Xanathar's Guide and rangers

[Adar]

New to GitPG
New to 5e
(Effectively) New to DMing
New player group

So... have mercy.

The player group is mixed, half middle aged adults and half teenagers. All but me are completely new to D&D. (I played 1e and 3/3.5e extensively but awhile ago, and I've forgotten a great deal.) The consensus is that we'd like to have a nice mix of combat and exploration, and roleplay is a priority. So loving your character/being able to get into character is important to us. We're starting at level 1, but hoping to keep this group going for awhile, so it's not a bad idea to think ahead about how characters grow.

One of the kids wants to play a ranger, and we have great coverage in other classes. I'd like to encourage people to play what they want. But I keep reading reviews that consistently say rangers don't scale that well into higher levels. I'd like the player to be able to play a ranger and not be disappointed once they get past 5th. I'm of the belief that multiclassing ought to be an option, not a necessity.

I really don't have time to concoct homebrew remedies - and more importantly, my low level of experience with 5e means I wouldn't fully appreciate the longterm outcome of a homebrew remedy even if I did. I happen to have Xanathar's Guide to Everything.

My question: Do the ranger archetypes in Xanathar's Guide remedy the functional disparity between rangers and other classes? Is there any one in particular that I could steer her to that would put her on the same footing as everyone else when they reach mid-to-higher levels?

[stoutstien]

New to GitPG
New to 5e
(Effectively) New to DMing
New player group

So... have mercy.

The player group is mixed, half middle aged adults and half teenagers. All but me are completely new to D&D. (I played 1e and 3/3.5e extensively but awhile ago, and I've forgotten a great deal.) The consensus is that we'd like to have a nice mix of combat and exploration, and roleplay is a priority. So loving your character/being able to get into character is important to us. We're starting at level 1, but hoping to keep this group going for awhile, so it's not a bad idea to think ahead about how characters grow.

One of the kids wants to play a ranger, and we have great coverage in other classes. I'd like to encourage people to play what they want. But I keep reading reviews that consistently say rangers don't scale that well into higher levels. I'd like the player to be able to play a ranger and not be disappointed once they get past 5th. I'm of the belief that multiclassing ought to be an option, not a necessity.

I really don't have time to concoct homebrew remedies - and more importantly, my low level of experience with 5e means I wouldn't fully appreciate the longterm outcome of a homebrew remedy even if I did. I happen to have Xanathar's Guide to Everything.

My question: Do the ranger archetypes in Xanathar's Guide remedy the functional disparity between rangers and other classes? Is there any one in particular that I could steer her to that would put her on the same footing as everyone else when they reach mid-to-higher levels?

Sort of.
The Xans subclasses address some of the general complaints of the class; lack of damage, lit spells, lack of focus, and failure to fullfil the class concept.
They don't address the issues of some of the core class mechanics like favorite enemy/terrain.

The good news that the discrepancies between the best/worse classes are fairly close so even the weaker ones are playable.

A common fixed for the class is just allowing them to become prepared casters vs memorized

[KOLE]

Welcome to 5e and GITP, Adar!

Here's my two cents.

Base Ranger isn't HORRIBLE. It's playable. Some of the mechanics are wonky, and it specializes in some parts of the game that are rarely implemented, like exploration. There's been A LOT of discussion on this- at the end of the day, the PHB is not going to brutally underperform, especially if your table is new to the game and not min/max munchkins. They are still a lot of fun.

The only exception is the PHB Beastmaster. It's... Not great. It does underperform. However, there are plenty of people who say it's not AS BAD as we've been lead to believe. I tend to disagree, as it takes some optimizing to keep it just OK. So, if you implement no other solution, just don't let them pick a beastmaster and they'll be just fine.

Xanathar's is weird because the subclasses are just better than the PHB choices. I think this was an intentional effort by WOTC to buff a class they knew was a little underwhelming. If your player wants a Xanathar's subclass for their Ranger, I would call it a day and not worry.

There is another option, however. WOTC DID release a "Revised Ranger" (you can find it here (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf)). My personal opinion is that it's really good. It's SLIGHTLY overtuned, but not excessively so. It's only going to get out of hand if your players decides to pull some Multiclassing shenanigans. Allowing Xanathar's subclasses on the revised ranger might be little much.

But if your player wants a Beastmaster, definitely allow the Revised version. To me, it's the true vision of the class, and it works very well.

[Bobthewizard]

Revised ranger is great and not too OP. I think that's the best option, especially for Beastmaster.

If you want to use the official class, though, I would recommend 2 house rules.

1. remove the favored terrain restrictions on Natural Explorer so they can use it anywhere, and
2. let primeval awareness tell you the number, type and approximate location.

I also like letting them be a prepared caster, changing their spells with a long rest.

[TyGuy]

I played a revised ranger horizon walker. It was broken at times. DM got upset by the insane damage sharpshooter was pulling in the start of combat with advantage from natural explorer.

Biggest gripe is the learned spells instead of prepared.

[Tanarii]

New to GitPG
New to 5e
(Effectively) New to DMing
New player group

So... have mercy.The Sharks circle, smelling blood.

(Forum tip: blue text means sarcasm, sometimes also used for something humorous.)


But I keep reading reviews that consistently say rangers don't scale that well into higher levels.Dont believe opinions you read on the Internet. Especially if you're never tried it yourself. In this case, as in many others, The Internet hive mind has decided that rangers are lacking, primarily based on white room theory crafting, not experience.

I've personally played 2 rangers (Hunter and Beastmaster) in DDEX/Adventurers league. I have an open table, single class no feats, persistent campaign that I run at three different game stores. And my experience, personal and watching others, is rangers are perfectly fine through level 10.

There are two simple things you can do to make rangers more effective.

The first is to work with the player and know the rules. Work with your player when they are picking favored enemies and natural explorer terrains to make sure they won't be wasted. Read the adventuring chapter exploration rules and the ranger Natural Explorer functions, and make sure you understand how they work together. Natural Explorer is extremely powerful. As an example, it allows the Ranger to track, forage, navigate or Map for the party and not be automatically surprised at the start of an ambush.

The second is a house rule, if you feel the feature is too specific: make the Natural Explorer bulletpoints work in any terrain. Personally I'd still keep specific terrains for the point about proficiency bonuses being doubled, but all the others working in any natural terrain is a nice boost to an already useful and core feature.

[Sindal]

I played a revised ranger horizon walker. It was broken at times. DM got upset by the insane damage sharpshooter was pulling in the start of combat with advantage from natural explorer.

Biggest gripe is the learned spells instead of prepared.

Sharpshooter aside, cause it's designed to output massive chonks of damage...

[Sigreid]

This cracks me up because since my table started playing 5e we have had a ranger in every party, and it moves around. At my table people like to play rangers a lot.

[Khrysaes]

Ranger is my favorite class type, but i dont like 5es version of it. They just start falling off at level 8. Heck, you can get most or more of their feqtures past 8 by multiclassing into a rogue, earlier too.

If you do want to let him play a ranger, as many people have mention:

Revised ranger
But take the advantage on initiative and to attacks in the first round of combat and move that to level 6.

Make them a prepared caster, rather than having spells known. Working exqctly like a palqdin in this regard.

Make primeval awareness as someone mentioned above, and i dont recall off tje top of my head, but remove the use of spell slots to use it. Make it usable a number of times equal to wis, like a paladin's divine sense.

There are some other changes i would make, primarily at later level to make staying 0qst 8 more worthwhile. But early on those will work.

[Chronos]

I'm playing a ranger right now (revised, hunter). On paper, the known spells instead of prepared looks bad, but in practice, I find that I know almost as many spells as I'd like, which I think is a good balance point (knowing all of the spells you want removes interesting decisions).

And the problem with the PHB ranger (especially the beastmaster) isn't that it is weak (it's not), but that it feels weak. Which is worse. The revised version fixes that. It can be broken with multiclassing (especially with non-PHB subclasses like Gloom Stalker), but single-classed, it's fine.

[stoutstien]

This cracks me up because since my table started playing 5e we have had a ranger in every party, and it moves around. At my table people like to play rangers a lot.

Not to derail but the ranger always poses an interesting problem for planning a game. They are popular because of what they represent. A skilled semi magical outlander.

It is the only class in the game that you actually have to plan for if they're going to be at the table or not. Favorite terrain is just so weird in the context of game design. It does nothing or bypasses alot of possible effects in the exploration pillar.

[TyGuy]

On paper, the known spells instead of prepared looks bad, but in practice, I find that I know almost as many spells as I'd like, which I think is a good balance point (knowing all of the spells you want removes interesting decisions)
You don't know them all as a paladin, you have access to all. Both ranger and paladin are 1/2 level + ability mod at a time, but paladin can swap in preparation for new circumstances.

And each oath gets auto-known spells, some from other classes. At least the XGtE ranger subs started getting extra known spells, but half as many as paladin's.

In practice you didn't mind. In practice other people do, because it's inflexible.

[Adar]

Thanks everyone for the great responses. Each one has given me either ideas or another perspective. I can't remember the last time I could honestly say that about a thread on the internet! I really appreciate it.

[Fnissalot]

I agree with some earlier speakers, the PHB ranger feels worse than it actually is(aside from the first level which is pretty bad) and the revised ranger is frontloaded so the first levels are a bit too much.

PHB beastmasters usually feels bad due to how easily the beast dies (put barding on it helps a lot), it has a lot of bad animal companion options that you shouldn't pick, and the heavier toll it has on the action economy. In practice, you can make the PHB version pretty good but it requires some optimization and changing your expectations of it a bit. There was a really good write up on this somewhere but I cannot seem to find it.

The xanathar's subclasses is a bit stronger but, mostly, they feel a lot better right of the bat.

[Chronos]

Yes, a paladin can change their spells based on the situation, but then, a paladin's spells are more situational than a ranger's. For instance, a paladin's smite spells all do different damage types and mostly can't be upcast, so there are a bunch of them, but Hunter's Mark, Hail of Thorns, and Ensnaring Strike all do seldom-resisted damage types (if you have a magic weapon) and can be upcast, so you don't need to swap them out.

[Zuras]

Anyone telling you Rangers are bad is conflating three separate issues

1) Beast Master Rangers are really annoying in combat, as your companion has significantly less independence than a paladin’s steed, and at mid levels your buddy is pretty vulnerable in combat. Having a frequently dying animal companion is both a mechanical and RP issue.

2) Rangers are really front-loaded with features. You have extra attack and your best spells and combat features by 5th level, and above 11th level there’s almost nothing exciting, so most players multi-class by then.

3) Ranger’s nature abilities end up letting the party simply skip that part of the adventure. It isn’t a satisfying way to show their extreme competence in the exploration tier.

This may mean the Ranger is a badly designed class, but if your campaign isn’t going to spend a long time above 9th level, the Ranger player should feel adequately powered versus the other classes.

If you are still concerned, I would say let them take one of the XGtE subclasses, or add an extra bonus known spell per level to the Hunter and Beast Master appropriate to those classes (e.g. give Beast Masters Beast Bond known for free).

[Khrysaes]

Anyone telling you Rangers are bad is conflating three separate issues

1) Beast Master Rangers are really annoying in combat, as your companion has significantly less independence than a paladin’s steed, and at mid levels your buddy is pretty vulnerable in combat. Having a frequently dying animal companion is both a mechanical and RP issue.

If you are still concerned, I would say let them take one of the XGtE subclasses, or add an extra bonus known spell per level to the Hunter and Beast Master appropriate to those classes (e.g. give Beast Masters Beast Bond known for free).

I remember it being suggested at some point that since the animal companion is significantly less independent and weaker than a paladin's Find Steed/Greater Find Steed spells, that a comprable spell should be made for the ranger, at the same levels, and work in much the same way but with different effects. Then the Beastmaster ranger archetype would be changed such that 1: the lesser spell is gained as a ritual at level 3. 2: they get beast themed spells similar to the suggestion above. and 3: the subclass is focused on improving the companion and synergy with the ranger, much like the conjuration wizard and shepard druid.

[Tanarii]

This may mean the Ranger is a badly designed class, but if your campaign isn’t going to spend a long time above 9th level, the Ranger player should feel adequately powered versus the other classes..
The more I run 5e, and the more adventure paths that get released, the more it solidifies in my mind that level 11+ doesn't really matter for considering how effective or good a class is. It's almost always time to retire (sandbox), or you're in the series finale and about to end the 'campaign' (adventure paths / arcs / series).

Of course, the designers told us that from the get go. They even designed the XP table so that tier 2 is super long because that's where all the play happens, and just in case you want to do broken epic level Tier 4, Tier 3 just shoots by. It just didn't really sink in for me until I had examples and experience. Totally makes sense they'd not really care much about Tier 3+ balance. Or significant playtesting for that matter.

[MrStabby]

At your table the ranger might be fine. In many circumstances there isn't a problem.

My suggestion would be to check what the player wants and what else is played at the table.

If no one is playing a paladin then a ranger looks OK. If there is a paladin at the table it can show up just how much more they get than rangers. Prepared casting, better spells, better armour, many more resources auras, smiting...

The other thing is what people want to be good at. If you want to be a skirmishes then having a monk or rogue can show you up, fighters tend to be better at raw damage (though not that far off), a valor bard with an archery focus is more versatile. The ranger feels like a multiclass with no real outstanding area of expertise but kind of ok at a lot more stuff. Are your players happy with that?

[KorvinStarmast]

My question: Do the ranger archetypes in Xanathar's Guide remedy the functional disparity between rangers and other classes? Is there any one in particular that I could steer her to that would put her on the same footing as everyone else when they reach mid-to-higher levels? Gloom Stalker is a fun ranger, and I'd suggest that you work with the player on picking a favored terrain and a favored enemy that will align somewhat with the monsters you have in your world.

Do not let the reviews in GiTP scare you. Hunter Ranger is a perfectly fine archetype also. I just like my gloom stalker better. :)

[Nagog]

Do they have a race chosen? If not, someone here pointed out the amazing combo of playing a Kobold Beast Master with a Wolf. It's viable as a mount, and since you both have Pack Tactics, you get advantage on any and all attack rolls while riding it/next to it.

As for rangers as a whole, if you feel they start to slip behind, feel free to drop them a magic item or two to balance things out in whatever pillar of gameplay they're falling behind in (probably Combat, as Rangers are built for exploration, and roleplay is up to the player)

[GlenSmash!]

Gloom Stalker is a fun ranger, and I'd suggest that you work with the player on picking a favored terrain and a favored enemy that will align somewhat with the monsters you have in your world.

Do not let the reviews in GiTP scare you. Hunter Ranger is a perfectly fine archetype also. I just like my gloom stalker better. :)

I second this.

I played a longbow Hunter to 5 and it was a very competitive damage dealer, if not the best in the party.

Gloom Stalker really satisfies that commando/ambusher niche really well. I also build a Horizon Walker that I think will be fun.

[paladinn]

I second this.

I played a longbow Hunter to 5 and it was a very competitive damage dealer, if not the best in the party.

Gloom Stalker really satisfies that commando/ambusher niche really well. I also build a Horizon Walker that I think will be fun.

Is a Gloom Stalker any less-situational than a typical Hunter-ranger? One of my beefs against the class is how situational it's become. As long as your campaign involves a specific terrain and a specific species of enemy, a ranger is great. Otherwise, not so much. Is a Gloom Stalker really only great in the dark, underground, etc? What would it bring to a more "typical" (say, above-ground) campaign?

[GlenSmash!]

Is a Gloom Stalker any less-situational than a typical Hunter-ranger? One of my beefs against the class is how situational it's become. As long as your campaign involves a specific terrain and a specific species of enemy, a ranger is great. Otherwise, not so much. Is a Gloom Stalker really only great in the dark, underground, etc? What would it bring to a more "typical" (say, above-ground) campaign?

Gloom Stalker gets good bonuses to the first round of combat and every combat has a first round. They also get another save proficiency, and the ability to re-roll one missed attack per turn which pairs very well with Sharpshooter, or even Great Weapon Master.

[HappyDaze]

What would it bring to a more "typical" (say, above-ground) campaign?

IME, a "typical" D&D campaign spends a great deal of time in the dark and/or underground.

[Luccan]

The biggest ranger issue is that their core class abilities are far too situational and Beastmaster is fairly weak. Hunter does have some issues (it also picks up some situational abilities, though they're stronger than much of what Beastmaster gets and not as situational as the core abilities). If your player wants either of these subclasses, I have two suggestions:

1. Figure out a bonus spell list for the Hunter and Beastmaster. Part of what makes the Xanathar's subclasses superior is that they get more spells known, increasing versatility and lessening the fear of picking "wrong" spells (though almost every ranger should take Hunter's Mark). Other people have already created their own bonus spell lists, so even if you don't feel confident doing it yourself, you can find thematically appropriate examples online.

2.I'd suggest looking up the Beastmaster errata, which gives a slight boost, and also let their companion's HP increase more like a PC ( even half-HD+Con every two master levels would significantly increase survivability).

[KorvinStarmast]

The biggest ranger issue is that their core class abilities are far too situational and Beastmaster is fairly weak. Hunter does have some issues (it also picks up some situational abilities, though they're stronger than much of what Beastmaster gets and not as situational as the core abilities). If your player wants either of these subclasses, I have two suggestions:

1. Figure out a bonus spell list for the Hunter and Beastmaster. Part of what makes the Xanathar's subclasses superior is that they get more spells known, increasing versatility and lessening the fear of picking "wrong" spells (though almost every ranger should take Hunter's Mark). Other people have already created their own bonus spell lists, so even if you don't feel confident doing it yourself, you can find thematically appropriate examples online.

2.I'd suggest looking up the Beastmaster errata, which gives a slight boost, and also let their companion's HP increase more like a PC ( even half-HD+Con every two master levels would significantly increase survivability). My gloom stalker ranger has the Criminal background. Our party has no rogue. I have plenty to do. :) The disguise self domain spell is very handy.

[Khrysaes]

My gloom stalker ranger has the Criminal background. Our party has no rogue. I have plenty to do. :) The disguise self domain spell is very handy.

But, and i may be misreading this, your gloom stalker got to level 5.

It was mentioned that the ranger is super front loaded, inversitile and inconsistent.

Of course at level 5 it will feel fine, they arent super overshadowed by other classes at this point.

Qnd while the xanathars classes helped thay still arent comparable so any other class at any particular thing, with the exception of a situational game elemnt skiping feature at level 1.

Fighters will be better at combat. Rogues better qt stealth and skills. Any full caster is better at casting. And the bard is better than it at all 3, especially a multiclass, but not even the unique to ranger 5th level spell is safe, and bards get it earlier.

Its parralel, the paladin gets 11-16 more spells prepared than the ranger gets known at level 20, qnd much more unique and powerful features.

The ranger is fine at early levels as no other classes have super strong features or equally strong features either.

But past level 8, tje ranger gets a few spells known. And some more situational or useless abilities like hide in plain sight.

Hell, the revised ranger makes it worse with level 1 advantage on initiatives and attacl rolls, and skipping even more content.

Even the revised ranger get only parts of q rogues level 2 ability at 9 and 14. I would just rather multiclass arcane trickster at that point.

So the biggest problem with the ranger isnt early levels, it is 8-10 plus. There is no reason to stay in the class past this point

Xgte subclasses hel0ed this some, but the problem is reqlly the base class and beastmaster

[AHF]

If the ranger really wants an animal friend then some house ruling is appropriate. Personally, I think the action economy is the biggest issue for Beastmaster and would let them have the action economy of a find steed summons or a familiar who can attack.

[~Soul]

Welcome to 5e and GITP, Adar!

Here's my two cents.

Base Ranger isn't HORRIBLE. It's playable. Some of the mechanics are wonky, and it specializes in some parts of the game that are rarely implemented, like exploration. There's been A LOT of discussion on this- at the end of the day, the PHB is not going to brutally underperform, especially if your table is new to the game and not min/max munchkins. They are still a lot of fun.

The only exception is the PHB Beastmaster. It's... Not great. It does underperform. However, there are plenty of people who say it's not AS BAD as we've been lead to believe. I tend to disagree, as it takes some optimizing to keep it just OK. So, if you implement no other solution, just don't let them pick a beastmaster and they'll be just fine.

Xanathar's is weird because the subclasses are just better than the PHB choices. I think this was an intentional effort by WOTC to buff a class they knew was a little underwhelming. If your player wants a Xanathar's subclass for their Ranger, I would call it a day and not worry.

There is another option, however. WOTC DID release a "Revised Ranger". My personal opinion is that it's really good. It's SLIGHTLY overtuned, but not excessively so. It's only going to get out of hand if your players decides to pull some Multiclassing shenanigans. Allowing Xanathar's subclasses on the revised ranger might be little much.

But if your player wants a Beastmaster, definitely allow the Revised version. To me, it's the true vision of the class, and it works very well.

Hi Kole! :smile:

Do you know if the revised ranger is included in PHB 2019?

[Khrysaes]

Hi Kole! :smile:

Do you know if the revised ranger is included in PHB 2019?

It is not. But it is in unearthed arcana for free on the wotc site. Just google 5e revised ranger and it should be the first link

[~Soul]

It is not. But it is in unearthed arcana for free on the wotc site. Just google 5e revised ranger and it should be the first link

Didn't know about this, thanks you!

[ad_hoc]

My question: Do the ranger archetypes in Xanathar's Guide remedy the functional disparity between rangers and other classes? Is there any one in particular that I could steer her to that would put her on the same footing as everyone else when they reach mid-to-higher levels?

The PHB Rangers are just fine.

The Beastmaster is actually quite strong.

The issue is that the identity of the Ranger is not what people want.

Take their level 1 exploration abilities. They are essentially ribbons that work for overland travel. But people read them and expect them to be a core part of the class and are then disappointed when they aren't.

Similarly with the Beastmaster people want the beast to be doing much of the work with the Ranger secondary when Ranger subclasses are a minor part of the class' power.

So the important thing here is to talk to the player and set their expectations.

[KorvinStarmast]

But, and i may be misreading this, your gloom stalker got to level 5. Our Tier 3 groups (on pause at the moment) has a gloom stalker at level 11. He's freaking lethal with the sharpshooter feat and that "reattack one of your misses" ... fell handed. (And third level spells like summoning a pile of wolves is kinda handy.

[Tanarii]

Take their level 1 exploration abilities. They are essentially ribbons that work for overland travel. But people read them and expect them to be a core part of the class and are then disappointed when they aren't.They work any time you're in your natural terrain. Some (not getting lost, foraging) work at a "travel day" level. Others (difficult terrain avoidance, stealth, not getting ambushed while doing stuff, tracking) work fine at the fine-grain of the exploration pillar, local adventuring site exploration, which is typically a tactical level, albeit usually a different kind from combat. Pseudo-expertise technically works at all levels, but it's also likely to come into play at the tactical exploration level.

[ad_hoc]

They work any time you're in your natural terrain. Some (not getting lost, foraging) work at a "travel day" level. Others (difficult terrain avoidance, stealth, not getting ambushed while doing stuff, tracking) work fine at the fine-grain of the exploration pillar, local adventuring site exploration, which is typically a tactical level, albeit usually a different kind from combat. Pseudo-expertise technically works at all levels, but it's also likely to come into play at the tactical exploration level.

I suppose it depends on how we quantify 'an hour or more'. I see it as an hour of just traveling so going through a dungeon having combats, searching for treasure and the like isn't the group traveling as they are stopping often to do adventuring things.

We had a Ranger at our table and she said 'oh, I ignore difficult terrain, I can catch the people' and I had to tell her that ignoring the difficult terrain only counts if traveling for an hour or more, not in combat. Really, we should have houseruled it on the spot. It wasn't a fun moment.

[Zuras]

The PHB Rangers are just fine.

The Beastmaster is actually quite strong.

The issue is that the identity of the Ranger is not what people want.

Take their level 1 exploration abilities. They are essentially ribbons that work for overland travel. But people read them and expect them to be a core part of the class and are then disappointed when they aren't.

Similarly with the Beastmaster people want the beast to be doing much of the work with the Ranger secondary when Ranger subclasses are a minor part of the class' power.

So the important thing here is to talk to the player and set their expectations.


PHB Ranger is still terrible in that you get almost nothing above 11th level. In Tier 4 the single classed Ranger is regretting their life choices while they watch other classes turn into Dragons or do 100+ damage in a single hit.

This doesn’t actually come up often, though, and they are fine till the middle of T3, so it’s not something to worry about.

[paladinn]

PHB Ranger is still terrible in that you get almost nothing above 11th level. In Tier 4 the single classed Ranger is regretting their life choices while they watch other classes turn into Dragons or do 100+ damage in a single hit.

This doesn’t actually come up often, though, and they are fine till the middle of T3, so it’s not something to worry about.

Just ranting.. I'm not a big fan of rangers as currently manifested; but I don't think it's fair to say that PHB rangers get "almost nothing above 11th level". Looks like they get an archetype feature, Favored Enemy improvements, Vanish, Feral Senses, Foe Slayer and 3 ASI's. Not to mention the Vast majority of their spellcasting abilities.

As has been discussed-to-death, Favored Enemy needs to be overhauled, and the entire class needs more of a focus (a "thing"). But I think they get plenty of stuff as they level up. Especially when you consider how the class started in OD&D/1e/2e. Most of the class features were front-loaded and developed as one leveled up.

One problem with more-modern games (and gamers) is that if one don't get something new and shiny every level, one feels deprived.

End of rant..lol

[KorvinStarmast]

PHB Ranger is still terrible in that you get almost nothing above 11th level.
Most games don't even get that far.

In Tier 4 the single classed Ranger is regretting their life choices while they watch other classes turn into Dragons or do 100+ damage in a single hit. Not sure why they "regret their life choices" ... do you play D&D to compete with other people? :smalleek:

This doesn’t actually come up often, though, and they are fine till the middle of T3, so it’s not something to worry about. Yeah, I won't disagree that at higher levels Ranger class features don't seem to have the "oomph" of some other class features. Some of their higher level spells can be fun to mess with, but if the Ranger were a prepared spell caster, or if PHB Ranger got "domain spells" the way XgTE do, the view beyond level 11 might be less dim ...

So once in Tier 3 ....
1. Get to level 12.
2. Take the ASI or feat.
3. MC at 13 and beyond (I'd suggest Rogue, because I like rogues - no, I am not a neutral observer. Monk might also work depending on what one is looking to do).

Play on for as long as the campaign lasts.

(I don't have my PHB handy, so all I can find for 4th and 5th level spells are ...

4th
Conjure Woodland Beings, Freedom of Movement, Locate Creature, Stoneskin
5th
Commune with Nature, Tree Stride

CWB can be fun with the right DM, and I'd need to see the rest to see what one misses out on.

[Zuras]

Not sure why they "regret their life choices" ... do you play D&D to compete with other people? :smalleek:

Players who keep playing in Tier 3 normally want to do epic stuff. Hunter Ranger 11/Assassin Rogue 3 can volley & critical hit up to 16 enemies at once to open a fight. Hunter 11/Fighter 3 can Volley twice in a turn with Action Surge.

The pure Ranger 14 PC gets a 4th level spell, ASI, and bonus action hide. Just nowhere near as good, and nothing much to look forward to at higher levels.

[jas61292]

I like ranger, but it definitely has some issues. Those have been addresses numerous times though, so I'd rather focus on the XGtE subclasses that this thread is about.

XGtE ranger archetypes were a good step in the right direction. They are arguably stronger (at least early on) than the PHB rangers, and the bonus spells known is very nice. Their highest level abilities are also more interesting. But unfortunately, I consider only the Horizon Walker to be really a well designed subclass. The main reason for this is level 11.

Level 11 is a crucial level for martial characters. It is where just about all of them get a direct offensive power boost. Fighters get a third attack, Monks get a bigger martial arts die, and paladins get improved divine smite. Unlike those classes, Rangers power boost came from the subclass, and was not always as straight forward, but it was there. Beastmaster gets another beast attack. Hunter got a multiattack option which does not allow focus fire, but could massively increase total damage when you face groups.

Horizon Walker follows the path of hunter in that its boost is situational, and cannot be focus fired, but is highly useful (a full extra attack each round) and comes with utility. The other two XGtE archetypes drop the ball in this regard. Gloom Stalker seems nice in that it allows for the rolling of a missed attack. This is increased accuracy, and so it is technically an increase in average damage. But unlike every other feature mentioned, it does nothing at all to increase your total damage potential, and has no other added utility. Then there is the Monster Slayer which gets no extra damage ability at all.

You can say what you want about high level ranger as a whole, but while the XGtE archetypes do a good job making low levels more interesting, the failure of two of them to have good abilities at such a crucial level makes makes question of "do I multiclass now" come up even earlier than it otherwise would.

For reference, I'm currently playing a character that is a Gloom Stalker ranger. I'm not a big multiclasser, but I did so after level 5 because I simply could not see anything I'd be getting that would be better than what I'd get from switching to any number of other classes. If I had been playing Hunter or Horizon Walker, I doubt I would have done the same.

[paladinn]

Very interesting.. So is the reason that (some) people multiclass that they stop getting shiny things when they hit a certain level in their existing class?

[KOLE]

Very interesting.. So is the reason that (some) people multiclass that they stop getting shiny things when they hit a certain level in their existing class?

For high tier play, Rangers, Barbs, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are prone to this. Sometimes Rogues who dont care about being a Skill Monkey. Those classes have relatively lame cap stones and some great benefits for certain multiclasses.

EDIT: Barba have an amazinf capstone, but Some boring levels to get there, leaving a fighter dip a tempting option.

[HappyDaze]

Very interesting.. So is the reason that (some) people multiclass that they stop getting shiny things when they hit a certain level in their existing class?

Only when they are not trying to brew up new monstrosities to channel full casting into Paladin smites.

[Tanarii]

The pure Ranger 14 PC gets a 4th level spell, ASI, and bonus action hide. Just nowhere near as good, and nothing much to look forward to at higher levels.
Which says more about why multiclassing is an optional rule than it does about there being a problem with single class rangers.

[Skylivedk]

Just ranting.. I'm not a big fan of rangers as currently manifested; but I don't think it's fair to say that PHB rangers get "almost nothing above 11th level". Looks like they get an archetype feature, Favored Enemy improvements, Vanish, Feral Senses, Foe Slayer and 3 ASI's. Not to mention the Vast majority of their spellcasting abilities.

As has been discussed-to-death, Favored Enemy needs to be overhauled, and the entire class needs more of a focus (a "thing"). But I think they get plenty of stuff as they level up. Especially when you consider how the class started in OD&D/1e/2e. Most of the class features were front-loaded and developed as one leveled up.

One problem with more-modern games (and gamers) is that if one don't get something new and shiny every level, one feels deprived.

End of rant..lol

Is that a problem though?
A) isn't the point of levelling to get shiny new capabilities and hence feel rewarded?
B) a bunch of classes do get shiny new things every level (Arcane full casters get spells or can at least swap them)


Very interesting.. So is the reason that (some) people multiclass that they stop getting shiny things when they hit a certain level in their existing class?
Or the multi-class makes their character concept more aligned mechanically.


Which says more about why multiclassing is an optional rule than it does about there being a problem with single class rangers.
I would respectfully disagree. From previous interactions, I know we also run very different types of games and appreciate different designs. To me, levelling up should feel at least as rewarding later as earlier. A design that doesn't accommodate that, doesn't fully meet my expectations for a TTRPG.

[Bjarkmundur]

I love ranger threads^^

Make sure your player chooses the subclass first, and then choose which ranger will be used based on the subclass. There shouldn't be any comparison between the base classes. Like you said, you're all new to DnD, and here to have fun.

Use Revised Ranger for the PHB subclasses and the PHB Ranger with the Xanathar subclasses.

Nice and simple :)

[ProseBeforeHos]

My question: Do the ranger archetypes in Xanathar's Guide remedy the functional disparity between rangers and other classes? Is there any one in particular that I could steer her to that would put her on the same footing as everyone else when they reach mid-to-higher levels?

Hi, I wrote a guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?541992-Prose-s-Guide-to-Xanathar-s-Guide-to-Everything) way back when to XGTE where I looked at the ranger sub-classes extensively.

Long story short - the answer to your question is yes, XGTE subclasses are much better than the PhB options, and do a lot to keep the ranger relevant at later levels.

Honestly I think the most important thing is that you just steer your player away from Beastmaster ranger (PhB version). It's 5e's ultimate trap option along with 4 element monk. Really cool looking on paper, but incredibly frustrating and ineffective in practice.

Good luck in your game, hope everything goes well!

Edit: As others have said the UA revised ranger is much better than the PhB, and has a very balanced and effective 'update' to the beast master subclass. If you're scared your player will naturally gravitate towards "cute pet option" then that may very well be the best solution.

[AHF]

Very interesting.. So is the reason that (some) people multiclass that they stop getting shiny things when they hit a certain level in their existing class?

Or people might have a character concept that works better mechanically with multiclassing. People multiclass for mechanical or role playing reasons (or some combination of both).

[Meichrob7]

Do they have a race chosen? If not, someone here pointed out the amazing combo of playing a Kobold Beast Master with a Wolf. It's viable as a mount, and since you both have Pack Tactics, you get advantage on any and all attack rolls while riding it/next to it.

As for rangers as a whole, if you feel they start to slip behind, feel free to drop them a magic item or two to balance things out in whatever pillar of gameplay they're falling behind in (probably Combat, as Rangers are built for exploration, and roleplay is up to the player)

The problem with the beast master wolf Kolbold combo is that the Kobold has sunlight sensitivity and if you aren’t using UA the wolf is useless besides being a mount and activating pack tactics which is canceled out by your sunlight disadvantage. And if you’re in a campaign that’s underground most of the time then gloom stalker tends to reign king.

Also while I totally agree that balance can be shifted with magic items, you’d need to homebrew some up for a ranger who uses a bow because there’s only one magic item for bow users which almost makes it feel like WoTC wanted to make sure you couldn’t buff up your party’s ranger if they were falling behind.

[Charles Martel]

The PHB Rangers are just fine.

The Beastmaster is actually quite strong.



This post is when I abandoned hope that this thread would ever reach a sane conclusion.

[stoutstien]

This post is when I abandoned hope that this thread would ever reach a sane conclusion.
Not necessarily. The beast master is just clunking but power wise they actually have the potential to be on the high end of damage of all the subclasses. It's the late Bloomer of the rangers but no other subclass can match their single Target damage.
Personal favorite is grabbing the giant Crab for increase AC, and a decent auto grapple on hit DC.
The big complain of the subclasses the beast is not autonomous whatsoever and plays like Pokemon and not a synced up duo of destruction.

[Zuras]

Which says more about why multiclassing is an optional rule than it does about there being a problem with single class rangers.

You can take it that way, but honestly it’s just an indictment of the 4th level Ranger spell list in the PHB. The only 4th level spell Rangers get that is the least bit exciting to a 13th level PC is Guardian of Nature, which isn’t even a PHB spell.

[Charles Martel]

Not necessarily. The beast master is just clunking but power wise they actually have the potential to be on the high end of damage of all the subclasses. It's the late Bloomer of the rangers but no other subclass can match their single Target damage.
Personal favorite is grabbing the giant Crab for increase AC, and a decent auto grapple on hit DC.
The big complain of the subclasses the beast is not autonomous whatsoever and plays like Pokemon and not a synced up duo of destruction.


The HP of the companions scales terribly. At higher levels a 1/4 AC creature's attacks, even with your proficiency bonus, are not going to compare to any other martial character's attacks (let alone what a caster decides to spend their turn on). The worst part is that the action economy means that either the Ranger is walking around brain-dead while the beast fights, or the beast just walks around and drools while the Ranger fights. You're exactly right that it plays like a Pokemon, just a pokemon that never levels or evolves.

[ad_hoc]

Not necessarily. The beast master is just clunking but power wise they actually have the potential to be on the high end of damage of all the subclasses. It's the late Bloomer of the rangers but no other subclass can match their single Target damage.
Personal favorite is grabbing the giant Crab for increase AC, and a decent auto grapple on hit DC.
The big complain of the subclasses the beast is not autonomous whatsoever and plays like Pokemon and not a synced up duo of destruction.

Beastmasters are strong early on.

Damage per round is not the only indicator of strength.

The problem is that people expect too much out of a subclass. People are fine with hunter's conditional 1d8 dmg/rd but upset with all the things Beastmaster gets. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Beastmaster gets a lot of battlefield control. The beast can dodge and OA freely. So they are able to run into melee range of enemy ranged attackers causing disadvantage and getting a free OA with possible riders if it hits.

They can also stand guard next to vulnerable PCs which is one of the few ways to actually protect them - to block off possible avenues of attack.

They are also very useful in exploration as an extra body with fast movement and possible additional senses.

All that and more for giving up 1d8 dmg/rd.

So they are quite strong but they aren't what people want out of a Beastmaster character concept which is a valid concern.

[stoutstien]

The HP of the companions scales terribly. At higher levels a 1/4 AC creature's attacks, even with your proficiency bonus, are not going to compare to any other martial character's attacks (let alone what a caster decides to spend their turn on). The worst part is that the action economy means that either the Ranger is walking around brain-dead while the beast fights, or the beast just walks around and drools while the Ranger fights. You're exactly right that it plays like a Pokemon, just a pokemon that never levels or evolves.
The crab end up with
HP 80(meh but not horrid)
AC 21 (nice)
Stealth +10
+10 to hit(one less than max stat pc)
1d6+7 damage
Auto grapple per hit with a DC of 17(hehe)

The wolf is more optimized with the prone on attack and pack tactics but a gnome on a battle crab is just fun. Dm dependent of how mounting beast works.

[Charles Martel]

Beastmasters are strong early on.

Damage per round is not the only indicator of strength.

The problem is that people expect too much out of a subclass. People are fine with hunter's conditional 1d8 dmg/rd but upset with all the things Beastmaster gets. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Beastmaster gets a lot of battlefield control. The beast can dodge and OA freely. So they are able to run into melee range of enemy ranged attackers causing disadvantage and getting a free OA with possible riders if it hits.

They can also stand guard next to vulnerable PCs which is one of the few ways to actually protect them - to block off possible avenues of attack.

They are also very useful in exploration as an extra body with fast movement and possible additional senses.

All that and more for giving up 1d8 dmg/rd.

So they are quite strong but they aren't what people want out of a Beastmaster character concept which is a valid concern.

At 5th level, a caster throwing a fireball at the PCs can incidentally kill the animal companion with that one spell (or, if they make their save, another fireball). And that's the peak of their survivability; it gets worse, because 4 HP/level is not as good as anything else scales.

The reason to expect a lot out of the subclass is because the underlying class also offers very little compared to every other class in the game.

[Fnissalot]

The crab end up with
HP 80(meh but not horrid)
AC 21 (nice)
Stealth +10
+10 to hit(one less than max stat pc)
1d6+7 damage
Auto grapple per hit with a DC of 17(hehe)

The wolf is more optimized with the prone on attack and pack tactics but a gnome on a battle crab is just fun. Dm dependent of how mounting beast works.

If you are ok with poison damage, giant centipedes, giant poisonous snakes, and giant wolf spiders and such have very high damage.

Pteradon is a flying mount for small PC's.

Deep rothe can cast dancing lights.

Dimetrodons bites like a greatsword.

Some of the options are pretty bad, but some are good enough in the early levels at least.

Edit:
And most of the good ones also have blindsight, so they less often get disadvantage on attacks and can see invisible stuff.

Also adding your proficiency to the grapple DC is a homerule, and not actually part of the base beastmaster

[stoutstien]

If you are ok with poison damage, giant centipedes, giant poisonous snakes, and giant wolf spiders and such have very high damage.

Pteradon is a flying mount for small PC's.

Deep rothe can cast dancing lights.

Dimetrodons bites like a greatsword.

Some of the options are pretty bad, but some are good enough in the early levels at least.

Edit:
And most of the good ones also have blindsight, so they less often get disadvantage on attacks and can see invisible stuff.

Also adding your proficiency to the grapple DC is a homerule, and not actually part of the base beastmaster

If you want poison damage look at the guthash. It's a low DC but it prevent healing from magic as a disease which are rarely resisted. Also a slow damage over time effect.

Guess I was wrong on the save DC on the grapple. Still an ok DC on the grapple especially of you double up on one Target. Killing actions is always welcomed

[ad_hoc]

At 5th level, a caster throwing a fireball at the PCs can incidentally kill the animal companion with that one spell (or, if they make their save, another fireball). And that's the peak of their survivability; it gets worse, because 4 HP/level is not as good as anything else scales.

The reason to expect a lot out of the subclass is because the underlying class also offers very little compared to every other class in the game.

If the party gets hit by a fireball at 5th level they're in deep trouble anyway.

And of course the beast is going to die, but it is pretty easy to replace too.

So, you're expecting more out of the Beastmaster than the other subclasses and then calling it a bad subclass. That doesn't make any sense.

[MrStabby]

Oddly enough, I prefer some of the late level XGtE ranger stuff to the early. I am not saying itis mechanically the most powerful stretch... but some of the class abilities are good there.

This is mainly the monster hunter and horizon walker. Their early abilities really don't make them stand out. A pitiful amount of extra damage and consuming a bonus action doesn't make the class stand out. Being able to counter spells and teleportation by smacking things with your sword is really cool. It is the kind of thematic ability that a subclass could be built around... only you get it too late in actual play for it to be a signature thing. Likewise with horizon stalker... cool late game abilities that would set a good theme for a character... if they happened 6 levels later.

[stoutstien]

Oddly enough, I prefer some of the late level XGtE ranger stuff to the early. I am not saying itis mechanically the most powerful stretch... but some of the class abilities are good there.

This is mainly the monster hunter and horizon walker. Their early abilities really don't make them stand out. A pitiful amount of extra damage and consuming a bonus action doesn't make the class stand out. Being able to counter spells and teleportation by smacking things with your sword is really cool. It is the kind of thematic ability that a subclass could be built around... only you get it too late in actual play for it to be a signature thing. Likewise with horizon stalker... cool late game abilities that would set a good theme for a character... if they happened 6 levels later.

Horizon walker is such a well put together concept other than the name. I want to play one so badly.

[GlenSmash!]

Horizon walker is such a well put together concept other than the name. I want to play one so badly.

I've pretty much settled on a Horizon Walker as my next character myself.

[Mikaleus]

I can’t decide on whether I’d go with weapon and shield or ranged with a Horizon Walker.
Amazing concept

[Adar]

I love ranger threads^^

Make sure your player chooses the subclass first, and then choose which ranger will be used based on the subclass. There shouldn't be any comparison between the base classes. Like you said, you're all new to DnD, and here to have fun.

Use Revised Ranger for the PHB subclasses and the PHB Ranger with the Xanathar subclasses.

Nice and simple :)

This is, in fact, exactly what I did. They're waffling between Horizon Walker and Monster Hunter from XGtE, either of which is fine, of course.

I just want to thank everyone for all the insight. It really helped me flesh out my understanding of the class before I've had much exposure to it through experience - not something that is easy to do. I really appreciate this!