Rangers. PHB or Revised (Or other)

[Sindal]

With the errata on it's way, i'd like to ask:

Which do you use for your ranger.

The PHB version, or the Revised version.

I've heard a lot of arguments for both sides, either that it's a godsent to making rangers less of a roulette to a DM's wishes or an overtuned sledgehammer to overcompensate for problems.

Just gonna say, I'm in the revised camp currently.
I haven't even used my favored enemy ability yet (It's fey...there aren't that many fey just hangin round catching the bus to work)
The natural explorer in 'every zone' is a nice touch but seldom is game defining. It's kinda just...simpler to use.

Thoughts? Feel free to mention your own housrules if thats what you do instead.

[Man_Over_Game]

With the errata on it's way, i'd like to ask:

Which do you use for your ranger.

The PHB version, or the Revised version.

I've heard a lot of arguments for both sides, either that it's a godsent to making rangers less of a roulette to a DM's wishes or an overtuned sledgehammer to overcompensate for problems.

Just gonna say, I'm in the revised camp currently.
I haven't even used my favored enemy ability yet (It's fey...there aren't that many fey just hangin round catching the bus to work)
The natural explorer in 'every zone' is a nice touch but seldom is game defining. It's kinda just...simpler to use.

Thoughts? Feel free to mention your own housrules if thats what you do instead.

The Revised Ranger is a little bit TOO much of a fix. Just so many easy features, just crammed into a single level. Take a look at Fighter for a comparison, who just gets Second Wind, a fighting style, and some slightly better armor.

My recommendation is to change the Humanoid option to allow you to pick 2 humanoid races if you choose that option, like Orc and Goblin, that are your favored enemies. Otherwise, all bipeds is just too friggin' good. Otherwise, everything else isn't a big enough deal to worry about.

I also remove the spellcasting from the Xanathar's subclasses, as they don't really need it now. They needed it with the base Ranger, because it's underpowered, and they wanted to give a little more OOMPH without going overboard, but with the Revised Ranger, they just don't need it.

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

I like the Revised Ranger. It doesn't do too much to be a problem. I do wish the level 1 features were a little more spread out over the entirety of the class, but it's not game-breaking as-is.

[Aett_Thorn]

We use the PHB Ranger with some revisions from the Revised. Favored Enemy rules are from Revised, as are the Beast Master rules. Everything else is PHB rules. It works out pretty well as a compromise.

[clash]

The first thing to remember is that unearthed arcana is not balanced for multiclassing. Single classed revised ranger works well as is but I would never allow someone to level dip it. It isn't overpowered it is just too front-loaded.

[NaughtyTiger]

PHB, i thought revised went too far the otherway, even as single class.


The first thing to remember is that unearthed arcana is not balanced for multiclassing.

I don't understand why they do it that way, though. If it isn't balanced for multiclass, then it will have to be modified prior to release. Therefore, they ask people to playtest and give feedback on something that they KNOW isn't releasable as is.

[Edenbeast]

PHB, Revised, or the Consensus Ranger (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw4_sxykbTWcWWxHaWFXX3Y5TFU/view)

I prefer the latter, but so far used a slightly adapted PHB ranger.

[NaughtyTiger]

PHB, Revised, or the Consensus Ranger (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw4_sxykbTWcWWxHaWFXX3Y5TFU/view)

I prefer the latter, but so far used a slightly adapted PHB ranger.

Without seeing this before, this is pretty much how BM plays at my tables.

[Skylivedk]

I prefer revised, but I think it is:
Too frontloaded (seems like a 5e theme)Way Way, way too strong for intel. Primeval awareness is crazy. I've seen it in Chult, ToA. I'm happy the ranger didn't pick undead... I suggest nerfing that part to a smaller distance and give it 90 degrees rather than a radius. Maybe move it or the initiative change further down as well

[stoutstien]

Depends on what concave. Phb options are lacking but xans rangers feel more on track.

[mephnick]

PHB with some durability fixes added to the pet and a bonus spell list (Hunter too) because WotC decided to add bonus spell lists to Rangers but forgot they had Ranger subclasses in the PHB.

Other than pet survivability the PHB Ranger is fine. People just play it wrong. Trading actions between Ranger and pet is an elegant way around the action economy problem of pets. For a group of people that will jump at any chance to proclaim 5e domination over 3.5, they sure seem to long for 3.5's imbalance when it comes to pets.

[Man_Over_Game]

PHB with some durability fixes added to the pet and a bonus spell list (Hunter too) because WotC decided to add bonus spell lists to Rangers but forgot they had Ranger subclasses in the PHB.

Other than pet survivability the PHB Ranger is fine. People just play it wrong. Trading actions between Ranger and pet is an elegant way around the action economy problem of pets. For a group of people that will jump at any chance to proclaim 5e domination over 3.5, they sure seem to long for 3.5's imbalance when it comes to pets.

The biggest concern is action economy and survivability. Your reward for the massive risk of losing all of your class features is that you can make a melee attack at range. You cannot make more attacks than anyone else, and you do not deal more damage than anyone else. Your pet adds some utility, assuming it can do things that you can't, but otherwise doesn't give you anything that being a base ranger doesn't.

Even Find Steed, the Paladin Spell, allows you to have your pet take its own full turns, and since it will still follow your orders as a "uncontrolled" mount, it won't need to take your actions to attack, and it's a lot easier to replace.

The majority of the Beastmaster Ranger is overshadowed by a level 2 Paladin spell.

[Louro]

I've just read the consensus ranger and it looks great. The only thing I'm missing there is some reliable way of communicating with your beast.

[jaappleton]

Revised Ranger died, it isn't coming.

[stoutstien]

My vote is phb with expanded spell lists and prepared casting.

[Tanarii]

PHB.

From Revised, the only thing that was "needed" is the Natural Explorer change for the majority of features to work in any natural terrain. The loss of pseudo-expertise would hurt though. It could probably be retained for specific terrains, but that's a bit fiddly.



Trading actions between Ranger and pet is an elegant way around the action economy problem of pets.It was also an elegant way to make the Beastmaster and Companion feel like a team that fights as one.

[jaappleton]

PHB Ranger is fine, but needs one change:

Primeval Awareness should be number of times per long rest equal to your Wisdom Modifier. Should NOT cost a spell slot.

[Aett_Thorn]

PHB.

From Revised, the only thing that was "needed" is the Natural Explorer change for the majority of features to work in any natural terrain. The loss of pseudo-expertise would hurt though. It could probably be retained for specific terrains, but that's a bit fiddly.

It was also an elegant way to make the Beastmaster and Companion feel like a team that fights as one.

Eh, I never felt like it made it feel like a team. Either I can take an attack OR my beast can take an attack doesn't feel like good teamwork, it feels like competing priorities. I feel like the revised Ranger made it feel more like teamwork, where my own combat utility is a bit more limited, but I am working as a team with my beast. But that is probably more of an opinion and we can both base our decisions on our own.

[Tanarii]

But that is probably more of an opinion and we can both base our decisions on our own.
Oh yeah, big ol' IMO on that one. Its a personal reaction to both the mechanic and the way I usually played my Beastmaster in AL. I thought of it as being able to occupy two spaces. The "competing" part is exactly what made it feel as if I was a pair of bonded minds sharing two bodies, acting as one. Which is exactly the feeling I want out of a Beastmaster.

I can kind of intellectually comprehend how people arrive at "me + robot/automaton that can't think for itself" from that. I just can't really grok it. :smallamused:

[mephnick]

PHB.

From Revised, the only thing that was "needed" is the Natural Explorer change for the majority of features to work in any natural terrain. The loss of pseudo-expertise would hurt though. It could probably be retained for specific terrains, but that's a bit fiddly.

It was also an elegant way to make the Beastmaster and Companion feel like a team that fights as one.

Yeah, it's weird but there was an old arcade fighter (the name completely escapes me) where one of the characters had a wolf along side him and your commands and combos included attacks for the fighter and the wolf at the same time. For some reason that interaction is all I can think about when I play a PHB Beastmaster and I like it. It feels like fighting as a unit. I was completely confused when the internet unanimously declared that it "felt weird" and whined that they didn't get to take two turns at the table.

[rbstr]

A slightly nerfed revised ranger is where I'd go. It went in the right direction, even if it wasn't perfect, IMO.
Ranger really needed a combat-relevant feature at level 1 and the initiative advantage bit really fits the skirmisher role well as did the more broad "ignore difficult terrain" feature.
Revised's Favored Enemy and Primeval Awareness are probably too strong...but these types of features will always be a problem. The way the game works it's either going to be useless or too good IMO, same really goes for favored terrain. They should be more broadly applicable things and then tied to the Wis mod per day/rest or something. Like "Hunter's Strike: Wis mod per day add wis mod damage to a hit" and "Primeval awareness: wis mod per day detect presence of any creatures w/in 1000 yards with advantage on the perception roll vs enemy stealth" I dono.

I also cannot disagree more that Xanathar's rangers somehow "fixed" the class. The Hunter is every bit as good as the new archetypes in practice. The only deficiency are the extra spells known and spells know really effect the power curve much - still the same number of spell slots. The one problem with revised ranger and the new archetypes is the synergy of Gloom Stalker's ambush ability with the revised's 1st turn advantage.


I was completely confused when the internet unanimously declared that it "felt weird" and whined that they didn't get to take two turns at the table.
Yeah I think people want too much from their pet. You can't let the thing be "Hey look you get to play twooo people!" the subclass.

[thoroughlyS]

From Revised, the only thing that was "needed" is the Natural Explorer change...

PHB Ranger is fine, but needs one change:

Primeval Awareness should be number of times per long rest equal to your Wisdom Modifier. Should NOT cost a spell slot.
PHB Primeval Awareness didn't actually do anything, though. I think a second "needed" change is taking the revised version, and just giving it a limited number of uses (and maybe a reduced range). Something like:

Primeval Awareness
Beginning at 3rd level, you can attune your senses to determine if any of your favored enemies lurk nearby. By spending 1 uninterrupted minute in concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell), you can sense whether any of your favored enemies are present within 1 mile of you. This feature reveals which of your favored enemies are present, their numbers, and the creatures’ general direction and distance (in miles) from you. If there are multiple groups of your favored enemies within range, you learn this information for each group.
You can use this feature a number of times equal to 1 + your Wisdom modifier. When you finish a long rest, you regain all expended uses.



I also think the "can't become lost" part of Natural Explorer should be dropped, because it limits the game in an uninteresting way.




The one problem with revised ranger and the new archetypes is the synergy of Gloom Stalker's ambush ability with the revised's 1st turn advantage.
That's because those two weren't designed to be compatible. Gloom Stalker's initiative bonus patches the lack of that feature on the PHB ranger, whereas the revised ranger had it natively. If you're allowing revised ranger in a game, you should only allow it to work with Deep Stalker, not Gloom Stalker.

[Quietus]

Yeah I think people want too much from their pet. You can't let the thing be "Hey look you get to play twooo people!" the subclass.

I don't think that would be too much of an issue, actually, IF the pet is the entirety of the offense offered by the subclass. Instead of getting the various abilities of the Hunter to do special attacks, your pet gets a chance to make an attack for 2d4+4 damage. Perfectly reasonable. Still adds some additional damage, a little more than your ranger would otherwise get, but at the cost of having a separate attack roll, and a separate (smaller) HP pool. It passes my gut check test in that sense.

[Tanarii]

PHB Primeval Awareness didn't actually do anything, though.Of course it does. It let you know there were certain types of creatures within 1 mile. Or 6 in favored terrain. Given the list of creatures it detects, you'll know there is danger around. None of those are common creatures, and they're always dangerous (if not always hostile). It also can work to lets you know when you're finally in the right area for a dungeon or wilderness adventuring site you've been looking for, and even rough direction, given the direction you've been traveling.

(Edit: it also seems like you're reading it so it doesn't tell you which of the types of creatures are present, given your rewording. That seems like an unnecessarily narrow reading of the original. Or were you just trying to make it clear?)

It could probably use a bit of a buff in terms of knowing rough direction to the creatures. But it's important it shouldn't replace the need to track, or get your eyes on a target and hunters mark them to track them, etc.


I also think the "can't become lost" part of Natural Explorer should be dropped, because it limits the game in an uninteresting way.If it's going to be expanded to all natural terrain that's not a bad idea.

It should probably also be specific that it requires the Ranger to be Navigating (per the adventuring chapter), using up their one free activity they can do and still remain alert to danger (ie not lose passive perception).

[NaughtyTiger]

Yeah I think people want too much from their pet. You can't let the thing be "Hey look you get to play twooo people!" the subclass.

right, that's for the paladin. and anyone with a store bought pet, but not a ranger.

[xyianth]

Personally, I hate the PHB ranger. Of all the classes in 5e, they are the easiest to screw up. As half casters, they should compare roughly with the PHB paladin. They utterly fail this comparison at almost every level.

At 1st level, the ranger must select a terrain type. Choose correctly, and you get to be slightly better than the character that chose the outlander background at exploration. Choose incorrectly and you effectively have no class features. That outlander character, no choices required and that is in addition to whatever class features they have. You also gain the favored enemy "feature." Where you get to guess what type of enemies the DM is using in the hope that you can track them better. If the DM uses other enemy types or doesn't set up situations where you need to track enemies, you lose yet another feature.

At 2nd level, you get spellcasting, but you use the learned spell mechanic from one of the narrowest lists in the game. In addition, you are the only other class in the game besides warlock that has a fundamental class feature disguised as a spell. (ok, arguably wizards suffer from this too with find familiar) Rangers actually have two features disguised as spells: hunter's mark and hail of thorns. How many spells do you get to learn at 2nd level again? oh right, 2. Choose correctly or suck, once again. Do paladins have this problem? No. They don't have to choose correctly because they can swap spells prepared every day and their smite feature isn't buried in their spell list. Well at least you both get fighting styles to choose from.

At 3rd level, you specialize. Hunter ranger isn't bad, though it would be much better if they had added spells to it like they did for XGtE subclasses. Beastmaster's big flaw is that your entire subclass features get tied to a small and vulnerable sack of hitpoints. It is also slightly odd that your animal companion loses the ability to function as an independent animal once befriended by you. I'm sure this was done for balance reasons, but conceptually it makes no sense to me. Paladin's specialize too and get not just features, but bonus spells known and prepared. Rangers also get the ability to sense creatures within a mile by sacrificing spell slots. This "feature" is effectively one of the worst spells ever printed.

At 4th and 5th levels, rangers and paladins get basically the same features. Revel in this period rangers, it is the closest you will ever get to being on par with your other players. Technically, paladins do get improvements to their lay on hands ability at every level, but this is mostly a minor increase to ensure that rangers understand their place at the bottom of the totem pole.

At 6th level, you get to pick new terrain and favored enemies to sort of benefit from. Hope your choices match your campaign or else enjoy more dead levels rangers. Oh don't worry about your paladin brethren, they get an awesome aura effect that boosts saves to everyone. I'm sure your ability to track another enemy type will have as much impact as saving the party from enemy spellcasters.

At 7th level, hunters get a minor defensive buff and beastmasters can use their bonus action to give their pet a slightly improved version of the rogue's cunning action feature. Paladins get another aura of awesomeness. Is this even surprising anymore?

At 8th level, against all odds, rangers come out ahead. I can only assume the designers screwed up here and gave land's stride to rangers on accident. They were otherwise pretty consistent in their "screw rangers" mentality.

At 9th level, rangers and paladins both get access to 3rd level spells. Once again, enjoy being close to your other players for a moment rangers.

At 10th level, rangers get the ability to hide in plain sight... if they spend a minute making a hiding place that lasts until you move, act, or react. So basically a much worse version of the one with shadows invocation that no warlock takes because it sucks. Sounds about right. Paladins? They get another aura, one that makes them immune to fear. I'm sure that won't come up at all.

At 11th level, hunters get a nifty new attack form and beastmasters give their pet an extra attack. Paladins just do more damage on every hit. Honestly, both classes get a decent boost here.

At 12th and 13th levels, rangers and paladins get essentially identical features, so other than the minor increases to the paladin's lay on hands the two classes are equal here.

At 14th level, rangers get 1/3 of an ability that rogues got at 2nd level. The immune to tracking thing is a ribbon, as it only applies to you (not your party) and if tracking is an issue, your party has been using pass without trace for many levels by now. Hell, it might have even been the ranger casting it. Paladins on the other hand get to end spell effects with a touch. Seems fair.

At 15th, 16th, and 17th levels, ranger and paladins get roughly equivalent features. This represents the longest period of equality between these two classes.

At 18th level, rangers get the ability to blind fight. Except it isn't quite blind fighting in odd ways. Look, if your party of 18th level adventures has problems dealing with invisible creatures, this isn't going to save you. Just as with the ranger's 14th level features, the effects of this feature are essentially useless given that your party has low level spells that accomplish the same thing for the whole party. Paladins? They just get to triple the radius of all of their auras of awesomeness, no biggie.

At 19th level, it's another round of ASIs. Hooray one last moment of adequacy.

At 20th level, everyone gets their capstone. These features are supposed to be incredible, and given the struggles of getting here the ranger must get something incredible right? Haha no. Remember all those favored enemy features that largely didn't matter? Well suddenly they matter. Hope you picked correctly all those levels ago. If you didn't, that's ok this capstone sucks anyway. You get to apply your wisdom modifier as a bonus to 1 attack or damage roll per turn, IF it is against a favored enemy. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the worst capstone in the game.

So, to recap, rangers get better features on exactly 1 level out of 20, worse features on 9 levels out of 20, and are roughly equal on the other 10 levels. On those levels where they get worse features, the divide is staggeringly wide. In addition, there are a lot more 'choices' for the ranger to make that if chosen incorrectly cause features to not function properly.
While the revised ranger is front-loaded a bit, it is hardly the only class in 5e that is structured that way. I believe this is somewhat of an intentional design choice to keep multiclass builds relevant. It does however bring the ranger up to a reasonable balance point when compared with other characters. For this reason alone, I encourage every game I am a part of to use the revised ranger over the PHB ranger. In games where this isn't acceptable, I would encourage anyone that wants to play a ranger to actually play a rogue with the outlander background instead.

[jaappleton]

Personally, I hate the PHB ranger. Of all the classes in 5e, they are the easiest to screw up. As half casters, they should compare roughly with the PHB paladin. They utterly fail this comparison at almost every level.

At 1st level, the ranger must select a terrain type. Choose correctly, and you get to be slightly better than the character that chose the outlander background at exploration. Choose incorrectly and you effectively have no class features. That outlander character, no choices required and that is in addition to whatever class features they have. You also gain the favored enemy "feature." Where you get to guess what type of enemies the DM is using in the hope that you can track them better. If the DM uses other enemy types or doesn't set up situations where you need to track enemies, you lose yet another feature.

At 2nd level, you get spellcasting, but you use the learned spell mechanic from one of the narrowest lists in the game. In addition, you are the only other class in the game besides warlock that has a fundamental class feature disguised as a spell. (ok, arguably wizards suffer from this too with find familiar) Rangers actually have two features disguised as spells: hunter's mark and hail of thorns. How many spells do you get to learn at 2nd level again? oh right, 2. Choose correctly or suck, once again. Do paladins have this problem? No. They don't have to choose correctly because they can swap spells prepared every day and their smite feature isn't buried in their spell list. Well at least you both get fighting styles to choose from.

At 3rd level, you specialize. Hunter ranger isn't bad, though it would be much better if they had added spells to it like they did for XGtE subclasses. Beastmaster's big flaw is that your entire subclass features get tied to a small and vulnerable sack of hitpoints. It is also slightly odd that your animal companion loses the ability to function as an independent animal once befriended by you. I'm sure this was done for balance reasons, but conceptually it makes no sense to me. Paladin's specialize too and get not just features, but bonus spells known and prepared. Rangers also get the ability to sense creatures within a mile by sacrificing spell slots. This "feature" is effectively one of the worst spells ever printed.

At 4th and 5th levels, rangers and paladins get basically the same features. Revel in this period rangers, it is the closest you will ever get to being on par with your other players. Technically, paladins do get improvements to their lay on hands ability at every level, but this is mostly a minor increase to ensure that rangers understand their place at the bottom of the totem pole.

At 6th level, you get to pick new terrain and favored enemies to sort of benefit from. Hope your choices match your campaign or else enjoy more dead levels rangers. Oh don't worry about your paladin brethren, they get an awesome aura effect that boosts saves to everyone. I'm sure your ability to track another enemy type will have as much impact as saving the party from enemy spellcasters.

At 7th level, hunters get a minor defensive buff and beastmasters can use their bonus action to give their pet a slightly improved version of the rogue's cunning action feature. Paladins get another aura of awesomeness. Is this even surprising anymore?

At 8th level, against all odds, rangers come out ahead. I can only assume the designers screwed up here and gave land's stride to rangers on accident. They were otherwise pretty consistent in their "screw rangers" mentality.

At 9th level, rangers and paladins both get access to 3rd level spells. Once again, enjoy being close to your other players for a moment rangers.

At 10th level, rangers get the ability to hide in plain sight... if they spend a minute making a hiding place that lasts until you move, act, or react. So basically a much worse version of the one with shadows invocation that no warlock takes because it sucks. Sounds about right. Paladins? They get another aura, one that makes them immune to fear. I'm sure that won't come up at all.

At 11th level, hunters get a nifty new attack form and beastmasters give their pet an extra attack. Paladins just do more damage on every hit. Honestly, both classes get a decent boost here.

At 12th and 13th levels, rangers and paladins get essentially identical features, so other than the minor increases to the paladin's lay on hands the two classes are equal here.

At 14th level, rangers get 1/3 of an ability that rogues got at 2nd level. The immune to tracking thing is a ribbon, as it only applies to you (not your party) and if tracking is an issue, your party has been using pass without trace for many levels by now. Hell, it might have even been the ranger casting it. Paladins on the other hand get to end spell effects with a touch. Seems fair.

At 15th, 16th, and 17th levels, ranger and paladins get roughly equivalent features. This represents the longest period of equality between these two classes.

At 18th level, rangers get the ability to blind fight. Except it isn't quite blind fighting in odd ways. Look, if your party of 18th level adventures has problems dealing with invisible creatures, this isn't going to save you. Just as with the ranger's 14th level features, the effects of this feature are essentially useless given that your party has low level spells that accomplish the same thing for the whole party. Paladins? They just get to triple the radius of all of their auras of awesomeness, no biggie.

At 19th level, it's another round of ASIs. Hooray one last moment of adequacy.

At 20th level, everyone gets their capstone. These features are supposed to be incredible, and given the struggles of getting here the ranger must get something incredible right? Haha no. Remember all those favored enemy features that largely didn't matter? Well suddenly they matter. Hope you picked correctly all those levels ago. If you didn't, that's ok this capstone sucks anyway. You get to apply your wisdom modifier as a bonus to 1 attack or damage roll per turn, IF it is against a favored enemy. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the worst capstone in the game.

So, to recap, rangers get better features on exactly 1 level out of 20, worse features on 9 levels out of 20, and are roughly equal on the other 10 levels. On those levels where they get worse features, the divide is staggeringly wide. In addition, there are a lot more 'choices' for the ranger to make that if chosen incorrectly cause features to not function properly.
While the revised ranger is front-loaded a bit, it is hardly the only class in 5e that is structured that way. I believe this is somewhat of an intentional design choice to keep multiclass builds relevant. It does however bring the ranger up to a reasonable balance point when compared with other characters. For this reason alone, I encourage every game I am a part of to use the revised ranger over the PHB ranger. In games where this isn't acceptable, I would encourage anyone that wants to play a ranger to actually play a rogue with the outlander background instead.

I hate the Ranger primarily for its spell list.

It pigeonholes you into being the 'kind of AoE' guy, just as the Paladin list goes into the 'single target' guy. But the bonus spell lists of Paladin Oaths often (but not always) alleviate that. Rangers? NOPE, and they have far too few spells known to boot.

[Tanarii]

right, that's for the paladin. and anyone with a store bought pet, but not a ranger.
I'd hope a DM was requiring an Action to make a Wisdom (Handle Animal) check to order around store bought pets. Otherwise you've got 25gp no-action guided missiles in the form of mastiffs.

Even with an action, they're good if your DM allows a single action & check to designate a single target for multiple mastiffs, with them continuing to attack it until you take an action & check to call them off.

[rbstr]

I hate the Ranger primarily for its spell list.

It pigeonholes you into being the 'kind of AoE' guy, just as the Paladin list goes into the 'single target' guy. But the bonus spell lists of Paladin Oaths often (but not always) alleviate that. Rangers? NOPE, and they have far too few spells known to boot.

I'm completely the opposite way. The Ranger exclusive spells are some of the more fun and cool ones out there and the AOE-ness makes them very versatile (also, Hunter's Mark, zephyr strike, guardian of nature...all good to use single-target). And with so many being bonus actions you get to mix casting and physical attacks in a fluid way that few others can. The only thing I don't like about the list is that Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow require concentration.
I don't disagree that the spells known is a bit too small. But the xanathar's bonus spells make it about right. Hunter/BM just need a list for themselves.


right, that's for the paladin. and anyone with a store bought pet, but not a ranger.
Clearly the beast master should work pretty seamlessly where a store bough pet should be somewhat awkward to command for most classes. But, for balance's sake, you can't just let the Ranger have control of a beast that doesn't hit the PC's action economy or even their daily resources. It has to be in-line with the other archetypes...At third level that's: 1d8 damage once per turn on a hit, one extra attack a fight, a bonus action to do an extra 1d8 and make the hit force damage...the pet has to be constrained into that level or power. It can't just be a critter the player gets to do what they want with.

[NaughtyTiger]

But, for balance's sake, you can't just let the Ranger have control of a beast that doesn't hit the PC's action economy or even their daily resources.

*cough* find steed.

free attack, not an archetype, able to be ridden
2nd level spell and 1 action to recover vs find beast (DM specific) + 1st level animal friendship (with risk of failure) + 8 hours.

eventually, gets multi attack, flying, more HP, .... for 4th level slot

[Tanarii]

*cough* find steed. Yes, but find steed is out of line with intended power when DMs let a player use it as an additional fighting creature completely under their control, as opposed to a mount.

[NaughtyTiger]

Yes, but find steed is out of line with intended power when DMs let a player use it as an additional fighting creature completely under their control, as opposed to a mount.

crawford says it is intended. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/636293240749056000

we have a clue what was intended for buying a mastiff for 25gp, in the animal handling feat:

without the feat, animal handling check , command lasts for 1 minute.
with the feat, bonus action animal handling check (2x proficiency), command lasts for 1 minute

(yes, i know it's UA and overpowered, but it is a clue to intent)

[Tanarii]

crawford says it is intended. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/636293240749056000
Nothing there about it being under player control in that case, nor commanded without any actions or checks.

[Kane0]

I use my own, but I like that consensus one.

Camouflage still sucks though.

[NaughtyTiger]

Yes, but find steed is out of line with intended power when DMs let a player use it as an additional fighting creature completely under their control, as opposed to a mount.

What is the intended power for find steed?

[Skylivedk]

Personally, I hate the PHB ranger. Of all the classes in 5e, they are the easiest to screw up. As half casters, they should compare roughly with the PHB paladin. They utterly fail this comparison at almost every level.

At 1st level, the ranger must select a terrain type. Choose correctly, and you get to be slightly better than the character that chose the outlander background at exploration. Choose incorrectly and you effectively have no class features. That outlander character, no choices required and that is in addition to whatever class features they have. You also gain the favored enemy "feature." Where you get to guess what type of enemies the DM is using in the hope that you can track them better. If the DM uses other enemy types or doesn't set up situations where you need to track enemies, you lose yet another feature.

At 2nd level, you get spellcasting, but you use the learned spell mechanic from one of the narrowest lists in the game. In addition, you are the only other class in the game besides warlock that has a fundamental class feature disguised as a spell. (ok, arguably wizards suffer from this too with find familiar) Rangers actually have two features disguised as spells: hunter's mark and hail of thorns. How many spells do you get to learn at 2nd level again? oh right, 2. Choose correctly or suck, once again. Do paladins have this problem? No. They don't have to choose correctly because they can swap spells prepared every day and their smite feature isn't buried in their spell list. Well at least you both get fighting styles to choose from.

At 3rd level, you specialize. Hunter ranger isn't bad, though it would be much better if they had added spells to it like they did for XGtE subclasses. Beastmaster's big flaw is that your entire subclass features get tied to a small and vulnerable sack of hitpoints. It is also slightly odd that your animal companion loses the ability to function as an independent animal once befriended by you. I'm sure this was done for balance reasons, but conceptually it makes no sense to me. Paladin's specialize too and get not just features, but bonus spells known and prepared. Rangers also get the ability to sense creatures within a mile by sacrificing spell slots. This "feature" is effectively one of the worst spells ever printed.

At 4th and 5th levels, rangers and paladins get basically the same features. Revel in this period rangers, it is the closest you will ever get to being on par with your other players. Technically, paladins do get improvements to their lay on hands ability at every level, but this is mostly a minor increase to ensure that rangers understand their place at the bottom of the totem pole.

At 6th level, you get to pick new terrain and favored enemies to sort of benefit from. Hope your choices match your campaign or else enjoy more dead levels rangers. Oh don't worry about your paladin brethren, they get an awesome aura effect that boosts saves to everyone. I'm sure your ability to track another enemy type will have as much impact as saving the party from enemy spellcasters.

At 7th level, hunters get a minor defensive buff and beastmasters can use their bonus action to give their pet a slightly improved version of the rogue's cunning action feature. Paladins get another aura of awesomeness. Is this even surprising anymore?

At 8th level, against all odds, rangers come out ahead. I can only assume the designers screwed up here and gave land's stride to rangers on accident. They were otherwise pretty consistent in their "screw rangers" mentality.

At 9th level, rangers and paladins both get access to 3rd level spells. Once again, enjoy being close to your other players for a moment rangers.

At 10th level, rangers get the ability to hide in plain sight... if they spend a minute making a hiding place that lasts until you move, act, or react. So basically a much worse version of the one with shadows invocation that no warlock takes because it sucks. Sounds about right. Paladins? They get another aura, one that makes them immune to fear. I'm sure that won't come up at all.

At 11th level, hunters get a nifty new attack form and beastmasters give their pet an extra attack. Paladins just do more damage on every hit. Honestly, both classes get a decent boost here.

At 12th and 13th levels, rangers and paladins get essentially identical features, so other than the minor increases to the paladin's lay on hands the two classes are equal here.

At 14th level, rangers get 1/3 of an ability that rogues got at 2nd level. The immune to tracking thing is a ribbon, as it only applies to you (not your party) and if tracking is an issue, your party has been using pass without trace for many levels by now. Hell, it might have even been the ranger casting it. Paladins on the other hand get to end spell effects with a touch. Seems fair.

At 15th, 16th, and 17th levels, ranger and paladins get roughly equivalent features. This represents the longest period of equality between these two classes.

At 18th level, rangers get the ability to blind fight. Except it isn't quite blind fighting in odd ways. Look, if your party of 18th level adventures has problems dealing with invisible creatures, this isn't going to save you. Just as with the ranger's 14th level features, the effects of this feature are essentially useless given that your party has low level spells that accomplish the same thing for the whole party. Paladins? They just get to triple the radius of all of their auras of awesomeness, no biggie.

At 19th level, it's another round of ASIs. Hooray one last moment of adequacy.

At 20th level, everyone gets their capstone. These features are supposed to be incredible, and given the struggles of getting here the ranger must get something incredible right? Haha no. Remember all those favored enemy features that largely didn't matter? Well suddenly they matter. Hope you picked correctly all those levels ago. If you didn't, that's ok this capstone sucks anyway. You get to apply your wisdom modifier as a bonus to 1 attack or damage roll per turn, IF it is against a favored enemy. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the worst capstone in the game.

So, to recap, rangers get better features on exactly 1 level out of 20, worse features on 9 levels out of 20, and are roughly equal on the other 10 levels. On those levels where they get worse features, the divide is staggeringly wide. In addition, there are a lot more 'choices' for the ranger to make that if chosen incorrectly cause features to not function properly.
While the revised ranger is front-loaded a bit, it is hardly the only class in 5e that is structured that way. I believe this is somewhat of an intentional design choice to keep multiclass builds relevant. It does however bring the ranger up to a reasonable balance point when compared with other characters. For this reason alone, I encourage every game I am a part of to use the revised ranger over the PHB ranger. In games where this isn't acceptable, I would encourage anyone that wants to play a ranger to actually play a rogue with the outlander background instead.

Thank you. One of my favourite comparisons on this site!

I'd hope a DM was requiring an Action to make a Wisdom (Handle Animal) check to order around store bought pets. Otherwise you've got 25gp no-action guided missiles in the form of mastiffs.

Even with an action, they're good if your DM allows a single action & check to designate a single target for multiple mastiffs, with them continuing to attack it until you take an action & check to call them off.

When I had them, it was an action. Still way way too good for many levels. Lead to some fun rp when bad guys started targeting them and I rewarded the best doggies by breeding them.. Plus don't forget keen senses when tracking. I'm not sure if there's a better way to use gold in the beginning once your basic gear is covered.


Yes, but find steed is out of line with intended power when DMs let a player use it as an additional fighting creature completely under their control, as opposed to a mount.

Weird that there's no errata, right?

And for the other points done xiyanth?

[djreynolds]

I hand out bonus land druid spells based on terrain.

I let rangers prepare spells.

I also encourage rangers at my table to use any of their spells, just because they never get used and I get tired of hunter's mark, which really does feel like a class feature

I mean poor detect poison and disease, no one ever even glances at it. I'm not even sure if the spell description has ever been read, but did you know it makes you invincible?

I do not like the known spell because IMO a ranger didn't just fall down and get his/her powers and skills, nor were they born with it. So for me I like seeing a ranger switching out what spells they might use depending on the terrain.

It seems reasonable in a desert to have detect poison and disease at the ready. Seems reasonable for a ranger on the coast to be able to summon fog cloud or have jump at the ready in the mountains

For me known spells would actually fit the paladin better, for a ranger it would fit better that everyday they would prepare new spells based on where they are.

[Tanarii]

What is the intended power for find steed?
A free 400 gp per casting. (Assuming it died.) :smallamused:

[NaughtyTiger]

A free 400 gp per casting. (Assuming it died.) :smallamused:

I don't understand.

[stoutstien]

I don't understand.

Cost of the mount.

[thoroughlyS]

Of course it does. It let you know there were certain types of creatures within 1 mile. Or 6 in favored terrain. Given the list of creatures it detects, you'll know there is danger around. None of those are common creatures, and they're always dangerous (if not always hostile). It also can work to lets you know when you're finally in the right area for a dungeon or wilderness adventuring site you've been looking for, and even rough direction, given the direction you've been traveling.
But a binary yes/no isn't that useful, especially if the DM handles it poorly. "Well, you're in a forest, so there's probably a dryad somewhere..." The revised feature gives much clearer and more useful information. I played a PHB ranger and used that feature exactly once ever, because afterwards I realized that it didn't do anything that I wanted it to do.

(Edit: it also seems like you're reading it so it doesn't tell you which of the types of creatures are present, given your rewording. That seems like an unnecessarily narrow reading of the original. Or were you just trying to make it clear?)
I just copied the wording from the revised ranger, changed the radius, and added the limit on uses.

It could probably use a bit of a buff in terms of knowing rough direction to the creatures. But it's important it shouldn't replace the need to track, or get your eyes on a target and hunters mark them to track them, etc.
I think it's fine considering the revised version only works with favored enemies, and not every creature (or even the original list of types). That way it is basically just an auto-success for tracking the creatures you're supposed to be good at tracking. And the revised version does only give general direction and distance.

If it's going to be expanded to all natural terrain that's not a bad idea.

It should probably also be specific that it requires the Ranger to be Navigating (per the adventuring chapter), using up their one free activity they can do and still remain alert to danger (ie not lose passive perception).
I don't see why the ranger couldn't be drawing the map, foraging, or tracking while the group is moving. I think the feature embodies the ranger directing on a smaller scale "climb over that ridge, watch the quicksand" as opposed to grand scale direction "we'll make better time by following the river".

[NaughtyTiger]

A free 400 gp per casting. (Assuming it died.) :smallamused:

As explained by stoutstien: Cost of the mount. (thanks)

I disagree because the phrase in the spell "seamless unit" has bearing on the intent of the spell, it has share spells and telepathy.

If a free mount was all they intended, they should have specified it as such.
Is there documentation for this intention?