aren't for some reason.

[mephnick]

I do mean in the base class. I know the subclasses can give unique combat abilities, but Paladin, Fighter, and Barbarian (and even Rogue and Monk) all have combat-useful base class features, while Ranger has... I guess it does have Land's Stride, but that's at 8 levels. I suppose there's an argument for their spellcasting, but Paladins do that too and, as should be the case, full casters do it better.

Each class has a balance between base and sub classes, in terms of power. Ranger sub-classes are the superior source of their power compared to their base class. Opposite of Monk and Paladin. Hence why the Revised Ranger was so stupid. They put all these unneeded combat buffs into the base class with zero thought into how it balances with the already combat heavy archetypes when the true problems with the Ranger is the perception of its base class features.

[Tanarii]

Edit: And Rangers should be worse at fighting than Fighters and Barbarians at fighting, since they're supposed to focus on another niche. But that was part of my complaint: they aren't as good at those other things, so their niche should be where they really shine above the rest, but that's limited in a way other classes aren't for some reason.IMO they're combat orientation is closer to Skirmisher (like a Rogue or Monk) than hard-target (Fighter, Paladin or Barbarian). The problem is, that's not immediately obvious, and many people mentally classify them as "warriors" as opposed to "skirmisher". They do have a touch of warrior in them, more so than Rogues or Monks, but that's not their primary focus.

I think part of the problem is the niche where they really shine above the rest isn't obvious. And that probably indicates that while they aren't underpowered overall by any means, they may not have enough obvious jump out abilities (like Sneak Attack or Flurry of Blows) within their intended niche of nature-specialist / survivalist / skirmisher. And it doesn't help that two of those three things are hand-waved or ignored in many games.

OTOH, I still don't think calling a Hunter or Beastmaster underpowered as a skirmisher is really accurate.

[KorvinStarmast]

Gloomstalker is probably the only good subclass and should be multi-classed to Rogue after level 5 anyway. Why?
I am making a gloom stalker and had figured I'd get the second favored enemy, and language, etc, at 6.
Why should I MC at 5?

[GlenSmash!]

Why?
I am making a gloom stalker and had figured I'd get the second favored enemy, and language, etc, at 6.
Why should I MC at 5?

The Gloom Stalker 11 ability works great with SS or GWM too. Past 11 I'm not sure what I would do, but that's true of most classes for me.

[Naanomi]

Favored Enemy: Even if the DM makes knowledge checks about enemies or tracking them important (there is no guarantee, few of the published modules even try) there is a good chance you don’t have the supporting Proficiencies to backup your choices, you are probably fighting more than three enemy types... and the help action is cheap and easy to come by in non-combat situations anyways.

Natural Explorer: assuming you got lucky and chose the right terrains for the campaign (and your campaign isn’t urban, extra-planar, or any other weird local not on the list to choose from anyways)... very little about Natural Explorer isn’t something that would normally fall outside of a semi-difficult Survival skill check. Very rarely does a Ranger (even in his niche) do something a character with Expertise in Survival and a decent wisdom (and likely a help action and/or Guidance) couldn’t accomplish just as well. The few times it really does apply, it is non-interactive and just skips the entire problem all together.

Ranger spells are pretty good... for Lore Bards to poach. While many are good for their level, few are exciting at the level you get them as a ranger. Plus, with so few spells known and no mechanic to trade out as you level up, many Rangers end up with a spell list of ‘hunters mark, pass without trace, and a bunch of AoEs based on your 14-16 wisdom DC’

[Specter]

Edit: And Rangers should be worse at fighting than Fighters and Barbarians at fighting, since they're supposed to focus on another niche.

As I always say: If you could pull the hard damage on a Ranger as you could on an archer Fighter, there would be no reason to ever play archer Fighters.


Why?
I am making a gloom stalker and had figured I'd get the second favored enemy, and language, etc, at 6.
Why should I MC at 5?

That's just a generalistic tongue-in-cheek statement. Just getting Iron Mind, 3rd-level spells and Stalker's Flurry make it worth it to take Ranger at least to 12th level.

[TheUser]

Why?
I am making a gloom stalker and had figured I'd get the second favored enemy, and language, etc, at 6.
Why should I MC at 5?

That's your call to make. Considering base ranger's favored enemy provides no combat buffs I see very little reason to get that ranger level unless you suuuuper need the language or the multi-class spell slot. 5th level already gets you extra attack and level 2 spells (pass without trace). I would rather just start getting sneak attack dice 1 level earlier and get Uncanny Dodge before tier 3.



That's just a generalistic tongue-in-cheek statement. Just getting Iron Mind, 3rd-level spells and Stalker's Flurry make it worth it to take Ranger at least to 12th level.

Level 3 spells like lightning arrow?
In the time you get to level 12 ranger that's 7 rogue levels.
I would rather have expertise in 4 skills, 4d6 sneak attack dice, uncanny dodge and access to some level 1 and 2 wizard spells. No contest.
EDIT: Forgot cunning action

[Specter]

Level 3 spells like lightning arrow?
In the time you get to level 12 ranger that's 7 rogue levels.
I would rather have expertise in 4 skills, 4d6 sneak attack dice, uncanny dodge and access to some level 1 and 2 wizard spells. No contest.
EDIT: Forgot cunning action

Exactly, you would rather. It's not the end-all-be-all of Rangers.

- 6th level of Revised Ranger gives you Greater Favored Enemy, which speaks for itself.
- 7th level depends on your subclass; Deep Stalker gets proficiency in Wisdom saving throws, which is too good. Hunter gets less universal benefits, but that still let you play more recklessly (like standing around tougher enemies or fleeing from foes more easily).
- 8th level is an ASI, which you would be delaying with multiclassing, and Land's Stride.
- 9th level, 3rd-level spells. Lightning Arrow is an arrow smite with even better damage if there are enemies nearby. Plant Growth lets you end melee encounters easily. Protection from Energy lets you take on dragons with much more elegance. There are other good spells, but I think these are examples are good enough.
- 10th level is crap (I'm not sure about the Revised version).
- 11th level is great for all subclasses. Volley (at-will area damage), Stalker's Flurry (gold with Sharpshooter), Distant Strike (infinite mobility)... and so on.
- 12th level is an ASI.

All of this not mentioning the increase in caster level for more spell slots, or more HP.

Level 12 onwards is much lamer.

[Willie the Duck]

Exactly, you would rather.

That is why he said:


That's your call to make.

[Kane0]

Hmm. Unlike the sorcerer I find it hard to put into words, despite the fact that I did a homebrew overhaul a while back. Still, what I said there largely holds true.

- The ranger doesn't get any singularly defining abilities like Rage or Sneak Attack, instead getting ribbons, unique spells and second-hand abilities from other classes
- Many of their features are hand-me-downs from other classes, and watered down or delayed on top of that
- Some of the abilities that they do get require DM buy-in or risk being completely useless
- If some of those abilities are usable they simply remove portions of the exploration pillar that the party has to deal with, and that's no fun. On top of this the Outlander background can really step on its toes
- There are some glaring dead levels in the progression, and little incentive to go from level 1 to 20

- the ranger's combat niche is a little difficult to place. It's like half frontliner, half skirmisher and is outshined in both roles by other classes that have a clearer focus
- The ranger seems to be the only class geared primarily for the exploration pillar first and combat second. Bard is similar with the social pillar, but is seen as less of a problem as the social pillar is generally more valuable and harder to ignore plus is done in a way that expands gameplay rather than reduces it*
- A lot of the fun stuff comes from the subclasses rather than the core, which isn't really a bad thing but can feel backwards compared to most other classes
- The flavor of the ranger has been disputed in the past. The core premise is a wilderness character, but that vision has taken form in a couple ways over past iterations and many have very different expectations which are difficult to reconcile. For example those that like rangers with/without casting, companions, fighting styles, etc

*In my experience

[Morty]

The ranger class has had serious identity issues for a while now. The archetype of a wilderness survivalist and hunter of beasts is, of course, strong... but hardly requires its own class. There's nothing that defines the ranger class that goes beyond the first five levels. It can track, survive in the wilds and scout... which is the kind of thing skills, backgrounds, feats and maybe subclasses can cover. So the core ranger features end up really front-loaded, and then it's just a mish-mash of combat and non-combat abilities.

Now, front-loading the iconic abilities of a class into the first levels and then giving out more generic ones isn't a bad idea... but it's not what 5E went with, since it stuck to the old level progression.

The focus on the wilderness is also pretty problematic if you happen to run a more urban, sedentary, political etc. adventure. A lot of the ranger's iconic abilities will sit unused in such a case. Now, those situations are unavoidable. But it's one thing when you willingly build a character with a very specialized skillset, and another when a whole class is devoted to it. Druid is also nature-themed, but it has shapeshifting and spells, both of which make it far more versatile.

There's a reason that in video games, a ranger class is often built around its animal companion. Because "has a badass pet" is something you can actually work with.

[Citan]

The problem is, Rangers are the worst of the two half-casters and fight worse than most of the other warriors and don't do anything unique in actual combat. Bards and Druids can contribute heavily in their niche and competently outside of it. Barbarians have a harder time outside their niche, but unless you're in a pretty weird D&D game, chances are you'll have combat. A Ranger should be somewhat similar, if contributing better in combat than a Barbarian outside of it. The problem is, they're limited even in their own niche. That's probably their biggest issue: they aren't good enough at what they're supposed to do, the way other classes are. I've said it before, the gap isn't as bad as past editions, but the only reason they are the best in the exploration pillar is because other classes can only take Survival and feats to be any good at it, which a Ranger can also do. But they could stand to have their exploration abilities significantly improved.





I do mean in the base class. I know the subclasses can give unique combat abilities, but Paladin, Fighter, and Barbarian (and even Rogue and Monk) all have combat-useful base class features, while Ranger has... I guess it does have Land's Stride, but that's at 8 levels. I suppose there's an argument for their spellcasting, but Paladins do that too and, as should be the case, full casters do it better.

Edit: And Rangers should be worse at fighting than Fighters and Barbarians at fighting, since they're supposed to focus on another niche. But that was part of my complaint: they aren't as good at those other things, so their niche should be where they really shine above the rest, but that's limited in a way other classes aren't for some reason.
I'm sorry but you just don't know your topic at all.

-----
You may find that Hunter's Mark is "just a unique spell", but it's exactly like Eldricht Blast for Warlock: a spell extremely tightly associated with the class.
Just this spell makes a Ranger plain better damage-wise than Fighter right up until Fighter gets either GWM/Sharpshooter and the stats to back up the malus (so level 10) or 3rd attack (so level 11). And thanks to the scalability duration and slot progression, you can easily have it up every encounter of the whole day if you so wish, making it in practice a "permanent bonus" barring the initial action economy cost.

Besides that, Ranger has many things that make him unique compared to other martials (because let's be honest, it's plain stupid to compare it to a fullcaster).
He's for example, the only one...

- Who can deal up to 4 attacks per turn without any additional resource cost as soon as level 6 (Hunter's Horde Breaker paired with Extra Attack and either dual-wielding or Crossbow Expert). Absolutely nobody else can do that (Monk can do it as long as ki lasts, and only in melee unless Sun Soul).

- Who can bring down a flyer for everyone to gang upon (Ensnaring Strike, absolutely no other martial can do that, unless empowered with Fly from a caster pal and using Grapple/Shove or Stunning Strike or similar).

- Who can deal auto, ensured damage thanks to Spike Growth (fun fact: nothing in the spell requires to cast it on "terrain without creature", so you can use a Spike Growth to deal damage AND reduce target movement with 100% accuracy).

- Who can, in general, give a great battlefield control to his pals (aforementioned Spike Growth, but also Plant Growth.

- Who gets several good large-scale AOE damage (the only one besting Ranger here is 4E Monk with Shatter and Fireball, and even those come not early).

- Who can buff the movement, defense or chance to hit of the whole party, for one or several rounds with Conjure spells, Wind Wall, Water Walk, Water Breathing* (closest one is Paladin, which has more focused buffs at level 9, and really takes the crown only when he gets lvl 5 Circle or Power and 30 feet Auras).

Fun fact: compare the "nova damage" of a level 9 Fighter using Action Surge. Compare it to a Ranger Conjuring 8 1/4 animals. Chances are Ranger will win even if animals get slaughtered the round after.
Whenever the situation allows your animals to stay alive a few rounds, then Ranger trumps every martial from level 9 to level 14 as long as resources last. Good thing, you usually don't have more than one or two Harsh/Deadly encounters over a day.

Now compare the "HP buff" offered by Paladin's Aura of Vitality, and compare it with the same animals used as meat shield, or just a Healing Spirit: I'll answer for you, no math is needed, Ranger trumps Paladin in both cases: average damage dealt on a single attack by enemies should be around 11-15. Provided all attacks hit on the first time (which is really improbable), and you conjured low-HP wolves, and rolled damage was enough to one-shot them every time, you still soaked up an amount of damage that is somewhere between 2 and 3 times the healing provided by Aura of Vitality.
Even worse with Healing Spirit and his "we didn't think enough before publishing" wording that can allow people to get healed twice a round with a few (niche though) techniques.

AND many of these spells synergize with class features to recreate the classic Ranger trope of "elusive sniper or gunner": moving around hitting people without them having a chance to fight back.

-----
So what is the problem with most of these spells not being exclusive? Take EK or AT, they don't have any exclusive, and their 1/3 level makes their real spellcasting strength reveal itself quite late, but nobody is complaining because once it's there it's good.

Paladin's spells, once you remove the smite ones (which are great but a bit annoying to pull off), are 80% Cleric ones. And that is a problem with nobody because they are good.

Even if there were a Cleric and Paladin in the same party, the Cleric would be glad that the Paladin can take care of a Bless instead of him.
Same with a Ranger: even with a Druid in the group, the Ranger could fulfill the role for sneaking/healing/breaking action economy while the Druid uses another spell.

And you know, all things considered, in a campaign without any full caster in the party, supposing "standard builds" (as in the most common builds of each class, like DEX Hunter Ranger vs DEX Thief/AT Rogue vs STR Vengeance/Ancients Paladin) I'll take a Ranger over an EK or AT any day. Possibly over a Paladin too depending on the party composition. Because just Goodberry, Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit, Plant Growth and Conjure Animals could save, not just me, but my whole party more often than not.

-----
Same with having class features that are shared with others.

So what with having Hide as a bonus action very late?
Yeah, that's a bit sad when Rogue has it on level 2. But the thing is, that's the schtick of the Rogue, its defining feature, being hidden.
If Ranger got it earlier, even "as late as 7", people would scream that Ranger is tip-toeing on Rogue.

Fun fact: at the time you get it, you have enough slots to make the classic Rogue tactic "hide every turn" viable over a day. Also, the 10th level feature that everyone says useless? Combine it with Pass Without Trace, and you are virtually undetectable for one hour, much better than even a Rogue (supposing +5 DEX bonus, +4 proficiency bonus, +10 Pass Without Trace, + 10 Hide in Plain Sight = a whopping 29 before rolling. Even a Rogue at level 11, using Reliable Talent to offset a bad roll, would "only" amount to 10+5+8 = 23).

So what with Hunter getting Evasion at level 15 instead of 7? Seems fair to me when you've been playing with 4th level spells since 3 levels when AT has still only level 2 spells.

TL;DR: Ranger seems weak because a good chunk of its class features are sometimes (often?) made irrelevant by lazy DMs, and because its true power is not in plain sight like a Rogue or Fighter...

Partly because its strength rely on mobility and positioning control (and god knows many people -especially here- never take either into account when assessing the global efficiency of a character).
Partly because its intrinsical versatility implies that to build it towards maximum damage (which sadly seems the only metric people recognize here) you have to think about it beforehand and also use your brain during fights...

Whereas a Paladin can just blow all slots on a nova smiting rounds and call it a day, or a Bear Barbarian just rush into the melee without second though (at least, to some extent), or a Rogue just pop in/out from cover every round, or a GWM Fighter in heavy armor just stand his ground while bashing heads (well, as long as there are not too many enemies close ^^).

People tend to let their lazyness speak for them, so they'll shunt things that are not clear-cut. Which is, contrarily to other martials (smite/rush blindly/stay hidden/pummel everything/chain attacks) exactly the thing about Ranger: you can push it in many different directions to end with very different playstyles.

[Coidzor]

Being a spells known kind of caster really hurts their ability to provide good utility, for one.

[Kane0]

TL;DR: Ranger seems weak because a good chunk of its class features are sometimes (often?) made irrelevant by lazy DMs, and because its true power is not in plain sight like a Rogue or Fighter...


Isn't that lack of clarity the exact same thing that annoys people about sorcerers?
Not that I disagree at all, but I've seen this come up before.

[Citan]

The ranger class has had serious identity issues for a while now. The archetype of a wilderness survivalist and hunter of beasts is, of course, strong... but hardly requires its own class. There's nothing that defines the ranger class that goes beyond the first five levels. It can track, survive in the wilds and scout... which is the kind of thing skills, backgrounds, feats and maybe subclasses can cover. So the core ranger features end up really front-loaded, and then it's just a mish-mash of combat and non-combat abilities.

Now, front-loading the iconic abilities of a class into the first levels and then giving out more generic ones isn't a bad idea... but it's not what 5E went with, since it stuck to the old level progression.

The focus on the wilderness is also pretty problematic if you happen to run a more urban, sedentary, political etc. adventure. A lot of the ranger's iconic abilities will sit unused in such a case. Now, those situations are unavoidable. But it's one thing when you willingly build a character with a very specialized skillset, and another when a whole class is devoted to it. Druid is also nature-themed, but it has shapeshifting and spells, both of which make it far more versatile.

There's a reason that in video games, a ranger class is often built around its animal companion. Because "has a badass pet" is something you can actually work with.
That I can agree with. You can get the feeling that WoTC went far in the survivalist / hunter (in general meaning) direction, then realized that mechanically the other roles were pretty well covered already and did not know how to keep the same concept relevant in later levels. ^^
Hence the clunkyness of Beastmaster (mechanically fine but feeling horrible to play) and Hunter (poaching other classes's abiltiies much much later).

I'd actually love to put my hands on the genesis of Ranger conception: was it made last? First but with moving goalposts every few months? Something else? XD


Being a spells known kind of caster really hurts their ability to provide good utility, for one.
I seriously scratched my head a long time about that: why Paladins (Cleric) would get prepared spells, and Ranger (Druid) not, while technically the source of their spells is "divine" in both cases?

The three reasons/theories I found (rather, imagined) were...
1. Fluff
Paladin seems much closer to a "direct relationship" to superior power (confer for example the engraving of a holy symbol as a focus), so closer to "casting spell = praying in my inner self and have some divine intervention", which would legitimate the fact that you can change "at-will": it's a power you "borrow" every day.
Whereas Ranger seems to be more akin to self-taught casters that manage to mimick the Druid's harness of natural magic, without any true regard to the origin of it. So it would explain that you can just learn a few spells (retro-engineering magic ought to be kinda hard XD).

2. Class identity
Cleric VS Paladin, the distinction is easy enough: Cleric have several defining features related to Domains, plus the roleplay aspect (supposedly) enforces much more a line of conduct and some general duties towards a religion for a Cleric. So it's easy enough to distinguish the difference in identity.

Enter the Druid: when PHB was published, the archetypes were basically "buff my spellpower" or "pimp my Wild Shape". Meaning, all the identity of a Druid was encased in the spell selection (on which Ranger is already based up to ~70%) and a "hate or like" kind of feature (I already read around here, many people that don't find any interest in that feature "for itself").

So if Ranger was able to change prepared spells, even if technically as a half-caster the Druid would still "be better", it would have the potential of seriously eating into the general attraction of the latter for people, except those that just wanted to play with Wild Shape and didn't really care about spellcasting. ^^

3. Balance reason: I hazardly make the reasoning that WoTC expect people that play a Paladin to blow at the very least half their slots on smite any given day. Plus the spell list of Paladin is 20% smite, 25% useful but bland buffs/heals that Clerics do since levels away, and the rest shared between very situational spells (Detect/Locate/Purify) and a few exclusive and powerful but high level spells.
So I expect that they decided that the "prepared" mechanic was a way to counterbalance that resource vampirization ("since I have only a few slots per day, at least I can change").

It's just one theory among many others one could set though. ;)

[djreynolds]

The are 2 ways to see the ranger.

As a player and as a DM

As a DM I like to allow moments for players to shine. Going from point A to point B, say the village to the dungeon could be as dangerous as the village and dungeon are.

This is where it is important to include elements where the ranger can showcase his or her abilities to safely get the party from the village to the dungeon.

It cannot just be town to dungeon, you must create a diverse realm.

Often this aspect of the game can be boring for player and DM if it is just as matter of story progression. The travel between story elements needs to be dangerous or dramatic if included

So for DMs who have rangers in the party, make travel dangerous and important. Make them have to sneak through enemy lines, here pass without a trace is priceless.

Plan out ambushes and chases that require the ranger's skill set.

While playing SKT, I realized as a player, how much easier it would be to have a ranger just in terms of speed of travel. I myself am a wizard in this campaign and we are ambushed often.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a player, a 13 in dex... which you have, can allow an easy dip of rogue for expertise and fighter for an extra fighting style.

A 13 in wisdom, which you have, can allow for an easy dip of cleric or druid for cantrips and some extra spells

Also at lower levels, the hunter's mark is awesome like hex is for extra damage, hail of thorns is very nice
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Often a ranger can feel like an artillery piece in combat with her bow and hunter's mark.

But stuff like ensnaring strike can be very useful

Spike growth and silence can be literal game changers

IMO, try not to use hunter's mark as much and incorporate spike growth, silence, cordon of arrow, and hail of thorns and you level up drop hail of arrows later for lightning arrow, etc.

In our last campaign we were chased, our ranger upcasted longstrider and this simple extra 10ft of speed for 1 hour saved the party.

[Morty]

That I can agree with. You can get the feeling that WoTC went far in the survivalist / hunter (in general meaning) direction, then realized that mechanically the other roles were pretty well covered already and did not know how to keep the same concept relevant in later levels. ^^
Hence the clunkyness of Beastmaster (mechanically fine but feeling horrible to play) and Hunter (poaching other classes's abiltiies much much later).

I'd actually love to put my hands on the genesis of Ranger conception: was it made last? First but with moving goalposts every few months? Something else? XD

I suspect it went along the lines of the designers knowing they had to make a Ranger class, because people would raise a huge stink if the class list didn't exactly line up with 3E+warlock, and having to somehow make it work. Which combined with the general lack of direction or idea about how to develop non-magical concepts past the first levels.

I don't remember the class being much different in the playtests, except for trying to sneak the old choice of dual-wielding or archery in disguise.

[cotofpoffee]

TL;DR: Ranger seems weak because a good chunk of its class features are sometimes (often?) made irrelevant by lazy DMs, and because its true power is not in plain sight like a Rogue or Fighter...

Pretty much this entire post.

I see a lot of people saying that Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain is supposedly the defining feature of the Ranger. But it's really not. All it amounts to is some skill improvements. In fact, Favored Enemy when condensed is only advantage on two separate skills and a language. Yet people go on and on and on about how it's "not good enough." Favored Terrain is more or less the same. I've played in Pathfinder, where Rangers get a lot of combat stats from Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain. It's not a fun experience having what makes your character good dependent entirely on the DM. Pathfinder eventually had to solve the issue of DM agency over the Ranger by releasing spells that allowed a Ranger to designate enemies and places as their Favored Enemy or Favored Terrain. Frankly, I'm glad that the 5e version of the Ranger divorces them from reliance on Favored Enemy and Terrain.

As far as I can tell, most of the arguments about the power of the Ranger evaporated the moment Xanathar's was released. It filled basically every hole in the Ranger's spell repertoire, and added a good high level buff spell to carry Ranger through their level 11-16 weak points. Yet people still give general, blanket arguments like "Rangers are outshined by every other class," and "Rangers don't do anything well," or "Rangers are just good for exploring and only on their Favored Enemy/Terrain." It's ridiculous.

[Arkhios]

Pretty much this entire post.

Funny you should point that out. Just FYI, in case you didn't know: TL;DR comes from words: "Too Long; Didn't Read"

The acronym and what comes after it, is the whole point. It's same as saying "Long story short", although in a slightly pejorative way in assuming the reader didn't bother with those unnecessary details.

[cotofpoffee]

Funny you should point that out. Just FYI, in case you didn't know: TL;DR comes from words: "Too Long; Didn't Read"

The acronym and what comes after it, is the whole point. It's same as saying "Long story short", although in a slightly pejorative way in assuming the reader didn't bother with those unnecessary details.

I meant the entire post. But did you really want me to quote that entire long thing and clog up the page?

[Mortis_Elrod]

That I can agree with. You can get the feeling that WoTC went far in the survivalist / hunter (in general meaning) direction, then realized that mechanically the other roles were pretty well covered already and did not know how to keep the same concept relevant in later levels. ^^
Hence the clunkyness of Beastmaster (mechanically fine but feeling horrible to play) and Hunter (poaching other classes's abiltiies much much later).

I'd actually love to put my hands on the genesis of Ranger conception: was it made last? First but with moving goalposts every few months? Something else? XD


I seriously scratched my head a long time about that: why Paladins (Cleric) would get prepared spells, and Ranger (Druid) not, while technically the source of their spells is "divine" in both cases?

The three reasons/theories I found (rather, imagined) were...
1. Fluff
Paladin seems much closer to a "direct relationship" to superior power (confer for example the engraving of a holy symbol as a focus), so closer to "casting spell = praying in my inner self and have some divine intervention", which would legitimate the fact that you can change "at-will": it's a power you "borrow" every day.
Whereas Ranger seems to be more akin to self-taught casters that manage to mimick the Druid's harness of natural magic, without any true regard to the origin of it. So it would explain that you can just learn a few spells (retro-engineering magic ought to be kinda hard XD).

2. Class identity
Cleric VS Paladin, the distinction is easy enough: Cleric have several defining features related to Domains, plus the roleplay aspect (supposedly) enforces much more a line of conduct and some general duties towards a religion for a Cleric. So it's easy enough to distinguish the difference in identity.

Enter the Druid: when PHB was published, the archetypes were basically "buff my spellpower" or "pimp my Wild Shape". Meaning, all the identity of a Druid was encased in the spell selection (on which Ranger is already based up to ~70%) and a "hate or like" kind of feature (I already read around here, many people that don't find any interest in that feature "for itself").

So if Ranger was able to change prepared spells, even if technically as a half-caster the Druid would still "be better", it would have the potential of seriously eating into the general attraction of the latter for people, except those that just wanted to play with Wild Shape and didn't really care about spellcasting. ^^

3. Balance reason: I hazardly make the reasoning that WoTC expect people that play a Paladin to blow at the very least half their slots on smite any given day. Plus the spell list of Paladin is 20% smite, 25% useful but bland buffs/heals that Clerics do since levels away, and the rest shared between very situational spells (Detect/Locate/Purify) and a few exclusive and powerful but high level spells.
So I expect that they decided that the "prepared" mechanic was a way to counterbalance that resource vampirization ("since I have only a few slots per day, at least I can change").

It's just one theory among many others one could set though. ;)

1. Counter fluff- The Ranger has a very practical way to make spells and is less mystical than the Druid. They prepare what is needed that day in advance according to what they predict based on their environment/needs for the day/past experience/instincts. Which all falls in line with how one might prepare their day if living in a hostile environment like the jungle or other wilderness. You wouldn’t just do the same things, each day has it’s own needs. Which also follows the idea of the ranger being the guy who adapts to any situation. Can’t do that with known spells. Ranger might be better with a lot of changeable utility and minimal but useful damage as a base.


2. That seems more like an issue of not enough ranger only spells. If the That ratio were changed to lean towards ranger it wouldn’t be an issue. A lot of Ranger spells are both fun to use and unique and very useful. Zephyr strike and Ensaring Strike are amazing. If there more utility spells the ranger could use instead of the Druid you might see more people happy with the class, espescially if you could prepare them each day.

3. I got nothin.

[Morty]

I do remember that, when I was considering a two-level ranger dip for my crossbow rogue, I was pretty dismayed by how I'd have to pick only two spells known. In the end, I didn't take ranger levels, so it never became relevant. At least ranger and paladin lists do include unique spells, rather than being chopped-up druid and cleric lists. That's progress. I used to be cranky about mandatory ranger spellcasting, but then I realized that removing it only reinforces the "why isn't this a wilderness-focused fighter, rogue, barbarian or combination of those?" effect. Well, except for the part where barbarian has its own problems, but never mind that.

It kind of reminds me of the Survival tree in the third edition of Exalted. The abilities of the core protagonists, Solars, are supposed to express superhuman skill, so they key off "regular" skills. Most Charms related to the Survival skill concern taming and training animals and monsters, until you can create god-like war-beasts. It seems to me like this focus is basically for the same reason ranger feels weird - there's only so much you can do with surviving in the wilds. You get so good at it that you can't get lost and will stroll through an empty desert in nothing but your underpants. Then what? You can get into mystical stuff like marking your territory, tracking your prey with your mind or commanding the elements, but in this case it would have probably stepped on the toes of other kinds of Exalted. And it's very much not the kind of thing the designers of 5E D&D ever wanted to put into the game.

I also don't think it's a very good thing that a class focusing on the exploration pillar bypasses a lot of it with its first level feature.

[Tanarii]

I also don't think it's a very good thing that a class focusing on the exploration pillar bypasses a lot of it with its first level feature.I agree. But most tables don't want to deal too heavily with that stuff. The problem is those tables hand wave and ignore all that stuff anyway.

So you end up with this weird situation where tables that ignore the exploration rules cry that the ranger is too weak, and the rare tables that love that stuff find the Ranger (and many other 5e rules) too powerful.

I can see where it must sometimes really suck to be a designer and have to thread the needle. :smallamused:

[Willie the Duck]

I can see where it must sometimes really suck to be a designer and have to thread the needle. :smallamused:

Reminds me of "is Strength valuable" threads-- low strength builds are nearly unplayable in 5/10/15xStr. encumbrance campaigns, such that many do not use those rules and then complain that Dex builds have more utility.

[sithlordnergal]

Well, from what I have seen, Rangers excel in very specific circumstances, and that's the problem. Rangers are a highly specialized class in a game that rewards generalization. Think about the classes many consider to be the strongest classes/subclasses in the game, like the Lore Bard, Wizard, Paladin, and Moon Druid. With the exception of the Paladin, none of those classes are super specialized.


The Lore Bard has all the skills and expertise of a Rogue, Jack of All Trades make them somewhat decent at all skills, early access to all spells, and while their spells known are limited, they really only lack damaging spells.

Wizards have the full might of the Wizard Spell List, especially if you copy down spell scrolls and focus on ritual spells.

The Paladin may be specialized for melee combat, but they're also supreme party buffs, can make for a decent cleric if your party lacks one, and can cover certain party roles like being the party face.

And then the Moon Druid basically has an animal form for any occasion while their spells provide a mix of battlefield utility and non-combat utility.


These are considered strong classes not because of their specializations, but because of how well they do in any given situation. On the other hand, a Ranger is so specialized that it is entirely possible to go through an entire campaign/adventure without once using a class ability because you chose poorly when you snagged your Favored Terrain and Favored Enemies. Or you lose all those amazing benefits to exploration because this adventure happened to take place in the mountains instead of a forest, or in a cave instead of the mountains.

It brings to mind the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none, though oftentimes better than master of one". The Ranger is the Master of One. In their one field, they are better then anyone else. But put them outside of it, and they become a lackluster class.

[Tanarii]

If wilderness adventures aren't going to be a major part of your campaign, or you're going to ignore the existing rules* for them (which many groups appear to), then it's fair to warn someone who wants to make a Ranger/Druid that you're running a specific sub-set of D&D. And vice versa.

But that goes for pretty much any strong campaign theme. Let the players know. Viking Raiders or Mongol Horse Nomads or Crusaders will affect classes and builds. Same with Tomb Raiders or Urban Thieves Guild. And especially the same with 5e adventure paths. I'd make different characters for Out of the Abyss, Storm King's Thunder, and Tomb of Annihilation.

[sithlordnergal]

If wilderness adventures aren't going to be a major part of your campaign, or you're going to ignore the existing rules* for them (which many groups appear to), then it's fair to warn someone who wants to make a Ranger/Druid that you're running a specific sub-set of D&D. And vice versa.

But that goes for pretty much any strong campaign theme. Let the players know. Viking Raiders or Mongol Horse Nomads or Crusaders will affect classes and builds. Same with Tomb Raiders or Urban Thieves Guild. And especially the same with 5e adventure paths. I'd make different characters for Out of the Abyss, Storm King's Thunder, and Tomb of Annihilation.

Specialization probably works better outside of Adventure's League, where you can be sure exactly where you'll be at a given time. Since AL modules are so varied with their locations, there's no telling where you end up. You could be in the Jungles of Chult one day, the icy mountains the next, and trapped in a fish bowl the third day.

[Naanomi]

Even with all this talk of ranger mastery of the exploration pillar... I don’t find their abilities there particularly impressive either. Especially at higher levels, but even at lower ones... a good survival skill check or two and spell support seems to cover the majority of what Natural Explorer does (albeit requiring a roll)

[GlenSmash!]

Reminds me of "is Strength valuable" threads-- low strength builds are nearly unplayable in 5/10/15xStr. encumbrance campaigns, such that many do not use those rules and then complain that Dex builds have more utility.

I must be real special, because I enjoy the heck out of a Strength based Ranger even without encumbrance variants.

[Tanarii]

Even with all this talk of ranger mastery of the exploration pillar... I don’t find their abilities there particularly impressive either. Especially at higher levels, but even at lower ones... a good survival skill check or two and spell support seems to cover the majority of what Natural Explorer does (albeit requiring a roll)
This tells me you've played in games where it's been largely hand waved, at least at low levels. The ranger's Natural Explorer abilities are qualitatively better than "a good survival skill check or two".

Spell support can go a long way to helping ... but that generally means a Druid or a Ranger in the first place. (Bards built to be a bit 'nature-y' with spells can pinch hit as always, because JoaT is what they do.)

[strangebloke]

I must be real special, because I enjoy the heck out of a Strength based Ranger even without encumbrance variants.

GWM + Whirlwind Attack is the just the sickest feeling.

[GlenSmash!]

GWM + Whirlwind Attack is the just the sickest feeling.

Ooo I've never tried it!

I was too tempted by Gloom Stalkers extra movement and attack in the first Round of Combat, plus the later re-roll on one miss per turn.

[strangebloke]

Ooo I've never tried it!

I was too tempted by Gloom Stalkers extra movement and attack in the first Round of Combat, plus the later re-roll on one miss per turn.

There's two Rangers I really wanna play.

Goblin Deepstalker with a hand crossbow.
vHuman Hunter with a greatsword named Aeregon

[Specter]

GWM + Whirlwind Attack is the just the sickest feeling.

GWM + Whirlwind + Action Surge + Divine Favor. That would be cool.

[GlenSmash!]

vHuman Hunter with a greatsword named Aeregon

Nice.

My vhuman GWM Gloom Stalker was pretty much a Geralt of Rivia clone.

[Morty]

I agree. But most tables don't want to deal too heavily with that stuff. The problem is those tables hand wave and ignore all that stuff anyway.

So you end up with this weird situation where tables that ignore the exploration rules cry that the ranger is too weak, and the rare tables that love that stuff find the Ranger (and many other 5e rules) too powerful.

I can see where it must sometimes really suck to be a designer and have to thread the needle. :smallamused:

I certainly don't envy them the task of keeping all the numerous things that have to stay because it "wouldn't be D&D" otherwise, while also making sure the game actually works.


If wilderness adventures aren't going to be a major part of your campaign, or you're going to ignore the existing rules* for them (which many groups appear to), then it's fair to warn someone who wants to make a Ranger/Druid that you're running a specific sub-set of D&D. And vice versa.

But that goes for pretty much any strong campaign theme. Let the players know. Viking Raiders or Mongol Horse Nomads or Crusaders will affect classes and builds. Same with Tomb Raiders or Urban Thieves Guild. And especially the same with 5e adventure paths. I'd make different characters for Out of the Abyss, Storm King's Thunder, and Tomb of Annihilation.

How many other classes lose half their features in a particular setting, though? It's one thing is a skill, feat or subclass doesn't have much to do in a given story. It's a more serious problem if it's a class.

[Tanarii]

How many other classes lose half their features in a particular setting, though? It's one thing is a skill, feat or subclass doesn't have much to do in a given story. It's a more serious problem if it's a class.
Most of them. If you're running an low combat game, which apparently is a thing, then a Fighter or Barbarian or Paladin looses a lot of its oomph. Any arcane spellcasters in an anti-spellcasters Dark-sun like game world is going to have issues. A divine caster the same in Dragonlance (War of the Lance era).

Arcane spellcasters also generally lose a huge chunk of their 'features' if the game style switches up a lot. Even the Wizard has limited spell list to switch up amongst, unless they have an exceptionally permissive DM.

That said, yes, many classes have flexibility of build options spanning more 'settings' than the Ranger. But the Ranger is very strong in half of what the game is advertised as, and thus primarily designed for: "explore ancient ruins and dungeons" and "trek across uncharted lands with your companions".

[Naanomi]

So, any party without a ranger should fail those challenges automatically? Adventures can’t really be written expecting a particular class feature to be present; and I don’t run my own games catering to specific party members (which I realize is a stylistic choice not everyone follows)... skill checks almost have to be able to solve the same sorts of problems (albeit not as efficiently perhaps)

At higher level play, teleport or overland flight and the like often change the face of the exploration portion of the game entirely, it is even harder to utilize Natural Explorer meaningfully at that point

[mephnick]

Even with all this talk of ranger mastery of the exploration pillar... I don’t find their abilities there particularly impressive either. Especially at higher levels, but even at lower ones... a good survival skill check or two and spell support seems to cover the majority of what Natural Explorer does (albeit requiring a roll)

You can't use your Perception to detect threats at all while navigating, foraging or tracking unless you are a Ranger in your terrain. That's a pretty major penalty to a Rogue or another scout trying to lead the party during travel. Being able to travel normal speed through snow, mountains, swamps or jungles is very useful if your DM actually tracks time and bases speed on terrain types (which you're supposed to). I have a feeling many people let a decent Survival check do way too much in terms of tracking, a Survival check should just let you follow tracks not give you the omniscient data the Ranger feature does, but that's an arguable position.

[mephnick]

At higher level play, teleport or overland flight and the like often change the face of the exploration portion of the game entirely, it is even harder to utilize Natural Explorer meaningfully at that point

Higher level destroys a lot of play-styles unfortunately. I can't argue against that. I don't even consider it D&D at that point.

[Tanarii]

So, any party without a ranger should fail those challenges automatically?
At this point, I have to assume you haven't read Natural Explorer, and are unaware of the qualitative benefits it give Rangers that others cannot do at all. Because both your initial point and this attempted counter strawman don't seem to actually fit with the ways the rules work. They aren't "oh survival check cool lets move on" nor are they "oh we don't have a ranger, guess we're screwed".

There are multiple rules for exploration affecting a plethora of things, and Rangers excel at many of them. Some involve Survival checks, and Rangers are better at those in their favored terrain, or bypass a check or make the results better. But others are things others cannot do at all. High speed scouting, and effective tracking. Chance to avoid being ambushed while doing other tasks. Speeding up travel through rugged terrain. And that's just the Natural explorer feature. They have plenty of other features and spells that work together to improve them as survivalists, explorers and scouts.

[Naanomi]

They have plenty of other features and spells that work together to improve them as survivalists, explorers and scouts.
For example... a few mostly Druid spells (many levels later) that they have to choose from a very limited number of choices, often in exclusion of combat options? I focus on Natural Explorer (which is rather good in the 1-3 terrains it covers) because it is the unique tool in their toolbox for a class being sold as the masters of exploration pillar... I’m not seeing what else they have that really helps there in practical situations

[Citan]

Well, from what I have seen, Rangers excel in very specific circumstances, and that's the problem. Rangers are a highly specialized class in a game that rewards generalization. Think about the classes many consider to be the strongest classes/subclasses in the game, like the Lore Bard, Wizard, Paladin, and Moon Druid. With the exception of the Paladin, none of those classes are super specialized.


The Lore Bard has all the skills and expertise of a Rogue, Jack of All Trades make them somewhat decent at all skills, early access to all spells, and while their spells known are limited, they really only lack damaging spells.

Wizards have the full might of the Wizard Spell List, especially if you copy down spell scrolls and focus on ritual spells.

The Paladin may be specialized for melee combat, but they're also supreme party buffs, can make for a decent cleric if your party lacks one, and can cover certain party roles like being the party face.

And then the Moon Druid basically has an animal form for any occasion while their spells provide a mix of battlefield utility and non-combat utility.


These are considered strong classes not because of their specializations, but because of how well they do in any given situation. On the other hand, a Ranger is so specialized that it is entirely possible to go through an entire campaign/adventure without once using a class ability because you chose poorly when you snagged your Favored Terrain and Favored Enemies. Or you lose all those amazing benefits to exploration because this adventure happened to take place in the mountains instead of a forest, or in a cave instead of the mountains.

It brings to mind the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none, though oftentimes better than master of one". The Ranger is the Master of One. In their one field, they are better then anyone else. But put them outside of it, and they become a lackluster class.
Could you please explain how/why you see them as a "specialized" class? Because I cannot see any beginning of a hint of it seriously. Which is one of the points I made in my overly lengthy post above.

Say Paladin is specialized, and I'll agree with you: basically no AOE (except Moonbeam as Ancients), totally sucks at range (unless you go out of the classic way and make it DEX, or spend one turn as Devotion using Sacred Weapon on a bow), has only single-target control abilities, basic restoration and a few good party-wide buffs.
Throw a Paladin in any party and they'll know what to expect: a guy that stands in the front, smashing people with divine power while helping close-by allies stand ground with Auras and possibly Protection FS.
In one word? "Tank".

Say that Rogue is specialized, and I'll agree with you: absolutely 0 AOE unless high-level AT, best potential bonus to a few skills, best at-will mobility for half of the game, growing single-target damage on a single-attack.
Throw a Rogue in any party and they'll know what to expect: a guy that makes every challenge a breeze in a few skills at low levels, in many skills at higher levels, and otherwise spend turns striking a single enemy with a very high damage output, making them naturally good against casters. Only unknown is whether he'll do it in melee or at range.
In one word? "Skillstriker" (yeah, I cheated, "Skillmonkey" and "Striker" being two words :smalltongue:).

Say that Monk is specialized, and I'll agree with you:
everything in the base class screams melee only (even if technically thrown weapons are a thing), evasive mobility (highest at-will mobility late-game), and a defining feature that can shape encounters in Stunning Strike. Archetypes will change playstyle much more than for other classes, but...
Throw a Monk in any party and they'll know what to expect: a sly guy that darts in and out to stun some of the most dangerous foes.
In one word? "Controller" (even if technically it's most often single-target control ^^).

Say that Barbarian is specialized, and I'll agree with you: all around base class and most of archetype features revolve around "more damage" and "more resistance". A few archetypes bring original things, but not enough to really change your playstyle unless you build around.
Throw a Barbarian in any party, and they'll know what to expect: a guy that is the first to rush into enemy lines with little care about how much heat he brings to him because he knows he should withstand it.
In one word? "Bruiser" ("I'll just kill things and let others take care of the rest").

Say that a Fighter is specialized, and I'll disagree with you. While all the base features revolve around "just dealing more damage", each archetype brings a very different feeling and tactics, which can further be refined through build choices (well, for Battlemaster and EK obviously ;)). Add to that the number of ASI available and you can easily make a hundred different "Fighters" without straining your mind.
Throw a Fighter in a party, they'll make an educated guess by looking at worn equipment which will at most tell if the guy tends to be "standing in melee", "kiting around" or "shooting from afar". That's basically all. An EK could very well like to move around using small AOE to soften targets, while another would prefer play catch-22 with Booming Blade, or another provide single-target control with Eldricht Strike Hold Person, and the last just buffing himself with Blur before rushing in.
Even a Champion could surprise his party by proving himself a great scout (Observant), or starting incantations for what would actually end as a Leomund's Tiny Hut (Ritual Caster).

Say that a Ranger is specialized, and I'll strongly disagree with you.
Like a Fighter, Ranger can be built DEX or STR first.
Like a Fighter, Ranger can be equally good in melee or ranged.
Like an EK, Ranger can either push his casting stat or forget it entirely.
More, much more than an EK or a Paladin, Ranger has a very wide variety of spells. So even while the number of spell known is small, the spell selection can be any number of combinations.
Throw a Ranger in any party, ask them to guess the build.
If they are optimizers, they'll probably put Beastmaster aside because of its rep. Still Hunter and Gloostalker: equipment won't tell them apart, only when they start using their spells. The best they can guess is Fighting Style (if two one-handed weapons, then high chance of dual-wielding) and main attack stat (if longbow, even if "Archery offset" is a thing, it's more probably a DEX build).
As for the spells? If the whole party is optimizers, they can expect Hunter's Mark (because iconic), Conjure Animals, Pass Without Trace and Healing Spirit if there is no Druid in the group. Past that? Good luck. ;)
You could have a classic iconic Ranger just lazily killing things with longbow + Hunter's Mark, because he otherwise decided to learn everything needed to take care of his party during adventuring (Goodberry, Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit, Find Traps, Locate spells etc).
But you could have another specializeing as an anti-caster, using upcast Ensnaring Strike from range to stop him and provoke automatic concentration saves before closing in to shut him for good with Mage Slayer feat.
Or one Hunter that teamtags with a Monk by opening way with Escape The Horde to waste enemy's OA while dealing damage or pushing some prone for added benefit.
Or one that likes to lure enemies around then fall back a bit, cast Spike Growth and let archer friends fill them with holes.
Or one playing the defender together with a EK/AT pal by shutting off a group of archers or casters through Plant Growth + Fog Cloud combo, or alone with Wind Wall.
Or one waiting for his melee pals to aggro some people then unleash reasonably powerful but very focused (thus ally-friendly) AOE.
Or on the contrary one playing scapegoat by luring enemies a way while friends flee another, then cast Plant Growth to flee away (Nature's Stride) while Dodging and laughing as enemies get stuck in it.
Or even lazy-killing a particular creature by Grappling it into an existing Plant Growth and putting it prone (or just getting Sentinel and wait for a chance to trigger it) then using upcast Spike Growth: slow combo to build in the worst case, but worth it against the most resilient/dangerous creatures as long as they don't have high STR checks: difficult terrain + 1/4 speed= stuck.
Or one playing the mule or travel mate by sparing much travelling time to his party (You just raided a bandits camp and decide to keep all loot, but there is too much for your 3-man to carry? Conjure Mules. You need to move fast to reach the village before it is attacked and you are a 8-man party? Conjure Riding Horses. Your group must go past a very slippery wall, and no Fly/Levitate people is around? Conjure Giant Spider).
You play in a very "dark" campaign against Darkness users but have no Cleric or Paladin around? Good thing you also can learn Daylight.
You have a Cleric who'd like to keep everyone in his Spirit Guardians but for some strange reason enemies don't seem obedient? Ensnaring Strike / Plant Growth / Grasping Vine / 2 Shoves per Attack can help much with that.
Your party has been cornered against a big lake or on a drowning ship? Water Breathing or Water Walk will avoid the TPK.

Exactly like Sorcerer (except better since Sorcerer also has the "synergy with Metamagics" requirement when choosing), a Ranger can make himself as focused or as versatile as he wants Obviously he'll never come close to a fullcaster, but he is the king of flexibility of all martials, as his spell selection and features allows him to take on the role of scout, provider (as in food), healer, controller, crowd damage dealer, or single target damage dealer, with more effective slots than all others (including Paladin because of the smiting economy).
Basically, any player with a "teamplayer" mindset will rock as a Ranger, because he has ways to make himself useful "solo" as well as in "combo" whatever class he pairs with and whatever kind of campaign he quests in. :)

EDIT: oh, and about the terrain features being underused: seriously, if you are not even able to ask the DM at session 0 which terrain you should expect and get an answer, then there is a problem either in you, your DM, or just the way you communicate with each other. And if you expect, just because a Ranger, that more than 20% of the campaign should play on any of your favored terrain, then you are just acting like a spoiled brat (well, unless you are solo or in a 2-man team). ;)

[sithlordnergal]

Could you please explain how/why you see them as a "specialized" class? Because I cannot see any beginning of a hint of it seriously. Which is one of the points I made in my overly lengthy post above.

Say that a Ranger is specialized, and I'll strongly disagree with you.
Like a Fighter, Ranger can be built DEX or STR first.
Like a Fighter, Ranger can be equally good in melee or ranged.
Like an EK, Ranger can either push his casting stat or forget it entirely.
More, much more than an EK or a Paladin, Ranger has a very wide variety of spells. So even while the number of spell known is small, the spell selection can be any number of combinations.
Throw a Ranger in any party, ask them to guess the build.
If they are optimizers, they'll probably put Beastmaster aside because of its rep. Still Hunter and Gloostalker: equipment won't tell them apart, only when they start using their spells. The best they can guess is Fighting Style (if two one-handed weapons, then high chance of dual-wielding) and main attack stat (if longbow, even if "Archery offset" is a thing, it's more probably a DEX build).
As for the spells? If the whole party is optimizers, they can expect Hunter's Mark (because iconic), Conjure Animals, Pass Without Trace and Healing Spirit if there is no Druid in the group. Past that? Good luck. ;)
You could have a classic iconic Ranger just lazily killing things with longbow + Hunter's Mark, because he otherwise decided to learn everything needed to take care of his party during adventuring (Goodberry, Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit, Find Traps, Locate spells etc).
But you could have another specializeing as an anti-caster, using upcast Ensnaring Strike from range to stop him and provoke automatic concentration saves before closing in to shut him for good with Mage Slayer feat.
Or one Hunter that teamtags with a Monk by opening way with Escape The Horde to waste enemy's OA while dealing damage or pushing some prone for added benefit.
Or one that likes to lure enemies around then fall back a bit, cast Spike Growth and let archer friends fill them with holes.
Or one playing the defender together with a EK/AT pal by shutting off a group of archers or casters through Plant Growth + Fog Cloud combo, or alone with Wind Wall.
Or one waiting for his melee pals to aggro some people then unleash reasonably powerful but very focused (thus ally-friendly) AOE.
Or on the contrary one playing scapegoat by luring enemies a way while friends flee another, then cast Plant Growth to flee away (Nature's Stride) while Dodging and laughing as enemies get stuck in it.
Or even lazy-killing a particular creature by Grappling it into an existing Plant Growth and putting it prone (or just getting Sentinel and wait for a chance to trigger it) then using upcast Spike Growth: slow combo to build in the worst case, but worth it against the most resilient/dangerous creatures as long as they don't have high STR checks: difficult terrain + 1/4 speed= stuck.
Or one playing the mule or travel mate by sparing much travelling time to his party (You just raided a bandits camp and decide to keep all loot, but there is too much for your 3-man to carry? Conjure Mules. You need to move fast to reach the village before it is attacked and you are a 8-man party? Conjure Riding Horses. Your group must go past a very slippery wall, and no Fly/Levitate people is around? Conjure Giant Spider).
You play in a very "dark" campaign against Darkness users but have no Cleric or Paladin around? Good thing you also can learn Daylight.
You have a Cleric who'd like to keep everyone in his Spirit Guardians but for some strange reason enemies don't seem obedient? Ensnaring Strike / Plant Growth / Grasping Vine / 2 Shoves per Attack can help much with that.
Your party has been cornered against a big lake or on a drowning ship? Water Breathing or Water Walk will avoid the TPK.

Exactly like Sorcerer (except better since Sorcerer also has the "synergy with Metamagics" requirement when choosing), a Ranger can make himself as focused or as versatile as he wants Obviously he'll never come close to a fullcaster, but he is the king of flexibility of all martials, as his spell selection and features allows him to take on the role of scout, provider (as in food), healer, controller, crowd damage dealer, or single target damage dealer, with more effective slots than all others (including Paladin because of the smiting economy).
Basically, any player with a "teamplayer" mindset will rock as a Ranger, because he has ways to make himself useful "solo" as well as in "combo" whatever class he pairs with and whatever kind of campaign he quests in. :)

EDIT: oh, and about the terrain features being underused: seriously, if you are not even able to ask the DM at session 0 which terrain you should expect and get an answer, then there is a problem either in you, your DM, or just the way you communicate with each other. And if you expect, just because a Ranger, that more than 20% of the campaign should play on any of your favored terrain, then you are just acting like a spoiled brat (well, unless you are solo or in a 2-man team). ;)

Well, I say Rangers are specialized because their abilities are pretty clearly built to deal with very specific circumstanes. Yes, they can be built a ton of ways to do their respective jobs, but how effective are they outside of that job? And sure, they may have tons of options, but as soon as the player plays that ranger, now you know exactly what their specializations are.

When I talk about Specialization vs. Generalization, I am looking at how well a class works outside of their given "job". How good is a Ranger when they are not in their favored terrain, or dealing with their favored enemy?

Now, I admit I play Adventure League, so I do not know what the party makeup will be at any given game, and unless we are playing a hardcover I do not know what the terrain/enviroment will be in any given game. As such, I have to be able to make a character that can do as many jobs as possible for any given circumstance. Because I can, and have, ended up in parties where there is no melee character, no healer, no skill monkey. Just two wizards, a warlock, and me.

[Morty]

I'm reminded of Dungeon World's "Undertake a perilous journey" move, which requires three characters to take on the role of quartermaster, trailblazer and scout. Their success on the following roll determines how much food the party will use, how long the journey will take and whether or not they'll run into danger. Rangers can take an advanced move that lets them take on two jobs, and if they're elves, they always succeed at their chosen job... not sure how those two combine.

Regardless, this is the kind of thing that can allow a character to excel at a role without completely bypassing the challenge. All the other problems with a class' niche being "good at surviving in the wilds" remain, though.

[Specter]

Well, I say Rangers are specialized because their abilities are pretty clearly built to deal with very specific circumstanes. Yes, they can be built a ton of ways to do their respective jobs, but how effective are they outside of that job? And sure, they may have tons of options, but as soon as the player plays that ranger, now you know exactly what their specializations are.

When I talk about Specialization vs. Generalization, I am looking at how well a class works outside of their given "job". How good is a Ranger when they are not in their favored terrain, or dealing with their favored enemy?

There are infinite ways to answer these question, because they are DM, player and choice-dependent.

But let's say I didn't ask my DM anything about this campaign, and as it turns out it's an urban, politically-focused campaign.
And that I didn't bother learning any utility spell, just sticking to offense and defense.
And that I picked a weird favored enemy from my backstory and it's probably not going to show up in this campaign.

In that case, the answer would be: as good as a Fighter, but with an extra skill.

[MeeposFire]

Personally I do not think that rangers are actually underpowered on the whole. They do get limited in certain situations but so do many classes.

The biggest problem is that the class did not have a theme that was easy to create for. If you look at the class's history it has had a lot of ups and downs. 1e it was pretty sweet what with its nice bonus damage on MANY different enemies (if you think the revised ranger gets its bonuses too much you should really see the 1e ranger as it affects a LOT of the game) while giving access to druid and magic user spells and some cool side abilities. 2e rangers kind of sucked with their requirement for more XP to level but the revised abilities were not as good as before so honestly in a fight it was better to be a fighter at higher levels than a ranger. 3e the ranger is ok. It has two gimmicks in fighting styles and favored enemy and spells but honestly in many ways its best feature was having more skills and a decent list. 4e had rangers that were very deadly and worked quite well though they were also the first ranger class that had little to no spells as the standard (3e and possibly before had version where you could trade spells out but that was not the standard).

You can see this problem at times in debates about what the class should do and one common things said is "get rid of the spells" which is funny because outside of the previous edition (which emphasized the weapon using aspect) spells was one of the only things that was easy to separate a ranger from a fighter.


Now if you want to talk about individual abilities that suck they do have some. My most common complaint is whirlwind attack for the hunter. That ability is pretty bad especially for level 11 and it does not play nice with other ranger abilities or one of its most iconic styles (two weapon) which to me makes it a failure as written and very weak considering that a standard ranger needs three enemies (4 if you are two weapon or have an ability that allows attacks from an attack action as a bonus action such as PAM) surrounding you to even eke out a reason to use it. That is just poor design. Fun idea but bad design.

So yea there are things I would have liked to change (I would love to have evasion as an every ranger ability not just the hunter) but generally as much as I like the idea of changing them it is not so much for power but just getting the class to have the feel I would want.

[Wryte]

Part of the problem is that having travel actually matter is really only viable if you're running a module.

Game mechanics and story elements only matter if they have any actual consequences, so what are travel's?

1: Monetary cost. Players will have to spend money on rations and supplies, and may have to pay fees for access to specialized forms of travel like ships. They may need to pay salaries for hirelings, or boarding fees for animals that aren't suited to an environment they're entering. The longer the travel takes, the most this stacks up.

2: Random encounters. The longer it takes a party to get somewhere, the more chances they have for random encounters.

3: Arrival time. Depending on how long it took the party to reach their destination, they may arrive before, during, or after an important narrative event.

4: Finding something unexpected. A party that gets or that takes an atypical route may stumble across something unusual.

#1 is... well, boring. Players might struggle with scrounging up the gold to afford their supplies for the first level or two of the game, but unless you're purposely denying your players income, gold stops being an issue for travel very quickly, and the cost of taking a bit longer to get somewhere becomes negligible, and parties will routinely have their face barter any special travel prices down in exchange for acting as protection - they may even be paid instead of having to pay.

As for #2, I'll refer you to the expert (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html).

So that leaves #s 3 and 4, which... let's just face it, aren't going to happen outside of a module adventure. If you're running a game of your own creation, you're not going to spend a bunch of time planning an event just to run the risk of your players arriving too late to participate in it, because then you're wasted your time and have nothing for your players to do instead. Likewise, you're not going to spend a bunch of time planning out a secret cave or a lost hunting lodge, and then rely on your players finding it by bad luck - in fact, the Ranger works against this one, because their inability to get lost actually reduces their odds of stumbling across anything that isn't on the main path.

Now, you could conceivably come up with various benefits to the party for reaching places faster, or detriments for arriving later, other than missing out on the planned event... but then the Ranger just instantly guarantees by their mere presence that the party will get the benefits whenever they're moving through their favored terrain, without any chance of failure.

Thus, the only times you're actually likely to factor travel time into what players find when they reach a location, is when you're running a module that's already done all the work of laying out every encounter and locale for you, so tweaking events is much easier and doesn't waste your own time and effort.

Other than that, travel is just... not interesting in D&D, unless you're going to the lengths of creating an extensive map of the realm's geography, all for the sake of being able to describe the landscape to your players in detail before they say "Neat. So where do we go next?" Sure, you could do more work to make travel more interesting, but the effort/payoff ratio is terrible compared to that for any other aspect of the game.

[kingheff1]

For me they're skill monkeys, more comparable to rogues than fighters and paladins. They're mechanically more useful out of combat than the melee big hitters like fighter so they're, arguably, a bit worse in combat to balance it out.

[sithlordnergal]

There are infinite ways to answer these question, because they are DM, player and choice-dependent.

But let's say I didn't ask my DM anything about this campaign, and as it turns out it's an urban, politically-focused campaign.
And that I didn't bother learning any utility spell, just sticking to offense and defense.
And that I picked a weird favored enemy from my backstory and it's probably not going to show up in this campaign.

In that case, the answer would be: as good as a Fighter, but with an extra skill.

There are technically infinite ways this could be answered, but you are still able to compare performance. If I snagged a Lore Bard built for an urban adventure and dropped them in the wilderness, they'd still have a very high amount of utility thanks to Jack of All Trades, spells, the high amount of skills they get, and Bardic Inspiration. The Bard's class abilities are still highly useful even if they are not in the enviroment they built the character for.

Compare that to a Ranger built for a jungle enviroment. If I snagged him out of the jungle, and dropped him into a city where he gets none of his special class abilities, he is not going to be nearly as effective.

As for asking the DM what sort of adventure it will be...I guess that depends on if you do AL modules or not. Because I can't guarantee, and neither can the DM, where I'll be adventuring. Heh, with the exception of the DM that runs the hardcover, my DMs tend to find out what they're running when the players get to the table, that way we can choose what tier we want to run. As a result, I can't really do any sort of preplaning at all.

[Naanomi]

Even if I do know where my adventures will take place when I start, it is rarely just three places. My latest campaign is a rehash of the old Quest for Glory video games... so... Tier 1 in a forest/mountain area (fighting mostly multi-racial humanoid bandits); Tier 2 in the desert but also heavy urban spots(fighting gnolls, Elementals, and humans); Tier 3 in the savannah and jungle (fighting dinosaurs, yuan-ti, with Slaad in the finale); Tier 3.5 in forest and swamp (lots of undead and abberations); Tier 4 in Coast, volcanic island mountains, underwater, and the lower planes (with a big variety of opponents, ending with a dragon fight)

That is a fairly scripted adventure arch, which even the best planned ranger won’t be able to support even a small portion of the exploration needs

[Specter]

There are technically infinite ways this could be answered, but you are still able to compare performance. If I snagged a Lore Bard built for an urban adventure and dropped them in the wilderness, they'd still have a very high amount of utility thanks to Jack of All Trades, spells, the high amount of skills they get, and Bardic Inspiration. The Bard's class abilities are still highly useful even if they are not in the enviroment they built the character for.

Compare that to a Ranger built for a jungle enviroment. If I snagged him out of the jungle, and dropped him into a city where he gets none of his special class abilities, he is not going to be nearly as effective.

As for asking the DM what sort of adventure it will be...I guess that depends on if you do AL modules or not. Because I can't guarantee, and neither can the DM, where I'll be adventuring. Heh, with the exception of the DM that runs the hardcover, my DMs tend to find out what they're running when the players get to the table, that way we can choose what tier we want to run. As a result, I can't really do any sort of preplaning at all.

Let's look at the Ranger's class features then, shall we?

Natural Explorer - agreed.
Favored Enemy - partially agreed, because even if you are not facing and tracking your enemies Intelligence checks are common, and you can still gather information and lore about your foes anytime. You can be sort of 'the expert' about your enemies, and that's valuable to people.
Spellcasting - useful everywhere, unless you take spells that only work on grassy areas/water, but that's really your call.
Fighting Style - useful whenever there are fights. If your DM is cutting not only the exploration pillar, but the combat pillar, then I wouldn't play with him.
Primeval Awareness - given the number of creatures you can identify with it, it's useful whenever you are not in a town. Actually, scratch that, once as a Ranger I was in a town and used this to discover that a dragon was headed for it.
Extra Attack - useful.
More enemies and terrains - if you landed in AL or didn't talk to your DM about what kind of things you'd do in the campaign, now you can choose what's relevant.
Hide In Plain Sight - you don't need to be in the wild for this, so whenever you plan an ambush or have time to escape from many foes, you can use it. Also, if you want to eavesdrop on a meeting, inside a room or whatever, you can find yourself relevant even socially.
Vanish - hiding is universal. Also, not being tracked doesn't specify terrain, so it's good in towns or in the Plane of Fire or whatever.
Feral Senses - invisible foes get rekt. Situational, but when the situation arises accept no substitute.
Foe Slayer - terrible.

Not discussing subclass features because that's too much.

So the only valid complaints is that the first terrains and enemies you pick may never show up in the campaign at all, or that the DM never presents you with invisible foes so Feral Senses are rendered useless. As for the rest, if you can't find a way to use it then I don't think I can help.

[Citan]

Well, I say Rangers are specialized because their abilities are pretty clearly built to deal with very specific circumstanes. Yes, they can be built a ton of ways to do their respective jobs, but how effective are they outside of that job? And sure, they may have tons of options, but as soon as the player plays that ranger, now you know exactly what their specializations are.

When I talk about Specialization vs. Generalization, I am looking at how well a class works outside of their given "job". How good is a Ranger when they are not in their favored terrain, or dealing with their favored enemy?

Well, what you say about "now you know what their specialization are" would be equally true for an Eldricht Knight or Arcane Trickster, except "worse" since fewer slots and lower spell known.

The thing is, they are still perfectly fine even when out of their favored terrains/enemies, that's what Tanarii has been trying to explain in addition to me.
Just taking a handful spells ensures that you as a Ranger are equally contributing to the party as any other martial, those I quoted before: Hunter's Mark for pure damage, Goodberry > Healing Spirit to help survive encounters, Pass Without Trace to give other ways to resolve a situation, then Conjure Animals.
Just those four make you a very valuable asset, whatever the situation the party is into, in or outside fight. Everything else is just cherries on the cake, whatever archetype you pick, you'll be at least good enough, and generally on par with others all things considered.
Favored Terrain / Enemy is just the "spotlight" feature of Ranger for some situations (party in specific terrain), just like Jack of All Trades is spotlight feature of Bard for other situations (skill check required, nobody is proficient), or Reliable Talent + Expertise for Rogue (we REALLY need that to work, Rogue spent his life training for this moment).



Now, I admit I play Adventure League, so I do not know what the party makeup will be at any given game, and unless we are playing a hardcover I do not know what the terrain/enviroment will be in any given game. As such, I have to be able to make a character that can do as many jobs as possible for any given circumstance. Because I can, and have, ended up in parties where there is no melee character, no healer, no skill monkey. Just two wizards, a warlock, and me.
I understand this perfectly, but that is not a flaw of the class, just a limitation coming from your own metagaming, reflecting your own preferences in gaming and real-life constraints.
Take a Barbarian, he's good only for melee. In a party in which he'd be the only frontliner, let's hope that there are fullcasters ready to buff him, otherwise party will have a hard time. So you would probably not pick him as a "default choice".
And a Bard honestly can be a bad choice also: in pure fighting campaigns, other casters would fare much better.

In fact, if you REALLY want a character that can be great whatever the party he is in, my take would be...
1) Druid: most coverage of different "spell types", and Wild Shape can be useful in nearly any situation.
2) Knowledge Druid: need a check? Enter "proficiency as CD". Not a sure-win, but much better than Jack of All Trades in practice for quite some time.
Then ex-aequo
3) Arcane Trickster Rogue: a few cantrips, a few spells, melee and ranged, great in a few skills, will fit anywhere.
3) Gloomstalker Ranger: few spells but "Druid-like" variety, Rope Trick!, very competitive damage up until 11th level, good in melee and range alike, can take care of a great array of skills, will also fit anywhere.
3) Bladesinger Wizard: need to loot spell but largest variety (barring healing) and some of the best in each category, can hold his own in melee when needed (even be great at it), has some of the best rituals.
3) Hexblade Tome Warlock: weapon cantrips when needed, best ranged cantrip in the game, can learn all rituals, has the required standard resilience, can be tailored around the party thanks to Invocations.


There are technically infinite ways this could be answered, but you are still able to compare performance. If I snagged a Lore Bard built for an urban adventure and dropped them in the wilderness, they'd still have a very high amount of utility thanks to Jack of All Trades, spells, the high amount of skills they get, and Bardic Inspiration. The Bard's class abilities are still highly useful even if they are not in the enviroment they built the character for.

Compare that to a Ranger built for a jungle enviroment. If I snagged him out of the jungle, and dropped him into a city where he gets none of his special class abilities, he is not going to be nearly as effective.

As I said: this is plain unfair to the Ranger to compare it to a fullcaster, especially one that can poach any spell and has ritual casting.
Like it would be unfair to compare a Arcane Trickster to the same Bard. ;)
Also, strip a Bard from his spellcasting, he won't be worthless but no better than a glorified NPC. Which is logical since he is a fullcaster. ;)

More generally, as far as "probability to have an adequate answer to any situation", from level 1 to level 15, from best to worst, Druid > Wizard > Cleric > Bard > Sorcerer > Ranger = Arcane Trickster > Paladin > Rogue > others.
Obviously "prepared spells" means higher chance to have a spell that fits in (Cleric being under Wizard still because much more focused selection), and having spells gives in essence higher chance than having none.
Beyond that, the order reflect class specificities (like Bard: whenever something could actually be resolved through a skill check, Enhance Ability + Jack of All Trades = proficiency, which is not bad at all. Similar idea with Rogue: fewer skill situations he can answer to, but in those he'll rock even more than Bard thanks to Reliable Talent).

[Luccan]

Primeval Awareness - given the number of creatures you can identify with it, it's useful whenever you are not in a town. Actually, scratch that, once as a Ranger I was in a town and used this to discover that a dragon was headed for it.


But, all primeval awareness tells you is if there's one or more of those creatures within a mile. It doesn't even say what vague direction they're in, just that they're "around". It also doesn't tell you their number. So what if you know there is "dragon" within a mile? It could be behind that hill. Or further off, but there's twenty. Or if you're hunting undead and you have a Necromancer in the party? Well, you know there's undead withing a mile. Good luck telling the difference between your Necro's pets and your enemy, because you very specifically know virtually nothing useful about the information you receive.

Edit: This might be slightly more useful against certain foes or to find some allies (fiends, celestials), but also basically assumes that every game is unlikely to have many fey with 6 miles, if it's your favorite terrain. And that seems even less useful: Here, you know this terrain, have a wider area you have to search.

[Wryte]

But, all primeval awareness tells you is if there's one or more of those creatures within a mile. It doesn't even say what vague direction they're in, just that they're "around". It also doesn't tell you their number. So what if you know there is "dragon" within a mile? It could be behind that hill. Or further off, but there's twenty. Or if you're hunting undead and you have a Necromancer in the party? Well, you know there's undead withing a mile. Good luck telling the difference between your Necro's pets and your enemy, because you very specifically know virtually nothing useful about the information you receive.

Edit: This might be slightly more useful against certain foes or to find some allies (fiends, celestials), but also basically assumes that every game is unlikely to have many fey with 6 miles, if it's your favorite terrain. And that seems even less useful: Here, you know this terrain, have a wider area you have to search.

Or you suspect the king's vizier is a fiend, so you use Primeval Awareness to determine that, yes, there is indeed a fiend within 1 mile of you, so you commit your party to fighting a war of intrigue with the vizier, at the end of which you reveal the truth... that he's a regular dude and what you were actually detecting was a half-fiend beggar living in the city sewers. Enjoy your prison sentence.

[Luccan]

Or you suspect the king's vizier is a fiend, so you use Primeval Awareness to determine that, yes, there is indeed a fiend within 1 mile of you, so you commit your party to fighting a war of intrigue with the vizier, at the end of which you reveal the truth... that he's a regular dude and what you were actually detecting was a half-fiend beggar living in the city sewers. Enjoy your prison sentence.

Seriously, this seems more like it's the opposite of helpful 20% of the time, useless 60% of the time, mildly useful in warning of possible threats 10% of the time, and the other 10% gives you an idea that an enemy is headed your way because you already knew a specific enemy was probably headed your way, but now you know they're within a mile. In any direction.

[Kane0]

The fact that favored terrain makes your primal awareness less accurate made me chuckle.

[Luccan]

The fact that favored terrain makes your primal awareness less accurate made me chuckle.

Yeah. I would be more than willing to say you would know once you were within a mile, but that still isn't very useful (you could still walk 6 or more miles in the wrong direction). That might even have been what they meant, but again, what this tells me is the wilderness in 5e is basically expected to be nearly devoid of these things. How else would they expect it to be useful? And you have to spend a spell slot to use it! Let's not forget that, given it is less useful than spells you could be using.

[Specter]

But, all primeval awareness tells you is if there's one or more of those creatures within a mile. It doesn't even say what vague direction they're in, just that they're "around". It also doesn't tell you their number. So what if you know there is "dragon" within a mile? It could be behind that hill. Or further off, but there's twenty. Or if you're hunting undead and you have a Necromancer in the party? Well, you know there's undead withing a mile. Good luck telling the difference between your Necro's pets and your enemy, because you very specifically know virtually nothing useful about the information you receive.

Edit: This might be slightly more useful against certain foes or to find some allies (fiends, celestials), but also basically assumes that every game is unlikely to have many fey with 6 miles, if it's your favorite terrain. And that seems even less useful: Here, you know this terrain, have a wider area you have to search.


Seriously, this seems more like it's the opposite of helpful 20% of the time, useless 60% of the time, mildly useful in warning of possible threats 10% of the time, and the other 10% gives you an idea that an enemy is headed your way because you already knew a specific enemy was probably headed your way, but now you know they're within a mile. In any direction.


The fact that favored terrain makes your primal awareness less accurate made me chuckle.

Whoa, whoa, slow down.

- PA is a way to use a spell slot. You don't ever need to use it, and you wouldn't be wrong. A Monk can also never use Step of the Wind in his career, and a Paladin can use all his spell slots for smites and whatever. You could give a Druid a way to use a spell slot to create a poodle and it wouldn't be bad. A possible choice is never bad.
- You know those days when you are remaining spell slots? As in, all days that don't have tons of encounters? Now you can at least know what is around the place you're about to sleep in, or check if the threats you were facing are gone. Spotted fiends? Now the Cleric can prepare Banishment. Spotted undead? Now the Druid can prepare Sunbeam tomorrow. Etc.
- One mile is the distance between my house and the supermarket. Even if there's a dragon 'behind the hill', the only question remaining is whether it's good or evil, and it was more than enough in that case to let me put the town on warning and save lives.
- 'What if there's a Necromancer in the party and you're looking for undead?' Hey, if you're not gonna take this seriously, what if you're a Paladin and there's a plague that kills anyone who dons heavy armor?
- In your favorite terrain, you get to choose between 1 mile, 6 miles or anything in between ("up to"). So it's not a larger area unless you want to.

Primeval Awareness requires knowing what you want to do for it to be any good. If you don't know, don't use it, and that's fine since the slots will be there anyway.

[Luccan]

Whoa, whoa, slow down.

- PA is a way to use a spell slot. You don't ever need to use it, and you wouldn't be wrong. A Monk can also never use Step of the Wind in his career, and a Paladin can use all his spell slots for smites and whatever. You could give a Druid a way to use a spell slot to create a poodle and it wouldn't be bad. A possible choice is never bad.

As in, is it worse than not having it? No. Does that make it as useful as I would think the designers hoped? No.



- You know those days when you are remaining spell slots? As in, all days that don't have tons of encounters? Now you can at least know what is around the place you're about to sleep in, or check if the threats you were facing are gone. Spotted fiends? Now the Cleric can prepare Banishment. Spotted undead? Now the Druid can prepare Sunbeam tomorrow. Etc.
A good point, but I like for abilities to be needed more than once an adventure (if only by choice, at least). Still that's a matter of taste and you made a good point here.



- One mile is the distance between my house and the supermarket. Even if there's a dragon 'behind the hill', the only question remaining is whether it's good or evil, and it was more than enough in that case to let me put the town on warning and save lives.


Sure, because you were smart and didn't make assumptions. But assume one thing and suddenly you've either decided to fight a neutral party or are against a number of foes you can't handle. Or you evacuate the village and oops, the thing you're running from was going the route you decided to take. And since it costs spell slots, you probably won't get many chances to check.



- 'What if there's a Necromancer in the party and you're looking for undead?' Hey, if you're not gonna take this seriously, what if you're a Paladin and there's a plague that kills anyone who dons heavy armor?

So you're saying not only will this never happen, it's actually a homebrewed thing? We can also apply this to summoned creatures or helpful ones that are currently with the party. If I'm ever looking for anything that might be further away that's of the same creature type as one I can already see, the ability isn't worth anything.



- In your favorite terrain, you get to choose between 1 mile, 6 miles or anything in between ("up to"). So it's not a larger area unless you want to.

I totally misread that. That's on me.



Primeval Awareness requires knowing what you want to do for it to be any good. If you don't know, don't use it, and that's fine since the slots will be there anyway.

But that doesn't actually make it more useful than a ribbon. I can know what I'd want to do with it and still never have cause to use it. A class ability you can't/don't want to use is one that might as well not be there. And in the Ranger's case, that's one of several abilities that have plenty of chances to not be used.

I think the main problem with this ability is it doesn't improve. If you could at least get vague direction or number at later levels, it might be a more satisfying ability.

[GoodmanDL]

One of my main frustrations is the sheer volume of concentration spells on the Ranger list. It was a rare day when I used half the Ranger's spell slots. Paladin can at least burn the extra slots on smites.

[Kane0]

One of my main frustrations is the sheer volume of concentration spells on the Ranger list. It was a rare day when I used half the Ranger's spell slots. Paladin can at least burn the extra slots on smites.

If paladins can burn slots for damage, I thought it would be nice for rangers to get an ability that lets them burn slots for accuracy. Makes for a nice counterpart.

Edit: Something like +1d4 to hit for one attack for a 1st level slot, +1d6 for a 2nd, +1d8 for a 3rd, +1d10 for a 4th and +1d12 for a 5th.

[Mortis_Elrod]

If paladins can burn slots for damage, I thought it would be nice for rangers to get an ability that lets them burn slots for accuracy. Makes for a nice counterpart.

Edit: Something like +1d4 to hit for one attack for a 1st level slot, +1d6 for a 2nd, +1d8 for a 3rd, +1d10 for a 4th and +1d12 for a 5th.

I agree. That be much better. I hate the amount of concentration spells Ranger gets. I hate that ranger has such a small selection but are ‘general’ rather than ‘specialized’ , and I hate that the ranger spell list is mostly Druid spells, that you can’t change your terrain based off of where you currently are. You Can’t change anything, and I think that’s a huge disconnect with how it should play.


If Citan is right, then Rangers should be versatile consistently.
I’d rather deal less damage than DO less in more situations as Ranger.

[Naanomi]

Concentration is tight, and so are bonus actions. For a class that iconically dual wields, not a lot of real support for that in the spell list in part due to tight bonus actions

[Kane0]

Thank god for homebrew, eh?

[MeeposFire]

Concentration is tight, and so are bonus actions. For a class that iconically dual wields, not a lot of real support for that in the spell list in part due to tight bonus actions

Also think about how abilities like whirlwind attack do not work with two weapon fighting and are actually made worse due to two weapon fighting. The two weapon fighting rules sadly are not well made.

[Tanarii]

I focus on Natural Explorer (which is rather good in the 1-3 terrains it covers) because it is the unique tool in their toolbox for a class being sold as the masters of exploration pillar... I’m not seeing what else they have that really helps there in practical situations


Even if I do know where my adventures will take place when I start, it is rarely just three places. I agree Natural Explorer is one key component of their scout & survivalist abilities. And one thing the Revised Ranger UA did right was make the majority of benefits work in all natural terrains.

But I've also had players use their spells to good effect effect on that front. It's more niche, but I've also seem Hide in Plain Sight used a few times. Even Primeval awareness, in conjunction with tracking, to determine if they were (probably) following the right tracks, and their enemy was nearby. Although it would definitely be nice if it specified different groups of them in widely different directions of them were located separately, even if it still didn't give location or number.

Also, sorry my probably offensive and definitely snippy attitude earlier. I'm gonna use morning coffee and job stress as my excuse.

[Naanomi]

Also, sorry my probably offensive and definitely snippy attitude earlier. I'm gonna use morning coffee and job stress as my excuse.
Don’t stress it, I teach in a behavior classroom. You didn’t bite me or hurl racial epitaphs at me, you didn’t even get close to my threshold

And I think a compromise would be fine... pick up Natural Terrains at a much faster rate, and a capstone that you apply it to all terrains (even urban, planar, underwater, etc) would have done a lot to make the feature feel more useful

[Kane0]

Well thanks to this thread I've gone back and revised my ranger 'brew... again. Thankyou to those that contributed thoughts and ideas!

[Arkhios]

Hmm. This may be a bit controversial idea, but IIRC (AFB atm) Natural Explorer had a mechanic to expend spell slots for something relatively "useless".

What if you chose overall maybe two or three permanent favored enemies and terrains over the course of class progression, but with Natural Explorer, you could expend a spell slot to change one of those to your current target and/or terrain for a while.
Maybe 1 minute with 1st-level slot, 10 minutes with 2nd-level slot, 1 hour with 3rd-level slot, 8 hours with 4th-level slot, and 24 hours with 5th-level slot.

Imho, Favored Enemy granting straight up bonus languages feels strange, but I think that having a Comprehend Language equivalent effect related to your Favored Enemy type would make more sense. I feel that a Ranger shouldn't be more capable of having a conversation with their enemies, but rather be able to understand them, even from afar. In return, favored enemy could indeed convey a bonus to damage rolls. Either a flat +2/+4 bonus, or 1d6/2d6 extra damage, at 1st level/6th level, respectively.

[Naanomi]

Favored Enemy... because rangers are such loners they don’t have friends to do the help action with them

[Ulysses]

It's a combat-exploration hybrid, and by the time someone is using the word "underpowered" they're only talking about the combat pillar of play. Taken on a whole 'nilla Ranger is fine and played commonly.

[Wryte]

It's a combat-exploration hybrid, and by the time someone is using the word "underpowered" they're only talking about the combat pillar of play. Taken on a whole 'nilla Ranger is fine and played commonly.

The problem is that Rangers' unique interaction with the Exploration pillar is their effect on long distance travel... which is handwaved by most tables because it's almost never actually interesting or engaging to play out, and the Ranger's effect on it is to remove most of the things that could make it more engaging. Getting lost led you to a secret area that wasn't on the map? Nope, you've got a Ranger, you don't get lost. Running low on rations forces you to take a detour? Nope, you've got a Ranger, so you can forage like nuts. Rather than making travel more engaging, having a Ranger just further encourages the handwave. So without that, all that's left is the combat... where they tend to fall behind.

[Arkhios]

It's a combat-exploration hybrid, and by the time someone is using the word "underpowered" they're only talking about the combat pillar of play. Taken on a whole 'nilla Ranger is fine and played commonly.

Ranger is fine as it is. But, just fine is not enough for some people, so I suppose it's good for "sport" to try and make it a bit better in the combat pillar of play. Combat is still a vital part of the whole game (it's about 1/3 of the whole, after all), and if so many people feel that ranger is lacking in that part of the game, then there's got to be some truth in it. The complaints may be exaggerated, but it's probably not that far from reality.

[Luccan]

It's a combat-exploration hybrid, and by the time someone is using the word "underpowered" they're only talking about the combat pillar of play. Taken on a whole 'nilla Ranger is fine and played commonly.

With all I've said, I'll still play a Ranger. Just not for the base class (unless I could be sure those supposedly defining features would matter). The subclasses, particularly the Xanathar's ones, do interest me somewhat and give things I might want on a character. But while most other base classes have their own enticing features for me, Ranger seems to fall short.

[Drascin]

The problem is that Rangers' unique interaction with the Exploration pillar is their effect on long distance travel... which is handwaved by most tables because it's almost never actually interesting or engaging to play out, and the Ranger's effect on it is to remove most of the things that could make it more engaging. Getting lost led you to a secret area that wasn't on the map? Nope, you've got a Ranger, you don't get lost. Running low on rations forces you to take a detour? Nope, you've got a Ranger, so you can forage like nuts. Rather than making travel more engaging, having a Ranger just further encourages the handwave. So without that, all that's left is the combat... where they tend to fall behind.

Ranger's exploration abilities do have that problem somewhat. It's a problem we discussed a lot in Exalted forums and threads - how sometimes, the ability to just do something may be IC-strong, but leave the player with less chance to actually do their stuff onscreen. If you can just steal the king's crown and there is no chance anything exciting happens during the heist (with Exalted's propensity for "it just works" effects, this is likely), there's very little reason for the GM to not just go "alright, heist goes off without a hitch, now you have the crown, let's move on to next part". Ranger's abilities, when they're available, make it MORE likely that the party just handwaves the exploration, not less - "You set off to go from Generictown to Boringmedievalville. You can't get lost or fail to find food anyway, so you arrive safely five days later. What did you want to do in Boringmedievalville?" is perfectly reasonable, but it means that the Ranger is reduced to a footnote whose stuff all happens offscreen.

Some of them also happen to be something of an air-breathing mermaid thing for normal, non--theorycrafted play. If the party doesn't have a ranger, a fair chunk of what the ranger does will be allowed to anyone that succeeds on some half-decent Survival rolls, because campaigns want to keep moving. If the party does have a ranger, though, well, we have the problem that either only the ranger can do them, or his class features are lame.

And then there's the situational thing. A lot of campaigns travel around a lot. From the plains to the frozen wastes to the streets of Sharn, a lot of adventuring groups just keep moving around and the enmies they fight keep changing. Which means that either the GM sees the Ranger and figures he should lock down the moving around a bit, or a Ranger's environmental-and-enemy-locked abilities come online about 1/3rd of the time.

Note that, even with all this, Ranger is hardly useless. It holds up! It attacks well and has some useful stuff. It's just that most of the things that are unique to it are just... not exciting, and in some cases even a little self-defeating. You are going to be able to contribute plenty, but it's hard to not feel a little overshadowed when so much of your kit feels like hand-me-downs from other classes that get theirs earlier.

[Zalabim]

I know I've done all this before, but I've got time to kill so why not.

First off, the Ranger starts out and stands out for being the class with the worst level 1 features. They don't let you do anything. Level 2 is pretty bad too. There's nothing snappy like Divine Smite here. It's necessary to dig into the spell list and make tough decisions about what you will and will not be capable of with your two spells known. Then level 3 comes in and you get the choice between the oft-derided mechanics of the BM, or the Hunter, which is everything wrong with the old Favored Enemy boiled down and spread out over a subclass. It does avoid being restricted to enemy types, but the abilities still fail to be useful based on which encounter type you face. When your level 15 archery/hordebreaker/volley ranger needs to deal damage to a single target, your subclass abilities mean nothing and all you have is Archery FS and Extra Attack. A beast master ranger whose companion is knocked out is in the same position. One thing all the XGE subclasses have in common is that they're more universally applicable.

The Ranger relies on picking a good spell selection a lot more than people are usually comfortable with. Their spells aren't all bad, but their access to their spell list, through very few spells known, is quite simply the worst. They get some more or less good area effect spells of their own as well as quite a few good hand-me-downs from the druid list like Plant Growth and Conjure Animals. Their spells and skills are the only things that rely on Wisdom, so raising the stat can feel unrewarding, or leaving the stat lower can leave their spell list more underwhelming.

I feel like the PHB experience of levels 1-3 deserves extra special attention. Level 1, Favored Enemy gives advantage on tracking and recalling information about your favored enemy, plus an extra language known. This isn't the feature that denotes my hated enemy. This is clearly abilities meant to highlight that this is my best friend. The one type of creature in all the world that I like so much I've learned all I can about them.

Moving along, Natural Explorer is a whole host of features locked behind favored terrain. Some of them are great, like spending less time traveling or not (necessarily) being surprised when you're attacked while you're tracking. Some of them are bizarre, like finding more food (but not water) when foraging, or learning extra information from tracking that everyone should be able to get from their successful check already. On top of this is upgrading proficiency to expertise for a limited set of skills. It's like a less useful form of the Rogue's expertise. These abilities could be used, but aren't necessarily going to be, and even when they do get used, nothing is actively done by the player. Both these level 1 abilities being restricted to specific creatures/terrains make it really obvious that they're ribbons. It's a lot like the Paladin's Divine Sense or the extra damage Divine Smite does to Fiends and Undead. It's part of the class's flavor, but you could go a whole campaign without ever using it and be just fine, mechanically.

So level 2 must make up for this, right? Not really. The class adds a passive benefit from Fighting Style, and gains spellcasting. Two spells known. Two spells per day. Even if the spells were really highlighting the ranger-y-ness of the character right now, it's still ranger-ing only two times per day. Real spellcasters got a spell list, cantrips, and active class features all together to make them feel special.

So level 3 must be the bee's knees, and again I'd argue it's a letdown. A lot of people are immediately turned off of the beast master's mechanics, then give the Hunter a pass, but the Hunter is not ok. Or at least it doesn't make the ranger ok. Each of the Hunter's Prey options is a little niche. The Defensive Tactics have a stinker like "advantage on saves versus frightened" at the same time others get immunity, and give immunity to those around them. I contend that you could grant a Hunter all the choices for each of their pick one abilities and that would be better balanced. They only might need to be limited to one Hunter's Prey option per turn. Most of the abilities just naturally can't be used at the same time anyway. I think, for all the hate it gets, the Beast Master has a more reliable and interesting effect on the character than Hunter does. The Poisonous Snake is well-known for its power, but even the simple Wolf starts out with +6 to hit, 9 average damage, advantage from pack tactics, and attempting to knock prone with each hit. Compared to a Rapier and Shield dueling ranger's +5 to hit, 9.5 average damage, no advantage, and needing the shield master feat to attempt to knock prone, or archery with +7 to hit, 7.5 average damage, and nothing else, it opens up a lot more options for how you choose to fight.

[Citan]

Concentration is tight, and so are bonus actions. For a class that iconically dual wields, not a lot of real support for that in the spell list in part due to tight bonus actions


Also think about how abilities like whirlwind attack do not work with two weapon fighting and are actually made worse due to two weapon fighting. The two weapon fighting rules sadly are not well made.
Guys&girls, you just spit for the fun of spiting here as what you say is kinda groundless. ;)

1) I'd argue that the iconic Ranger is longbowman hunter first, dual-wielding second. YMMV though.
Also, you should actually be grateful of Whirlwind: you dont lose Extra Attack, so it's just another option to strike several targets when the situation calls for it, to get the same number of attacks yet free your bonus action. The only true regrettable thing of it is the "5 feet range" instead of "weapon reach", which stupidly bars all reach weapons and thus limits harshly the number of times Whirlwind shines.

2) You have several concentration spells, and several ways to use your bonus action, but that's true of many other classes as well.

3) Many of those Ranger concentration spells related to weapon attacks actually use bonus action only when you cast them, so it's really not a big deal: only Hunter's Mark eats readily into your action economy, and only if you use it on low-hp targets. Otherwise? Ranger is equal to Vengeance Paladin. Stat.

4) You also have many great non-concentration spells for you or your party, although I agree the low number of spell known makes it hard to balance until level 10 because there are so many good 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells that all are concentration.

That's why my opinion is that, while Ranger works fine single-class, cherry-picking a few levels of Druid somewhere along the road up to char 20 is a great way to boost your "Rangerness", at the only cost of capstone (which is lackluster, no argue on that) andpossibly one ASI (worth imo). Like just one level between Ranger 6 and Ranger 9. ;)
Exactly like how many people like a single dip in Life Cleric for some Bards or a starting Fighter dip for Wizards or a Hexblade Warlock dip for Sorcerers (although they work perfectly single-class). ;
Although Cleric is also a strong contender for small dips, may bring another kind of goodness. ^^

Anwyays in all cases it's just ultimately a matter of taste and how much versatility you fancy for your character, and how this versatility should be brought (skills/objects/spells). ;)

In practice, people that want to play characters with magic tend to do so to get more gameplay options streamlined into progression. I find this even truer for people who want to play gishes: martial abilities tend to all be minor variants of "hit things", so spellcasting seems the easiest and fastest way to get very different things to do.

So obviously Ranger may come as frustrating for some since only few spell known, especially compared to the other half-caster who can change at-will. But it's the same old song as with Sorcerer: it's perfectly fine as is, powerful and versatile, but its versatility relies more on wits and creativity in the use of those spells than on having many different descriptive effects to choose from (if I may, like the difference between Code Low of latin countries and Common Law of USA).
If you just miss a bit more "plug&play" versatility, one or a few dips or Ritual Caster will probably be enough.
If that would not be enough, then Sorcerer is just not the right caster for you. Nothing more. ;)
It's the same with Ranger as "martial candidate". :)

[Mortis_Elrod]

2) You have several concentration spells, and several ways to use your bonus action, but that's true of many other classes as well.


Ok but many other classes have a lot of class features that use bonus action, which compete with the spells. The ranger for most of its career only has spells, and a lot of them are concentration. Talking Base Ranger, subclasses may vary. I’m not convinced this is okay. Considering that the other classes are full casters or prepared . And AK/ET should have less casting ability than a half caster.



3) Many of those Ranger concentration spells related to weapon attacks actually use bonus action only when you cast them, so it's really not a big deal: only Hunter's Mark eats readily into your action economy, and only if you use it on low-hp targets. Otherwise? Ranger is equal to Vengeance Paladin. Stat.

Except the paladin can use slots to smite, or switch his spells. Or use channel divinity. And while channel divinity varies in subclasses all of the paladins get one and all of the bonus action ones are good for most situations and don’t require concentration.



4) You also have many great non-concentration spells for you or your party, although I agree the low number of spell known makes it hard to balance until level 10 because there are so many good 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells that all are concentration.

That's why my opinion is that, while Ranger works fine single-class, cherry-picking a few levels of Druid somewhere along the road up to char 20 is a great way to boost your "Rangerness", at the only cost of capstone (which is lackluster, no argue on that) andpossibly one ASI (worth imo). Like just one level between Ranger 6 and Ranger 9. ;)
Exactly like how many people like a single dip in Life Cleric for some Bards or a starting Fighter dip for Wizards or a Hexblade Warlock dip for Sorcerers (although they work perfectly single-class). ;
Although Cleric is also a strong contender for small dips, may bring another kind of goodness. ^^


These things aren’t the same. Hexblade works MORE than fine single classed and so does Bard. If the ranger had prepared casting it be so much easier. But it doesn’t so it’s decent spell list is out through a choke.



Anwyays in all cases it's just ultimately a matter of taste and how much versatility you fancy for your character, and how this versatility should be brought (skills/objects/spells). ;)

In practice, people that want to play characters with magic tend to do so to get more gameplay options streamlined into progression. I find this even truer for people who want to play gishes: martial abilities tend to all be minor variants of "hit things", so spellcasting seems the easiest and fastest way to get very different things to do.

So obviously Ranger may come as frustrating for some since only few spell known, especially compared to the other half-caster who can change at-will. But it's the same old song as with Sorcerer: it's perfectly fine as is, powerful and versatile, but its versatility relies more on wits and creativity in the use of those spells than on having many different descriptive effects to choose from (if I may, like the difference between Code Low of latin countries and Common Law of USA).
If you just miss a bit more "plug&play" versatility, one or a few dips or Ritual Caster will probably be enough.
If that would not be enough, then Sorcerer is just not the right caster for you. Nothing more. ;)
It's the same with Ranger as "martial candidate". :)

At least the Sorcerer has metamagic to make their spells known more useful.

If you want the Ranger to be versatile it should be than it needs to actually be versatile.” Giving out a bunch of options and then. Saying you can only have 2. Forever. “ is not a versatile character.


I’ve seen so many Paladins not even realize they can change their spell list and when pointed out, still don’t. While the Ranger at the table glares enviously, trying to decide what his character or party need not just for the day but for his career.


Sersiouly that doesn’t strike you as a design flaw that in practice the Paladin sees most of his slots as Smite Coins ready to spend anytime. He looks at his list and sees maybe a couple spells he MIGHT cast ever and just remembers them for later.

While the Ranger has to live with small amount he has and choose wisely and still suffer, or choose poorly making his body shrivel up and age in frustration.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm sorry but you just don't know your topic at all.


Guys&girls, you just spit for the fun of spiting here as what you say is kinda groundless. ;)

Why do you do this? You often have decent points, but when you start off with jerkery such as this it is nearly impossible to treat you like an adult. I don't get it. You were completely polite in your disagreement with me back in post #28:


Hmm, I'll have some counter-arguments here on the assertion that Ranger may be harder to pull off.

What changed?

[Zalabim]

If I can be honest for a moment, I have such a firmly formed opinion that Citan doesn't understand what he talks about that I just skip over his longer posts. It's not worth my time to correct them.

[Specter]

I know I've done all this before, but I've got time to kill so why not.

First off, the Ranger starts out and stands out for being the class with the worst level 1 features. They don't let you do anything. Level 2 is pretty bad too. There's nothing snappy like Divine Smite here. It's necessary to dig into the spell list and make tough decisions about what you will and will not be capable of with your two spells known. Then level 3 comes in and you get the choice between the oft-derided mechanics of the BM, or the Hunter, which is everything wrong with the old Favored Enemy boiled down and spread out over a subclass. It does avoid being restricted to enemy types, but the abilities still fail to be useful based on which encounter type you face. When your level 15 archery/hordebreaker/volley ranger needs to deal damage to a single target, your subclass abilities mean nothing and all you have is Archery FS and Extra Attack. A beast master ranger whose companion is knocked out is in the same position. One thing all the XGE subclasses have in common is that they're more universally applicable.

1) Who even cares about level 1?
2) You realize all of these complaints apply to Paladins either in the same degree or in reverse?
- Paladins at level 1 get Divine Sense (whatever) and Lay on Hands for 5HP per long rest (W O W).
- Paladins can prepare more spells with a good CHA, but also get only two smite slots for a long rest. That's 4d8 a day. A Ranger casting Hunter's Mark can get much more than that, even with one combat in the day.
- When your level 15 megasmite/nova/GWM Paladin needs to do anything other than dealing damage to a single target, there's someone else to do that job better.

[Tanarii]

Favored Enemy... because rangers are such loners they don’t have friends to do the help action with them
Most recall info checks should be group checks, not helped checks. The group is discussing potentially disagreeing information, and may come to the wrong consensus. :smallamused: But note that actually is better than the Help action if it's a group check with only two PCs. The ranger checks with advantage, the non-ranger without, and if either passes in a two person group check they pass. When three or more Pcs are in the discussion it could well be worse, but that follows from the fiction.

Also this requires communication between the PCs. Unless they have a telepathic bond, that's often an issue. Especially during combat or if stealthing.

For tracking, note that for a non-ranger to help a ranger, the non-PC helping will be automatically surprised by enemies and fail to notice any threats.



First off, the Ranger starts out and stands out for being the class with the worst level 1 features. They don't let you do anything.

{snip longer post}


If I can be honest for a moment, I have such a firmly formed opinion that Citan doesn't understand what he talks about that I just skip over his longer posts. It's not worth my time to correct them.
The irony of you saying this after a post indicating you don't understand Ranger level 1 class features made the forums explode a little. :smallbiggrin:

[Wryte]

1) Who even cares about level 1?
2) You realize all of these complaints apply to Paladins either in the same degree or in reverse?
- Paladins at level 1 get Divine Sense (whatever) and Lay on Hands for 5HP per long rest (W O W).
- Paladins can prepare more spells with a good CHA, but also get only two smite slots for a long rest. That's 4d8 a day. A Ranger casting Hunter's Mark can get much more than that, even with one combat in the day.
- When your level 15 megasmite/nova/GWM Paladin needs to do anything other than dealing damage to a single target, there's someone else to do that job better.

1st level Divine Sense is better than 3rd level Primeval Awareness because it actually tells you useful information about the creatures you're detecting; specifically, where and what they are. It also doesn't burn one of your limited spell slots.

5 HP worth of Lay on Hands is 5 dying party members I can bring back.

Smiting doesn't cost concentration. Hunter's Mark does.

[Citan]

Why do you do this? You often have decent points, but when you start off with jerkery such as this it is nearly impossible to treat you like an adult. I don't get it. You were completely polite in your disagreement with me back in post #28:

What changed?
Simply that I'm a bit fed up with people always saying that a class is bad or features are useless simply because it doesn't fit their taste, without actually bringing any mathematical argument or in-situation comparison or taking into account the fact that it may simply be undermined by their DM's management style.

Several people in the past have made the demonstration already: whatever archetype you pick, Ranger is fine power-wise. Of course between optimized builds, it won't equal a Fighter in sustained damage, or Paladin in nova damage. But it does get many tools that no other martial has.

So the only thing left is to decide whether the way it plays suits one's taste, which is very different topic.
"I don't like this class" > I don't have any problem with that.
"I find this spell useless" > Same.
"This class is bad" > Here I have a problem.

Exactly the same problem that comes around regulargly with Sorcerer ("god, I have so few spell known"), Warlock ("I'm so frustrated with having only two slots per rest") or 4E Monk ("My Ki pool empties itself too fast"), or Beastmaster Ranger ("I feel I'm wasting a half-brain to control a robot").
It just means that for whatever reason/cause (DM bias, or inadequation with campaign, or you just don't manage to fully exploit its abilities, or you just don't like how the mechanics translate into results), that class and you aren't good matches, either that one time or in general.

For example, if you feel that in your games picking a Ranger would a waste of all exploration features, then it's a "problem" that comes from the DM, not the class. It does not mean that the DM is bad, just that it's not his (or the group's) preferred kind of game.
Same as having a Warlock or Monk player with a party of otherwise fullcasters, in a game when you get just 2 or 3 encounters a day but rarely short rest. That player will be frustrated for good reason.

If I can be honest for a moment, I have such a firmly formed opinion that Citan doesn't understand what he talks about that I just skip over his longer posts. It's not worth my time to correct them.
Thanks for making me laugh. ;)

I'll also keep this to re-use, it's a nice and impressively condescending way to mask own's lazyness or lack of arguments behind personal attack (well, "nice" is probably not the best word, but it sure does the work when trying to shut off a discussion).

But I get it, you probably stand against me that I debunked some of your arguments in other threads. That's your own choice, just know that I'm always ready to have a discussion as long as difference between taste and facts is kept. :)

[Tanarii]

1st level Divine Sense is better than 3rd level Primeval Awareness because it actually tells you useful information about the creatures you're detecting; specifically, where and what they are. It also doesn't burn one of your limited spell slots.But it also only works within 60ft and doesn't work if they are behind cover. That's a bit different from 1 mile or up to 6 miles, and through any cover.

I agree that a 'general direction' (something like front/left/right/behind you) and 'general distance' (Close within 1/2 mile, Far up to 1 mile, Very Far up to 6 miles) would be extremely helpful for Primeval Awareness.

(My overall position is some tweaking of the Ranger abilities, especially the non-combat ones, certainly can help make them a little sweeter. I don't think the class is underpowered overall or in that area specifically. But these tweaks won't overpower the Ranger overall or in that area specifically either.)

[Specter]

1st level Divine Sense is better than 3rd level Primeval Awareness because it actually tells you useful information about the creatures you're detecting; specifically, where and what they are. It also doesn't burn one of your limited spell slots.

5 HP worth of Lay on Hands is 5 dying party members I can bring back.

Smiting doesn't cost concentration. Hunter's Mark does.

1) What Tanarii said. If your enemies are within 60ft. and not behind cover, in 90% of cases you've already figured out whether they're are fiends or undead. 'But what if it's some important NPC in disguise?' a) That's even more situational than what we were saying about Primeval Awareness, and b) if he's really important and the DM knows what you're playing, you won't be breaking the plot with it.

2) If there are 5 party members going down in one day at level 1 and coming back with 1HP, you have bigger problems than that.

3) Concentration is only worth mentioning after your first attacks, and if someone lands damage on you. If you have two attacks, you've already dealt 2d6dmg with a 1st-level slot, which is by all useful measures the same as one smite.
Or if you want, let's put it differently: if you cast Hail of Thorns on a foe that has an enemy adjacent, you can deal an extra 1d10 on each. That's a ranged smite, by all means. If there's more than one enemy around the attacked, it's better.

Just the fact that this thread has devolved into endless nitpicking over 2 points of damage, or about how good a situational ribbon feature is, prove that there's nothing underpowered about the Ranger, even if you remove Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy altogether.

[Tanarii]

Just the fact that this thread has devolved into endless nitpicking over 2 points of damage, or about how good a situational ribbon feature is, prove that there's nothing underpowered about the Ranger, even if you remove Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy altogether.This I disagree with. If you completely remove Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer the Ranger will be significantly underpowered at their primary function. They are not Ribbon abilities.

[Coidzor]

Just the fact that this thread has devolved into endless nitpicking over 2 points of damage, or about how good a situational ribbon feature is, prove that there's nothing underpowered about the Ranger, even if you remove Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy altogether.

To be fair, we can devolve into nit-picking on any kind of tangent, so that generally doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

Many, many threads have been derailed simply because one person kept bringing up something only tangentially related to the subject at hand.


Ranger is fine as it is. But, just fine is not enough for some people, so I suppose it's good for "sport" to try and make it a bit better in the combat pillar of play. Combat is still a vital part of the whole game (it's about 1/3 of the whole, after all), and if so many people feel that ranger is lacking in that part of the game, then there's got to be some truth in it. The complaints may be exaggerated, but it's probably not that far from reality.

Combat is often more than a strict 1/3 of the whole, especially since things are weighted heavily towards combat being the main way to lose the game.

So if it falls flat in combat, either by being too weak, feeling too weak, or just not feeling fun, then the class has failed, either in general or for that specific player.

[Specter]

This I disagree with. If you completely remove Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer the Ranger will be significantly underpowered at their primary function. They are not Ribbon abilities.

Underpowered in exploration, obviously, but still dealing good damage and solving problems with some spells.

[Naanomi]

A ranger without Natural Explorer and Racial Enemy brings basically nothing to the table that a fighter/rogue/Druid multiclass wouldn’t do better. The narrow scope and all-or-nothing nature of these unique ranger abilities is a big part of the problem... they may not lead to the Ranger being underpowered, but they too often lead to the ranger being underfun

As a player who had a dead beastmaster pet at the bottom of a crypt not fighting my racial enemy for a long period of a campaign, the ease at which a ranger can be unfun is more important than the numbers that would indicate they are underpowered

[EvilAnagram]

Combat is often more than a strict 1/3 of the whole, especially since things are weighted heavily towards combat being the main way to lose the game.

So if it falls flat in combat, either by being too weak, feeling too weak, or just not feeling fun, then the class has failed, either in general or for that specific player.
This is a good post. It's asking concrete questions that really matter, slet's look at them:

Is the Ranger weak in combat? A lot of people seem to think that decent single-target damage and at-will AoE damage makes it pretty strong. Plus, there are builds that are very strong.

Does it feel weak? Let's talk about this. What makes it feel weak to some players, when others think it fills its niche well?

[Tanarii]

Underpowered in exploration, obviously, but still dealing good damage and solving problems with some spells.Being good at exploration, scouting and survivalist is the primary focus of a Ranger. So that's a problem.

Being 'good' at damage dealing is something every class does in 5e. The Ranger actually has an okay splash of combat as their secondary function.

I agree they would still have spells, which contribute to their problem solving in various areas, including exploration.


The narrow scope and all-or-nothing nature of these unique ranger abilities is a big part of the problem... they may not lead to the Ranger being underpowered, but they too often lead to the ranger being underfunYeah, a statement that rangers are unfun if they can't do their exploration / scouting thing isn't far off base. ie if the campaign is dungeon/urban, or ignores those aspects completely, focusing on combat & social encounters only.

Totally agree the narrow scope part is also problematic if you don't know the campaigns primary terrain and foe for the current Tier of play.

[MeeposFire]

Guys&girls, you just spit for the fun of spiting here as what you say is kinda groundless. ;)

1) I'd argue that the iconic Ranger is longbowman hunter first, dual-wielding second. YMMV though.
Also, you should actually be grateful of Whirlwind: you dont lose Extra Attack, so it's just another option to strike several targets when the situation calls for it, to get the same number of attacks yet free your bonus action. The only true regrettable thing of it is the "5 feet range" instead of "weapon reach", which stupidly bars all reach weapons and thus limits harshly the number of times Whirlwind shines.





Longbow first for a melee ranger? Are you serious? IF we are talking about whirlwind then we are talking about a melee ranger so no longbow is not the iconic weapon for them. You then go off and say I should be grateful for whirlwind attack and then list exactly why I should not be grateful for it.

Whirlwind attack does not remove extra attack from the class but it does eliminate its use essentially for the round and because of that it means the two compete with each other for use. This means that in order for whirlwind attack to be used at a benefit you must have at least 3 targets within 5 feet or 4 if you dual wield. That is not a situation that comes up that often and on top of that usually spreading out your damage is a weaker option than doing more to one target to drop it faster. This makes whirlwind attack extremely niche because way more often than not you are better off just using extra attack and choosing which targets you want to hit.

Also consider that level 11 is when most weapon damage centric classes get a nice damage boost. Fighters get extra attack, paladins get imp smite, hexblades can get necrotic damage. Rangers get a situational ability which could be fine if the situation was common enough or if it was good enough on its own to make it worth it but whirlwind attack gets double slammed for being too situational and frankly not effective enough when its situation does come up to make it truly effective. One attack on a target at level 11 limited to targets within 5 feet is not that great or special.


While I do think calls of rangers being under powerd is overblown the idea that rangers should be grateful for something like whirlwind attack at level 11 is just ridiculous to me. The only thing I think it does right is that it keeps the odd tradition of game designers for D&D of way inflating the value of something called whirlwind attack and thus make it seem something good while it actually being terrible (seriously it was terrible in 3e but the way they built it you would think it was something worth having).

[djreynolds]

The DM sets the tone, even official campaigns are far from scripted.

I love to add in chases. It adds an extra layer of realism. Not all enemy fight to the death, sometimes you have to chase down a scout.

Players choosing to play are either new, "I'm Legolas" types

Or they are experienced enough to understand the challenge.

And rangers are easily multiclassed. It is what it is, but a level rogue opens up extra skills/expertise

The skilled feat is actually not a bad feat, as any intelligence or wisdom skills are effectively doubled in their favor terrain.

Also, when DMing, give some latitude with spells known. It's not game changing and it allows everyone to see underused spells in play.

And remember, getting there is half the fun. Plan out travel, challenge players. Supply, logistics, travel is a real function in business and in armies.

[Tanarii]

Iconic ranger weapons come from the AD&D Unearthed Arcana rules, and were:
A bow or crossbow
A dagger or knife
A spear or axe
A sword

IIRC they were explained as huntsmen weapons or some such.

2e is what made TWF and archery their specialty. Although its understandable give their focus on having 1 archery weapon and axe/dagger combo.

[Drascin]

I agree they would still have spells, which contribute to their problem solving in various areas, including exploration.

Yeah, a statement that rangers are unfun if they can't do their exploration / scouting thing isn't far off base. ie if the campaign is dungeon/urban, or ignores those aspects completely, focusing on combat & social encounters only.

It doesn't even need to be urban to make the ranger feel like a lot of their abilities got hit. Just happen to move into a nonfavored terrain. Which is very easy, a Ranger gets to have like two favored terrains for the majority of their career (since my experience is that campaigns that go above, like, level 12 are extremely rare).

When the class already feels like it's about 75% made of hand-me-downs from Druid and Fighter, getting a chunk of your somewhat unique features put on standby because the party decided to move into the mountains to track the king's assassin feels like absolute crap.

[Tanarii]

It doesn't even need to be urban to make the ranger feel like a lot of their abilities got hit. Just happen to move into a nonfavored terrain. Which is very easy, a Ranger gets to have like two favored terrains for the majority of their career (since my experience is that campaigns that go above, like, level 12 are extremely rare). If you hadn't cut out the rest of my post ...

Totally agree the narrow scope part is also problematic if you don't know the campaigns primary terrain and foe for the current Tier of play.

Edit: Addendum to that would be: narrow scope is also problematic if your DM isn't letting you judging terrains on a macro scale. For example, if you look at FR Maps, typically there are only 2 terrains in an entire region, one base terrain and mountains. SCAG's North is pretty heavily terrain-d for FR, in that it not only has Forest and Mountains, but also Swamps (the Moors). You have to wander out to the North to get to Arctic / Mountains, sail West to get to Islands (Coast), across the mountains to the East to get to Desert, or depart to the South to get to Plains.

[Specter]

This is a good post. It's asking concrete questions that really matter, slet's look at them:

Is the Ranger weak in combat? A lot of people seem to think that decent single-target damage and at-will AoE damage makes it pretty strong. Plus, there are builds that are very strong.

Does it feel weak? Let's talk about this. What makes it feel weak to some players, when others think it fills its niche well?

This is a good reset to general questions.

1) No. If you do nothing but Hunter's Mark and attack, you can get damage as good as a Fighter until level 11. After that, it depends on your subclass: Hunter is the best against hordes, Gloom Stalker is gold with Sharpshooter/GWM, and PHB Beastmaster needs some minmaxing with giant snakes and such.

Also, depending on your spell selection, you can be better against certain things. With a general list like Absorb Elements, Silence and Lightning Arrow, you can last longer against certain enemies, shut down spellcasters and smite with your bow, for example.

2) It feels weak if you compare them to other classes in their niche. They'll never have as much nova as Paladins, or be able to last without resources as a Fighter.

Beastmaster needs a spell like 'Revive Beast' or something to ensure they're never out of a subclass feature.

[EvilAnagram]

This is a good reset to general questions.

1) No. If you do nothing but Hunter's Mark and attack, you can get damage as good as a Fighter until level 11. After that, it depends on your subclass: Hunter is the best against hordes, Gloom Stalker is gold with Sharpshooter/GWM, and PHB Beastmaster needs some minmaxing with giant snakes and such.

Also, depending on your spell selection, you can be better against certain things. With a general list like Absorb Elements, Silence and Lightning Arrow, you can last longer against certain enemies, shut down spellcasters and smite with your bow, for example.

2) It feels weak if you compare them to other classes in their niche. They'll never have as much nova as Paladins, or be able to last without resources as a Fighter.

Beastmaster needs a spell like 'Revive Beast' or something to ensure they're never out of a subclass feature.
Good points.

I think the beast is one area I feel like they dropped the ball. The revised version of the class solves several of the problems by increasing the rate at which the beast gains HP and making it simple for the ranger to revive his companion. That's an elegant solution, really.

[Arkhios]

Good points.

I think the beast is one area I feel like they dropped the ball. The revised version of the class solves several of the problems by increasing the rate at which the beast gains HP and making it simple for the ranger to revive his companion. That's an elegant solution, really.

Technically there's nothing fundamentally wrong with PHB beast companion's hit points, because 'class level × 4' is roughly the same as 'class level × 1d8 (avg. 4.5 always rounded down)'. The problem is, however, that this simplified HP doesn't care about the beast's Constitution modifier which makes some of them relatively weak. But only relatively. The PHB version of the companion is more simple than the Revised, in most parts, but it becomes contrived to use in combat, due to the lack of 'own initiative' (and I'm not talking about initiative check) whenever the beast isn't commanded to attack. Obviously, simple is better because it makes the ranger's turn faster, but there should be some passive benefit from the beast whenever it's not attacking for the beast to remain meaningful part of your archetype at all times (more than just an extra road-block with hit points). Plus, admittedly, the beast going down too fast, and permanently most likely, is a huge issue which could be handled with relative ease.

[Zalabim]

1) Who even cares about level 1?
2) You realize all of these complaints apply to Paladins either in the same degree or in reverse?
- Paladins at level 1 get Divine Sense (whatever) and Lay on Hands for 5HP per long rest (W O W).
- Paladins can prepare more spells with a good CHA, but also get only two smite slots for a long rest. That's 4d8 a day. A Ranger casting Hunter's Mark can get much more than that, even with one combat in the day.
- When your level 15 megasmite/nova/GWM Paladin needs to do anything other than dealing damage to a single target, there's someone else to do that job better.
- Lay on hands isn't much, but it's more than nothing.
- A ranger casting Hunter's Mark can also get much less than that, since you have to maintain concentration, use a bonus action, and then hit to get any damage out of it. Divine Smite always works if you use it without wasting anything if you don't.
- The fully GWM speced paladin (which isn't the best way to optimize a paladin, but whatever) is still getting more benefits towards handling a ranged horde than the fully archery speced hunter ranger is getting towards melee single-target, and other options besides.

The irony of you saying this after a post indicating you don't understand Ranger level 1 class features made the forums explode a little. :smallbiggrin:
Ranger's level 1 class features are ribbons because of their limited nature and even if you get to use them, are entirely passive. Even if they get applied, it isn't something special you do, like Rage, Bardic Inspiration, Spellcasting, many Domain features, Second Wind, Martial Arts, Lay on Hands, Sneak Attack (this one's iffy), some Sorcerous Origins, and some Patron Features. In other words, literally every other class in the game has at least the option (by the nature of choosing spells) of a combat applicable class feature at level 1. I suppose facts can be ironic now.

This I disagree with. If you completely remove Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer the Ranger will be significantly underpowered at their primary function. They are not Ribbon abilities.
They are indisputably ribbon features because of their limited nature. Some people would consider them ribbons even if their applications weren't limited and they were maybe renamed Expert Tracker and Well-Traveled because the situations they cover aren't going to matter in every campaign, and the way they cover those situations isn't interactive. Ideally, having a ranger with the forest terrain means you can take the shortcut through the forest, and taking the shortcut through the forest means something. Usually it means nothing and even if it's acknowledged, it's in a way that actually means nothing.

To explain what I mean, in the D&D arcade game Shadow Over Mystara, in the OD&D race-as-class style, there's a part where you can take a shortcut through the forest if you have an Elf in the party, and it takes you to a different stage than if you take the Dwarf only shortcut, and there's a third option for neither. In Pillars of Eternity, where your choice of character and choices in-character supposedly matter, there's an NPC early in the game who'll say it's rare to see (the game's equivalent to) halflings around here.

[Tanarii]

Clearly I'm going to have to start a threat titled "people keep using ribbon as a meaningless word" :smallamused:

Ribbon doesn't mean "passive feature improving something the PC is doing, as opposed to a special thing the player declares the use of" nor even "doesn't use a resource". Nor, despite what you and many others seem to think, does it mean "not a combat feature" nor "it's weak because I ignore the exploration pillar and all related rules".

A ribbon is a tiny, not particularly noticible benefit. And Natural Explorer does not provide minor benefits. It provided qualitative improvements to the Ranger's primary function.

[Specter]

Good points.

I think the beast is one area I feel like they dropped the ball. The revised version of the class solves several of the problems by increasing the rate at which the beast gains HP and making it simple for the ranger to revive his companion. That's an elegant solution, really.

Yeah. I don't like Revised Ranger because it feels like a lot of easy ways out to try to make a combat machine instead of a woodsman, but Beastmaster is finally back on track.


- Lay on hands isn't much, but it's more than nothing.
- A ranger casting Hunter's Mark can also get much less than that, since you have to maintain concentration, use a bonus action, and then hit to get any damage out of it. Divine Smite always works if you use it without wasting anything if you don't.
- The fully GWM speced paladin (which isn't the best way to optimize a paladin, but whatever) is still getting more benefits towards handling a ranged horde than the fully archery speced hunter ranger is getting towards melee single-target, and other options besides.

Ranger's level 1 class features are ribbons because of their limited nature and even if you get to use them, are entirely passive. Even if they get applied, it isn't something special you do, like Rage, Bardic Inspiration, Spellcasting, many Domain features, Second Wind, Martial Arts, Lay on Hands, Sneak Attack (this one's iffy), some Sorcerous Origins, and some Patron Features. In other words, literally every other class in the game has at least the option (by the nature of choosing spells) of a combat applicable class feature at level 1. I suppose facts can be ironic now.

They are indisputably ribbon features because of their limited nature. Some people would consider them ribbons even if their applications weren't limited and they were maybe renamed Expert Tracker and Well-Traveled because the situations they cover aren't going to matter in every campaign, and the way they cover those situations isn't interactive. Ideally, having a ranger with the forest terrain means you can take the shortcut through the forest, and taking the shortcut through the forest means something. Usually it means nothing and even if it's acknowledged, it's in a way that actually means nothing.

Most of the points you're making have already been addressed.

- 'Attacking twice and hoping to crit for a third' is not dealing with hordes, it's just doing what you always do. No class is worse at fighting several enemies than Paladin, especially at-will.

- Between getting more damage, getting the same damage and getting less damage, Hunter's Mark is on par with smites. If it isn't, cast something else, like Hail of Thorns, or Absorb Elements, or whatever. If you can't find good stuff in the Ranger spell list, you shouldn't play one.

- Ribbons, as generally accepted, is stuff like Heart of the Storm (suppressing rain within 30ft. of you) or Thieves' Cant (which is more flavorful than useful). An ability that is passive, or not always useful, is not a ribbon, otherwise Turn Undead and Countercharm are totally ribbons.

- You seem to think abilities have to be active to be good or fun, i.e. the kind of people who hate Champions. I require proof on that. Don't worry, you won't find it.

- Demanding your abilities work in every situation is stupid. I can make a rogue who expertises Investigation and Thieves' Tools and still not find a single trap/locked door in a session. I can make a charismatic con man Bard with expertise and a spell selection to match and find out it's a dungeon crawl with none of that.
When I build a ranger, I think 'I want to be the expert at finding dragons and navigating through forests'. Or whatever. If there are no dragons or forests in the campaign, I adapt and pick other stuff to be an expert at.

[Alpha115]

one issue I have with the ranger is that they are not prepared spell casters like druids. Its a minor pain, but I feel it limits the rangers utility a bit. Granted the extra spells from xanathars helps mitigate that issue for me. I personally like elements of the revised ranger but I see that revised version of the ranger as being too strong.

[Willie the Duck]

one issue I have with the ranger is that they are not prepared spell casters like druids. Its a minor pain, but I feel it limits the rangers utility a bit. Granted the extra spells from xanathars helps mitigate that issue for me. I personally like elements of the revised ranger but I see that revised version of the ranger as being too strong.

How does having more good spells to choose from, but know more spells known, help this? Or am I misunderstanding?

[Naanomi]

How does having more good spells to choose from, but know more spells known, help this? Or am I misunderstanding?
Presumably that the subclasses in XGtE all get bonus spells

[Specter]

Ranger needs more spells known, 15 to be exact. Learning less spells than Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights is a travesty, and whoever designed that in Wizards should be fired without pay.

[Kane0]

15, eh? How about prepare half level + wis in the case?

Question for the forums: does ranger need a level 1-2 damage boost ability, like sneak attack or similar? Or is access to Hunter’s Mark enough? Does having both make it too good in regards to damage output?

[Waazraath]

- 'Attacking twice and hoping to crit for a third' is not dealing with hordes, it's just doing what you always do. No class is worse at fighting several enemies than Paladin, especially at-will.


In understand most of the points you make, and don't feel really strong about the discussion, but reading this, I couldn't help thinking:
1) rogue says "hi"
2) all pally's have Destructive Wave; depending on subclass, there's Moonbeam, Hypnotic Pattern, Flamestrike...
3) when only talking about "at will" how can a bard, cleric, wizard, or any class that only does casting and no melee can be worse than a paladin??? Cantrips will be weaker than melee (bar the Warlock's EB)

[Specter]

15, eh? How about prepare half level + wis in the case?

Question for the forums: does ranger need a level 1-2 damage boost ability, like sneak attack or similar? Or is access to Hunter’s Mark enough? Does having both make it too good in regards to damage output?

I rather enjoy learning spells as opposed to preparing them: it's less optimal, but it fits the Ranger flavor better IMO, and it lets me avoid too many difficult decisions on a day-by-day basis.

If you boost Ranger's damage to the point where it's better than an optimized Fighter's, there will be no reason to play a Fighter.


In understand most of the points you make, and don't feel really strong about the discussion, but reading this, I couldn't help thinking:
1) rogue says "hi"
2) all pally's have Destructive Wave; depending on subclass, there's Moonbeam, Hypnotic Pattern, Flamestrike...
3) when only talking about "at will" how can a bard, cleric, wizard, or any class that only does casting and no melee can be worse than a paladin??? Cantrips will be weaker than melee (bar the Warlock's EB)

1) True enough, unless you count Arcane Trickster, who can easily get his hands on AoE.
2) They have Destructive Wave at level 17. That's not a lifetime ability, and most campaigns don't even reach that level, published or not. Moonbeam is a 5-foot radius. Wait, what Paladin learns Hypnotic Pattern?
3) Some casters have 'AoE' cantrips like Sword Burst, Word of Radiance, etc.

[Waazraath]

1) True enough, unless you count Arcane Trickster, who can easily get his hands on AoE.
2) They have Destructive Wave at level 17. That's not a lifetime ability, and most campaigns don't even reach that level, published or not. Moonbeam is a 5-foot radius. Wait, what Paladin learns Hypnotic Pattern?
3) Some casters have 'AoE' cantrips like Sword Burst, Word of Radiance, etc.

True all. It's always more nuanced when you go into detail. Oath of redemption has Hypnotic Pattern, also Sleep, btw. Conquest has other area spells, like Cloudkill and Fear. Moonbeam: even with 5ft radius, that's blasting 4 critters/round; more than a pally will hit with swinging a sword.

[Mortis_Elrod]

15, eh? How about prepare half level + wis in the case?

Question for the forums: does ranger need a level 1-2 damage boost ability, like sneak attack or similar? Or is access to Hunter’s Mark enough? Does having both make it too good in regards to damage output?

Prepared is always better and easier to change than more spells known. Prepared fits better with ranger fluff imo and known.

Ranger doesn't need more damage. Needs to be able to adapt to different situations. So more utility and control would be more its thing, with more consistent things vs nova things. Let the paladins nova, let the ranger sustain utility and control.

[Dr. Cliché]

Perhaps part of the issue is that the current Ranger seems rather disingenuous. In that many of its abilities don't do what their names actually imply or what would seem logical for them.

For example, I think it's reasonable to say that when most people hear the term 'Favoured Enemy' they think of enemies that the character is especially good at fighting. Hence, the obvious implication is that the Ranger will get some sort of combat bonus against them. And he does... at lv20.

Until then, the ranger has advantage on tracking them and on recalling information about them (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Bear_Lore). That's it. Oh, and he knows their language. I guess he's also good at negotiating with them or something?

Argue amongst yourselves as to whether this ability is useful, but it really seems like something that's been misnamed. And yes, I'm well aware that Rangers have traditionally had a Favoured Enemy ability - except that it was a combat ability (and one from the get-go, not just when you reach the end of your career). So we're still not doing well in the consistency department (and technically the bonus to damage comes from a different ability altogether).


Similarly, Hide in Plain Sight loses it's appeal when you realise that it should have been called 'Hide in Plain Sight Eventually'. I guess it's useful for all those rangers eager to reenact that one scene from Hunger Games. :smallwink:


Another weird one is that the Hunter subclass has two abilities that are basically tautologous ('Colossus Slayer' and 'Giant Killer'), yet with completely different effects.


And then of course we have the Beast Master, who appears to have less control over his pet than a non-Ranger would have over a generic attack-dog. One might think that once you tell your pet to attack someone, it would at least continue doing so until you tell it to stop. But no. Apparently your pet bear or whatever will bite an enemy once and then immediately stop just in case you've changed your mind. What's more, your special animal bond apparently makes it harder for you to give your animal commands. Virtually every other pet or summon is commanded via a bonus action, or even for free. Yet your animal apparently needs you to use your action to provide it with a map to its target or something. :smallconfused:

Again, I'm not saying that the ranger is necessarily underpowered because of this - just that it makes it feel really clunky and unnatural.

[djreynolds]

Obviously the paladin is better written, why there isn't a ranger of vengeance is beyond me?

But the reality is you can design a ranger how you want, it may not be optimized.

The class itself is only dependent on dexterity if you plan to multiclass, still need wisdom for spells.

You don't have to be a classic stealthy scout, same as dex-based paladin. I have had players giving up a skill at creation for heavy armor proficiency.

[Kane0]

Alrighty, so a small list of potential improvements we could make:

- Some sort of active ability at level 1-2
- Address the binary nature of natural explorer and favored enemy
- Additional spells known, or change to spells prepped
- Reduce possible over-reliance on bonus actions and concentration
- More reasons to stay after level 5
- Fix up the features stolen from other classes, or weaker versions of (Hide in Plain Sight, Vanish)
- Clunky beastmaster companion
- Improve hunter features slightly to better match up against Xanathar's subclasses

Did I miss anything?

[Naanomi]

Did I miss anything?
Drastically Improve level 20 capstone

[EvilAnagram]

Drastically Improve level 20 capstone

Disappointing capstone are a theme in 5e. If anything, they should change the barbarian capstone to be proficiency with leatherworking tools.

[Naanomi]

Disappointing capstone are a theme in 5e. If anything, they should change the barbarian capstone to be proficiency with leatherworking tools.
I would argue none moreso than the ranger; but you have a point. It is just an especially poignant disappointment on a progression of many levels that already feel practically dead

[Kane0]

Well, I think i’ve addressed the majority of the listed concerns here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?462877-Ranger-Rework-v1-2), its been through some iterations but critique and opinions are of course welcome.

[strangebloke]

Obviously the paladin is better written, why there isn't a ranger of vengeance is beyond me?

Vengeance paladin is a ranger-flavored paladin.

We don't have a paladin-flavored ranger... yet. We might eventually. There are a lot of themes that various classes get a version of. Shadows, Storms, Divine flavor, arcane flavor, or martial flavor, if the base class doesn't have one of those, there's a good chance they have a subclass that fits that theme.

[Asmotherion]

Mechanics wise, it is underwealming, and lore-wise, it can be replicated easily by other Backround-Class-Subcass combinations to have a better result.

I won't talk about combat too much. A character can be awesome wile being lame at combat. I'll briefly mention the Nature Palladin (similar combat mechanics).

The Arcane Trickster, for example if you want a guy who can cast a few spells, be amazing with Rappiers/Finess Weapons and Bows, Hide in nature to attack preciesly (sneack attack), and know a lot of things about nature (Expertese in Survival and Animal Handling makes them even better rangers than actual rangers) covers all of the ranger's roles pretty well. You can even get them an "animal companion" by getting "Find Familiar" on their spell list. Finally, making them wood elves for example would give them an improved movement speed and a buff to their two major stats.

Or the Eldritch Knight, specialising appropriatelly.

The thing with the Ranger is, wile all classes have something special that defines them for what they are, the Ranger lacks that. Remove the Animal Companion from him, and he is like a generic Fighter who is not even that good at fighting. All he is good at is hunting. Hunting humanoids is kinda already covered by a lot of archetypes (Ninja, Assasin etc), but I suppose it is kind of a theme (a head-hunter or bounty-hunter I suppose?). On the other hand, you can be a monster hunter, though how effective you'll be as a Dragon, Giant or Ghost hunter is a matter of debate. You're free to try though.

[djreynolds]

Vengeance paladin is a ranger-flavored paladin.

We don't have a paladin-flavored ranger... yet. We might eventually. There are a lot of themes that various classes get a version of. Shadows, Storms, Divine flavor, arcane flavor, or martial flavor, if the base class doesn't have one of those, there's a good chance they have a subclass that fits that theme.

Right, I see a ranger hell bent on killing giants out of vengeance. Not because they are favored enemies.

100% correct "Vengeance paladin is a ranger-flavored paladin." That's an awesome statement.

Otherwise, natural explorer requires you to be proficient already in these skills, which can be expensive since a ranger is required to be stealthy, perceptive and athletic just to survive in the woods. And you got 2 skills left and that is nature I am assuming and maybe insight or history.

I might think a ranger could get something akin to a channel divinity like the knowledge cleric does.

[Zalabim]

Clearly I'm going to have to start a threat titled "people keep using ribbon as a meaningless word" :smallamused:

Ribbon doesn't mean "passive feature improving something the PC is doing, as opposed to a special thing the player declares the use of" nor even "doesn't use a resource". Nor, despite what you and many others seem to think, does it mean "not a combat feature" nor "it's weak because I ignore the exploration pillar and all related rules".

A ribbon is a tiny, not particularly noticible benefit. And Natural Explorer does not provide minor benefits. It provided qualitative improvements to the Ranger's primary function.

It is a ribbon because it only applies to one type of terrain. Even if it weren't a ribbon, it would still be a passive feature, not a combat feature, and not a fun feature for a lot of tables. That's not me defining a ribbon. That's four separate condemnations of Ranger's level 1 features. It's not really a condemnation of the features themselves though. Other classes were able to get passive, non-combat, or even not fun abilities at level 1. They just also get an active, combat, and/or fun option too. I'm certain this fact contributes to Rangers being considered underpowered.

[Naanomi]

Natural Explorer *can* be a ribbon if you are virtually never on the terrain you choose

[Specter]

I would argue none moreso than the ranger; but you have a point. It is just an especially poignant disappointment on a progression of many levels that already feel practically dead

Ranger has 3rd worst capstone; Bard and Monk are champions in that department.


It is a ribbon because it only applies to one type of terrain. Even if it weren't a ribbon, it would still be a passive feature, not a combat feature, and not a fun feature for a lot of tables. That's not me defining a ribbon. That's four separate condemnations of Ranger's level 1 features. It's not really a condemnation of the features themselves though. Other classes were able to get passive, non-combat, or even not fun abilities at level 1. They just also get an active, combat, and/or fun option too. I'm certain this fact contributes to Rangers being considered underpowered.

So is Turn Undead/Destroy Undead, if you never face undead. Or Expertise, if you never get to use the skill you specialize in.
The fact that something doesn't see game usage doesn't mean it's inherently bad, or a ribbon.

[Naanomi]

So is Turn Undead/Destroy Undead, if you never face undead.
Which is why every class with that ability gains an alternative use for that resource, I suspect

[Dr. Cliché]

So is Turn Undead/Destroy Undead, if you never face undead.

Except that you can still use Channel Divinity for your subclass ability.

Honestly, you do seem to be reaching a bit with this one. It would be like me calling Wild Shape a ribbon if you don't get to make use of an animal with a swim speed. :smalltongue:



Or Expertise, if you never get to use the skill you specialize in.

This seems far less likely, though, unless you've deliberately chosen an 'obscure' skill. :smallconfused:

[Specter]

Except that you can still use Channel Divinity for your subclass ability.

Honestly, you do seem to be reaching a bit with this one. It would be like me calling Wild Shape a ribbon if you don't get to make use of an animal with a swim speed. :smalltongue:

This seems far less likely, though, unless you've deliberately chosen an 'obscure' skill. :smallconfused:

You can expertise Thieves' Tools and find no locked doorz/traps (happened to me anyway). You can expertise Deception/Persuasion and find out you're doing straight dungeon crawling. You can expertise Survival and find out you're in an urban campaign (wasn't that a legit concern a few pages earlier?).

About Turn Undead, it seems I am reaching, really. So let's look at it from another perspective: in my campaign, there's a Tempest Cleric/Eldritch Knight, Vengeance Paladin, Thief/Hunter, Abjurer Wizard and a Lore Bard.

- the Lore Bard has never used Countercharm. She also expertised Acrobatics/Athletics, but doesn't use them actively in any way.
- the Thief/Hunter has never used Thieves' Cant (behold, this is a ribbon) and Second Story Work. She hasn't used her second terrain features either.
- The Wizard has used Arcane Recovery only once, in the last adventure. They rarely short-rest because of the time-sentitive missions they're involved in in this campaign.

Do they feel useless? No. But do they say 'man, I need to find a way to use these things or I'll be underpowered'? Also no.

[Dr. Cliché]

You can expertise Thieves' Tools and find no locked doorz/traps (happened to me anyway). You can expertise Deception/Persuasion and find out you're doing straight dungeon crawling. You can expertise Survival and find out you're in an urban campaign (wasn't that a legit concern a few pages earlier?).

The first two are fair, though I'd consider survival to be a niche skill. Character backstory notwithstanding, it's certainly not the sort of skill I'd typically put expertise into and expect to get great usage out of (unless you know in advance that most of the campaign will take place outside and you'll have to regularly forage for food).



About Turn Undead, it seems I am reaching, really. So let's look at it from another perspective: in my campaign, there's a Tempest Cleric/Eldritch Knight, Vengeance Paladin, Thief/Hunter, Abjurer Wizard and a Lore Bard.

- the Lore Bard has never used Countercharm. She also expertised Acrobatics/Athletics, but doesn't use them actively in any way.

Isn't using Acrobatics/Athletics mostly down to the player though? It would be like me taking Stealth and then complaining about it because I never tried to hide. :smalltongue:

What's more, Bards also get Jack of All Trades - so even the traits they don't specialise in are getting a bonus.

I agree that Countercharm is often a ribbon. However, it's not the main abiity they get at lv6 - that's the subclass ability. Valor Bards get an extra attack, Lore Bards get Magical Secrets etc. And this is on top of them being full casters.



- the Thief/Hunter has never used Thieves' Cant (behold, this is a ribbon) and Second Story Work. She hasn't used her second terrain features either.
- The Wizard has used Arcane Recovery only once, in the last campaign. They rarely short-rest because of the time-sentitive missions they're involved in in this campaign.

Do they feel useless? No. But do they say 'man, I need to find a way to use these things or I'll be underpowered'? Also no.

Just to be clear, you do realise that this is a point in favour of these classes and not a point in favour of the Ranger, right?

The fact that a class gets enough fun/useful abilities that you can never get to use some and still walk away satisfied is a good thing. However, it's also a thing that appears to be largely absent from the Ranger class.

Let's take a lv1 Rogue and say that Thieves' Cant is a Ribbon and that Expertise is a Ribbon at least some of the time. Well, even disregarding those two, it still gets a mechanically useful ability in the form of Sneak Attack.

Now look at a lv1 Ranger. Favoured Enemy is largely a Ribbon, and (as with Expertise), Natural Explorer is going to be a ribbon at least some of the time. But that's all the Ranger gets. There's no equivalent to the Rogue's sneak attack, nor even any spells or such.

I appreciate that this is just lv1, but I believe it illustrates my point - whilst all classes have ribbon abilities (or ones that can be ribbons in the wrong circumstances), those classes also have non-Ribbon abilities as well. The Ranger, on the other hand, has an awful lot of Ribbons (or potential Ribbons), but relatively few solid/reliable abilities to go with them.


All I'm saying is that the Ranger class puts far more emphasis Ribbon or semi-Ribbon abilities than other classes. Whether this matters to you as a player is another matter altogether.

[Tanarii]

- Without favored enemy and natural explorer, the ranger is underpowered. (Edit: ... or not fun.)
- favored enemy and Natural explorer is a ribbon.

If your argument contains both these, it's contradicting itself.

[Dr. Cliché]

- Without favored enemy and natural explorer, the ranger is underpowered. (Edit: ... or not fun.)

Except that I never said that. :smallconfused:



- favored enemy and Natural explorer is a ribbon.

I didn't say that either. :smalltongue:

I just ran with the idea that Natural Explorer is a ribbon to the same extent that Expertise and such are ribbons.

[ProseBeforeHos]

I'm surprised anyone defends the PHB ranger. Since they released the XGTE sub-classes it's gotten slightly better, but it's still clearly the weakest base class in the game. Post lvl 5 it's truly terrible.

UA ranger has many of it's own problems though. It's not under/over-powered, just far too heavily front loaded.

[EvilAnagram]

I'm surprised anyone defends the PHB ranger. Since they released the XGTE sub-classes it's gotten slightly better, but it's still clearly the weakest base class in the game. Post lvl 5 it's truly terrible.

UA ranger has many of it's own problems though. It's not under/over-powered, just far too heavily front loaded.
Until level 11, the class's standard single-target damage exceeds the rogue's, and it has decent AoE and situational spells besides. The worst you can say about it is that its single-target damage stagnates in favor of at-will AoE and the beast companion needs a resurrection function. To call "truly terrible" An exaggeration is only unfair in that it implies a measure of truth.

[Moxxmix]

Currently, Favored Enemy is a ribbon ability. How to tweak things to make it non-ribbony?

The way that the UA ranger reformatted Favored Enemy is good. A 1st level character has no reason to even be given the choice of having elementals or dragons or constructs, etc, as a favored enemy, with special knowledge about them, languages, and advantage on tracking. Those types of creatures should pretty much never play a part in 1st level campaigns.

At level 2, Fighting Style and Spellcasting both affect the character, giving her a bit of individuality. The ranger-specific spells in particular are going to be unique, compared to other classes. However the Fighting Style is generic enough that it's not really relevant for our purposes. Even Fighter gets Second Wind as something unique at 1st level.


However Kane0's reworked ranger does provide something that seems like the hint of a beginning: Keen Eye. "You can take the Search action as a bonus action." This is interesting...

When trying to think of what embodies the core essence of 'Ranger', most people tend towards outdoorsy, woodsman, tracker/hunter, etc. However they don't actually provide a proper core idea. Favored Terrain spreads the idea all over the place. Outdoors in the woods. Outdoors in the desert. Mountain man. Fisherman. There's commonality, but no consistency. And it completely ignores the urban ranger.

But what is consistent is: Tracking. Hunting. Searching. Finding. Awareness. Not getting lost. Figuring out how to get from point A to point B, even without any roads or paths.

Ranger is the hide & seek counterpart to the Rogue: The Rogue hides, the Ranger seeks. And now we have a core idea that ties everything together. A mix of environment, and searching.

I'm almost certainly screwing up the level assignments for the abilities.



Level 1:

Favored Enemy (beasts, fey, humanoids, monstrosities, or undead)
• Have advantage when tracking or recalling info about favored enemy.
• You cannot be surprised by your Favored Enemy.
• You know an additional language, generally associated with your Favored Enemy.

Natural Explorer
• You and your party have advantage on all checks involved in travel (difficult terrain, avoiding getting lost, foraging, extreme weather, etc).
* Don't prevent getting lost entirely, or otherwise completely neutralize the challenge of travel.
• Your party has advantage on initiative rolls if you are attacked during travel.

Keen Eyes: You can take the Search action as a bonus action.
* Seems simple, but hidden enemies are a serious threat at low levels. This makes it easy for the ranger to help provide cover for the party, and gives them their starting role: scout, lookout, the eyes of the party.

Level 2:

Fighting Style

Spellcasting


Level 3:

Primeval Awareness: You can focus and get a rough sense of any basic Favored Enemy type within 1 mile.
• You can find out what quadrant of a map they are located in, relative to your current location, and can get a sense of either "few" or "many".
• If the target is your personal Favored Enemy, the range is increased to 3 miles, and you can get a more fine-tuned sense of their numbers and direction.
* Limit how often it can be used? Don't use spell slots. Don't use concentration (conflicts with spells). Wis mod uses per day?
* Maybe adjust range.
* Improves scouting ability because it's no longer limited to just the selected Favored Enemy.

Conclave --


Level 4:

Environmental Adaptation
• After spending at least two consecutive days in an environment, you become adapted to it, and are more easily able to act within it.
* Example environments: Urban, underground, forest, jungle, desert, arctic, mountain, plains, coastlines
• Within the environment you are adapted to, your Primeval Awareness range is doubled, and you're aware of the subcategory of the enemy type (eg: sensing "orcs" rather than just "humanoids").
* If this is excessive, possibly limit the subcategory info to the Favored Enemy group.
• Within the environment you are adapted to, you have advantage on Perception checks when using Keen Eyes.

Standard ASI


Level 6:

Greater Favored Enemy (aberrations, celestials, constructs, dragons, elementals, fiends, or giants)

Improved Primeval Awareness: Works on creatures from the Greater Favored Enemy list, with more detailed info on the selected Greater Favored Enemy.

Fast Movement: Within the environment you are adapted to, and while you are not wearing heavy armor, your movement speed increases by 10 feet.


Level 8:

Land's Touch
• You are not hindered by non-magical difficult terrain in an environment you are adapted to.
• You have advantage when attacking an opponent that is hindered by difficult terrain.
• You may Hide as a bonus action within the environment you are adapted to.


Level 11:

Quick Adaptation: You can adapt to a new environment after a long rest.


Level 14:

Feral Senses: Not being able to see a target does not impose disadvantage on your attacks. You are aware of any invisible creature within 30'.


Level 20:

Unerring Accuracy: Within the environment you are adapted to, you may add your Wisdom modifier to your attack roll or damage roll once per turn.

~~~~

Notes:

Multiattack was removed. It would be pushed into the subclasses, so that it's easier to balance with the beastmaster stuff.

Focused the base class abilities heavily on environment and scouting. Further differentiation can be made using subclasses. Removed some abilities that don't contribute to the core focus.

Changed the capstone to only be limited by the adapted environment, which is easily changed, rather than the Favored Enemy. Not really on board with Kane0's idea to allow changing the Favored Enemy, as that really doesn't feel right.

[Specter]

The first two are fair, though I'd consider survival to be a niche skill. Character backstory notwithstanding, it's certainly not the sort of skill I'd typically put expertise into and expect to get great usage out of (unless you know in advance that most of the campaign will take place outside and you'll have to regularly forage for food).

Isn't using Acrobatics/Athletics mostly down to the player though? It would be like me taking Stealth and then complaining about it because I never tried to hide. :smalltongue:

What's more, Bards also get Jack of All Trades - so even the traits they don't specialise in are getting a bonus.

I agree that Countercharm is often a ribbon. However, it's not the main abiity they get at lv6 - that's the subclass ability. Valor Bards get an extra attack, Lore Bards get Magical Secrets etc. And this is on top of them being full casters.

Just to be clear, you do realise that this is a point in favour of these classes and not a point in favour of the Ranger, right?

The fact that a class gets enough fun/useful abilities that you can never get to use some and still walk away satisfied is a good thing. However, it's also a thing that appears to be largely absent from the Ranger class.

Let's take a lv1 Rogue and say that Thieves' Cant is a Ribbon and that Expertise is a Ribbon at least some of the time. Well, even disregarding those two, it still gets a mechanically useful ability in the form of Sneak Attack.

Now look at a lv1 Ranger. Favoured Enemy is largely a Ribbon, and (as with Expertise), Natural Explorer is going to be a ribbon at least some of the time. But that's all the Ranger gets. There's no equivalent to the Rogue's sneak attack, nor even any spells or such.

I appreciate that this is just lv1, but I believe it illustrates my point - whilst all classes have ribbon abilities (or ones that can be ribbons in the wrong circumstances), those classes also have non-Ribbon abilities as well. The Ranger, on the other hand, has an awful lot of Ribbons (or potential Ribbons), but relatively few solid/reliable abilities to go with them.

All I'm saying is that the Ranger class puts far more emphasis Ribbon or semi-Ribbon abilities than other classes. Whether this matters to you as a player is another matter altogether.

- You touched a nice idea, character background. The Bard in question is from the circus, so she wanted to be ninja-like with the Expertises. That's a choice she made to be an expert. If you're playing as a ranger, initially you want to be the expert at one terrain and one enemy: I'm the guy the king will call to locate the orcs that took the princess. If you are making a backstory for your character, he knows what is in the world he lives in, and consequently he should have some access to what terrains are prominent.

- Let's pretend all Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer features are ribbons (which they aren't, unless you're building for the arctic in a desert campaign with an a-hole DM). The question then is: is Ranger still good without them? Yes. You get to be as much of a skillmonkey as Bard from level 1, have a fighting style, spells, subclass features, extra attack, land's stride (ribbon), hide in plain sight, vanish, feral senses and foe slayer. You won't be lagging behind in terms of combat and exploration, unless you don't pick good spells.

- The fact that a feature is not active doesn't mean it's bad or boring. If you're the kind the player that likes more spotlight, fair game, but even then you can just wait until later.
_________________________________

Anyway, I've said more than enough for one thread. Those who had good ideas influenced others, and those who said gibberish (ew ranger is horrible) were ignored. Here's a summary of the facts so far:

• Even if you don't ever get to use your terrain and enemy features, Ranger is still as good as a DEX fighter, but with an extra skill. That's not to say fighter is moot (they can be optimized deeper than ranger), but that Ranger doesn't lag behind in combat. Even if someone did some hard math to show it's a bit weaker, 2-3 points of DPR won't be significant in your gameplay.

• The ranger spell list is severely underrated by the community in general, even with their little spells known. Using only the most commonly taken spells, you can have single-target damage (Hunter's Mark), single-target debuffing along with damage (Ensnaring Strike), resist elemental damage (Absorb Elements), great AoE (Hail of Thorns, Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley), shutting down spellcasters (Silence), being 200% sneaky (Pass Without Trace) and 'smite' at range (Lightning Arrow). If you are fighting more specific enemies, you can tailor it accordingly.

• Some features, while not being stellar (Primeval Awareness, Hide in Plain Sight) are far from ribbons if you stop being lazy and take the time to think about how to make them useful in your situation. They don't deserve the bad rep they get.

• Your character knows what's around him and the creatures of his world. That's basically free information for your DM to give you. If your DM is running a module, it shouldn't be hard to figure out what terrains/enemies you'll find. If you're arriving in Adventurers' League or if your DM sucks, read the first point.

• I talk from experience: I've played as a Hunter, and was the DPR go-to of the party. I've also seen Beastmaster (revised) and Horizon Walker at the table, and they did just fine.

[Dr. Cliché]

- You touched a nice idea, character background. The Bard in question is from the circus, so she wanted to be ninja-like with the Expertises. That's a choice she made to be an expert. If you're playing as a ranger, initially you want to be the expert at one terrain and one enemy: I'm the guy the king will call to locate the orcs that took the princess. If you are making a backstory for your character, he knows what is in the world he lives in, and consequently he should have some access to what terrains are prominent.

Indeed.

However, it's worth noting that background stuff may not coincide with what's optimal. For example, if you're playing a Ranger who's travelled all the way from an arctic region, you're probably not going to get much use out of that favoured terrain.

As I said before, whether this matters to you is down the individual player.



- Let's pretend all Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer features are ribbons (which they aren't, unless you're building for the arctic in a desert campaign with an a-hole DM).

For the record, I'd argue that Favoured Enemy is very much a ribbon (at least until lv20). Natural Explorer isn't a ribbon, exactly, but in most cases it's not going to be a day-to-day ability either.


The question then is: is Ranger still good without them? Yes. You get to be as much of a skillmonkey as Bard from level 1, have a fighting style, spells, subclass features, extra attack, land's stride (ribbon), hide in plain sight, vanish, feral senses and foe slayer. You won't be lagging behind in terms of combat and exploration, unless you don't pick good spells.

Regarding those abilities:
- Calling the Ranger as much of a skillmonkey as the bard seems a little disingenuous. They have the same number of skills, sure (though the Bard can pick *any* three), but the bard gets Expertise *and* Jack of All Trades. I know Natural Explorer can help, but it limits you to both your favoured terrain and Int/Wis skills. To me at least, having Expertise in two skills of your choice seems far better than only ever getting it with Int/Wis skills and then only in your favoured terrain. And that's before we even get to Jack of all Trades.
(Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Rangers are bad skillmonkeys - just that putting them on the same level as bards seems like quite a stretch.)
- Fighting style is decent, but hardly unique to the Ranger.
- Spells are decent, though pretty limited (and with no cantrips).
- We agree that Land's Stride is a Ribbon.
- Are we pretending that Hide in Plain Sight isn't also a ribbon?
- Vanish is basically 1/3 of Cunning Action. Rogues get Cunning Action at 2nd level, yet you have to wait until lv14 to get this. :smallconfused:
- Feral Senses comes way too late.
- Foe Slayer is basically 'Favoured Enemy: Good Version'. Though even then is seems pretty pathetic for a capstone ability.

Sorry, but I just can't see the appeal. I like the *idea* of the Ranger, but the execution seems lacking to me.

Perhaps it's because I've been in groups where the Revised Ranger was used - and it's been good without ever feeling overpowered. The normal Ranger just looks really lacklustre in comparison.



- The fact that a feature is not active doesn't mean it's bad or boring. If you're the kind the player that likes more spotlight, fair game, but even then you can just wait until later.

Absolutely. Hence why I've repeatedly stressed that fun is in the eye of the beholder.

Just to be clear though, I thought we were talking about abilities characters didn't or might not get to use? Not abilities that simply aren't active.




• Some features, while not being stellar (Primeval Awareness, Hide in Plain Sight) are far from ribbons if you stop being lazy and take the time to think about how to make them useful in your situation. They don't deserve the bad rep they get.

Yeah, no. The fact that a feature is bad and done far better by other abilities/spells doesn't make players lazy. It just means they're smart and pragmatic.

Or do you dry your clothes by means of a Mangle, and complain that people using the internal combustion engine in their cars, as opposed to steam engines, are just being lazy? :smalltongue:


http://junkee.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/peetacake.jpg

I don't know what we're doing, but I promise you you this is the most practical and efficient means of doing it! :smallbiggrin:

[Specter]

- Calling the Ranger as much of a skillmonkey as the bard seems a little disingenuous. They have the same number of skills, sure (though the Bard can pick *any* three), but the bard gets Expertise *and* Jack of All Trades. I know Natural Explorer can help, but it limits you to both your favoured terrain and Int/Wis skills. To me at least, having Expertise in two skills of your choice seems far better than only ever getting it with Int/Wis skills and then only in your favoured terrain. And that's before we even get to Jack of all Trades.

- I meant at level one (3 skills). But I realize now that it's moot, because level one is moot. You could literally be a commoner with a level one party and you'd still matter.

[EvilAnagram]

This discussion is suffering from the lack of an agreed upon definition of "ribbon."

[Dr. Cliché]

- I meant at level one (3 skills).

Ah, okay. When you said "from level 1", I'd assumed you meant 'from level 1 onwards'.


But I realize now that it's moot, because level one is moot. You could literally be a commoner with a level one party and you'd still matter.

Well, at least it isn't 3.5 where Commoner < Housecat. :smallwink:



This discussion is suffering from the lack of an agreed upon definition of "ribbon."

I think you're right.

After a quick search, I've found two rather different definitions:

"A ribbon level is a level where you gain somethibg [sic] that isn't combat-related."

"A ribbon is an ability that is mostly flavor, and might not actually come into play with any regularity. Examples of this are things like the Monk's Timeless Body or the Rogue's Thieves' Cant."

I'd personally lean towards the latter, but both would seem to have some grey area.


Is there any remotely standardised definition we can refer to? Or perhaps a more comprehensive one?

[EvilAnagram]

I think you're right.

After a quick search, I've found two rather different definitions:

"A ribbon level is a level where you gain somethibg [sic] that isn't combat-related."

"A ribbon is an ability that is mostly flavor, and might not actually come into play with any regularity. Examples of this are things like the Monk's Timeless Body or the Rogue's Thieves' Cant."

I'd personally lean towards the latter, but both would seem to have some grey area.


Is there any remotely standardised definition we can refer to? Or perhaps a more comprehensive one?
I believe the latter is the definition that the developers use.

So the question becomes, "Can a player get significant utility out of advantage on survival and creature-knowledge checks?" Moreover, is gaining the languages of common enemies significantly useful in an average game?

[Naanomi]

For what it matters... I would say Favored Enemy is a ribbon. Maybe it is the tables I play at, but most rangers lack the skill to have proficiency in these checks to begin with (so potentially are not the best party member at making those checks anyways), and advantage via help action is easy to come by (potentially from your own pet)

Natural Explorer may be a ribbon depending on the campaign but has good potential to not be

Primeval Awareness, Land’s Stride, Hide in Plain Sight, and Foe Slayer are not ribbons, but just exceedingly weak and/or narrow in application

Vanish is a good ability that comes too late to feel good about

To people discussing capstones...
Rangers get Foeslayer, +2/+3 Hit or Damage once per round if you happen to be fighting 3 of 13 Enemy types (ignoring humanoid fragmentation)

Compared to the other ‘weak’ capstones...
—Bards get a reuse of a resource they probably have 5 if they used it all... also a 7th level spell slot
—Monks similarly refill 1/5th of their limited resource pool if they happen to be out, and get another Ki point as well

[Dr. Cliché]

I believe the latter is the definition that the developers use.

So the question becomes, "Can a player get significant utility out of advantage on survival and creature-knowledge checks?" Moreover, is gaining the languages of common enemies significantly useful in an average game?

The last part still bugs me. Is the Ranger supposed to be good at killing his enemies or good at talking to them? The names strongly implies the former but the mechanics instead favour the latter.

I can accept it not being a combat ability, but couldn't they have at least changed the name?

[EvilAnagram]

For what it matters... I would say Favored Enemy is a ribbon. Maybe it is the tables I play at, but most rangers lack the skill to have proficiency in these checks to begin with (so potentially are not the best party member at making those checks anyways), and advantage via help action is easy to come by (potentially from your own pet)

Natural Explorer may be a ribbon depending on the campaign but has good potential to not be

Primeval Awareness, Land’s Stride, Hide in Plain Sight, and Foe Slayer are not ribbons, but just exceedingly weak and/or narrow in application

Vanish is a good ability that comes too late to feel good about

To people discussing capstones...
Rangers get Foeslayer, +2/+3 Hit or Damage once per round if you happen to be fighting 3 of 13 Enemy types (ignoring humanoid fragmentation)

Compared to the other ‘weak’ capstones...
—Bards get a reuse of a resource they probably have 5 if they used it all... also a 7th level spell slot
—Monks similarly refill 1/5th of their limited resource pool if they happen to be out, and get another Ki point as well

I agree, for the most part. The thing that killed the Ranger for a lot of people is the narrow application of most of its abilities. Vanish should have been part of Natural Explorer, and Foe Slayer should have come online at 14 instead. Land's Stride should just be ignoring nonmagical difficult terrain and advantage on saves against being slowed or grappled. Tack on a disappointing capstone, and you're golden.

I will say that Foe Slayer stacks up fine against those other abilities. By the time you pick your second and third favored enemy, you should know what kind of enemies you're going to be facing if your campaign has anything close to a cohesive narrative.

[EvilAnagram]

The last part still bugs me. Is the Ranger supposed to be good at killing his enemies or good at talking to them? The names strongly implies the former but the mechanics instead favour the latter.

I can accept it not being a combat ability, but couldn't they have at least changed the name?

To me, it makes sense. The entire ability is based around knowing more about the enemy. You know what signs they leave, so you can track them. You know them so well, you can easily recall information. You learned their language by studying them so well. This means you can more easily find them, know their weaknesses, and spy on them, which fits the ranger quite well.

[Dr. Cliché]

To me, it makes sense. The entire ability is based around knowing more about the enemy. You know what signs they leave, so you can track them. You know them so well, you can easily recall information. You learned their language by studying them so well. This means you can more easily find them, know their weaknesses, and spy on them, which fits the ranger quite well.

I agree about the first two, but 'learning their language' is very dubious to me. If anything, it seems just as reasonable that a Ranger wouldn't learn their language because he has nothing to say to them and has no interest in learning anything about them except how to kill them better.

Not saying that all Rangers would be like that, but I don't think 'learning your enemy's language' should be the default either.

[Naanomi]

I will say that Foe Slayer stacks up fine against those other abilities. By the time you pick your second and third favored enemy, you should know what kind of enemies you're going to be facing if your campaign has anything close to a cohesive narrative.
I mean... kind of. Some adventures are not one giant arch, you sometimes solve the Elemental invasion in city X, then travel on to the Slaad temple in jungle Y. My current campaign is an adaptation of the quest for glory video games; so it is explicitly split into five adventure archs (fey and human brigands; then Elementals, gnolls, and undead; then beasts, lycanthropes, and demons; then undead and aberrations; finally dragons, fiends, and a variety of humanoid types)

Even in one big arch you may get hosed even with the best intentions... stopping the resurrection of the evil dragon god... Will you be fighting dragons? Cultists (of what race?)? Devils? Will the avatar of the God in the last fight be a Dragon? Outsider? And that leaves aside all the random nonsense you may find along the way (golems guarding the temple... oozes and otyugh in the sewers as you sneak into the temple, etc)

[EvilAnagram]

I agree about the first two, but 'learning their language' is very dubious to me. If anything, it seems just as reasonable that a Ranger wouldn't learn their language because he has nothing to say to them and has no interest in learning anything about them except how to kill them better.

Not saying that all Rangers would be like that, but I don't think 'learning your enemy's language' should be the default either.
I think there's an upper limit to how well you can know an enemy if you can't speak their language. The less you trust someone, the more you need to be able to understand them. Personal anecdote to illustrate this, my father was in the Vietnam War, stationed in Thailand. On two separate occasions, he overheard people speaking in Thai planning to kill him. On one occasion, he drew his pistol and told them to jump out of the bus they were in. When his unit definitely did not go into Cambodia, they absolutely needed someone who spoke French and Khmer fluently, especially since they were definitely not in French uniforms. In more modern times, knowing Arabic has become an enormous asset in every branch of the American and British militaries for over a decade.

Knowing the language of your enemy is a powerful tool, and it makes sense to me that the warrior who fights by learning about his enemies would take advantage of that.

[Naanomi]

Learning the language in that way makes sense for humanoids or creatures with meaningful society that you might be interacting with relatively peacefully at some times. I can’t imagine those kinds of interactions as in that narrative with demons or even (in most cases) dragons or aberrations; opportunities to interrogate such foes is super limited as well.

Still, learning the *written* language would be beneficial even then

[EvilAnagram]

I mean... kind of. Some adventures are not one giant arch, you sometimes solve the Elemental invasion in city X, then travel on to the Slaad temple in jungle Y. My current campaign is an adaptation of the quest for glory video games; so it is explicitly split into five adventure archs (fey and human brigands; then Elementals, gnolls, and undead; then beasts, lycanthropes, and demons; then undead and aberrations; finally dragons, fiends, and a variety of humanoid types)

Even in one big arch you may get hosed even with the best intentions... stopping the resurrection of the evil dragon god... Will you be fighting dragons? Cultists (of what race?)? Devils? Will the avatar of the God in the last fight be a Dragon? Outsider? And that leaves aside all the random nonsense you may find along the way (golems guarding the temple... oozes and otyugh in the sewers as you sneak into the temple, etc)

Let's look at the printed campaigns.

Tyranny of Dragons: Dragons, kobolds, and humans pretty much covers the worst of it.

Princes of the Apocalypse: Elementals through and through.

Out of the Abyss: Fiends, Drow and Duergar

Curse of Strahd: Undead and Monstrosities

Tomb of Annihilation: Beasts and Undead?

It works pretty well.

[Dr. Cliché]

I think there's an upper limit to how well you can know an enemy if you can't speak their language.

I don't disagree, but you're assuming that every Ranger will learn the enemy language instead of leaning any weaknesses they can exploit.

(Yes, I'm aware that Rangers get advantage on knowledge terms, but mechanically that still gives them absolutely no advantage or bonus against the enemies they're supposedly adept at fighting.)



The less you trust someone, the more you need to be able to understand them. Personal anecdote to illustrate this, my father was in the Vietnam War, stationed in Thailand. On two separate occasions, he overheard people speaking in Thai planning to kill him. On one occasion, he drew his pistol and told them to jump out of the bus they were in.

But this situation makes the assumption that the Ranger is perfectly happy just hanging out with his favoured enemies in his downtime.

It seems just as likely (if not far more so) that the Ranger will have a kill-on-sight policy for them. Especially given that many potential enemies are basically evil from birth.


Knowing the language of your enemy is a powerful tool, and it makes sense to me that the warrior who fights by learning about his enemies would take advantage of that.

The thing is though, learning a language isn't like deciding to buy a sword - it takes a great deal of time and effort. And if the Ranger doesn't know anyone who speaks the language, then the only way he'll learn is via lengthy interactions with his sworn enemies. This seems rather unlikely, on top of being an incredible risk. I mean, if interacting with your enemy is risky because you don't know their language, then you're taking the exact same risk if you interact with them in order to try and learn their language.

We're also disregarding any emotional aspect. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the reason many Rangers have the favoured enemies that they do is because of extremely negative experiences they've had with those creatures. Ergo, even if learning the language of those creatures is a logical thing to do, many Rangers may be too emotionally driven to appreciate that.

Finally, you're assuming that the enemies in question will only ever have spoken their own language. Yet many races speak Common in addition to their natural language. Hence, if they are willing to talk to the Ranger for whatever reason, it seems vastly more likely that they'd have simply spoken in Common - leaving the Ranger to pick up just tiny fragments of their native language.


Again, I'm not saying that knowing the enemy's language isn't useful or that no Ranger would invest the time to learn it. What I'm saying is that the idea that every single Ranger alive will have done this seems completely absurd. Even more so when it comes at the expense of any mechanical advantage against the enemy you're supposedly so good at fighting. :smallconfused:

I guess at lv20 the Ranger finally remembers why he started researching his enemies in the first place. :smalltongue:

[Naanomi]

Tyranny of Dragons: Dragons, kobolds, and humans pretty much covers the worst of it.
I don’t do much published adventures, but we did do most of Tyranny... isn’t there a prominant half-dragon; a whole lizardman section, a big part in a giant’s castle filled with ogres...

Let’s just look at the last area, a chance to finally show off that new combat ability at level 20; a Barbarian uses his capstone every fight every attack, surely I’ll get good use out of mine...

Dragons, undead, a golem, Devils, air Elementals, humans, some giants, maybe other humanoid mercenaries... Tiamat herself is a fiend, good chance you don’t get your bonus on that fight even if you stuck close to the module expectations

[EvilAnagram]

I don't disagree, but you're assuming that every Ranger will learn the enemy language instead of leaning any weaknesses they can exploit.

(Yes, I'm aware that Rangers get advantage on knowledge terms, but mechanically that still gives them absolutely no advantage or bonus against the enemies they're supposedly adept at fighting.)
Knowing the enemy language is a way to exploit weaknesses. The enemy that trusts its secrets to its written language, the captor who speaks freely in front of prisoners, and the thugs who stalk you through city streets can all believe their


But this situation makes the assumption that the Ranger is perfectly happy just hanging out with his favoured enemies in his downtime.

It seems just as likely (if not far more so) that the Ranger will have a kill-on-sight policy for them. Especially given that many potential enemies are basically evil from birth.
It does not make that assumption. If the ranger enters into a civilized city in which their favored enemy can move freely, a kill-on-sight policy would be foolish, while safety can be found in being aware of your surroundings. And most potential favored enemies who can speak are not necessarily evil from birth.


The thing is though, learning a language isn't like deciding to buy a sword - it takes a great deal of time and effort. And if the Ranger doesn't know anyone who speaks the language, then the only way he'll learn is via lengthy interactions with his sworn enemies. This seems rather unlikely, on top of being an incredible risk. I mean, if interacting with your enemy is risky because you don't know their language, then you're taking the exact same risk if you interact with them in order to try and learn their language.
They're apparently preternaturally good at acquiring language. Since all of their other abilities are a mix of natural magics and preternatural senses, I'm not bothered by this.


We're also disregarding any emotional aspect. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the reason many Rangers have the favoured enemies that they do is because of extremely negative experiences they've had with those creatures. Ergo, even if learning the language of those creatures is a logical thing to do, many Rangers may be too emotionally driven to appreciate that.
I can also easily see many Rangers having a lot of experience with that enemy. An elven ranger might choose dwarves and halflings as their favored enemy because they were the most common transgressors in the woods she patrolled. SHe might not hate them, but she's really good at finding them.


Again, I'm not saying that knowing the enemy's language isn't useful or that no Ranger would invest the time to learn it. What I'm saying is that the idea that every single Ranger alive will have done this seems completely absurd. Even more so when it comes at the expense of any mechanical advantage against the enemy you're supposedly so good at fighting. :smallconfused:
You realize that rangers don't necessarily learn a language, right? The classic Van Helsing who chooses undead and monstrosities, for example, would not. Beasts and aberrations, likewise, don't impart a language. Just humanoids, elementals, fiends and dragons.

[EvilAnagram]

I don’t do much published adventures, but we did do most of Tyranny... isn’t there a prominant half-dragon; a whole lizardman section, a big part in a giant’s castle filled with ogres...

Sure, but I'm not claiming it will always be there. I'm saying you can make intelligent choices that will carry over through most of your adventures. There is a big part with Oozes in OotA, but the fiends alone are worth having throughout.

[Naanomi]

You realize that rangers don't necessarily learn a language, right? The classic Van Helsing who chooses undead and monstrosities, for example, would not. Beasts and aberrations, likewise, don't impart a language. Just humanoids, elementals, fiends and dragons.
Every creature type except Ooze offers language options for a ranger to learn

Sure, but I'm not claiming it will always be there. I'm saying you can make intelligent choices that will carry over through most of your adventures. There is a big part with Oozes in OotA, but the fiends alone are worth having throughout.
So, without reading ahead in the module path... what do you choose as you progress through the Dragon adventure path? Dragon is obvious, probably take that at first even if it isn’t useful then just based on the module premise... what then? What are the odds you organically end up with choices that utilize that awesome capstone at level 20?

[Tanarii]

For what it matters... I would say Favored Enemy is a ribbon. Maybe it is the tables I play at, but most rangers lack the skill to have proficiency in these checks to begin with (so potentially are not the best party member at making those checks anyways), and advantage via help action is easy to come by (potentially from your own pet)From the various comments you've made regarding the Help action in this thread, it sounds like you've had awfully permissive DMs to me.


The last part still bugs me. Is the Ranger supposed to be good at killing his enemies or good at talking to them? The names strongly implies the former but the mechanics instead favour the latter.

I can accept it not being a combat ability, but couldn't they have at least changed the name?
Dealing with your Foe. They are the enemies you know how to deal with best. And that absolutely should include learning their language, if any.

[Naanomi]

From the various comments you've made regarding the Help action in this thread, it sounds like you've had awfully permissive DMs to me
Perhaps. How do you utilize it? It looks pretty broad in scope to my reading

[Dr. Cliché]

Knowing the enemy language is a way to exploit weaknesses. The enemy that trusts its secrets to its written language, the captor who speaks freely in front of prisoners, and the thugs who stalk you through city streets can all believe their

Again, I'm not disputing that knowing your enemy's language is useful.

However, you're completely ignoring the time and effort required to actually learn it.




It does not make that assumption. If the ranger enters into a civilized city in which their favored enemy can move freely, a kill-on-sight policy would be foolish, while safety can be found in being aware of your surroundings.

Perhaps, that also doesn't mean the Ranger will willingly associate with those creatures.



And most potential favored enemies who can speak are not necessarily evil from birth.

Perhaps, but in the case of ones that aren't evil (or are actually good from birth), it gets increasingly strange that the Ranger would regard them as near-universal enemies.



They're apparently preternaturally good at acquiring language.

Which actually goes back to my initial point - that Rangers seem better at negotiating with their "favoured enemies" than they are at fighting said enemies.

Maybe Rangers are just confused as to what the word 'enemy' means. :smallwink:



I can also easily see many Rangers having a lot of experience with that enemy. An elven ranger might choose dwarves and halflings as their favored enemy because they were the most common transgressors in the woods she patrolled. SHe might not hate them, but she's really good at finding them.

Sure. But the same probably doesn't apply to Rangers who have, say, Demons as their favoured enemy.



You realize that rangers don't necessarily learn a language, right?

They can learn a language if they pick literally any enemy other than oozes (though I'll grant Beasts only give access to extremely niche languages).


The classic Van Helsing who chooses undead and monstrosities, for example, would not. Beasts and aberrations, likewise, don't impart a language. Just humanoids, elementals, fiends and dragons.

Okay, that's utter nonsense.
- Many undead can speak whatever languages they spoke in life, and Liches basically give you free reign to pick whichever language you want.
- In terms of Monstrocities: Worgs speak goblin, Winter Wolves speak Giant and Winter Wolf, Spirit Nagas speak Abyssal.
- Aberrations: Aboleths and Cloakers speak Deep Speech. Have you even read the MM? I don't mean to be snarky, but I have to raise an eyebrow when your argument is disproved merely by reading the second entry in the MM. :smallconfused:
- Beasts: Giant Eagles speak Giant Eagle, Giant Elks speak Giant Elk, Giant Owls speak Giant Owl. Hardly the most versatile languages, but languages nevertheless.

[EvilAnagram]

Every creature type except Ooze offers language options for a ranger to learn
Even beasts? Huh. I guess it's just forest magic.


So, without reading ahead in the module path... what do you choose as you progress through the Dragon adventure path? Dragon is obvious, probably take that at first even if it isn’t useful then just based on the module premise... what then? What are the odds you organically end up with choices that utilize that awesome capstone at level 20?
Gonna be honest, I played the first adventure in it and don't know much. Judging by that, I would pick human, dragon, and some other humanoid. I mentioned kobolds, but elves and lizardfolk seem like safe bets. Apparently there are giants, but I would only pick that if I happened to achieve one of those levels after hearing that there would be giants in-game.

[Tanarii]

Perhaps. How do you utilize it? It looks pretty broad in scope to my reading
I read it as two PCs actually working on the same task to get one result for one of them. This is distinct from two PC working two tasks to get one result that applies to both of them.

The former is not possible with recalling information, since the second PC can't get inside the first persons mind and help them think, so they cannot work on the same task. They can do a Group check, each working individually on the task of recalling information and then applying the result to both of them.

Also, as I already pointed out, the Ranger having advantage just means they're even better off: they group check, ranger makes a check at advantage and other PC normal, if either passes the group check is successful. So your specific objection to Favored Enemy is moot regardless of if Help would be normally easily available.

[Naanomi]

Even beasts? Huh. I guess it's just forest magic.


Gonna be honest, I played the first adventure in it and don't know much. Judging by that, I would pick human, dragon, and some other humanoid. I mentioned kobolds, but elves and lizardfolk seem like safe bets. Apparently there are giants, but I would only pick that if I happened to achieve one of those levels after hearing that there would be giants in-game.
So, good chance when you square up with big T in the finale you will find that she is a Fiend and your capstone can cry itself to sleep in the corner

Also, as an aside...

—Aberration: Deepspeech, Grell, Otyugh, Slaad, Undercommon
—Beast: Giant Eagle, Giant Elk, Giant Owl
—Celestial: Celestial, Elvish, Sylvan; +'any'
—Construct: Modron
—Dragon: Primordial (Aquan), Common, Draconic, Sylvan,
—Elemental: Primordial (Aquan, Auran, Ignan, Terran)
—Fey: Abyssal, Blink Dog, Common, Draconic, Elvish, Giant, Sylvan, Primordial (Aquan, Base)
—Fiend: Abyssal, Common, Gnoll, Infernal, +'All'
—Giant: Giant, Orc, Undercommon
—Humanoid: VARIES DEPENDANT ON CHOICE
—Monstrosity: Abyssal, Celestial, Common, Draconic, Elvish, Goblin, Infernal, Hook Horror, Primordial (Aquan, Base), Sphynx, Sylvan, Umber Hulk, Undercommon, Winter Wolf, Worg, Yeti
—Oozes: NONE
—Plant: Common, Druidic, Elvish, Sylvan, +'any one language known by it's creator'
—Undead: Abyssal, Common, Draconic, Elvish, +'any language known in life', +'five other languages'

[EvilAnagram]

Again, I'm not disputing that knowing your enemy's language is useful.

However, you're completely ignoring the time and effort required to actually learn it.

Because that's nor a meaningful complaint. It's magic.




Perhaps, that also doesn't mean the Ranger will willingly associate with those creatures.
Good thing they're magic.


Perhaps, but in the case of ones that aren't evil (or are actually good from birth), it gets increasingly strange that the Ranger would regard them as near-universal enemies.
You're conflating favored with hated. A bounty hunter will likely be very good at tracking humans, but that doesn't mean he hates them.


Which actually goes back to my initial point - that Rangers seem better at negotiating with their "favoured enemies" than they are at fighting said enemies.
Now that is just not true. Their abilities enable them to track, ambush, and spy on their enemies. They have nothing that assists charisma checks.



Sure. But the same probably doesn't apply to Rangers who have, say, Demons as their favoured enemy.
And? What's your point?



Have you even read the MM? I don't mean to be snarky, but I have to raise an eyebrow when your argument is disproved merely by reading the second entry in the MM.
I didn't read it with an eye for how to cheese out my characters.

[EvilAnagram]

So, good chance when you square up with big T in the finale you will find that she is a Fiend and your capstone can cry itself to sleep in the corner
...and? Anyone expecting to get use out of a capstone is going to be disappointed. If I'm not happy with my character by then, there are bigger problems.

[Naanomi]

...and? Anyone expecting to get use out of a capstone is going to be disappointed. If I'm not happy with my character by then, there are bigger problems.
Said no Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Druid, or any full caster using a second 7th level spell slot ever; especially while fighting Tiamat

[Moxxmix]

This discussion is suffering from the lack of an agreed upon definition of "ribbon."

Known ribbons, explicitly referred to as such in UA documentation or by an official representative:

Thieve's Cant (Rogue)
Storm Guide (Storm Sorcerer)
Weapon Bond (Eldritch Knight)

A ribbon is not useless. There are scenarios where it can be very helpful, or even critical. However a ribbon is not considered when balancing classes against each other. They are more intended to convey flavor than mechanical advantage.

Weapon Bond has a mechanical advantage; you can't be disarmed, and you can summon your weapon at will. However those aren't common needs. Thus the mechanical advantage (as referred to in the sorcerer UA document) must be more fundamental or consistent.

One might suggest that a ribbon just gives you a way to do something you could probably already do in other ways, but just in a way that is more flavorful, in order to highlight some detail about your class, or possibly even race (eg: Stonecunning, Artificer's Lore). You could talk with thieves without knowing Thieve's Cant. You could steer a ship without Storm Guide. And sneaking your weapon into a private meeting is kinda redundant when you have spells.

With Favored Enemy, the main purpose is clearly just to speed the story along, with easier tracking, being a mouthpiece for creature knowledge (analogous to Stonecunning and Artificer's Lore), and knowing an extra language of a creature you might be interacting with. You can get Help with tracking, anyone in the party can roll to see if they know about creature X, and language is commonly handwaved anyway, since everyone speaks Common. It provides no significant mechanical advantage, but adds flavor when it applies.

[EvilAnagram]

Said no Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Druid, or any full caster using a second 7th level spell slot ever; especially while fighting Tiamat
That extra slot is nice, I admit, but the Ranger with the choices I made (essentially walking into the situation blind) would still have gotten use out of it, unless there are suddenly no humanoid or dragon servitors on the way to Tiamat. Not having it for her isn't ideal, but it's far from the worst thing that could happen.

[Tanarii]

You're conflating favored with hated. A bounty hunter will likely be very good at tracking humans, but that doesn't mean he hates them.
Yup. I managed to do that myself right now, even though my default/standard/recommendation for Ranger's favored enemies are Humanoids (Humans, 1 other).

[Naanomi]

Yup. I managed to do that myself right now, even though my default/standard/recommendation for Ranger's favored enemies are Humanoids (Humans, 1 other).
Agreed. Unless I have other ideas in mind specifically, I either do beasts or (my own race+most obvious racial humanoid enemy) as my starting Favored Enemy; makes sense for most unfocused ranger backgrounds

[Mortis_Elrod]

Regarding the language thing, Just because someone is your enemy doesn't mean you always resort to killing on site. Often times you will have to negotiate with an enemy or even just interrogate an enemy. Not knowing the language of an intelligent enemy could be very detrimental.


As to the time it takes to learn the language? Thats a whole level of Ranger. I imagine that is enough to justify learning a language considering its actually not hard to do in this game. Of course that first level is easy to learn but you'll notice that matches up with learning languages IRL. Easier when you're young.

[Tanarii]

As to the time it takes to learn the language? Thats a whole level of Ranger. I imagine that is enough to justify learning a language considering its actually not hard to do in this game. Of course that first level is easy to learn but you'll notice that matches up with learning languages IRL. Easier when you're young.its hardly the only place the fast leveling of 5e with no training time required can result in some wonkiness.

[Naanomi]

its hardly the only place the fast leveling of 5e with no training time required can result in some wonkiness.
Yeah, if spells that normally take expensive ink and a decent amount of time can appear in a spellbook on leveling up, languages are just fine. I assume, like many such things, that characters are working on such things ‘off camera’

[Kane0]

But what is consistent is: Tracking. Hunting. Searching. Finding. Awareness. Not getting lost. Figuring out how to get from point A to point B, even without any roads or paths.

Ranger is the hide & seek counterpart to the Rogue: The Rogue hides, the Ranger seeks. And now we have a core idea that ties everything together. A mix of environment, and searching.


Interesting. I like your take on it.
If the ranger is the finder that opposes the hiding rogue, what would you do with Hide in Plain sight and Vanish?

[Mortis_Elrod]

Interesting. I like your take on it.
If the ranger is the finder that opposes the hiding rogue, what would you do with Hide in Plain sight and Vanish?

See through half cover? a blindsight? Ranger seems like a good class to put blindsight on.

[Citan]

A ranger without Natural Explorer and Racial Enemy brings basically nothing to the table that a fighter/rogue/Druid multiclass wouldn’t do better. The narrow scope and all-or-nothing nature of these unique ranger abilities is a big part of the problem... they may not lead to the Ranger being underpowered, but they too often lead to the ranger being underfun

That is mostly true... But then you have to cope with the multiclassing itself, which ought to be painful past char level 7-8, and you also have to know what you are doing if you really want to "replicate the authenticity"(oxymore here) of another class.

But yes, I agree, take two char level 15, one pure Ranger, and one tri-class (I guess Battlemaster Fighter 5 / Land Druid 5 / Thief Rogue 5? Or maybe you had a different split in mind)...

And the latter will end better in many situations, in and out of combat (although utility-wise it will still be unable to compete with Ranger on his own Favored Terrain). Simply because classes are so front-loaded, and multiclassing into Druid just gives such a great boost in available spells (thus versatility) that Ranger just cannot compete.

But, besides the fact that you'll have to make very hard choices on how to level "this" (I'd honestly take a suggestion, because this is a build I'd like playing, but don't have a clue how to level it ^^), and the fact you will basically have to choose whether to "feel like a Ranger early" and be subpar, or go for optimization first and get something close to a Ranger not before char level 8 best case (putting aside all Ranger's exclusive spells and unreproducable abilities)...

The same statement that multiclassing can push efficiency above single-class in some aspects can be held for most classes.
For example, when playing a caster, I'll most always grab a single level dip into another caster because so many 1st level spells are just usable throughout the game that it's well worth the delay imo.

Many people multiclass Paladin into Sorcerer or Warlock, although single-class Paladins are really rockstars... But people always think only about combat, and reduce it to "damage", and reduce it again to "my damage", so prefer getting better nova earlier than get the best defensive features of the games (Aura as in *30* feet Auras), that could actually end as much more "party damage" overall, by making allies survive one or more rounds.
When playing a GWM non-EK Fighter, I'll always keep enough DEX to dip into Rogue for Cunning Action, because I find nothing worse than being "the guy that could single-hit one enemy but has to spend his Action chasing him instead".

On that note, take a level 15 Battlemaster and a lvl 15 Battlemaster 11 / Rogue 2 / Barb 2: the latter is plain better imo, because potentially better mobility (Dash), better evasion (Disengage), better resilience (advantage on DEX saves -which you'll never be proficient in- and resistance to physical damage for the toughest fight).
For that, you lost a few attributes points, one AC point, and another die.
I'd understand opposite opinions perfectly though: if in your game you'd usually feel no threat to your life nor problem reaching the creatures you want, then single-class is obviously better. :)


Perhaps part of the issue is that the current Ranger seems rather disingenuous. In that many of its abilities don't do what their names actually imply or what would seem logical for them.

For example, I think it's reasonable to say that when most people hear the term 'Favoured Enemy' they think of enemies that the character is especially good at fighting. Hence, the obvious implication is that the Ranger will get some sort of combat bonus against them. And he does... at lv20.

Until then, the ranger has advantage on tracking them and on recalling information about them (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Bear_Lore). That's it. Oh, and he knows their language. I guess he's also good at negotiating with them or something?

Argue amongst yourselves as to whether this ability is useful, but it really seems like something that's been misnamed. And yes, I'm well aware that Rangers have traditionally had a Favoured Enemy ability - except that it was a combat ability (and one from the get-go, not just when you reach the end of your career). So we're still not doing well in the consistency department (and technically the bonus to damage comes from a different ability altogether).


Similarly, Hide in Plain Sight loses it's appeal when you realise that it should have been called 'Hide in Plain Sight Eventually'. I guess it's useful for all those rangers eager to reenact that one scene from Hunger Games. :smallwink:


Another weird one is that the Hunter subclass has two abilities that are basically tautologous ('Colossus Slayer' and 'Giant Killer'), yet with completely different effects.


And then of course we have the Beast Master, who appears to have less control over his pet than a non-Ranger would have over a generic attack-dog. One might think that once you tell your pet to attack someone, it would at least continue doing so until you tell it to stop. But no. Apparently your pet bear or whatever will bite an enemy once and then immediately stop just in case you've changed your mind. What's more, your special animal bond apparently makes it harder for you to give your animal commands. Virtually every other pet or summon is commanded via a bonus action, or even for free. Yet your animal apparently needs you to use your action to provide it with a map to its target or something. :smallconfused:

Again, I'm not saying that the ranger is necessarily underpowered because of this - just that it makes it feel really clunky and unnatural.
These are all very good points.
You're actually very on to something imo here, the more I think about it, the more I agree that the choice of name was poor in many cases.

Favored Enemy is indeed misleading, any people would expect you do more damage against that kind of enemy right now.
It's not a surprise WoTC made that apparent in the Revised version.
I perfectly understand that people would be frustrated with the PHB version. ^^

In the defense of it though, the fact that you can recall information about enemies *should* be actually a top-tier feature making you one great asset to the party...
But between the fact most DMs waive "informational checks" and/or won't encourage players to immerse themselves into investigation quests...
And the fact sadly many players metagame knowledge of creatures, either in fully awareness or just by optimization reflex...
This is often indeed, in practice, useless.

Same with the Beast: although it was probably a good idea for the mechanical balance, the fact that your beast, supposedly your BFF, would just stand idle when you are not directly commanding it for whatever reason is just one of the top immersion-breakers for many people, for good reason.
(Good thing any reasonable DM would waive that around, or at least allow player to give a "by default" order for hostiles situations, thanks to PHB/DMG encouraging itself DMs to overrule it).
And, as for the previous one, it's no surprise they made a very different choice in their proposition of Revised Ranger.

I personally regret though they went so far in "revising" the Ranger, especially the beast master. Its level 15 feature "sharing bond" I found was worthy of keeping up the effort that long. ;)


Well, I think i’ve addressed the majority of the listed concerns here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?462877-Ranger-Rework-v1-2), its been through some iterations but critique and opinions are of course welcome.
This is a great work, much better imo than Revised in addressing common community critics while staying as close as possible to the original. Thanks to you (and all that contributed to it).

Just one question: base class would make prepared spells, but still on the Ranger's dedicated spell list right?

[Naanomi]

I admit the path to get there may not be easiest, but at ‘the end’

Rogue (Scout) 3/Fighter (Battlemaster) 7/Druid (Land) 10

Feels pretty Rangery, has more spell slots and spell choices, more combat tricks, more skills, expertise to cover a variety of Scout and Survivalist configurations... even has Land’s Stride, an ability to evaluate enemies, and a favored terrain

[EvilAnagram]

I admit the path to get there may not be easiest, but at ‘the end’

Rogue (Scout) 3/Fighter (Battlemaster) 7/Druid (Land) 10

Feels pretty Rangery, has more spell slots and spell choices, more combat tricks, more skills, expertise to cover a variety of Scout and Survivalist configurations... even has Land’s Stride, an ability to evaluate enemies, and a favored terrain

A ranger that doesn't feel like a ranger for 80% of play isn't much of a ranger.

[Naanomi]

A ranger that doesn't feel like a ranger for 80% of play isn't much of a ranger.
I think I’d feel like a decent ranger around Rogue (Scout) 3/Fighter 1 and beyond, but opinions may vary

[Kane0]

This is a great work, much better imo than Revised in addressing common community critics while staying as close as possible to the original. Thanks to you (and all that contributed to it).

Just one question: base class would make prepared spells, but still on the Ranger's dedicated spell list right?

Thankyou! Yes it still uses the Ranger spell list as normal.

[Wryte]

Anyway, I've said more than enough for one thread. Those who had good ideas influenced others, and those who said gibberish (ew ranger is horrible) were ignored. Here's a summary of the facts so far:

• Even if you don't ever get to use your terrain and enemy features, Ranger is still as good as a DEX fighter, but with an extra skill. That's not to say fighter is moot (they can be optimized deeper than ranger), but that Ranger doesn't lag behind in combat. Even if someone did some hard math to show it's a bit weaker, 2-3 points of DPR won't be significant in your gameplay.

Really? Okay, let's do some math and compare a base Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue at a few levels. We'll assume that at each level all three characters start with +3 Dex, are archers, and using similar weapons- the Fighter and Ranger will be using Longbows, and the Rogue a Shortbow. We'll leave rest-based abilities out of the calculations other than Hunter's Mark.



Level
Fighter
Ranger
Rogue


1
Archery Fighting Style: 7(1d8+3)
7(1d8+3)
Sneak Attack: 9(2d6+3)


2
7(1d8+3)
Archery Fighting Style, Hunter's Mark: 10(1d8+1d6+3)
Cunning Action: 9(2d6+3)


3
7(1d8+3)
10(1d8+1d6+3)
Sneak Attack Increase: 12(3d6+3)


4
Sharpshooter: 17(1d8+13)
Sharpshooter: 20(1d8+1d6+13)
Sharpshooter: 22(3d6+13)


5
Extra Attack: 34[2x(1d8+13)]
Extra Attack: 40[2x(1d8+1d6+13)]
Sneak Attack Increase: 25(4d6+13)


6
ASI +2 Dex: 36[2x(1d8+14)]
40[2x(1d8+1d6+13)]
25(4d6+13)


7
36[2x(1d8+14)]
40[2x(1d8+1d6+13)]
Sneak Attack Increase: 28(5d6+13)


8
ASI +2 Dex: 38[2x(1d8+15)]
ASI +2 Dex: 42[2x(1d8+1d6+14)]
ASI +2 Dex: 29(5d6+14)


9
38[2x(1d8+15)]
42[2x(1d8+1d6+14)]
Sneak Attack Increase: 33(6d6+14)


10
38[2x(1d8+15)]
42[2x(1d8+1d6+14)]
ASI +2 Dex: 34(6d6+15)


11
Extra Attack (2): 57[3x(1d8+15)]
42[2x(1d8+1d6+14)]
Sneak Attack Increase: 37(7d6+15)


12
57[3x(1d8+15)]
ASI +2 Dex: 44[2x(1d8+1d6+15)]
37(7d6+15)


13
57[3x(1d8+15)]
44[2x(1d8+1d6+15)]
Sneak Attack Increase: 40(8d6+15)


14
57[3x(1d8+15)]
Vanish: 44[2x(1d8+1d6+15)]
40(8d6+15)


15
57[3x(1d8+15)]
44[2x(1d8+1d6+15)]
Sneak Attack Increase: 43(9d6+15)


16
57[3x(1d8+15)]
44[2x(1d8+1d6+15)]
43(9d6+15)


17
57[3x(1d8+15)]
44[2x(1d8+1d6+15)]
Sneak Attack Increase: 46(10d6+15)


18
57[3x(1d8+15)]
44[2x(1d8+1d6+15)]
46(10d6+15)


19
57[3x(1d8+15)]
44[2x(1d8+1d6+15)]
Sneak Attack Increase: 49(11d6+15)


20
Extra Attack (3): 76[4x(1d8+15)]
Foe Slayer: 49[2x(1d8+1d6+15)+5]
49(11d6+15)



From levels 1-10, yes, the difference is pretty negligible. The Rogue falls behind a bit once the others get Extra Attack, but she steadily catches back up. As soon as they hit 11th level, though, the Fighter jumps pretty far ahead and stays there.


• The ranger spell list is severely underrated by the community in general, even with their little spells known. Using only the most commonly taken spells, you can have single-target damage (Hunter's Mark), single-target debuffing along with damage (Ensnaring Strike), resist elemental damage (Absorb Elements), great AoE (Hail of Thorns, Conjure Barrage, Conjure Volley), shutting down spellcasters (Silence), being 200% sneaky (Pass Without Trace) and 'smite' at range (Lightning Arrow). If you are fighting more specific enemies, you can tailor it accordingly.

Problem is? A lot of those spells are Concentration, which means you'll be constantly losing your Hunter's Mark and having to burn more slots to reapply it. And "tailor it accordingly?" How do you figure? You already listed about three quarters of all the offensive spells in the Ranger spell list, and being a Known caster means the only time you can customize your spell list is when you level up, so choosing and changing spells around for a specific enemy or type of enemies once again becomes betting that the campaign won't go off in some other direction before the next time you level. Even if you're right, that just means the class's design keeps getting worse because it just keeps doubling down on the Ranger needing to be psychic about where the game is going to go in order to be effective.


• Some features, while not being stellar (Primeval Awareness, Hide in Plain Sight) are far from ribbons if you stop being lazy and take the time to think about how to make them useful in your situation. They don't deserve the bad rep they get.

Primeval Awareness isn't just not stellar, it can be actively detrimental to your party by feeding you false flags. Without providing any information other than a simple yes or no answer to "does this thing exist within a huge area around me?", Primeval Awareness' sole use is to tell you whether it's a waste of time to make Survival checks to go looking for something. In other words, it consumes a mechanically finite resource (spell slots) for the sole purpose of conserving a mechanically unlimited resource (in-game time), which seems completely backwards, at the very least.

As for Hide in Plain Sight, between the 1 minute prep time, being blown the first time you do anything, and being a self-only version of Pass Without Trace, the only times HIPS stands out is if you need to ambush someone in a place or on whom magical concealment doesn't work.


• Your character knows what's around him and the creatures of his world. That's basically free information for your DM to give you. If your DM is running a module, it shouldn't be hard to figure out what terrains/enemies you'll find. If you're arriving in Adventurers' League or if your DM sucks, read the first point.

Okay, so for the sake or argument, let's say that you do, indeed, manage to pick entirely applicable favored enemies and terrains for the campaign you're running. What does that actually get you?

You're good at tracking enemies. Okay, so is anyone else with a decent Wis score and proficiency in Survival, and advantage on tracking checks isn't especially hard to come by.

You know more about your enemies. Okay, just how much more? This is 100% up to the DM's discretion, even when it is relevant. One DM might feed you fluff about the orc tribe's social structure, while another might declare that you know everything in the dire wolf's stat block. It is extremely hard to pin an actual value on this feature, because what you can learn from Int checks is so purposely vague in mechanics.

You learn a language, if the creature type has one associated with it. Okay, that's something that can be helpful.

You have a bunch of effects on long-distance travel, the sum of which tend to be to further encourage the DM to handwave an aspect of the game that is already frequently handwaved at most tables, meaning that your impact on the game is happening entirely off-screen and doesn't really matter.


• I talk from experience: I've played as a Hunter, and was the DPR go-to of the party. I've also seen Beastmaster (revised) and Horizon Walker at the table, and they did just fine.

Yes, the Ranger can do "fine" on DPR. But merely doing "fine" in combat - the most mechanically-dependent pillar of the game - while bringing nothing to the table that actually has a noticeable impact on the other two pillars is pretty underwhelming.

And I think this is a very important aspect of discussing class design. Because while you won't catch me arguing that combat is the only aspect of the game that matters, combat is the pillar that is most tightly tied to the game's mechanics. The social and exploration pillars have a lot of flexibility and wiggle room built into them by purposeful design, to allow creative solutions to problems and adaptation from table to table. While the Bard has more tools at its disposal than other classes for dealing with social situations, any class can bring something to the table in such a scenario with good chances of making it work if they're clever; you don't need a feature to explicitly give you the ability to do something to attempt it in the roleplaying and exploration pillars. At the same time, combat will almost always represent the bulk of actual play time, because that much mechanical involvement will naturally make those sections of the game move slower.

Between combat representing a larger portion of real time spent on the game, and non-combat aspects being more freeform and flexible, a class's combat mechanics and features carry far more weight than their non-combat ones. This is why a combat-focused class like barbarians can coast on having fun and engaging combat features at the expense of social and exploration features, because if the player wants to be good at anything outside of combat, they can still achieve that with their choices of skill proficiencies and which secondary ability scores they shore up. On the flip side, a class that lacks powerful or interesting combat features had better do a good job of selling its core fantasy in its other features.

This is where the Ranger falls flat. The Ranger's basic combat routine is no more interesting than the Fighter's: pick a target, and try to hit it. Sure, they can mix in spells, but so can plenty of other classes and subclasses, with greater variety, flexibility, and potency. The Ranger gets most of its combat-related improvements pretty early on, and then really stagnates. Now, this wouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle if it sold its core fantasy of being a rugged wilderness survivalist at one with nature... but it falls flat there, too. Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain, and learned spells give it a high reliance on the player guessing or spoiling themselves on what they're going to encounter in their adventure to get any benefit out of the first two features at all. Favored Enemy doesn't make you significantly better at tracking than anyone else with a solid Survival bonus, and the usefulness of advantage on Int checks is entirely at the DM's discretion. Natural Explorer's benefits are all to a part of the game that most tables handwave anyway, and only serve to further encourage the handwaving, so there's no player interaction or engagement there. Primeval Awareness is clunky at best, and can be actively detrimental at worst. Hide in Plain Sight is a weaker version of a spell on your own spell list. Vanish is 1/3rd of an ability Rogues got 12 levels earlier. Beast Masters are better off using their companion as a meatier familiar to grant themselves easy advantage on attack rolls than actually fighting with them.

The Ranger is the Justice Friends Aquaman of 5e's classes. Yes, it can be situationally powerful, but if you're getting a lot of mileage out of it, I'd wager it's as much because your DM is going the extra mile to make sure you actually have something to do with your overspecialized talents as it is because you've figured out a better way to play it.

[Kane0]

-Damage Numbers-

It seems to me that the Ranger could benefit from a 3rd or 4th level spell between Hunter's Mark and Swift Quiver to even out these numbers.

Haste fits the bill for Horizon Walkers, but the others don't have that luxury. Perhaps a Ranger only version that only gives the extra action without the loss of turn when ended?

[EvilAnagram]

It's kind of odd to dedicate a novel to explaining why the Ranger slightly lags in DPS, then admit he can do fine but doesn't bring anything else to the table (apparently spells, three exploration features, and an extra skill are basically garbage in exploration?).

Make up your mind.

The Ranger does decent single-target DPS while still having solid AoE. That's his niche. It also has some fun exploration spells and decent skills, and it can be really clutch when tracking or adventuring in the wilds. It's always useful, if not terribly cheesy. I think the kind of people who post on forums tend to be like my wife: if it's not cheesy it's not worthwhile.

[cotofpoffee]

That DPR chart is also disingenuous. A DPR chart that only shows damage numbers doesn't really mean anything. I mean, Barbarians top DPR charts because they can give themselves advantage constantly, but they'd look terrible in a chart that only shows damage at high levels.

He puts in Hunter's Mark but conveniently forgets about Guardian of Nature and Swift Quiver, two high level buffs that would change up a Ranger's numbers quite a lot (well, Guardian of Nature would do nothing to his chart because it doesn't account for accuracy). But a level 17+ Ranger drops a respectable 4 attacks per round and doubles as an out-of-combat healer and backup battlefield controller if needed. That's not bad at all.

Don't get me wrong, basically nothing comes close to a Fighter in DPR, except a Paladin burning all of their spells to Smite. But I doubt you'd use that as an excuse for why a class like a Barbarian, Monk, or Rogue sucks.

[Moxxmix]

Interesting. I like your take on it.
If the ranger is the finder that opposes the hiding rogue, what would you do with Hide in Plain sight and Vanish?

I'd put Hide In Plain Sight in an ambush-focused hunter/trapper subclass.

Vanish, I added to the Land's Touch section (lousy name, but whatever) along with the abilities affecting difficult terrain. You can hide as a bonus action in adapted environments. It doesn't add the "You cannot be tracked except by magical means", though, as I'm not entirely comfortable with how magic vs non-magic is handled in the Ranger benefits, particularly when considering related spells — Pass Without Trace with tracking, Freedom of Movement with ignoring difficult terrain. (The PHB ranger ignores non-magical difficult terrain at 8th level. The UA ranger ignores all difficult terrain at 1st level.)

[Kane0]

Nevermind, ranger gets Flame Arrows on their spell list. The problem is that Flame Arrows sucks.


I'd put Hide In Plain Sight in an ambush-focused hunter/trapper subclass.

Vanish, I added to the Land's Touch section (lousy name, but whatever) along with the abilities affecting difficult terrain. You can hide as a bonus action in adapted environments. It doesn't add the "You cannot be tracked except by magical means", though, as I'm not entirely comfortable with how magic vs non-magic is handled in the Ranger benefits, particularly when considering related spells — Pass Without Trace with tracking, Freedom of Movement with ignoring difficult terrain. (The PHB ranger ignores non-magical difficult terrain at 8th level. The UA ranger ignores all difficult terrain at 1st level.)

Oh snap, I completely forgot about Pass Without Trace. I'm fine with a high level ranger passively having half of Freedom of Movement, there's precedent and it gives more reason to use it on someone else or pick up another spell.

[Citan]

Oh snap, I completely forgot about Pass Without Trace. I'm fine with a high level ranger passively having half of Freedom of Movement, there's precedent and it gives more reason to use it on someone else or pick up another spell.
Oops did miss that either. Shame on you! :smallbiggrin:

About Flame Arrows, yeah it's lackluster. It has some situational uses when you have several party members that rely on ranged attacks and need a bit more of damage, but still...
I'd change it so that...
- You choose the damage type (like Elemental Weapon).
- You can either choose to double the amount of arrows created or double the extra damage of arrows when upcast.
- The weapon attack using this piece of ammunition deals magical damage (so you get the full brunt of the normal weapon attack).
Enter Elemental Arrows ;)

[EvilAnagram]

Oops did miss that either. Shame on you! :smallbiggrin:

About Flame Arrows, yeah it's lackluster. It has some situational uses when you have several party members that rely on ranged attacks and need a bit more of damage, but still...
I'd change it so that...
- You choose the damage type (like Elemental Weapon).
- You can either choose to double the amount of arrows created or double the extra damage of arrows when upcast.
- The weapon attack using this piece of ammunition deals magical damage (so you get the full brunt of the normal weapon attack).
Enter Elemental Arrows ;)

Flame arrows is nice when the druid casts it on the ranger's quiver while he concentrates on Hunter's Mark.

[Naanomi]

Flame arrows is nice when the druid casts it on the ranger's quiver while he concentrates on Hunter's Mark.
Eh... most Druids I’ve seen have better things to concentrate on than that

[EvilAnagram]

Eh... most Druids I’ve seen have better things to concentrate on than that

True. Even if something has fire vulnerability, Heat Metal is better.

[Kane0]

Hunter's Mark: Concentration, +1d6 damage per hit for one hour against one target plus a tracking rider. Scales with duration.
Flame Arrows: Concentration, +1d6 fire damage for one hour on up to 12 pieces of ammo which anyone can use. Scales with extra ammo.

They look like they should be the same level, not 1st and 3rd respectively. I personally boost Flame Arrows damage to +2d8 and ammo to 20, plus make it a bonus action cast time and scale by damage.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Hunter's Mark: Concentration, +1d6 damage per hit for one hour against one target plus a tracking rider. Scales with duration.
Flame Arrows: Concentration, +1d6 fire damage for one hour on up to 12 pieces of ammo which anyone can use. Scales with extra ammo.

They look like they should be the same level, not 1st and 3rd respectively. I personally boost Flame Arrows damage to +2d8 and ammo to 20, plus make it a bonus action cast time and scale by damage.

i kinda feel like Elemental weapon would have been fine to on the ranger list instead of Flame Arrows.

I like the Elemental Arrow spell idea. would be nice if the elemens on that one had an additional effect.
-Cold: movement speed halved or slowed by 10
-lightning: can't take reactions
-Acid: ?
-Fire: ?
-Thunder: prone

[Kane0]

i kinda feel like Elemental weapon would have been fine to on the ranger list instead of Flame Arrows.

I like the Elemental Arrow spell idea. would be nice if the elemens on that one had an additional effect.
-Cold: movement speed halved or slowed by 10
-lightning: can't take reactions
-Acid: ?
-Fire: ?
-Thunder: prone

It does seem sort of redundant when Elemental weapon it already a thing. But hey, we work with what we got.

Acid: Follow up damage ala Melf's
Fire: Ignite objects ala firebolt

[Citan]

Flame arrows is nice when the druid casts it on the ranger's quiver while he concentrates on Hunter's Mark.


Eh... most Druids I’ve seen have better things to concentrate on than that
True, sadly teamwork is not much encouraged in that regard. XD

It's why I suggested those changes. It would still be a niche spell anyways, but *maybe* there would be more niche cases?

Admitedly it's still very hard to justify compared to an Elemental Weapon. I honestly cannot gather what designers had in mind with this spell...

Hunter's Mark: Concentration, +1d6 damage per hit for one hour against one target plus a tracking rider. Scales with duration.
Flame Arrows: Concentration, +1d6 fire damage for one hour on up to 12 pieces of ammo which anyone can use. Scales with extra ammo.

They look like they should be the same level, not 1st and 3rd respectively. I personally boost Flame Arrows damage to +2d8 and ammo to 20, plus make it a bonus action cast time and scale by damage.
Completely agree, it should be a 2nd level spell at best. OR non-concentration spell with 8 hours duration. I really feel making it like this (and making all damage magical, not only extra damage) would in fact be enough to make it worht the slot. At least you could have an ally prepare arrows for several people in advance and still get concentration available for fights.


i kinda feel like Elemental weapon would have been fine to on the ranger list instead of Flame Arrows.

I like the Elemental Arrow spell idea. would be nice if the elemens on that one had an additional effect.
-Cold: movement speed halved or slowed by 10
-lightning: can't take reactions
-Acid: ?
-Fire: ?
-Thunder: prone
Ahem...
Because I'm a *very* egotistical guy, I'll ask you to kindly pull away of this great idea. It would totally eat at one of the core features of my own homebrew. XD:smalltongue:

(But if you'd like to include it anyways, here is what I went with for effects to give you some ideas: ;)
- Cold = 10 feet less.
- Lightning = disadvantage on OA
- Acid = automatic 1d4 damage at start of turn and -2 AC for turn,
- Fire = automatic 1d4 every round unless doused or similar way to end fire,
- Thunder = deafened.
These are the "lower tier" riders I used, as I feel more powerful effets should require more investment. Although I know that deafened for example is sadly a very niche condition to inflict.

(In my homebrew, as you progressively master one element, you "naturally" inflict better conditions.
In fact, I heavily built on the idea of a gish that could empower himself and others with elemental powers, expanding on the base concepts of all spells with "Elements" in their name: Absorb Elements, Elemental Bane, Elemental Weapon etc ^^).
).

[Mortis_Elrod]

Ahem...
Because I'm a *very* egotistical guy, I'll ask you to kindly pull away of this great idea. It would totally eat at one of the core features of my own homebrew. XD:smalltongue:

(But if you'd like to include it anyways, here is what I went with for effects to give you some ideas: ;)
- Cold = 10 feet less.
- Lightning = disadvantage on OA
- Acid = automatic 1d4 damage at start of turn and -2 AC for turn,
- Fire = automatic 1d4 every round unless doused or similar way to end fire,
- Thunder = deafened.
These are the "lower tier" riders I used, as I feel more powerful effets should require more investment. Although I know that deafened for example is sadly a very niche condition to inflict.

(In my homebrew, as you progressively master one element, you "naturally" inflict better conditions.
In fact, I heavily built on the idea of a gish that could empower himself and others with elemental powers, expanding on the base concepts of all spells with "Elements" in their name: Absorb Elements, Elemental Bane, Elemental Weapon etc ^^).
).

Good sir, I request that you show me this homebrew as it may help me in my endeavors to create many different element based characters. I'm recently in a position to test some new stuff, and i was going to test Kane_0s Ranger but now.....

[ToastyTobasco]

I've really got to say, I never expected this to take off like it did. I figured maybe six or so replies. On page 8 now.

Thank you all for the replies

[GlenSmash!]

Primeval Awareness isn't just not stellar, it can be actively detrimental to your party by feeding you false flags. Without providing any information other than a simple yes or no answer to "does this thing exist within a huge area around me?", Primeval Awareness' sole use is to tell you whether it's a waste of time to make Survival checks to go looking for something. In other words, it consumes a mechanically finite resource (spell slots) for the sole purpose of conserving a mechanically unlimited resource (in-game time), which seems completely backwards, at the very least.

This is in many ways my biggest gripe with the PHB Ranger. Not damage, Not Beastmaster. Primeval Awareness giving me more useful information (but still not that useful) when used on a non-favored enemy than on a favored one.

The Revised Version takes it too far in the other direction IMHO, but I think there is a middle ground there.

[Luccan]

I've really got to say, I never expected this to take off like it did. I figured maybe six or so replies. On page 8 now.

Thank you all for the replies

The topic is contentious enough that this isn't too surprising. At least so far its been kept to mostly cooler heads than some topics, which is the real achievement.

[Kane0]

And thankyou to everyone in this thread for helping me develop my brewed ranger a bit more! The conversations were quite insightful.