Revised Ranger has been shelved, not coming out this year

[jaappleton]

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/8n310m/mike_mearls_happy_fun_hour_52918_psionic_spell/

So you guys know I've gotten some inside info on a few things occasionally. I've also been able to get some WOTC staff members to spill a few details occasionally.

This info isn't from me, but from avid listeners of the official D&D podcasts, like Dragon Talk. I honestly don't listen to them, as there simply aren't enough hours in a day. However, that said...

It seems the Revised Ranger has been shelved until at least a new State of the Game survey this upcoming fall. Which means that at the absolute earliest, the next time you'll see a Ranger update is January, and I certainly wouldn't put any money on that.

I'm not exactly thrilled, since Ranger was something a lot of fans really wanted. But it is what it is.

[Kite474]

So a homogenized Psionics and now no Revised Ranger in sight... Well its certainly been a rough few days

[jaappleton]

So a homogenized Psionics and now no Revised Ranger in sight... Well its certainly been a rough few days


Not to derail, but...

I've missed the last few Fun Hours, so I haven't been able to delve too deep into what's new with Psionics. I know Mearls has really focused on them recently, but I haven't been able to catch the streams.

From what I gather, they're pulling away from Psi Points (basically spell points from the DMG) and going back to Spell Slots. Which... I don't hate. I don't hate that move because its a bit strange for something in 5E, which prides itself on simpler, more efficient mechanics, to have one class dedicated entirely to something totally unique and different. That said, I also understand why people wouldn't be a huge fan of the shift, as Psionics is a unique thing.

[Beechgnome]

Not to derail, but...

I've missed the last few Fun Hours, so I haven't been able to delve too deep into what's new with Psionics. I know Mearls has really focused on them recently, but I haven't been able to catch the streams.

From what I gather, they're pulling away from Psi Points (basically spell points from the DMG) and going back to Spell Slots. Which... I don't hate. I don't hate that move because its a bit strange for something in 5E, which prides itself on simpler, more efficient mechanics, to have one class dedicated entirely to something totally unique and different. That said, I also understand why people wouldn't be a huge fan of the shift, as Psionics is a unique thing.

The more I dabbled with mystics the more I realized its complexity, or perhaps its difference from regular spellcasting, is what might sink it.

What I was really hoping for was a grand unified theory linking Ki points, Sorcery points, Psi points and spell slots, all based on the 2,3,5,6,7 costing inherent in sorcery/psi points.

[KorvinStarmast]

What I was really hoping for was a grand unified theory linking Ki points, Sorcery points, Psi points and spell slots, all based on the 2,3,5,6,7 costing inherent in sorcery/psi points.
There's still hope, and I agree that mystic could get crunchy. I liked where they were going with it in version 3, however.

[BlizzardMayne]

Not to derail, but...

I've missed the last few Fun Hours, so I haven't been able to delve too deep into what's new with Psionics. I know Mearls has really focused on them recently, but I haven't been able to catch the streams.

From what I gather, they're pulling away from Psi Points (basically spell points from the DMG) and going back to Spell Slots. Which... I don't hate. I don't hate that move because its a bit strange for something in 5E, which prides itself on simpler, more efficient mechanics, to have one class dedicated entirely to something totally unique and different. That said, I also understand why people wouldn't be a huge fan of the shift, as Psionics is a unique thing.

He explains his thought process on stream and you come to see why implementing Psionics has been so difficult in 5e. I'm paraphrasing but it boils down to the fact that it was hard to find what actually differentiated Psionics in the first place. My experience with Psionics comes from 3.5 and 4th edition. From what I remember Psionics, in 3.5 where they were mechanically 'unique', the big difference between psionics and magic was Power points, and the source, flavor-wise. Now 5e has upcasting already, which was a great use of power points, and the optional spell points rule. That kind of already covers what I remember from 3.5 psionics.

So the goal, as I see it, is to find a vessel for the flavor that players want that is mechanically unique to psionics. It's an interesting problem, and I suggest watching the last couple fun hours to get the whole picture.

[jaappleton]

Note on the Ranger:

There may in fact be NO revised Ranger at all, only a revised Beastmaster.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Note on the Ranger:

There may in fact be NO revised Ranger at all, only a revised Beastmaster.

Ugh. This is severely disappointing. I guess i'll just keep using Kane_0's Ranger Rework.

I understand that 5e design goals demand simplicity, but honestly the whole discipline package thing wasn't hard to understand.

[MrStabby]

The revised ranger was probably the best class to come out of unearthed arcana. Nothing too overpowered but good enough to match the power level of the other half caster in the game.

It had stuff that differentiated it from other martials and a load of flavour.

I really would like to see this fixed as a priority before any Psion, artifice, warlord or other class. The class with the most and most informed feedback shouldn't be such a controversial fix.

[JackPhoenix]

From what I gather, they're pulling away from Psi Points (basically spell points from the DMG) and going back to Spell Slots. Which... I don't hate. I don't hate that move because its a bit strange for something in 5E, which prides itself on simpler, more efficient mechanics, to have one class dedicated entirely to something totally unique and different. That said, I also understand why people wouldn't be a huge fan of the shift, as Psionics is a unique thing.

*cough* warlock *cough*

[jaappleton]

*cough* warlock *cough*

Warlock is different than other standard casters... to an extent. Its still a caster. Its still spells. Still uses spell slots.

Psionics isn't magic, but kinda is (depending on the edition and all that), so how it interacts with the rest of the game needs to be accounted for.

[Tanarii]

Good. The UA revised ranger and beastmaster had several broken things in them. I know thats normal for UA but it was the one that I particularly noticed. They also just missed the point in several other places.

One thing they did Do that was good was make the Natural Explorer bennies apply to all natural terrains.

[mephnick]

The revised ranger was probably the best class to come out of unearthed arcana. Nothing too overpowered but good enough to match the power level of the other half caster in the game..

It was overpowered when applied to any subclass but the beastmaster. It added several pure combat buffs to a class that had 4 already very strong combat subclasses. It wasn't well thought out at all, other than the beastmaster fixes.

[MrStabby]

It was overpowered when applied to any subclass but the beastmaster. It added several pure combat buffs to a class that had 4 already very strong combat subclasses. It wasn't well thought out at all, other than the beastmaster fixes.

It was certainly more powerful than it was, but still less good than say a paladin. Fewer spells prepared, no lay on hands, no detect evil, less nova damage, no access to heavy armour, arguably worse spells. Seriously compare some of the paladin abilities - resistance to spells, fear effects for enemies only with no concentration and refreshing on a short rest, boosts to the whole parties saves. Look at the spells - bless is possibly the best level 1 spell in the game, wrathful smite is outrageously powerful. And compared to what the ranger gets? Hunters Mark? Well paladins can get that as a domain spell. Or or ensnaring strike - good but no wrathful smite.

[jaappleton]

It was certainly more powerful than it was, but still less good than say a paladin. Fewer spells prepared, no lay on hands, no detect evil, less nova damage, no access to heavy armour, arguably worse spells. Seriously compare some of the paladin abilities - resistance to spells, fear effects for enemies only with no concentration and refreshing on a short rest, boosts to the whole parties saves. Look at the spells - bless is possibly the best level 1 spell in the game, wrathful smite is outrageously powerful. And compared to what the ranger gets? Hunters Mark? Well paladins can get that as a domain spell. Or or ensnaring strike - good but no wrathful smite.

One thing I despise about the philosophy design of the Paladin and the Ranger is that their spell selections.

Vanilla Paladin spell list is designed for single target combat. Between Divine Smite, Smite spells and Improved Divine Smite, everything is single target focused. Some Oaths get a spell or two designed for a bit of AoE, but beyond that? Nothing.

Vanilla Ranger is almost exactly the opposite. Now, Revised gets a Favored Enemy bonus, that's true. But their spell list is so lacking. Their exclusive spells are piss poor. Lightning Arrow as a 3rd level spell? Available to the Ranger at 9th level. Meanwhile a Tempest Cleric at lv3 maxxing Shatter blows it out of the water, at quite literally 1/3rd the level. A specific example, yes, but look across the whole Ranger spell list. Its either 'meh' or 'underwhelming'. Especially for a half caster.

Compare the exclusive spells between a Ranger and a Paladin, and their usefulness (especially for what level they are obtained) and its ridiculously lopsided.

And I really hate that. I feel such a choice should be more in the players hands for how they want to build their character, and not so heavily designed into the core of the class.

[MrStabby]

It was overpowered when applied to any subclass but the beastmaster. It added several pure combat buffs to a class that had 4 already very strong combat subclasses. It wasn't well thought out at all, other than the beastmaster fixes.

It was certainly more powerful than it was, but still less good than say a paladin. Fewer spells prepared, no lay on hands, no detect evil, less nova damage, no access to heavy armour, arguably worse spells. Seriously compare some of the paladin abilities - resistance to spells, fear effects for enemies only with no concentration and refreshing on a short rest, boosts to the whole parties saves. Look at the spells - bless is possibly the best level 1 spell in the game, wrathful smite is outrageously powerful. And compared to what the ranger gets? Hunters Mark? Well paladins can get that as a domain spell. Or or ensnaring strike - good but no wrathful smite.

[mephnick]

Ranger does get Healing Spirit, the most powerful 2nd level spell in the history of the universe, making it the second best healer in the game (because Druids get more slots to cast Healing Spirit!)

[Corpus]

He explains his thought process on stream and you come to see why implementing Psionics has been so difficult in 5e. I'm paraphrasing but it boils down to the fact that it was hard to find what actually differentiated Psionics in the first place.

I don't know why D&D (Both TSR and Wizards) have struggled with Psionics so much. Especially with the new edition and them wanting everything simplified. It's actually easy. A game called Rolemaster had this figured out in the early 80's with Mentalism, and the Chinese got it 1,500 years ago with Tai Chi. A Monk (Ki) is already Psionic (mental magic).

In Rolemaster they had 3 types of magic and 3 different sources for that magic.

Essence (Arcane)
The Essence is that which is common to all things, living and dead, organic and inorganic. It represents a force and order that defines the ways of the world. Some who study and become one with the Essence find ways of manipulating its energy and patterns on a temporary basis.

Channelling (Divine)
Channeling is the power of the deities of a given world as channeled through their followers or other spell users. It is religious in nature and independent of the Essence.

Mentalism (Psionics)
The mind is an amazing tool—yet, most don't uses it to its full capacity. Mentalism spell users strive to focus their minds in ways few even contemplate. By using the energies locked inside themselves, Mentalism users are able to focus the power of the Essence within their own mental corridors.
_ _ _ _ _

It seems as though the developers haven't been using their "full capacity" when developing a magic of the mind for D&D.

My only conclusion is that it's copy write so tight somehow that they can't get close to something similar.

[MaxWilson]

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/8n310m/mike_mearls_happy_fun_hour_52918_psionic_spell/

So you guys know I've gotten some inside info on a few things occasionally. I've also been able to get some WOTC staff members to spill a few details occasionally.

This info isn't from me, but from avid listeners of the official D&D podcasts, like Dragon Talk. I honestly don't listen to them, as there simply aren't enough hours in a day. However, that said...

It seems the Revised Ranger has been shelved until at least a new State of the Game survey this upcoming fall. Which means that at the absolute earliest, the next time you'll see a Ranger update is January, and I certainly wouldn't put any money on that.

I'm not exactly thrilled, since Ranger was something a lot of fans really wanted. But it is what it is.

Note that the baseline Ranger is much, much stronger since Xanathar's came out, thanks to Healing Spirit, which you can use to prevent your pet from dying (using your bonus action) and also heal the whole party during or after combat. Beastmasters are no longer weak even at high levels. They're still annoying from an RP angle, but they're clearly not weak.

Edit: yeah, what mephnick said.

@Corpus, you make me want to track down some MERP gamebooks on Amazon. I never actually played that game as a kid but I sure spent a lot of time reading the tables and rules and dreaming about playing it. :-)

[MrStabby]

Ranger does get Healing Spirit, the most powerful 2nd level spell in the history of the universe, making it the second best healer in the game (because Druids get more slots to cast Healing Spirit!)

That's true. I was thinking of a game I was playing alongside a paladin and a revised ranger. The paladin was still the stronger class but Healing Spirit had not been released at that time.

I think however it would be more accurate to describe healing spirit as imbalanced rather than the revised ranger class as imbalanced.

[MaxWilson]

That's true. I was thinking of a game I was playing alongside a paladin and a revised ranger. The paladin was still the stronger class but Healing Spirit had not been released at that time.

I think however it would be more accurate to describe healing spirit as imbalanced rather than the revised ranger class as imbalanced.

You could, however, make the same claim about Paladins: spells like Wrathful Smite and Aura of Vitality are standouts, the best part of the paladin class. When your best feature is access to certain unusually-powerful spells, is it the class that's OP or the spells?

[Corpus]

@Corpus, you make me want to track down some MERP gamebooks on Amazon. I never actually played that game as a kid but I sure spent a lot of time reading the tables and rules and dreaming about playing it. :-)

Hahaha ... ohhh the tables.
Books and books of tables.
One of the few games that you had a chance to kill a Dragon with a single hit from a dagger. A very very very small chance ... but a chance nonetheless.

It was a fun system for sure :)

[jaappleton]

That's true. I was thinking of a game I was playing alongside a paladin and a revised ranger. The paladin was still the stronger class but Healing Spirit had not been released at that time.

I think however it would be more accurate to describe healing spirit as imbalanced rather than the revised ranger class as imbalanced.

Healing Spirit is imbalanced. Frankly, I'm absolutely floored they released that spell. For as much as they preach about playtesting and wanting to get things right, they really screwed up with that spell.

[JackPhoenix]

Ranger does get Healing Spirit, the most powerful 2nd level spell in the history of the universe, making it the second best healer in the game (because Druids get more slots to cast Healing Spirit!)

Third. Bards are a thing too.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Note that the baseline Ranger is much, much stronger since Xanathar's came out, thanks to Healing Spirit, which you can use to prevent your pet from dying (using your bonus action) and also heal the whole party during or after combat. Beastmasters are no longer weak even at high levels. They're still annoying from an RP angle, but they're clearly not weak.


I don't think 1 broken spell makes the ranger 'much much stronger'. What now i have to heal to feal powerful in a class i definitely didn't pick to heal everyone with?

[mephnick]

Healing Spirit is imbalanced. Frankly, I'm absolutely floored they released that spell. For as much as they preach about playtesting and wanting to get things right, they really screwed up with that spell.

The stupid thing is it wasn't released for playtesting! It wasn't in the UA Spells or anything. They just threw it in XGtE at the last second and obviously didn't give it much thought.

[Kane0]

Is it callous of me to be happy in that this means my ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?462877-Ranger-Rework-v1-3) gets to live on a bit longer?

[MrStabby]

You could, however, make the same claim about Paladins: spells like Wrathful Smite and Aura of Vitality are standouts, the best part of the paladin class. When your best feature is access to certain unusually-powerful spells, is it the class that's OP or the spells?

Well it kind of depends on the number. Wizards get access to loads and loads of spells and lot of really good ones. I would say that it is enough of a theme that "strong spells" is part of a feature of the class. Likewise with paladin - Wrathful Smite, Aura of Vitality, bless, destructive wave, circle of power plus whatever they get from domains (hunters mark, ensnaring strike, misty step spring to mind) seems like powerful spells are a theme of the Paladin as well.

As for them standing out? I don't think they are the best part of the class. The smite mechanic and the Aura at level 6/7 are what I think of as being the "best part" of the paladin class. That and the lay on hands feature that lets you restore consciousness to massive numbers of bleeding out PCs or NPCs, gives access to actually quite a lot of healing, neutralising poison and curing disease in a very efficient manner. All without eating into limits of available spells prepared

[Chaosvii7]

The only thing that stings about the psionics changes is the fact that they polled the name change from Mystic to Psion. I liked Mystic more.

I don't mind the system being similar to spells, but from what I've seen on the HFH streams they need to make way more changes to make it different enough for me to care about it. I think an entirely new system would benefit the game more than re-re-re-(etc.)-hashing spells and vancian casting, but I wouldn't mind this new take as long as each class does things vastly differently from both one another and regular spellcasters.

One change I suggested was making it so that classes have the ability to alter spells on short rests like they had in 4e with the power points augmenting Psionic at-wills instead of being the sole resource the class draws from. That would at least allow them to change each class up, especially if they diversify the benefits each class gets when they do so.

It doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to be different. There's no point to making a new book full of new classes that are just the same-old, same-old when I can just play a Wizard and do the same thing as them with the only difference being the flavor.

[Snails]

He explains his thought process on stream and you come to see why implementing Psionics has been so difficult in 5e. I'm paraphrasing but it boils down to the fact that it was hard to find what actually differentiated Psionics in the first place. My experience with Psionics comes from 3.5 and 4th edition. From what I remember Psionics, in 3.5 where they were mechanically 'unique', the big difference between psionics and magic was Power points, and the source, flavor-wise. Now 5e has upcasting already, which was a great use of power points, and the optional spell points rule. That kind of already covers what I remember from 3.5 psionics.


There were two things going for the psion: (1) flexibility, and (2) powerful "spells" available only to specific disciplines.

In 5e, the PHB have acquired 90% of all the flexibility we really want anyone to have -- the easy nova paths for 3.5 sions were not a good thing.

But we could easily create discipline specific spells.

Personally, I think it was a mistake to not do this for PHB arcanists in the first place, rather than those weird little school bennies. Whatever.

[Crusher]

It was overpowered when applied to any subclass but the beastmaster. It added several pure combat buffs to a class that had 4 already very strong combat subclasses. It wasn't well thought out at all, other than the beastmaster fixes.

Very true. Also, its ENORMOUSLY front-loaded, so if your campaign allows multi-classing (which is an optional rule, but my experience suggests most tables allow it) dipping a level is virtually required because of the range of abilities and sheer power even a single level provides.

[CircleOfTheRock]

Is it callous of me to be happy in that this means my ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?462877-Ranger-Rework-v1-3) gets to live on a bit longer?
Not at all, because it’s really good :smallsmile:

[War_lord]

It seems as though the developers haven't been using their "full capacity" when developing a magic of the mind for D&D.

Every edition's developers left Psionics out, because they've always been redundant and poorly implemented, and every edition's developers have been forced to put them back in by fan demand, even though they've always sucked.

[Millstone85]

Every edition's developers left Psionics out, because they've always been redundant and poorly implemented, and every edition's developers have been forced to put them back in by fan demand, even though they've always sucked.Could it be that we are all overthinking it? What if there was a spellcasting class with a focus on telepathy and telekinesis, plus some fluff about directing one's study of magic inward (the "personal weave" model) to justify it not being a wizard subclass? I would play that psionicist.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Could it be that we are all overthinking it? What if there was a spellcasting class with a focus on telepathy and telekinesis, plus some fluff about directing one's study of magic inward (the "personal weave" model) to justify it not being a wizard subclass? I would play that psionicist.

He started working on that Wizard Subclass already in Happy Fun Hour. It's very hard to start thinking along those lines and not just call it a wizard subclass. It's also much simpler to do that in comparison to making the entire mystic class, we know this much because 3 iterations of it haven't hit anywhere near what people wanted.

On topic, I'm not too hurt about the revised ranger potentially being shelved. Obviously Beast Master is a bit hurt by it, but the solution is definitely not a frontloaded class that would become "Fighter Dip 2.0". This opinion might be unpopular but I feel that the class would have been really hurt by it since you could essentially just be X class who dips Ranger, and is better than pure Ranger.

[Mortis_Elrod]

On topic, I'm not too hurt about the revised ranger potentially being shelved. Obviously Beast Master is a bit hurt by it, but the solution is definitely not a frontloaded class that would become "Fighter Dip 2.0". This opinion might be unpopular but I feel that the class would have been really hurt by it since you could essentially just be X class who dips Ranger, and is better than pure Ranger.

I’d prefer that to “class that gets very low to zero play at all”

[Tanarii]

I’d prefer that to “class that gets very low to zero play at all”
Eh, I see ranger PCs, in a single class & no feats campaign. They're probably not equally represented to the others, ie I doubt they are 1/12th the PCs. But they're not very low to zero. Rangers are not the Champion or Berkserker subclasses, which are very low in terms of PC representation IMC, almost always henchmen. But you know, anecdotal is anecdotal, and I've never tallied my PC (and henchmen) distribution by race, class, or background.

Otoh now I've got a project. :smallamused:

[MrStabby]

Eh, I see ranger PCs, in a single class & no feats campaign. They're probably not equally represented to the others, ie I doubt they are 1/12th the PCs. But they're not very low to zero. Rangers are not the Champion or Berkserker subclasses, which are very low in terms of PC representation IMC, almost always henchmen. But you know, anecdotal is anecdotal, and I've never tallied my PC (and henchmen) distribution by race, class, or background.

Otoh now I've got a project. :smallamused:

I have seen rangers as well. Though they are the class players seem to want to quit the most. Sometimes as early as level 6.

If a class makes you want to roll up a new character it isn't a good sign.

[KorvinStarmast]

IMy only conclusion is that it's copy write so tight somehow that they can't get close to something similar. Copyright, and I seriously doubt that whose "IP" magic is was why TSR fumbled with psionics. I covered a bit of what the problem was here (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/72422/22566).

I somewhat agree with you that ki and psionics overlap.

I am a little bummed that XGtE, in giving domain spells to the three new ranger classes, didn't also add a table for domain spells for Beast Master and Hunter. It's not that hard to do, and there are lots of thematic spells that can fit in the ranger's kit.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Eh, I see ranger PCs, in a single class & no feats campaign. They're probably not equally represented to the others, ie I doubt they are 1/12th the PCs. But they're not very low to zero. Rangers are not the Champion or Berkserker subclasses, which are very low in terms of PC representation IMC, almost always henchmen. But you know, anecdotal is anecdotal, and I've never tallied my PC (and henchmen) distribution by race, class, or background.

Otoh now I've got a project. :smallamused:

Less than 1/12 would be low considering there are only 12 classes in the PHB. I’ve seen more artificers than rangers myself which does not bode well. If I took 12 random PCs from the wild and didn’t find a single ranger I’d probably focus a bit more attention on it than making another class.

[Naanomi]

Making psionics a wizard subclass would really mess up Darksun (the setting where psionics is most important to the feel)

[Joe the Rat]

Baby steps and UA testing. Making the smallest possible fixes. I do appreciate that approach, as much as I appreciate listening to the players and fans on what they want.

On the Ranger - Beastmaster Ranger was the biggest issue / point of complaint, so bringing it in line with the other subtypes would be a good first start. Then you go and tweak the rest.
I don't know why adding "domain" spells wasn't in Xanathar's, barring an intention to add them to a PHB errata or revise at a later date.

On Psionics - They seem to go back and forth as to Psionics and Magic being parallel (magic-psionic transparency) or orthogonal (only interact where they "cross" - named-spell-like effects, mind control vs. protection from good/evil). If they delve into slot mechanics for supporting powers, they are either swinging back towards parallel, or they need to have some seriously different supporting mechanics to make the psionic system something other than "separate but equal." I expect this bold new direction will come up in an UA once they get something less weed-pulling-based on paper. Also looking forward to the SorLock Mystic with three separate spell slot pools.

I have been on board with the Monk-Psionic connection since reading about it being in 4th. It's still a damn good idea - Monk being the Physical Adept / Partial Caster Class to the Mystic's Full Caster.


On Nobody's List But Mine - I would love to see another Pact Slot Caster Class, to give Warlock a multiclass caster-buddy, and to further confuse everyone who doesn't know how multiclass slots work.

[Tanarii]

Less than 1/12 would be low considering there are only 12 classes in the PHB. I’ve seen more artificers than rangers myself which does not bode well. If I took 12 random PCs from the wild and didn’t find a single ranger I’d probably focus a bit more attention on it than making another class.Less than 1/12 means somewhat below average. Some portion of all classes must be below average. I was establishing the baseline.

You said very low to none, which implies significantly below 1/12 of all PCs, an almost vanishingly small amount. What fraction are you expecting? Off the top of my head, if it was 1 in 24, or about half the average rate, that's about when I'd start to worry about it being "low", but not yet "very low". 1 in 48, or 1/4 the average, is where I'd put "very low". While still being appreciably more than "none".

So when you said "very low to none" what did you mean?

Edit: My view on where values should be pegged is probably distorted by the fact I'm not looking at 6 PCs over 2 adventure arcs, or the like. I'm talking about hundreds of PCs and henchmen over a few years. That means statistically small differences in the numbers have meaning to me, whereas they wouldn't to someone that only sees 15-20 different characters in a year.

[mephnick]

I've had a PHB Ranger in literally every game I've ran since 5e came out. The current one still chose Hunter with the XgtE options available. They're easily one of the most represented class out of the 30 or so characters I've played with and DM'd for, probably 3rd behind Paladins and Wizards. So yeah, anecdotes don't mean much.

Of course I actually play a style of D&D that makes them useful, you know, actual D&D.

[Chaosmancer]

So I've been wracking my brain, what's so OP about the revised Ranger?

Oh, I'll agree that if you allow multiclassing dips it can be a little much... But if memory serves all the "combat power" in the first level or two boils down to advantage on the first turn and advantage on initiative. Even the +2-4 against select enemies isn't that awesome.

And compared to the paladin ability to give +5 to all saves alone, ignoring their insane single target damage and the Vengeance ability to just gain constant advantage in one fight.

So, is there a big thing I'm forgetting or is everyone just "OMG THE DIPS!" when they say it was overpowered

[MrStabby]

So I've been wracking my brain, what's so OP about the revised Ranger?

Oh, I'll agree that if you allow multiclassing dips it can be a little much... But if memory serves all the "combat power" in the first level or two boils down to advantage on the first turn and advantage on initiative. Even the +2-4 against select enemies isn't that awesome.

And compared to the paladin ability to give +5 to all saves alone, ignoring their insane single target damage and the Vengeance ability to just gain constant advantage in one fight.

So, is there a big thing I'm forgetting or is everyone just "OMG THE DIPS!" when they say it was overpowered

I think some of it really comes to how you compare it and with what. For some people the comparator class is the fighter and the metric is ability to do damage. Revised ranger looks pretty good but the fighter should be much better than the ranger so this is Wrong.

Others compare with the paladin and note that the paladin can do more things and can do damage better as well, or at least more quickly. Potential contention can come around game style: if more time is spent in the wilderness exploring then ranger looks better. If more time is spent in settlements chatting with people then a Paladin's high charisma (and spells like zone of truth) shine.

Some of it just depends on perspective.

[Chaosmancer]

I think some of it really comes to how you compare it and with what. For some people the comparator class is the fighter and the metric is ability to do damage. Revised ranger looks pretty good but the fighter should be much better than the ranger so this is Wrong.

Others compare with the paladin and note that the paladin can do more things and can do damage better as well, or at least more quickly. Potential contention can come around game style: if more time is spent in the wilderness exploring then ranger looks better. If more time is spent in settlements chatting with people then a Paladin's high charisma (and spells like zone of truth) shine.

Some of it just depends on perspective.

Even comparing the fighter at low levels (1 or 2). Fighter gets their style first and advantage on one attack per combat (two if dual wielding) compared to action surge and healing per short rest.

I'll grant Fighter isn't massively better until later, but do they really have to be better than monks, barbarians, paladins and rangers from level 1 on for some people?

[MrStabby]

Even comparing the fighter at low levels (1 or 2). Fighter gets their style first and advantage on one attack per combat (two if dual wielding) compared to action surge and healing per short rest.

I'll grant Fighter isn't massively better until later, but do they really have to be better than monks, barbarians, paladins and rangers from level 1 on for some people?

For some people they do. Whilst I don't agree with their conclusions I do have some sympathy. Fighter kind of relies on background, race and feats for a lot of their flavour and out of combat utility. Their core class should be pretty awesome at its main purpose. My conclusion isn't that the revised ranger is badly designed, but rather that it is being compared to a relatively bland and uninteresting class. Fighter can be fun to play but the flavour comes from the player without a lot of help from the class.