Are the Rangers any good

[Butler121]

Really are they

[Butler121]

Really I am asking this Question because my friends want to redivise the class because I had a friend who played a human Ranger but really they are just really bad at playing characters, she deosn't even care about leveling up. Just ignore that bit, main Question Is the Ranger good enough to not get redivised?

[Willie the Duck]

We're going to need a little more criteria here. Any good at what, and compared to what, and what previous D&D experience do you have?

Mechanically, rangers are seen as a little below the median, although even that is pretty arguable. Most of the complaints are that the PHB beastmaster is wonky and hard to play, and that the game rules don't make wilderness exploration (as opposed to the ranger class specifically*) all that fun.
*although much of the ranger's special abilities related to wilderness amount to 'polish off any situational modifiers that the environment otherwise might have brought to bear'


Really I am asking this Question because my friends want to redivise the class because I had a friend who played a human Ranger but really they are just really bad at playing characters, she deosn't even care about leveling up. Just ignore that bit, main Question Is the Ranger good enough to not get redivised?


Well, there already are revised Rangers, which are not officially released updates but official proposed fixes to perceived mechanics. You can find them here (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-ranger-revised).

[sithlordnergal]

Not really, I would offer her the Revised Ranger. The PHB Ranger isn't all that great. Also, if possible change the capstone feature and give it to her as part of Favored Enemy. And let her add it to all her attacks

[Butler121]

We are talking combat wise redivise

[Willie the Duck]

We are talking combat wise redivise

Butler, that's barely a word and certainly doesn't explain what you need. Can you figure out what you are asking and come back and ask it in complete sentences?

[GlenSmash!]

While there are a couple of things I would tweak about the Ranger if I could, damage wise think they are competitive through tier 2 at least.

XGtE Rangers are little better than PHB Rangers I think.

[Butler121]

Well my friend thinks that in a melee situation the only move she can make Is one attack and maybe run away if needed, but apart from that she deosn't even care about her spells at all. Maybe I my friends could redivise forum better Spells

[Petrocorus]

To sum up a point i made several time, the Rangers (BM excepted) are good at damage. Not as good as the Fighter but still fine.

They are however quite average, or even bad, at all their other jobs. Due to how situational or unsynergetic are they class features and the very low limit on spells known.

[Yunru]

The ranger is terrible, filled with features that it seems WoTC forgot aren't supposed to be ribbons. From the PHB, the Hunter subclass carries it into mediocrity.
Unfortunately for you, in their strange desire to never change anything, they instead decided to make the newer subclasses more overpowered to compensate.

Basically, one way or the other, you'll want to scrap the Ranger and start over. Either improve the base class and nerf the newer subclasses (which'd improve the features that are supposed to make it feel Ranger-y), or buff the PHB subclasses (which is easier).

[Butler121]

Well my friends want to changge Everything about the darn class. SUBCLASSES and all.

[Yunru]

Well my friends want to changge Everything about the darn class. SUBCLASSES and all.

Your friend has the right idea.

As I said, in order for the more ranger-y core features to actually be useful (and thus, effective at making the player feel like a Ranger), they have to be stronger. Which means weakening the subclasses (except maybe Hunter), except for Beast Master which would still need a buff.

[Butler121]

Thanks alot

[Butler121]

The player also genrally pisses of the Dm.

[Kane0]

Standard and Revised Ranger are both fine.

If you really want to go wild, try one of these (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?595643-By-request-Workshopping-another-Ranger) revisions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?592343-Grod-s-Revised-Ranger).

[JellyPooga]

The PHB Ranger is absolutely fine...

...up to lvl.5.

After lvl.5 Hunter Ranger is still pretty competetive, especially in the combat pillar, but it definitely starts to decline if you're looking for pure optimisation; many features just feel subpar and others are situational.

That said, I'm not a fan of any of the revised or alternative rangers or their subclasses; the core Ranger is not bad if what you're looking for is some Ranger awesomeness. After all, no-one does Ranger better than a Ranger (except maybe a Rogue or a Bard, but I digress and have a blatant bias towards both those classes and believe that between them they can out-do just about every other class at what they so best, barring possibly, the Monk and Moon Druid).

[Nidgit]

Well my friend thinks that in a melee situation the only move she can make Is one attack and maybe run away if needed, but apart from that she deosn't even care about her spells at all. Maybe I my friends could redivise forum better Spells
What your friend is looking for is the Rogue subclass Scout. All the flavor of the Ranger, but no spells, more mobility, and one powerful attack per turn.

[strangebloke]

The ranger is totally fine at dealing damage. This has repeatedly been shown to be mechanically true with pure, objective math. The spells, in conjunction with their class features, allow all rangers (except the beastmaster) to lag just a little behind fighters in pure DPR.

The ranger has a lot of out-of-combat utility. The various skill boosts are weird and feel wonky, but objectively the Ranger gets more mileage out of its skills than most classes. They also have a suite of spells that are great out of combat like pass without trace and healing spirit and fog cloud and longstrider.

All that said, the beast master is too weak, and the ranger is currently the only class that has "dead levels." Dead levels are bad design because they make the player feel like they didn't get anything even when they level up. Many of the class abilities are weird and complicated and very niche.

[Sigreid]

We've had 2 people play rangers at our table and the other two want to in the future. Playing up to level 13, we have not had any issues with the ranger and they have saved our bacon when adventuring in places where resupply is rare.

[MrStabby]

The ranger is not very good. I mean, it's kind of adequate in a scrape by, only trailing behind a little bit kind of way.

The ranger can be ok in some groups - if there are no casters or paladins or rogues it does have something special it brings.

Mostly though, it just does what other classes do, but worse. There is no function for which the ranger is the best class, and certainly not past level 6 or so. Healing spirit does punch it into third best healing class though (after druid and bard, both abusing the same spell)

Whilst it is fair to say it isn't the design teams greatest work, there is a lot of good stuff as well. The XGtE versions are awesomely flavoursome and bring some great new abilities to play, but these character defining abilities are just too late on. Bringing some of these substantially earlier would potentially make for some great characters.

It is worth comparing to paladins, and to be clear paladins are at the top of the power level, but it is informative to see the gulf that opens up.

Level 1 paladin get better armour and lay on hands, and a nifty detect good and evil. Ranger gets better at remembering stuff about a type of creature.

Level 2 both get fighting styles, and there is a case to be made that the ranger's archery style is better. Ranger gets ability to use spell slots to tell if there is something of a set of creature types in a mile. I have never worked out what you do differently if the answer comes back "no" to "yes". Paladin gets divine smite instead. Ranger gets to tell if they are there, paladin gets to kill them.

Both get spells. Ranger picks a couple to know. Paladin gets cha plus half level of spells and can change them out each day. Paladin gets great spells ranger gets pretty mediocre spells and healing spirit.

At level 3 ranger gets a new nifty subclass ability and most are actually pretty good. Paladin still goes one better with channel divinity (because we wouldn't want them to actually have to expend spell slots to do stuff) and introduces domain spells because otherwise there is the risk they might only have twice the number rangers do.

Level 4 is an ASI for both and likewise 5 is extra attack.

Level 6 gets rangers that much needed boost to their underwhelming ranger abilities to leave them... still underwhelming. Paladins get +Cha to their saves, and to the saves of everyone nearby.

The trend continues. The more levels get added the bigger the gulf becomes. To be clear, rangers are not unplayable, they just don't really excel at anything that takes up table time. Most things a ranger can do well you can do with a spell - arcane eye windwalk, alarm... all they are really left with is shooting stuff so you better hope that doesn't get boring.

[Chronos]

Some of them are good, but they can be any alignment. Rangers haven't all been good since 2nd edition.

[Kane0]

Some of them are good, but they can be any alignment. Rangers haven't all been good since 2nd edition.

Cookie to you sir, brightened my workday a little with that one.

[Butler121]

What's that supost to mean

[MadBear]

The ranger class is 100% fine. if it was a bell curve it'd probably be in the 40-45th percentile (which is a fine overall place to be). Its damage doesn't lag behind that much, and it has decent (albeit wonky) ooc usefulness. I've seen a beastmaster play just fine as well (not amazing, but fine).

I guess what I'm saying is that if you could describe the ranger in one word it'd be "fine".

[Hail Tempus]

Which Rangers, the ones in New York, or the ones in Texas?

[Zerubbabel]

Gloom stalker is a beast, Gloom stalker ocean elf in the Saltmarsh campaigns is STRONG - remember a lot of the underwater areas are pitch black. Plus being able to lay down that kind of fire from a ship is unreal, especially if you can jump into the water and reappear somewhere else.

Horizon walker I feel is still yet untapped potential, would potentially be one of the most fun classes to play.

These rangers have synergy really well with Sheppard Druid I feel.

[Bjarkmundur]

UIt's all about player perception.

Many times have I had to explain that what the player calls a "mage" is actually the Sorcerer class and not the wizard, how their idea of a "paladin" is just a fighter, and how their idea of "Ranger" is actually just a rogue with a bow.

It's hilarious how they argue their point, despite having never played the game before xD

Some people mix background or alignment with class. It's a common mistake. Your class is your mechanic, nothing more. I can whip up a sorcerer that feels like a Ranger in a heartbeat if I had a player that just reeaalllly loved playing with Metamagic.

This means that if you love the ranger mechanics, then there you go. If you want the ranger Flavor you are better of looking elsewhere.

Heck, a Paladin with the ranger spell list and a houseruled ranged divine smite of d6s would probably make a pretty cool "Ranger" , all things considered.

I still think its weird summon animal companion isn't a spell in 5e.

[redwizard007]

What's that supost to mean

It's old people humor. Once upon a time rangers had to be good aligned. That was back in the day when they were the best class in the game. Things have changed, but they aren't awful. In fact, Gloomstalker is downright frightening.

BTW, your spelling is giving me fits. U minded turming on spill cheque?

[firelistener]

Which Rangers, the ones in New York, or the ones in Texas?

lol I clicked on this thinking it was a baseball thread.

[Witty Username]

If you take the right spells yes, hunter's mark for example makes the ranger's damage look alot better. Its basic abilities are can all be ignored, they don't do anything and their spell often do the things their abilities are supposed to do.

Is the class poorly designed? Yes, it reads badly and its strengths are often somewhat hidden from the player. Also, DM cooperation is needed for natural explorer and favored enemy.

By the books Ranger, use a Xanathar's subclass or Hunter, take the spells hunter's mark, zephyr strike, healing spirit, pass without trace, conjure animals , conjure woodland beings, swift quiver(if you are a ranged character), steel wind strike(if melee), commune with nature and that should cover all the things that the ranger's abilities are supposed to do well enough to compete with other characters.

[samcifer]

One thing I want to ask though. Aren't the favored foes and terrain highly dependent on the campaign? What if you choose the wrong ones or are in a campaign with lots of different types of enemies and/or terrain? Don't those make the first level choices useless if you guess wrong or move on to other kinds of terrain and/or foes?

[McSkrag]

Assuming no multi-classing, Rangers are great sharpshooter archers.

Pure rangers fall behind in melee compared to other martial classes, but can still be effective and fun.

They multi great with fighter and rogue levels.

[Drache64]

I build my wife's Ranger, at level 2 she has AC 18, a rapier that has +6 to hit and +6 to damage, level 3 she is getting a panther. DM allowed UA Ranger revised so she gets Advantage on all initiative rolls and and advantage the first round of combat on anything that hasn't moved. She also could have chosen humanoids as her favored enemy but decided not to munchkin and went with a more fluff friendly choice (beasts).

She is also an Aasimar so essentially gets flight and smite for 10 rounds per day.

Her class is probably pretty front loaded but with spells to come, a companion that gets pretty nasty and good tank stats she will probably never feel left out and has to think very little about optimization.

[strangebloke]

One thing I want to ask though. Aren't the favored foes and terrain highly dependent on the campaign? What if you choose the wrong ones or are in a campaign with lots of different types of enemies and/or terrain? Don't those make the first level choices useless if you guess wrong or move on to other kinds of terrain and/or foes?

TBH the ranger is solid without those abilities and would feel better to play if it didn't have them

[rbstr]

I've played a ranger a couple times. Hunter with PHB and and Horizon Walker with revised. Revised was clearly better and it's favored enemy feature is probably too strong.

The PHB Hunter ranger was perfectly fine in combat. I wish it has some minor 1st level combat feature and that the terrain benefits were more general. Favored enemy not being a combat feature is fine. PHB archetypes should get an errata with bonus spells like the Xanathar's rangers have.

What I found were Ranger Strengths:
Spells. There's good and fun spells in there all over. The AOE stuff is underappreciated because optimizer focus is on Hunter's Mark and single-target. Sure, it's no full-caster-blaster but other martials really just don't get AOE. I wish lightning arrow would show up in UA-archetype bonus spell lists like the smite spells seem to all the time.
Archetype features. They're solid stuff (except PHB beastmaster).
General utility, dex/wis are great stats to have as primary.

My horizon walker was actually strength-based with medium armor. Guardian of Nature at 13th level was awesome as heck.

[Zalabim]

The ranger is totally fine at dealing damage. This has repeatedly been shown to be mechanically true with pure, objective math. The spells, in conjunction with their class features, allow all rangers (except the beastmaster) to lag just a little behind fighters in pure DPR.
Totally agreed. I think it's worth saying this first.


The ranger has a lot of out-of-combat utility. The various skill boosts are weird and feel wonky, but objectively the Ranger gets more mileage out of its skills than most classes. They also have a suite of spells that are great out of combat like pass without trace and healing spirit and fog cloud and longstrider.
I'm not sure the bolded part turns out to be true though. They get 3 skill choices instead of 2, and Natural Explorer gives them limited expertise with certain skills, but that really only makes up for the character having lower intelligence and wisdom in the first place, and being limited to their favored terrain can be very limiting indeed. 9 times out of 10, they're no better with their skills than any normal class. Fighters and barbarians are able to use their athletics skill more, wizards are still better at knowledge skills, etc. The only clear advantage they get is getting to use perception and navigate, forage, or track at the same time in their favored terrain.


All that said, the beast master is too weak, and the ranger is currently the only class that has "dead levels." Dead levels are bad design because they make the player feel like they didn't get anything even when they level up. Many of the class abilities are weird and complicated and very niche.
To be clear, an optimized beast master is frequently better than a hunter and only rarely slightly worse off, with the problem that there's really only one or two clearly better-than-the-rest beast companions, and they're both snakes.

One thing I want to ask though. Aren't the favored foes and terrain highly dependent on the campaign? What if you choose the wrong ones or are in a campaign with lots of different types of enemies and/or terrain? Don't those make the first level choices useless if you guess wrong or move on to other kinds of terrain and/or foes?
Not really, because you're not missing out on anything useful if you never travel stealthily at full speed when you're alone, for example. You're just not missing much if you never use them.

The AOE stuff is underappreciated because optimizer focus is on Hunter's Mark and single-target. Sure, it's no full-caster-blaster but other martials really just don't get AOE. I wish lightning arrow would show up in UA-archetype bonus spell lists like the smite spells seem to all the time.
Ranger AOE is undervalued, but lightning arrow is definitely not. It's actually bad, which probably does make it a lot like the smite spells on bonus spell lists. As a third level spell, it replaces your weapon's damage with 4d8 lightning (half on miss) and adds 2d8 lightning (save for half) to everything else in a 10' radius. Hail of Thorns would add 3d10 (save for half) to the target and everyone within 5'. The 3rd level spell shouldn't need to trade off any damage for such a slightly wider area. There's likewise no excuse for Conjure Barrage (3rd level) to deal the same damage as Shatter (2nd level, affects objects).

Actually just casting shatter at 3rd level (if it were a ranger option) is better damage (than lightning arrow) at 3 targets, and as bad as it is, Conjure Barrage is still better if the 60' cone hits one more target than lightning arrow would (which the DMG suggests a 60' cone hits 4 more targets than a 10' radius). All assuming you care about the amount of AOE damage you're dealing, because Hunter's Mark is still around for single target.

[Yunru]

To be clear, an optimized beast master is frequently better than a hunter and only rarely slightly worse off, with the problem that there's really only one or two clearly better-than-the-rest beast companions, and they're both snakes.

And then it dies in the first fight of the day and you have to spend the rest of the day without a subclass.

[Sigreid]

One thing I want to ask though. Aren't the favored foes and terrain highly dependent on the campaign? What if you choose the wrong ones or are in a campaign with lots of different types of enemies and/or terrain? Don't those make the first level choices useless if you guess wrong or move on to other kinds of terrain and/or foes?

Honestly, the one concession I've made to them is allowing Natural Explorer to apply to all terrains. It makes them better represent the ultimate free range outdoorsman I want them to be.

[JellyPooga]

Honestly, the one concession I've made to them is allowing Natural Explorer to apply to all terrains. It makes them better represent the ultimate free range outdoorsman I want them to be.

I would be inclined to make Natural Explorer "terrain types" far broader in scope...as in; Wilderness, Urban, Planar and so forth. After all, the Ranger only gets 3 terrain types over the course of their 20 level career and the lvl.20 Ranger who can only shrug and apologise that he's not all that familiar with whatever exotic landscape the heroes are in and isn't going to be much use...eeehh, just seems a bit flaccid.

Another option might be to divide by climate; Arid (desert, mountains, dry plains), Temperate (forest, hills), Lush (swamp, jungle, coast), etc. Still broader than the RAW, but with a little more customisable.

[Zalabim]

And then it dies in the first fight of the day and you have to spend the rest of the day without a subclass.
That's probably a tactical blunder. The effort spent on killing a snake is much better directed towards a soft party member. They're going to get all their HP back when the ranger casts Healing Spirit, but any spell slots or actions you cost another PC are going to make more difference than forcing the ranger to make both their own attacks.

[Yunru]

That's probably a tactical blunder. The effort spent on killing a snake is much better directed towards a soft party member. They're going to get all their HP back when the ranger casts Healing Spirit, but any spell slots or actions you cost another PC are going to make more difference than forcing the ranger to make both their own attacks.

Not really, the pet's HP is so low even splash damage can take it out. A fireball will do an average of 14 damage on a successful save, that's over half your pet's HP at level 5, and that's one of the best case scenarios.

[KorvinStarmast]

What's that supost to mean I have asked myself that after your posts in this thread. WillieThe Duck has asked you to flesh out what you are looking for in a bit more detail, and I'll ask the same: please do, there are some very sharp people who post here, but they can't help you solve your dilemma if they don't understand what you want.

But I think I have a partial answer answer that may help if you have access to Xanathar's Guide to Everything
Play the gloom stalker ranger. I played one; and up to about level 11 they are fine. The 11th level ability to roll again an attack that is missed is kind of handy. The "extra attack on the first round of combat" is also nice. For a human the infravision at level 3 is nice. The extra spell known is nice. though situational.

For Rangers in general.
It is very important to use the spells as a Ranger; Hunters Mark is a favorite for combat purposes for a good reason. I also like Fog Cloud since it allows me to isoloate a portion of the battlefield, or to obstruct the line of site of an enemy, so that my party has a round or two to "divide and conquer" during a multi enemy fight.

For the Hunter Ranger if you take the Sharpshooter feat and the archery fighting style you can do some pretty good damage.

When you get third level spells, I have found that summoning a pack of wolves can be very handy if you are confronted by a large number of enemies; likewise, a couple of Dire Wolves can make for an interesting couple of rounds of trouble for the enemy: the one thing to be wary about is losing concentration.

I almost always take the criminal background for Ranger (though I tend to take the Spy variant, personal preference).
Why do I do that? Since I am going to boost dexterity anyway, I like to have Stealth from that background and the use of thieves tools. <= That makes me a back up to a rogue, and if we have a rogue, I can offer them "help" (advantage) for any attempt to pick really high DC locks.

[jaappleton]

Rangers are certainly playable. They’re not trash.

However, in design, there’s features known as ribbons. These are cool little effects that are nice to have but shouldn’t be altering. Think of it as making the package just a little more appealing, hence the ribbon name.

There’s three fundamental problems with the Ranger design:

1. Their ribbons, such as Natural Explorer, are core features. Not ribbons. In previous editions these features were core, mechanical features, not nice little extras.

2. Their spells are terrible. Each class gets certain exclusive spells that define them. And if they’re not exclusive, they’re trademark spells of immense power. Fireball, Spirit Guardians, etc. The spells the Ranger gets aren’t of an equivalent power level. Lightning Arrow does piss-poor damage for a third level spell. And far too many of their spells require Concentration, and simply too few spells known.

3. Some of their core features are just bad. Hide In Plain Sight? Sure, the Fighter gets an ASI, the Paladin gets immunity to Fear. Rangers get to take far too much time to hide...? What the hell is that?

[Zalabim]

Not really, the pet's HP is so low even splash damage can take it out. A fireball will do an average of 14 damage on a successful save, that's over half your pet's HP at level 5, and that's one of the best case scenarios.
If the party scout (you know who) had done their job, then you could have kept vulnerable allies out of harm's way instead of blundering into a party-wide fireball.

I can also probably imagine better case scenarios than running into the most powerful aoe spell for its level at the earliest level it's available. I can think of worse too.

[strangebloke]

I'm not sure the bolded part turns out to be true though. They get 3 skill choices instead of 2, and Natural Explorer gives them limited expertise with certain skills, but that really only makes up for the character having lower intelligence and wisdom in the first place, and being limited to their favored terrain can be very limiting indeed. 9 times out of 10, they're no better with their skills than any normal class. Fighters and barbarians are able to use their athletics skill more, wizards are still better at knowledge skills, etc. The only clear advantage they get is getting to use perception and navigate, forage, or track at the same time in their favored terrain.

Meh, that hasn't been my experience. Just having an extra skill is a reasonably large bonus. They're a jack-of-all trades rather than an expert.

TBH, I think you could fix most of the ranger's issues if you just replaced the favored/enemy terrain features with something boring and basic like an expertise option.


To be clear, an optimized beast master is frequently better than a hunter and only rarely slightly worse off, with the problem that there's really only one or two clearly better-than-the-rest beast companions, and they're both snakes.

There's also the GIANT CRAB which....

you, know, is great, but not what Billy is going to put on his first character sheet.

[Yunru]

I can also probably imagine better case scenarios than running into the most powerful aoe spell for its level at the earliest level it's available. I can think of worse too.

Sure, I meant best case for a fireball with average damage, but that is kinda niche.
5th level is were "4x Ranger level hit points" really starts appearing, which is why I chose it.

If we go by the DMG's guidelines (which is off by like, 1 die per level):

Level 3-4: ~20 pet HP, ~5.5 damage on a successful AoE save. Roughly 1/4 gone.
Level 5: ~20 pet HP, ~7 damage on a successful AoE save. Roughly 1/3 gone.
Level 6: 24 HP, ~7 damage on a successful AoE save. Back to roughly 1/4.
Level 7: 28 HP, ~8.75 damage. ~1/3.
Level 8: 32 HP. ~1/4.
Level 9: 36 HP. ~10.5 damage. ~30%.
Level 10: 40 HP. ~1/4.
Etc.

Going by a more accurate 2 dice per spell level though:

Level 3-4: 20 HP, 5d6 for ~8.75. ~44%.
Level 5: 20 HP, 7d6 for ~12.25. ~60%.
Level 6: 24 HP, 7d6 for ~12.25. ~50%.
Level 7: 28 HP, 9d6 for ~15.75. ~56%.
Level 8: 32 HP, 9d6 for ~15.75. ~50%.
Level 9: 36 HP, 11d6 for ~19.25. ~53%.
Level 10: 40 HP, 11d6 for ~19.25. ~48%.

[Petrocorus]

I reread the Conjure Volley and Conjure Barrage spells and they both say " The damage type is the same as that of the weapon or ammunition used as a component".
Does this mean those spells deals non-magical piercing (or slashing) damages?

Concerning Lightning Arrow and Flame Arrows, i believe that in a significant numbers of situations, they are plain worse than Hail of Thorn and Hunter's Mark.


Meh, that hasn't been my experience. Just having an extra skill is a reasonably large bonus. They're a jack-of-all trades rather than an expert.

Aren't they supposed to be expert at tracking? And in Stealth (or skirmishing, which involves stealth)?

It's quite significant that the Ranger is at best the fourth best class at tracking. Rogue and Bard can do it as well or better thanks to expertise (if they want to do this job), Druids have better Wisdom plus access to wildshapes with keen senses.
All the features that help the Ranger at tracking are situational.

When it come to stealth, the only real feature that help the Ranger with stealth, beside a proficiency and an emphasis on Dex, is the Pass Without Trace spell that he gets at level 5. Which is very good but still a Concentration spell that last 1 hour and take a spell slot. Meanwhile, a Rogue and Bard Expertise are always on.
And this spell is not specific to the Ranger, the Druid, the Trickery Cleric and the Shadow Monk get it at level 3, the Bard can potentially get it at level 6. Bards and potentially Rogues and some Druids can also get Invisibility.



TBH, I think you could fix most of the ranger's issues if you just replaced the favored/enemy terrain features with something boring and basic like an expertise option.

Agreed. This a point i made myself. IMHO, the Scout's level 3 expertise feature is what Natural Explorer should have been.

[KorvinStarmast]

Agreed. This a point i made myself. IMHO, the Scout's level 3 expertise feature is what Natural Explorer should have been. I would like to remind the audience that most actual parties are made up of from 3-5 players, not 12. You thus are as likely to not have a rogue or a bard as to have one. It really depends on what each person feels like playing. In a party like that, Ranger is both an effective martial and an effectivce scout. And he's got a bit of spell casting to boot. (Your point on "pass without trace" is well made, and I agree)

(PS: My favorite scout PC is a Warlock/Archfey/Pact of Chain... to each his own)

We ran ToA with three or four people. We almost had 5 once, but we usually only had 3 or 4 people.
Original party: Ranger, Paladin, Cleric(Nature)
Party V2: Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Barbarian
Barbarian had to drop out for RL issues
Party V3: Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, and here comes a Bard (Lore) Yay! Arcane caster!
Paladin drops out for RL reasons (and due to game rarely getting played due to various player RL issues and DM RL issues)
Party V4: Ranger, Cleric, Bard and finally we add a Monk Arakocra)

Guess who the scout was? Ranger (Until we got an airborne scout near the end)
Guess who the rogue / lockpicker was? Ranger.
Guess who kept the party from getting lost in Chult? Ranger (With guidance cantrip help from cleric)
Guess who was also martial character, ranged and melee? Ranger.
Guess whose social skills stunk? Ranger. :smallbiggrin:
I didnt' just have low charisma, but I always rolled sucky rolls for social situations. Seriously funny case of the dice agreeing wth the core stat by accident!
Guess whose favored enemy, giant, which we did not expect to use in Chult, ended up being handy when we ran into Frost Giants (huh?) in Chult? Ranger. We got to talk to the giants in giant, which helped our social interaction.

That campaign is now, as far as I can tell, dead for a variety of RL scheduling reasons. Sigh. I'd have loved to have completed that, but RL has a save DC of 35.

[strangebloke]

Aren't they supposed to be expert at tracking? And in Stealth (or skirmishing, which involves stealth)?

It's quite significant that the Ranger is at best the fourth best class at tracking. Rogue and Bard can do it as well or better thanks to expertise (if they want to do this job), Druids have better Wisdom plus access to wildshapes with keen senses.
All the features that help the Ranger at tracking are situational.

When it come to stealth, the only real feature that help the Ranger with stealth, beside a proficiency and an emphasis on Dex, is the Pass Without Trace spell that he gets at level 5. Which is very good but still a Concentration spell that last 1 hour and take a spell slot. Meanwhile, a Rogue and Bard Expertise are always on.
And this spell is not specific to the Ranger, the Druid, the Trickery Cleric and the Shadow Monk get it at level 3, the Bard can potentially get it at level 6. Bards and potentially Rogues and some Druids can also get Invisibility.

Agreed. This a point i made myself. IMHO, the Scout's level 3 expertise feature is what Natural Explorer should have been.

Rangers are still better trackers in terrain that they grew up in, and tracking things they know how to track. I don't view it as completely unflavorful that the Woodland ranger is bad at tracking in the desert.

Bards and Rogues can outdo the ranger, but only if they invest significant build resources to do so, and they'll only match the ranger in the ranger's favored terrain, and the ranger will tend to have higher WIS than the Bard anyway.

Druids and Clerics are a problem, I'll grant you that.

But the Ranger functionally can't dominate in "survival, stealth, and skirmishing" because... there are a lot of classes that also specialize in those things, and Rangers also get to be good healers, good crowd controllers, good single target DPR, good support casters...

[Petrocorus]

Rangers are still better trackers in terrain that they grew up in, and tracking things they know how to track. I don't view it as completely unflavorful that the Woodland ranger is bad at tracking in the desert.
Meanwhile the Scout is good at tracking everywhere.



Bards and Rogues can outdo the ranger, but only if they invest significant build resources to do so, and they'll only match the ranger in the ranger's favored terrain
Natural Explorer doesn't improve the chance of succeeding the roll, only the results if the roll is a success.

And if indeed Bard will have a lower Wis, Wis is a secondary stat for Rogue and theirs will be almost as high as the Ranger's



But the Ranger functionally can't dominate in "survival, stealth, and skirmishing" because...
Despite being the supposedly go-to class for this.

I'm not trying to lay waste on the Ranger for the sake of it, it was one of my favourite class in ADD 1 and 3.5, i just trying to point how badly they are written and how unable they are to do their jobs as well as they should, other than DPR (in which they are good) and secondary healer (Mostly thanks to Healing Spirit being broken in another way). Even their crowd control and support is limited by their awful lack of spell known, less than the EK!

[redwizard007]

I've yet to play a ranger, but is seems like the options in Xanthers are quite solid. Am I wrong?

[jaappleton]

I've yet to play a ranger, but is seems like the options in Xanthers are quite solid. Am I wrong?

They are! They're quite good. One being borderline OP (Stalker).

Its the base class that everyone has trouble with.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've yet to play a ranger, but is seems like the options in Xanthers are quite solid. Am I wrong? I loved my gloom stalker.(Campaign now dormant)

[GlenSmash!]

Gloom Stalkers really get the Ambusher theme down. It's satisfying and fun to play. I've got a Horizon Walker stated up to be my next character as soon as my current campaign wraps up (Or my PC dies).

[rbstr]

Ranger AOE is undervalued, but lightning arrow is definitely not. It's actually bad, which probably does make it a lot like the smite spells on bonus spell lists. As a third level spell, it replaces your weapon's damage with 4d8 lightning (half on miss) and adds 2d8 lightning (save for half) to everything else in a 10' radius. Hail of Thorns would add 3d10 (save for half) to the target and everyone within 5'. The 3rd level spell shouldn't need to trade off any damage for such a slightly wider area. There's likewise no excuse for Conjure Barrage (3rd level) to deal the same damage as Shatter (2nd level, affects objects).

Actually just casting shatter at 3rd level (if it were a ranger option) is better damage (than lightning arrow) at 3 targets, and as bad as it is, Conjure Barrage is still better if the 60' cone hits one more target than lightning arrow would (which the DMG suggests a 60' cone hits 4 more targets than a 10' radius). All assuming you care about the amount of AOE damage you're dealing, because Hunter's Mark is still around for single target.

Look, I'm not saying it's fantastic - It's clearly not as good as what full-caster classes can do. But it's better than what most martials get (which is nearly nothing).
Plus I'd say there are some mitigating factors making it not as bad as your comparison would have it seem. Being a bonus action you still get your extra attack with it and that's part of your turn's damage. So you've got the target damage, the splash damage, and then another attack. Against 3 targets you're doing a total of 9d8+mod with a longbow then...admittedly about 2d8 short of Shatter at 3rd level and quite short of the over-tuned fireball but still better than any other d10 hit die class at 9th level.
At level 11 Hunters can Volley in combo with it potentially adding several attacks (Horizon walker could add two more attacks as well). Conveniently Volley has a 10ft radius as well.

[MrStabby]

I think we are setting ourselves a very low bar indeed for the ranger if we interpret "not bad" as being "there exists a single conceivable performance metric that they are not left behind on".

Sure they have not bad damage. Unremarkable damage though- nothing that grabs the attention like a paladin or a fireball spell. I mean, they are a cool class - I will give them marks for flavour, but mechanically they don't really excel at anything.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure they have not bad damage. Unremarkable damage though- nothing that grabs the attention like a paladin or a fireball spell. I mean, they are a cool class - I will give them marks for flavour, but mechanically they don't really excel at anything. Optimization for X is not the only way to approach this game. I realize that a lot of our discussion at GiTP slides toward optimization, but that's only one facet of how to get a lot out of this particular edition of this particular game. There are a lot of faces on that gem.

[MrStabby]

Optimization for X is not the only way to approach this game. I realize that a lot of our discussion at GiTP slides toward optimization, but that's only one facet of how to get a lot out of this particular edition of this particular game. There are a lot of faces on that gem.

Yes, but within the context of "is the ranger good" rather than "do you like the ranger" or "does the ranger make you happy", I think looking at it from the perspective of what you can get out of it mechanically is not only valid, but leaning heavily towards what the OP intended.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, but within the context of "is the ranger good" rather than "do you like the ranger" or "does the ranger make you happy", I think looking at it from the perspective of what you can get out of it mechanically is not only valid, but leaning heavily towards what the OP intended.
The answer to "is the Ranger good" is an incomplete question.
First
How big is the party?
Second: who else is in the party?
Example: in a party of 3 with no cleric, Ranger becomes a lot better thanks to versatility. In a party of 5? Maybe you don't need one.

For our party, having that second martial was a big deal for a lot of battles. (Me sword and board, or me doing ranged attack)

For a different party, might not have been as useful.

[GlenSmash!]

Yes, but within the context of "is the ranger good" rather than "do you like the ranger" or "does the ranger make you happy", I think looking at it from the perspective of what you can get out of it mechanically is not only valid, but leaning heavily towards what the OP intended.

Good is a nebulous word. Hence the joke about alignment earlier in the thread.

Is a Gloom stalker good at combat? I think the answer is yes. Is it good at Ambushing? I think the answer is unequivocally yes. That's not a matter of me just liking it, though I do. I think the mobility focused Horizon walker is likewise Good at combat, as I have found being where you want to be is at least as important as DPR in my games.

If the question is "Is the ranger good at putting out large DPR?" Then I would say outside of a few cases (most of them multiclass) no. It isn't. A Fighter, a Zealot, a Paladin, a Hexblade and many other options do more damage in most cases.

[strangebloke]

Meanwhile the Scout is good at tracking everywhere.

Sure? Why not?

The ranger has tons of other class features that make them good at the "hunting" theme. Goodberry to handle supplies on the road, healing to patch himself up while far from civilization, the ability to set traps (Cordon of Arrows) and the ability to completely outclass the scout at stealth when it matters.

If I was purely playing a 'monster hunter' campaign, both a scout and a ranger would do well, but if you made me pick I'd go for the ranger any day. Ultimately all the scout actually has is 2-3 relevant expertises... which account for less than one level of class features anyway. Heck, just grab prodigy and call it a week. Or multiclass for a single level.

Heck, how high is your DM actually setting those tracking DCs anyway? A 5th level ranger should be rocking a +5 or a +6, and if you get Guidance and Help, you'll be hitting 20 with your check 73% of the time. Rangers are fine at tracking monsters and challenges like that aren't a huge part of the game anyway.


Despite being the supposedly go-to class for this.
My point is that like most 5e classes, the Ranger covers a broad range of conceptual space, and not every ranger is going to be the best at everything "rangeresque" much like how many paladins aren't very good tanks and other paladins can't really deal damage efficiently, or how some fighters are great archers and others are great swordsmen.


A Gloomstalker Ranger with Pass without Trace is pretty much the best ambusher in the game.
A Ranger in his favored terrain, tracking his favored enemy is going to be pretty much be the best tracker in the game.
In the context of a lone adventurer taking on an entire tribe of kobolds/goblins/gnolls, most rangers are great at hit-and-run and great at AOE.


Seems fine.


I'm not trying to lay waste on the Ranger for the sake of it, it was one of my favourite class in ADD 1 and 3.5, i just trying to point how badly they are written and how unable they are to do their jobs as well as they should, other than DPR (in which they are good) and secondary healer (Mostly thanks to Healing Spirit being broken in another way). Even their crowd control and support is limited by their awful lack of spell known, less than the EK!

They are poorly designed, but mostly in the sense that some levels they get too much, other levels, too little. They're good at:

DPR
Stealth (they're comparable to rogues, stealth-oriented bards, and shadow monks)
AOE/Support magic


The problem is nothing more or less than that they have 2-3 dead levels.


I think we are setting ourselves a very low bar indeed for the ranger if we interpret "not bad" as being "there exists a single conceivable performance metric that they are not left behind on".

Sure they have not bad damage. Unremarkable damage though- nothing that grabs the attention like a paladin or a fireball spell. I mean, they are a cool class - I will give them marks for flavour, but mechanically they don't really excel at anything.

Ranged DPR against multiple foes. Full stop. Compare the lowly hunter ranger to a fighter.

3rd level:

Fighter: 1d8+3 = 7.5
Fighter(AS): (1d8+3)*2 = 15
Ranger: (1d8+3)*2+1d6 = 18.5

5th level

Fighter: (1d8+3+10)*2 = 30
Fighter(AS): (1d8+3+10)*4 = 60
Ranger: (1d8+3+10)*3+2d6 = 52

11th level

Fighter: (1d8+4+10)*3 = 48
Fighter(AS): (1d8+4+10)*6 = 96
Ranger: (1d8+4+10)*[3 to 13] = 48 to 208

17th level

Fighter: (1d8+5+10)*4 = 68
Fighter(AS): (1d8+5+10)*8 = 136
Ranger: (1d8+5+10)*[3 to 13] = 51 to 221
Ranger(with swift quiver): (1d8+5+10)*[5 to 13] = 85 to 221


Now, obviously various fighter subclasses boost it a lot too. But ranger subclasses are huge in terms of the amount of power they add to the class. You simply can't consider the ranger without considering that gloomstalkers get free advantage and an extra 1-2 attacks on the first turn and hunters demolish large groups.

[Willie the Duck]

I've yet to play a ranger, but is seems like the options in Xanthers are quite solid. Am I wrong?

The XGtE archetypes seem to be more realized, play-tested, thought-through, holistically designed incarnations of the Ranger base class than the PHB versions, which, although the Hunter is actually pretty good at what it is trying to do, all feel like they were trying to preserve sacred cows, but didn't really know how they wanted to do that. The bigger issue is that the ranger base class is also a preservation of sacred cows without really knowing how they want to do it --and probably not being 100% sure what people wanted out of the rangers, given that the oD&D, 1E, 2E, 3E, and 4E versions all were a lot more different from each other than I think people routinely acknowledge, and each has their own unpleasable fanbase (and rangers as a concept are pretty darn popular).

[strangebloke]

The XGtE archetypes seem to be more realized, play-tested, thought-through, holistically designed incarnations of the Ranger base class than the PHB versions, which, although the Hunter is actually pretty good at what it is trying to do, all feel like they were trying to preserve sacred cows, but didn't really know how they wanted to do that. The bigger issue is that the ranger base class is also a preservation of sacred cows without really knowing how they want to do it --and probably not being 100% sure what people wanted out of the rangers, given that the oD&D, 1E, 2E, 3E, and 4E versions all were a lot more different from each other than I think people routinely acknowledge, and each has their own unpleasable fanbase (and rangers as a concept are pretty darn popular).

EXACTLY.

I want my ranger to be a survivalist archer who can cast nature magic and has an animal companion and can fight equally well in melee and is very stealthy and is good at specializing against specific enemy types with a feature called "favored enemy."

WOOF

How the heck are you supposed to fit that all into one class? And the thing is, they did and it actually works really well in play in my experience. But there are a few dead levels and the natural explorer feature is wonky.

[GlenSmash!]

EXACTLY.

I want my ranger to be a survivalist archer who can cast nature magic and has an animal companion and can fight equally well in melee and is very stealthy and is good at specializing against specific enemy types with a feature called "favored enemy."

WOOF

How the heck are you supposed to fit that all into one class? And the thing is, they did and it actually works really well in play in my experience. Meanwhile I want a Ranger that can choose not to be seen if he wishes, slice through hordes of orcs with a longsword, lead 4 halflings through hidden paths, and call friends back from the edge of death.

And it can do that all too!


But there are a few dead levels and the natural explorer feature is wonky.

Bingo.

[Jack Bitters]

To be clear, an optimized beast master is frequently better than a hunter and only rarely slightly worse off, with the problem that there's really only one or two clearly better-than-the-rest beast companions, and they're both snakes.


As strangebloke mentioned, the giant crab is also good, having a really impressive 17 AC right off the bat and an automatic grapple on hit. Then drag your opponents off into the darkness (30 ft. blindsight, too!) to feast on their flesh. A stirge (it's a beast!) is also good before level 11 because it does damage automatically at the start of its turn if it's still attached, and can then detach and re-attack, effectively doubling its damage. Yes, the snakes objectively deal the most damage, but damage isn't everything, especially if your enemy is resistant to poison.

There's something to be said for many of the beasts, depending on need. Fighting goblins or other small creatures? Giant frog will swallow them whole. Have a really unperceptive party in general? The blood hawk has a passive sight perception of 21 when you get it at level 3. Wolves and panthers are great for helping a team full of melee attackers, because the prone condition is both a force multiplier and hinders opponents from escaping. Panthers are slightly more focused on offense and picking off key targets--they fight like mini monks.

Spread disease with the diseased giant rat, or cast dancing lights with deep rothé (not sure how you'd really use that one). There's an argument to be made where I think if you took away the Ape's multiattack, it would count as a creature of CR 1/4 and you could grab that too.

Similar to the rest of the ranger, there are definitely choices you can make with your beast companion that can fill a niche. I think the thought process needed to optimize it has to be one of treating the beasts more like pokémon, however, rather than treasured and beloved furry friends.


And then it dies in the first fight of the day and you have to spend the rest of the day without a subclass.

One small fix: let it roll death saving throws. The main missing mechanic is recharging beast hp over a short rest. Beasts are also kind of unfortunate in that they get great AC (more if you bribe someone to cast mage armor on them) but have horrible saving throws. I think the edge that the phb beastmaster has over the revised one is retaining Extra Attack, meaning that it still functions like a decent martial class even if the beast is incapacitated or useless. And vice versa: if your ranger goes down, at least you still have a beast to control.

[Yunru]

Meanwhile I want a Ranger that can choose not to be seen if he wishes, slice through hordes of orcs with a longsword, lead 4 halflings through hidden paths, and call friends back from the edge of death.

Meanwhile I want a Ranger that is an expert at camouflage, setting up traps, and tracking creatures across vast distances.
And it can't even do that.

Camouflage? Takes an unreasonably long amount of time compared to everything else.
Traps? No related features, at best some spells that mimic traps.
Tracking creatures across vast distances? Nope. I can find out if they're in an area, but since I can't control the area or find out where, it's almost useless, and it gets worse if it's in my favoured terrain.


One small fix: let it roll death saving throws. The main missing mechanic is recharging beast hp over a short rest. Beasts are also kind of unfortunate in that they get great AC (more if you bribe someone to cast mage armor on them) but have horrible saving throws. I think the edge that the phb beastmaster has over the revised one is retaining Extra Attack, meaning that it still functions like a decent martial class even if the beast is incapacitated or useless. And vice versa: if your ranger goes down, at least you still have a beast to control.

Honestly an easier fix is just to ADD 4x Ranger level to the beast's HP, rather than replace-if-higher.
Alas, the thread is about the vanilla Ranger.

[Kane0]

As per post #15, there are alternatives. Any and all feedback on either of those would be welcome i'm sure.

[Jack Bitters]

Honestly an easier fix is just to ADD 4x Ranger level to the beast's HP, rather than replace-if-higher.
Alas, the thread is about the vanilla Ranger.

Oh, I really like that idea. And it gives a nod to otherwise weak beasts that have higher than normal hp, to give them a well-deserved edge. Plus it conceptually jives with the other mechanic of adding your proficiency bonus to their features, rather than replacing anything. After seeing them release these UA subclasses with minions that have 5 x Class level for their hitpoints, it does make one want just a little more padding on the beast.

How do you feel about slapping magic items on the companion? Like gauntlets of ogre strength for a crab, for example.

[lperkins2]

The only issue with the PHB ranger is there's only really one subclass: Hunter. Within hunter, there are a couple decent choices, and a bunch of trap choices. Meanwhile, the other subclass is just a trap choice itself.

This means PHB rangers in actual play fall into 2 categories:

1. The hunter-xbow-sniper who does excellent damage at range and will out DPR (about 70ish against mooks) many other characters from levels 5-10, but basically does exactly the same thing every round (shoot lots of things).
2. Every other ranger is a pile of ribbon abilities which don't actually contribute much in combat. The obvious example is the beastmaster, but the Hunter also has a bunch of traps (e.g. Giant Killer).

Some of the non PHB subclasses are decent, depending on the campaign, group, and playstyle.

[GlenSmash!]

Meanwhile I want a Ranger that is an expert at camouflage, setting up traps, and tracking creatures across vast distances.
And it can't even do that.

Camouflage? Takes an unreasonably long amount of time compared to everything else.
Traps? No related features, at best some spells that mimic traps.
Tracking creatures across vast distances? Nope. I can find out if they're in an area, but since I can't control the area or find out where, it's almost useless, and it gets worse if it's in my favoured terrain.

Hunter's Mark can help you track one creature for up to 24 hours, but hell Aragorn Tracked the Uruk Hai longer than that. So I do see your point.

[MaxWilson]

The only issue with the PHB ranger is there's only really one subclass: Hunter. Within hunter, there are a couple decent choices, and a bunch of trap choices. Meanwhile, the other subclass is just a trap choice itself.

This was never really true and is less true with the changes to Beastmaster. At least from a mechanical standpoint, Beastmasters are perfectly viable. You can take a Giant Frog as your companion and Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert feats, and have somebody cast Mage Armor on your giant 40+ HP AC 14 Frog while it Dodges and threatens grappling + restraining opportunity attacks at (+6-10 to-hit) on monsters to buy time for you to fill those monsters full of crossbow bolts. Mechanically, that's 100% viable and might even wind up doing more damage than a Hunter or Gloomstalker, since three Sharpshooter attacks with advantage from a Giant Frog are better than three attacks without advantage + 1d8 bonus damage from Colossus Slayer or one extra attack on the first round of combat.

But it doesn't fulfill the implicit promise of a ranger who fights alongside his lifelong bear companion. A Beastmaster can't even have a bear as their Ranger's Companion because bears are larger than Medium-sized, and even if your fantasy is of a wolf instead of a bear, that wolf still shows less initiative and acts less intelligently than a random mastiff that you bought for a few gold pieces, or one of the eight wolves you just conjured up with Conjure Animals.

The problem with Beastmaster is and always has been about fantasy and fun, not power. And the answer to that problem has always been to model the fantasy with something other than class abilities: just add an NPC Grizzly Bear to the party and make it the PC's loyal companion Baloo who raised the PC from an infant, and then the PC can play a cleric or a fighter or a wizard or whatever.

[lperkins2]

This was never really true and is less true with the changes to Beastmaster. At least from a mechanical standpoint, Beastmasters are perfectly viable. You can take a Giant Frog as your companion and Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert feats, and have somebody cast Mage Armor on your giant 40+ HP AC 14 Frog while it Dodges and threatens grappling + restraining opportunity attacks at (+6-10 to-hit) on monsters to buy time for you to fill those monsters full of crossbow bolts. Mechanically, that's 100% viable and might even wind up doing more damage than a Hunter or Gloomstalker, since three Sharpshooter attacks with advantage from a Giant Frog are better than three attacks without advantage + 1d8 bonus damage from Colossus Slayer or one extra attack on the first round of combat.



For the frog to have 40HP, you have to be level 10. When you first get it, it'll have 18HP. If you're someplace where you have a ready supply of them, maybe that'll be fine, especially since it shouldn't die *that* often, on account of having AC14 and constantly dodging. Except it has rather lackluster saves. It does get to add your PB to Perception and Stealth, but it's not proficient in any saves. Dodge does give it advantage on Dex saves, but that's it. This means a small or larger enemy can grapple it to drop its speed to 0, thereby negating its Dodge, or can shove it prone, granting advantage (which counters the disadvantage it retains from Dodge). At the cost of 2 foregone attacks, you can do both, letting all the other enemies summarily execute it with advantage.

The above is not the problem, as it relies on intelligent enemies. The problem is, even against dumb mooks, it only gets one reaction, so it can be largely ignored. Yeah, you can tell it to move verbally, at no cost (but not while silenced), but only up to its speed, which means positioning it is something of a challenge. If the enemies just ignore it and come at its master, it gets a singe attack at +6 to stop one of them. That will probably be the only attack it makes the entire encounter. Meanwhile, everyone else gets to attack the important targets. Since 5e combat is pretty sticky, odds are decent they won't have to move again, which means the frog does nothing more.

And all of this is before the problem that is Awaken. At level 10, the druid can get an intelligent, self-motivated animal companion, it can be huge sized, it's intelligent. In most ways it's simply better. For example, the mammoth qualifies, has 126 HP, 13 AC, trample, and attacks at +10.

When you first get it, it's kinda okay, since enemies sometimes don't instadia, and +1d8 sometimes is enough to finish them on your second attack. The problem is that it only works one already injured enemies, and only once per turn. This means you (or a friend) have to hit an enemy, not kill it, then hit it again and land within 1d8 damage of killing it, since a 3rd attack will almost certainly kill it at these levels.
Then there is the issue that it scales terribly. At level 10, an extra d8 per round is nothing. Compared to Horde Breaker, which gets you an extra attack if enemies group up (1d4+13+riders).


Also, level 11 is where you get Volley, which is pretty effective against hordes, and unlike fireball, doesn't target friends in mixed crowds. (Note that it triggers Horde Breaker).

[Jack Bitters]

For the frog to have 40HP, you have to be level 10. When you first get it, it'll have 18HP. If you're someplace where you have a ready supply of them, maybe that'll be fine, especially since it shouldn't die *that* often, on account of having AC14 and constantly dodging. Except it has rather lackluster saves. It does get to add your PB to Perception and Stealth, but it's not proficient in any saves. Dodge does give it advantage on Dex saves, but that's it. This means a small or larger enemy can grapple it to drop its speed to 0, thereby negating its Dodge, or can shove it prone, granting advantage (which counters the disadvantage it retains from Dodge). At the cost of 2 foregone attacks, you can do both, letting all the other enemies summarily execute it with advantage.

The above is not the problem, as it relies on intelligent enemies. The problem is, even against dumb mooks, it only gets one reaction, so it can be largely ignored. Yeah, you can tell it to move verbally, at no cost (but not while silenced), but only up to its speed, which means positioning it is something of a challenge. If the enemies just ignore it and come at its master, it gets a singe attack at +6 to stop one of them. That will probably be the only attack it makes the entire encounter. Meanwhile, everyone else gets to attack the important targets. Since 5e combat is pretty sticky, odds are decent they won't have to move again, which means the frog does nothing more.

And all of this is before the problem that is Awaken. At level 10, the druid can get an intelligent, self-motivated animal companion, it can be huge sized, it's intelligent. In most ways it's simply better. For example, the mammoth qualifies, has 126 HP, 13 AC, trample, and attacks at +10.


I mean, dealing with mooks is almost good enough reason to have a companion. It takes some pressure off of your main character. That's also one more reaction that the single one you get normally. It's good for zoning, as mentioned, and oftentimes a beast's damage is comparable to a normal weapon attack.

With regards to Awaken.. yeah, with an 8 hour casting time it's comparable to finding a new companion. And yes, it's more powerful in a white room. It also costs 1000 gp and is a 5th level spell, kind of like planar binding. In that regard, it really isn't designed to be compared to an animal companion. Honestly, if the ranger's animal companion were as powerful as that CR 6 mammoth, the beastmaster would be broken.

[Zalabim]

With regards to Awaken.. yeah, with an 8 hour casting time it's comparable to finding a new companion. And yes, it's more powerful in a white room. It also costs 1000 gp and is a 5th level spell, kind of like planar binding. In that regard, it really isn't designed to be compared to an animal companion. Honestly, if the ranger's animal companion were as powerful as that CR 6 mammoth, the beastmaster would be broken.
We~ell, the ranger's snake does 1d4+8 and 3d6+4 poison at that level, also with +10 to hit, and while it has 40 max hp, it gets AC 21 with mage armor. For clearing out mooks, it's probably about 2/3 as effective. It also has to be said that Awaken is not like Planar Binding. With Binding, the creature has to follow your orders but an Awakened animal is just Charmed. It's also necessary to get a new animal every 30 days, so imagine what you'd get your companion if you spent 1000 gp on them per month. Mage armor is the least of it.

[Tanarii]

Rangers are good.

Even Beastmaster rangers are fine, provided you aren't one of those people who is bothered by 'sharing' your action. Personally when I played on I found it made the character feel like a team, a bonded pair.

One solid change they could probably use is to have the non-expertise parts of Natural Explorer work in any natural terrain. Although that mostly matters if your DM rules it applies on a micro-terrain level, or the adventuring area contains significant variety in macro terrains, or you travel an awful lot.

[Yunru]

With regards to Awaken.. yeah, with an 8 hour casting time it's comparable to finding a new companion. And yes, it's more powerful in a white room. It also costs 1000 gp and is a 5th level spell, kind of like planar binding. In that regard, it really isn't designed to be compared to an animal companion. Honestly, if the ranger's animal companion were as powerful as that CR 6 mammoth, the beastmaster would be broken.And that's the worst part of the PHB Ranger: It doesn't get Awaken!

[Wizard_Lizard]

and this is why I don't like halfcasters...
although I have found that ranger is pretty good with a monk dip...

[HiveStriker]

Hi all. :=)

Long-time lurker, that thread pushed me to finally bridge the gap.

I really can't explain all the hate about Ranger with anything else than "you just didn't even try to really play it".

To address a few false complaints that I grabbed reading the thread.

1. "Ranger deals meh damage". Nope, you just don't know how to play it or you just take into account what Ranger outputs "directly" with mundane attacks.
People always focus on Hunter's Mark (which by the way IS very solid, although kinda bland) and thinks it's the only decent buff.
They see spells like "Lighting Arrow" and torch it down when comparing to fullspellcaster spells (which is another baseless comparison).

Well, here is the deal. Ranger can deal LOTS of damage. It's just that that damage is usually indirect.
Using Spike Growth in combination with push/pull effects...
Using Conjure Animals for a spike damage against an enemy, or providing fast transport to allow your melee pals to quickly reach their enemies.
Using Pass Without Trace on whole party to allow a devastating surprise round. Or a Fog Cloud.
Using Wind Wall/Fog Cloud to protect your Spirit Guardians Cleric or your Stinking Cloud Sorcerer pal from losing concentration because archers focus fire on them...
Using Longstrider on yourself as a melee Ranger, which means more effective reach and fallback, which means either better offense or defense.

2. "Ranger sucks at scouting"... Maybe, read the features and spells?
Favored Terrain is kinda DM-dependent so there is that (one should always speak with DM before choosing character though), but when active it fars outweigh Rogue or Bard. It's "auto-Expertise" on EVERY Wisdom/Intelligence skill.
In addition, the ability to accurately know number of creatures and delay is very useful to detect false leads on crossroads or anticipate unfavorable encounters.
Beyond that, you have the spells!
Beast Bond, Animal Friendship, Conjure Animals, Speak With Animals, etc are as many ways to scout, track and spy that are times better than anyone else (except maybe Druid) in general situations. Sure, other classes are better for specific use-cases, but having "innocent" creatures available mean you can cover lot of ground and spy a lot of people for a reasonable cost, with limited risk of being discovered (especially since except with Conjure Animals, you don't make creatures magical. And only Beast Bond creates a staying magical effect).

3. "Ranger is mediocre at everything". Same line as above.
The main problem of Ranger is that if you really want to be optimal in as many areas as possible, spell list is kinda spelled out already for you: Hunter's Mark, Goodberry, Silence, Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit, Conjure Animals, Plant Growth, Water Breathing are spells useful in enough different situations that you'll want them if there is noone dedicated in that area in party.
But with those, you're actually great in several areas.

To put it in other words, and to put it bluntly, in a party with only one full caster and choosing a non-fullcaster, I'll usually prefer a Ranger over basically anything else except maybe an Arcane Trickster.
Yeah, you read that well. If I have to choose without any context, I'll prefer Ranger FAR over a Paladin.
Like, FAAAAAAAR over.
I love Paladin's smite, but it's overall a very situational ability, burning everything on a tough nut.
Paladin's Aura are invaluable when case arise, but in practice it's as individual a bonus as Expertise in majority of cases, except if you really create a tag-team of melee bruisers of have to hold off a chokepoint.
Barring that? Paladin is essentially a guy that really wants to stick into melee and try to take as much aggro as possible. While having trouble being anything else.

Rogue would be a harder one to dismiss, because they boast great mobility, are reliable in a handfull of skill areas thanks to Expertise, and some archetype do bring impressive (magical) versatility. Still, your ability to support the whole party is far less versatile.

And I say that before taking into account archetype features (on that, it would require a post in itself really, but no Beastmaster is not "terrible". It's great. It's just clunky in feeling in encounters and has a much slower power curve than all other archetypes).

The only flaw of Ranger is, like Sorcerer, that it's deceptively simple. You have to read everything and think about how to combine features and spells and how to play different situations to really see the greatness of it.

Sparse notes about...

Lightning Arrow: it's very effective: it's plain meaningless to compare it to fullcasters. This is a spell, designed for a martial character, to give him a spell with high chance of doing something (in spite of having generally lower casting stat than spellcasters), to an area, dealing magical damage (remember: you don't necessarily have always magical weapons/amunitions), that just uses up your bonus action so you're still free to deal extra damage otherwise.
Is it bad compared to spells a fullcaster has? Obviously. Because those have less HP, less armor, less direct survivability and skills, and deal crappy damage usually once out of slots (barring Moon Druid or dedicated GFB/BB builds on Sorcerers/Bards)
Is it good for a Ranger? Yes.
Is it good enough to pick it over others? Probably not if you want to cover as many areas of expertise as possible. Probably yes if you can focus on damage because of party composition or just character design.
Can it be better in other situations? Yes: it can be good on a Whisper Bard for some primary nova with added AOE damage. It can be better on Ranger self if you boost spellcaster level with a dual-class.

Pass Without Trace: comparing it with Rogue/Bard's Expertise, is, sorry I don't find a better word, ludicrous. Two reasons about "brute added value".
- It affects THE WHOLE PARTY (usually), including companions/NPCs. So for party overall, it's far, far better than individual Expertise.
- At level 5 when you get it, it's a flat +10. Expertise would be a +3. So even for individual use, it's worth the cost.
But, more importantly, it's stupid to oppose them because they complement each other. Pass Without Trace is great to avoid dangers party-wide, or succeed on a task which you think you can reasonably complete in ~40mn (always take margin).
Expertise is good for solo in general, and any mission in which you cannot predict when a specific skill may be required.

Thanks for reading. :)

[deljzc]

We're going to need a little more criteria here. Any good at what, and compared to what, and what previous D&D experience do you have?

Mechanically, rangers are seen as a little below the median, although even that is pretty arguable. Most of the complaints are that the PHB beastmaster is wonky and hard to play, and that the game rules don't make wilderness exploration (as opposed to the ranger class specifically*) all that fun.
*although much of the ranger's special abilities related to wilderness amount to 'polish off any situational modifiers that the environment otherwise might have brought to bear'




Well, there already are revised Rangers, which are not officially released updates but official proposed fixes to perceived mechanics. You can find them here (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-ranger-revised).

Those UA options seem fun to try.

[Contrast]

Some of my other issues with ranger could be forgiven if there didn't seem very little point in staying in the class after level 5.

I'm of the opinion that a ranger 5/druid X or ranger 5/rogue X (depending on which way you want to lean) is generally just better and more interesting at doing the things a ranger should be doing than a straight ranger.


Edit - to people mentioning beastmaster damage. Personally my problem with beastmaster has never been damage per se. My main concern has always been the method of getting a new beast when the old one dies seems overly punitive given your entire subclass is turned off in the meantime. There are plenty of circumstances where a PC is not going to be able to spend time finding a new beast, then spending 8 hours bonding with one. Plus it kinda of ruins the 'lifelong bond' many players expect when they build such a character. I play with a beastmaster ranger who is perfectly happy with the standard beastmaster but using the res rules from the revised beastmaster (though he usually just rides around on it rather than using it to attack because archery style + Hunters Mark + Sharpshooter > beast).

[Tanarii]

I really can't explain all the hate about Ranger with anything else than "you just didn't even try to really play it". Be careful, this kind of comment can get you a moderator warning. Apparently there are a lot of ranger haters out there that will report you for implying that they aren't justified in their hatred.

[Sindal]

Hi all. :=)

Long-time lurker, that thread pushed me to finally bridge the gap.

I really can't explain all the hate about Ranger with anything else than "you just didn't even try to really play it".

To address a few false complaints that I grabbed reading the thread.

1. "Ranger deals meh damage". Nope, you just don't know how to play it or you just take into account what Ranger outputs "directly" with mundane attacks.
People always focus on Hunter's Mark (which by the way IS very solid, although kinda bland) and thinks it's the only decent buff.
They see spells like "Lighting Arrow" and torch it down when comparing to fullspellcaster spells (which is another baseless comparison).

Well, here is the deal. Ranger can deal LOTS of damage. It's just that that damage is usually indirect.
Using Spike Growth in combination with push/pull effects...
Using Conjure Animals for a spike damage against an enemy, or providing fast transport to allow your melee pals to quickly reach their enemies.
Using Pass Without Trace on whole party to allow a devastating surprise round. Or a Fog Cloud.
Using Wind Wall/Fog Cloud to protect your Spirit Guardians Cleric or your Stinking Cloud Sorcerer pal from losing concentration because archers focus fire on them...
Using Longstrider on yourself as a melee Ranger, which means more effective reach and fallback, which means either better offense or defense.

2. "Ranger sucks at scouting"... Maybe, read the features and spells?
Favored Terrain is kinda DM-dependent so there is that (one should always speak with DM before choosing character though), but when active it fars outweigh Rogue or Bard. It's "auto-Expertise" on EVERY Wisdom/Intelligence skill.
In addition, the ability to accurately know number of creatures and delay is very useful to detect false leads on crossroads or anticipate unfavorable encounters.
Beyond that, you have the spells!
Beast Bond, Animal Friendship, Conjure Animals, Speak With Animals, etc are as many ways to scout, track and spy that are times better than anyone else (except maybe Druid) in general situations. Sure, other classes are better for specific use-cases, but having "innocent" creatures available mean you can cover lot of ground and spy a lot of people for a reasonable cost, with limited risk of being discovered (especially since except with Conjure Animals, you don't make creatures magical. And only Beast Bond creates a staying magical effect).

3. "Ranger is mediocre at everything". Same line as above.
The main problem of Ranger is that if you really want to be optimal in as many areas as possible, spell list is kinda spelled out already for you: Hunter's Mark, Goodberry, Silence, Pass Without Trace, Healing Spirit, Conjure Animals, Plant Growth, Water Breathing are spells useful in enough different situations that you'll want them if there is noone dedicated in that area in party.
But with those, you're actually great in several areas.

To put it in other words, and to put it bluntly, in a party with only one full caster and choosing a non-fullcaster, I'll usually prefer a Ranger over basically anything else except maybe an Arcane Trickster.
Yeah, you read that well. If I have to choose without any context, I'll prefer Ranger FAR over a Paladin.
Like, FAAAAAAAR over.
I love Paladin's smite, but it's overall a very situational ability, burning everything on a tough nut.
Paladin's Aura are invaluable when case arise, but in practice it's as individual a bonus as Expertise in majority of cases, except if you really create a tag-team of melee bruisers of have to hold off a chokepoint.
Barring that? Paladin is essentially a guy that really wants to stick into melee and try to take as much aggro as possible. While having trouble being anything else.

Rogue would be a harder one to dismiss, because they boast great mobility, are reliable in a handfull of skill areas thanks to Expertise, and some archetype do bring impressive (magical) versatility. Still, your ability to support the whole party is far less versatile.

And I say that before taking into account archetype features (on that, it would require a post in itself really, but no Beastmaster is not "terrible". It's great. It's just clunky in feeling in encounters and has a much slower power curve than all other archetypes).

The only flaw of Ranger is, like Sorcerer, that it's deceptively simple. You have to read everything and think about how to combine features and spells and how to play different situations to really see the greatness of it.

Sparse notes about...

Lightning Arrow: it's very effective: it's plain meaningless to compare it to fullcasters. This is a spell, designed for a martial character, to give him a spell with high chance of doing something (in spite of having generally lower casting stat than spellcasters), to an area, dealing magical damage (remember: you don't necessarily have always magical weapons/amunitions), that just uses up your bonus action so you're still free to deal extra damage otherwise.
Is it bad compared to spells a fullcaster has? Obviously. Because those have less HP, less armor, less direct survivability and skills, and deal crappy damage usually once out of slots (barring Moon Druid or dedicated GFB/BB builds on Sorcerers/Bards)
Is it good for a Ranger? Yes.
Is it good enough to pick it over others? Probably not if you want to cover as many areas of expertise as possible. Probably yes if you can focus on damage because of party composition or just character design.
Can it be better in other situations? Yes: it can be good on a Whisper Bard for some primary nova with added AOE damage. It can be better on Ranger self if you boost spellcaster level with a dual-class.

Pass Without Trace: comparing it with Rogue/Bard's Expertise, is, sorry I don't find a better word, ludicrous. Two reasons about "brute added value".
- It affects THE WHOLE PARTY (usually), including companions/NPCs. So for party overall, it's far, far better than individual Expertise.
- At level 5 when you get it, it's a flat +10. Expertise would be a +3. So even for individual use, it's worth the cost.
But, more importantly, it's stupid to oppose them because they complement each other. Pass Without Trace is great to avoid dangers party-wide, or succeed on a task which you think you can reasonably complete in ~40mn (always take margin).
Expertise is good for solo in general, and any mission in which you cannot predict when a specific skill may be required.

Thanks for reading. :)

I think you shot a bit too far there friend. 😋

I love rangers too but even I admit they've got some badly designed parts about them.

I dont think many people have disputed their damage. Not in the thread atleast. Most note that rangers have respectable damage. That's not really what people have an issue with.

Most peoples issue with the scouting thing is that people dont want to "have" to ask a dm "hey what are we fighting so I can make sure my passive is working." Whats the point of a choice if your somewhat encourage to metagame a campaine. What if you want tk be a thematic desert ranger and the campaign will never get there. Is it the players fault for wanting to play a concept. They work when you're there. But it's either useless if you didn't consult or it is applicable and then we're done with exploration. Some dms dont even deal with exploration in much detail. You get all these fancy things like sneak and alertness and foraging but whether it actually matters isnt in your hands. (which some people dont like, more because what's the point of adventure if you just ignore the survival part of exploration)

Detection of entities only works if it's your favored enemy. See my "no one really wants to ask the dm for what they'll deal with just so they can be relevant" point

You listed alot of spells. It's such a shame a ranger cant really pick all of them can they? You have 4 spells known at lvl 5. They're useful spells sure. But for instance, I dont have space for spells like pass without trace or beast sense. Having the option is great. Not being able to cast it because of restrictions nullies that point. It may even be that you have another classier in the group that gets the spell before you. Which is great for the group but doesnt exactly do you any favour in the class looking good department.

Peoples gripe with lightning arrow speciflcy is that for a spell you get all the way at lvl 9, where most people dont reach, it doesnt pack the punch it should. They dont want it to be fireball levels of damage per say. But it's a bonus action concentarom spell that conflicts with your 'other' bonus action spells for a marginal increase in aoe around the level that monsters are REALLY starting to be scary. Those casters have lvl 5 spells now btw, further skewing the argument a bit.

People dont pick subclasses so that they can have "clunky combat and a slow power curve".

The fact that a bard can get swift quiver "BEFORE" the ranger, the class it is exclusive to, is funny.

Rangers are good boys and ladies. We get by quite well and WILL kick your teeth in if we want to.
But we've got some design flaws.

[Jack Bitters]

Hi all. :=)

Long-time lurker, that thread pushed me to finally bridge the gap.

Thanks for reading. :)

Really excellent post defending the ranger, thank you. And welcome!


And that's the worst part of the PHB Ranger: It doesn't get Awaken!

100% agree. It would be a beautiful addition on a subclass spell list. Breaks my heart that they didn't give those to the base subclasses in Xanathar's guide.

[Petrocorus]

Be careful, this kind of comment can get you a moderator warning. Apparently there are a lot of ranger haters out there that will report you for implying that they aren't justified in their hatred.
More despise or frustration than hate. And perfectly justified.
I love the concept of the Ranger, i played quite a lot in ADD1 and include a few level of Ranger in a lot of build in 3.5, including some of my Paladin builds, and that's why i am so displeased to see the Ranger not working properly.

And frankly, if someone reports someone else just for disagreeing with him, then the problem is the said someone, not the debate about the Ranger.





1. "Ranger deals meh damage". Nope, you just don't know how to play it or you just take into account what Ranger outputs "directly" with mundane attacks.

No. Most of the Ranger's "haters" concede that he's doing decent to good damages. Including with mundane attack.




They see spells like "Lighting Arrow" and torch it down when comparing to fullspellcaster spells (which is another baseless comparison).

No, we torch it down when comparing to Hail of Thorns, a 1st level Ranger spell.
And with Hunter's Mark, since they both use concentration. Lightning Arrow will cost you a 3rd level slot, plus the end of you ongoing H'sM.



Well, here is the deal. Ranger can deal LOTS of damage..... Ranger, which means more effective reach and fallback, which means either better offense or defense.

All you're talking about are the spells. If the spells are the main feature or the main good point of the Ranger, why should we not compare him to full casters?

If we compare it to the Pally, the other half-caster, we can notice the Pally also has spells, with a slightly less good list but without limitation on spells known. And has actual class features, like smite, tankyness, auras, that make his spellcasting a secondary feature.

Hopefully, the Ranger also have good subclasses that do improve his damage.




2. "Ranger sucks at scouting"... Maybe, read the features and spells?
Favored Terrain is kinda DM-dependent so there is that (one should always speak with DM before choosing character though), but when active it fars outweigh Rogue or Bard.

Emphasis mine. You just said what is our main contention with this feature.

And it doesn't far outweight the Rogue or Bard, it gives expertise in survival (the one relevant skill) plus auto-determination of number and delay, which can be determined by a high roll anyway.



Beyond that, you have the spells!
Beast Bond, Animal Friendship, Conjure Animals, Speak With Animals, etc are as many ways to scout, track and spy that are times better than anyone else (except maybe Druid) in general situations.

Once again, you talk about spells. And once again, he's not a full caster.
What are his real non-situational other features that actually improve his scouting?
If spells are the only thing he has going for him, as an half-caster, this is a problem.
And even more given his very low limit of spells known. Which is not justified BTW.
How many of this utility spells will you afford to know?



3. "Ranger is mediocre at everything". Same line as above.
The main problem .... greatness of it.

There again your whole point is that the Ranger has great spellcasting, and yet we shouldn't compare it to full caster.
But as i said, if spellcasting is his main feature, we are justified in comparing him with fullcasters.

It is not though. And it's not great at all. His spell list is a bit better than that of the Paladin, but not by much.
Yes, it includes some very good spells like Pass Without Trace, Conjusre Animals or Swift Quiver, but a significant number are quite meh. Most of the spells improving his damages use concentration, and hence are not combinable, some of his utility spell are not worth their spell slot and even less their spell known slot (like Cordon of Arrows, Barskin or Snare).

And you don't seem to take into account the very low limitation of spell known of the Ranger. He has less spells known that third caster. He gets 2 spells known per spell level on average. How many of the fancy spells of his list will he be able to afford? Once he has taken the necessary damage spell plus PWT, goodberry and/or Healing Spirit, how many of his utility spell will he have available?



Lightning Arrow:

It a concentration spell, so you have to compare it to other concentration spells of the Ranger's own list first.
And it compares poorly, notably to Hail of Thorn, which is similar. Upcast at level 3, HoT will do better damage on a smaller area, plus your normal weapon damages. The only real thing he has better is the energy damages, but even this may be situational.

And you cannot maintain Hunter's Mark or PWT when using it, this is a cost of the spell too.




Pass Without Trace:
Moot point.
Everybody knows PWT is good, better than good.
Everybody, myself included who made a point against it earlier, admits it's better than expertise, when it's on. When it's on.
And everybody says this is the best Ranger stealth feature.

Our point is this is not a Ranger exclusive feature, and more relevant, it should not be the only stealth feature a class which is supposed to be very good at stealth gets.

[Willie the Duck]

Some of my other issues with ranger could be forgiven if there didn't seem very little point in staying in the class after level 5.

I'm of the opinion that a ranger 5/druid X or ranger 5/rogue X (depending on which way you want to lean) is generally just better and more interesting at doing the things a ranger should be doing than a straight ranger.

True, I completely agree, but... that's true of a lot of classes. Multiclassing is something of a different game, and there are lots of combos there that just make lots of single class progressions look less interesting (caveat: unless you actually think you are going to get to the 18-20 range, in which case capstone abilities salvage a lot of single-class progressions). Lore bards, rangers and druids do the support game a lot better with a life cleric dip. There aren't a lot of mid-to-high level cleric spells keeping you in the class after a certain point. A fighter or hunter ranger with XBE is a damage machine, but if your DM doesn't cater to giving you exactly what you want, magic item-wise, then getting into forge cleric saves the concept a lot of headache. And then of course the Cha-based classes multiclassing together into delightful (maybe) insanity. Which brings up that paladins themselves, despite often being discussed as the uber class that rangers must be compared to, are often treated as a class you hang around in for 6-7 levels, and then drop.

So what you say is true, it just isn't unique to the ranger. At least IMO.

[Contrast]

True, I completely agree, but... that's true of a lot of classes. Multiclassing is something of a different game, and there are lots of combos there that just make lots of single class progressions look less interesting (caveat: unless you actually think you are going to get to the 18-20 range, in which case capstone abilities salvage a lot of single-class progressions). Lore bards, rangers and druids do the support game a lot better with a life cleric dip. There aren't a lot of mid-to-high level cleric spells keeping you in the class after a certain point. A fighter or hunter ranger with XBE is a damage machine, but if your DM doesn't cater to giving you exactly what you want, magic item-wise, then getting into forge cleric saves the concept a lot of headache. And then of course the Cha-based classes multiclassing together into delightful (maybe) insanity. Which brings up that paladins themselves, despite often being discussed as the uber class that rangers must be compared to, are often treated as a class you hang around in for 6-7 levels, and then drop.

So what you say is true, it just isn't unique to the ranger. At least IMO.

I think I have a slightly different slant on the matter - many classes may like to dip a couple of levels in something else for specific abilities or flavour before returning to their main schtick or to round out a build because their capstone is underwhelming. Ranger is the only one where I would recommend just dropping the class entirely after a certain point (and a relatively early one at that).

Ranger 5/Druid X in particular I feel does most things a normal ranger can do and more besides. Ranger 5/Rogue X is I agree somewhat more limited but better for the type of ranger who only ever casts Hunters Mark and doesn't want to faff about with spells.

Barbarians suffer from this a little as well but at least they have the capstone to theoretically draw them onwards.

[MadBear]

All you're talking about are the spells. If the spells are the main feature or the main good point of the Ranger, why should we not compare him to full casters?

I'll just step in and point out that it's because the chassis of the ranger makes puts it in a different ball game. The only real feature full casters get is their spell casting. A ranger's base chassis of better hp, fighting style, armor, weapon proficiencies, and extra attack mean that comparing it to a full caster is kinda null and void.

So while yes, full spellcasters get absolutely better spells then a ranger, that's kinda the point. Their spells should be better.

[MaxWilson]

Some of my other issues with ranger could be forgiven if there didn't seem very little point in staying in the class after level 5.

IMO Rangers are rewarding up to at least level 9, and level 11 for Hunter/Gloomstalker.

Barbarians on the other hand are, except for Zealots, totally uninteresting after level 5.


Barbarians suffer from this a little as well but at least they have the capstone to theoretically draw them onwards.

The capstone isn't worth it. A Barbearian 3/Infernal Bladelock 17 already has all of the best parts of being a Barbarian (extreme durability, Reckless GWM attacks) but he can also cast 9th level spells and leech temp HP off every kill. Getting an extra +2 to-hit and damage and some extra HP in exchange for 17 levels of Barb doesn't compete, with the sole exception of Zealot which actually does have enough high-level abilities to be fun.

[GlenSmash!]

IMO Rangers are rewarding up to at least level 9, and level 11 for Hunter/Gloomstalker.

Barbarians on the other hand are, except for Zealots, totally uninteresting after level 5.

Those are my 2 favorite classes in the game and I largely agree.

Well actually my favorite Battlerager and Berserker abilities are at level 6, but I have to hold a hand over one eye to ignore what I don't like about level 3 on both of them. :smallconfused:

Edit: Fighters are my third favorite class and I don't think about them past 11 or 12 either.

[Petrocorus]

I'll just step in and point out that it's because the chassis of the ranger makes puts it in a different ball game. The only real feature full casters get is their spell casting. A ranger's base chassis of better hp, fighting style, armor, weapon proficiencies, and extra attack mean that comparing it to a full caster is kinda null and void.

So while yes, full spellcasters get absolutely better spells then a ranger, that's kinda the point. Their spells should be better.

You're right. But this is kinda the point i was trying to make.

The poster i replied to was saying we should not compare them to full caster.

And indeed we should not, they are half-caster, not full caster.

Yet the said poster made a big issue of the Ranger's casting and use it as his main (almost only) argument of the Ranger's goodness and capability to fulfil his role.

My point is that has a half-caster, the Ranger has other features and this features should be good on their own and help him with his jobs on their own.
And if they are not, if his casting were indeed his only features working well and he needs it to compensate the lack of other features, then in this case we should consider him a caster and compare him to full casters whose job is to cast spells.

And all the features you listed (except FS) are common to all five main "warrior" class, plus available to Bard and Warlock. And all other features of the core Ranger basically works as ribbons. So we are a bit in this case.
So we're left to compare him to another half-caster who has much better features and overall as good a casting or to full casters who have a lesser chassis and as specialized features as him but a much better casting.

[MaxWilson]

Those are my 2 favorite classes in the game and I largely agree.

Well actually my favorite Battlerager and Berserker abilities are at level 6, but I have to hold a hand over one eye to ignore what I don't like about level 3 on both of them. :smallconfused:

Since you like Rangers and Barbarians, I'm going to just mention one of my solutions to the problem, inspired by David Drake's novels and by Dark Sun's defilers:

Observation: the biggest reason why non-spellcasters like Barbarians suffer at high levels is because WotC builds mechanical synergies into the game, and many, many of these synergies are spells, so if you invest 20 levels in Barbarian you are giving up lots of potential spells, including high-level spells like True Polymorph.

Design goal: without removing any of a spellcaster's mechanical power, provide a roleplaying or setting reason why you'd even ever want to be a Barbarian or a non-spellcasting Rogue or whatever.

Solution: Break the campaign setting into Real and Not-Real areas. In Real areas, everything works pretty much in real life. The inside of a building is always smaller than the outside, your reflection is just a reflection and can never reach out and strangle you, black cats crossing your path don't really bring you bad luck, and faerie/vampire folklore is just superstition. None of that stuff is real. This is where PCs' home bases will tend to be, as well as civilization, shopkeepers, and a limited amount of political intrigue--but no dungeons and not very much treasure. Magical monsters cannot come to Real places or they cease to exist.

In Not-Real areas, also called Fable or Myth, all bets are off. Not only do magical creatures appear, and unlikely coincidences like stumbling across an ancient crypt stuffed to the brim with both undead monstrosities and treasure that somehow hasn't already been looted by someone else, but the DM will make your life interesting in other ways as well. Karma can come back to bite you, the inside of a dragon's cave can be far, far larger than its outside, genies can grant wishes, and faerie-tale logic applies.

Here's the catch: using magic breaks reality and transforms Real places into Not-real places, so magic-use is heavily stigmatized. It's not that you can't cast Zone of Truth in a fully-populated city, it's just that doing so turns the city basically uninhabitable by people who aren't prepared to get eaten by Unreal monsters. It's like contaminating the city with nuclear waste. Accordingly, spellcasters (who are always marked by a campaign-specific universally-recognizable physical characteristic, e.g. a brilliant-white lock of hair, and are referred to as Mythmakers) are stigmatized and generally unwelcome in society even if they aren't actually planning on creating any Unreality at the moment. They are dangerous.

There are also outlying Fringe areas, settlements which are mostly Not-Real but where the dwelling places (insides of homes) are Real, so people are safe from monsters in their beds at night but may occasionally have to send for help from adventurers (highly-expert people who are often Mythmakers) to deal with the Mythical problems threatening their livelihood.

Result: if you want more freedom to get involved in politics or society in Real places, pull non-magical heists, have a real job as an important person's bodyguard protecting him from assassins, etc., play a non-Mythmaker character like a Barbarian or a Samurai or a Rogue, or a Ranger who has never cast a spell (and so isn't marked as a Mythmaker yet), and hang out in Reality. If you want to do dungeon crawls and kill monsters, play a Mythmaker and hang out in Fable where everything is Not-Real. Or play a Chaotic Evil Mythmaker who uses illusions and stuff to disguise his nature and just doesn't care about the collateral damage to reality he's causing with his spells. It's all part of the same setting but everyone has a niche.

[diplomancer]

Though I've never played a ranger, I've played a Paladin to 20th level. I have the impression that a lot of the disdain for the ranger comes by a comparison between them and Paladins.

Paladins are really good. In a campaign where the DM does not police the adventuring day and long rests (which was mostly the case for me), they are even better.

I would imagine that if a Ranger was able to, during the course of a day, spend all of his spell slots on mostly combat spells, they would end up doing more damage than the Nova Paladin; it's just that the paladins can use their power faster.

[GlenSmash!]

Since you like Rangers and Barbarians, I'm going to just mention one of my solutions to the problem, inspired by David Drake's novels and by Dark Sun's defilers:

Observation: the biggest reason why non-spellcasters like Barbarians suffer at high levels is because WotC builds mechanical synergies into the game, and many, many of these synergies are spells, so if you invest 20 levels in Barbarian you are giving up lots of potential spells, including high-level spells like True Polymorph.

Design goal: without removing any of a spellcaster's mechanical power, provide a roleplaying or setting reason why you'd even ever want to be a Barbarian or a non-spellcasting Rogue or whatever.

Solution: Break the campaign setting into Real and Not-Real areas. In Real areas, everything works pretty much in real life. The inside of a building is always smaller than the outside, your reflection is just a reflection and can never reach out and strangle you, black cats crossing your path don't really bring you bad luck, and faerie/vampire folklore is just superstition. None of that stuff is real. This is where PCs' home bases will tend to be, as well as civilization, shopkeepers, and a limited amount of political intrigue--but no dungeons and not very much treasure. Magical monsters cannot come to Real places or they cease to exist.

In Not-Real areas, also called Fable or Myth, all bets are off. Not only do magical creatures appear, and unlikely coincidences like stumbling across an ancient crypt stuffed to the brim with both undead monstrosities and treasure that somehow hasn't already been looted by someone else, but the DM will make your life interesting in other ways as well. Karma can come back to bite you, the inside of a dragon's cave can be far, far larger than its outside, genies can grant wishes, and faerie-tale logic applies.

Here's the catch: using magic breaks reality and transforms Real places into Not-real places, so magic-use is heavily stigmatized. It's not that you can't cast Zone of Truth in a fully-populated city, it's just that doing so turns the city basically uninhabitable by people who aren't prepared to get eaten by Unreal monsters. It's like contaminating the city with nuclear waste. Accordingly, spellcasters (who are always marked by a campaign-specific universally-recognizable physical characteristic, e.g. a brilliant-white lock of hair, and are referred to as Mythmakers) are stigmatized and generally unwelcome in society even if they aren't actually planning on creating any Unreality at the moment. They are dangerous.

There are also outlying Fringe areas, settlements which are mostly Not-Real but where the dwelling places (insides of homes) are Real, so people are safe from monsters in their beds at night but may occasionally have to send for help from adventurers (highly-expert people who are often Mythmakers) to deal with the Mythical problems threatening their livelihood.

Result: if you want more freedom to get involved in politics or society in Real places, pull non-magical heists, have a real job as an important person's bodyguard protecting him from assassins, etc., play a non-Mythmaker character like a Barbarian or a Samurai or a Rogue, or a Ranger who has never cast a spell (and so isn't marked as a Mythmaker yet), and hang out in Reality. If you want to do dungeon crawls and kill monsters, play a Mythmaker and hang out in Fable where everything is Not-Real. Or play a Chaotic Evil Mythmaker who uses illusions and stuff to disguise his nature and just doesn't care about the collateral damage to reality he's causing with his spells. It's all part of the same setting but everyone has a niche.

Man that's very interesting.

Of course my current idea is to just play Adventure's in Middle-Earth :smallbiggrin:

[Ravinsild]

Meanwhile I want a Ranger that can choose not to be seen if he wishes, slice through hordes of orcs with a longsword, lead 4 halflings through hidden paths, and call friends back from the edge of death.

And it can do that all too!

haha that part made me laugh. I'm about to play a pure ranger (beast master) in an upcoming campaign. I hope it feels like a WoW beast master hunter. I'm excited!

[Reevh]

Any good? Yes. The best? Not generally.

[deljzc]

Reading a lot of the threads here, I'm noticing there is a LOT of optimization and combos in 5th edition that kind of break logical power curves of classes.

The use of feats, dipping 1-2 levels multiclassing, and closely studying short/long rests and how to abuse them per RAW further exaggerates the power curve some players strive for.

It seems to me every class and subclass is slowly pushed into a "do this combo over and over again to maximized damage per round" or find some unbeatable combination of actions/reactions/spells/reactions. Outrageous 30+ AC's or invulnerability or 500+ damage bursts.

Maybe Rangers don't have quite the top-end combos other classes have, but I find that hard to be a fault of Rangers and not the fault of a system that creates unrealistic combos in the first place to be exploited by OTHER classes that just seem super far fetched.

I'm just too much a roll player I guess and not an optimizer to think that's what D&D should be.

[strangebloke]

Though I've never played a ranger, I've played a Paladin to 20th level. I have the impression that a lot of the disdain for the ranger comes by a comparison between them and Paladins.

Paladins are really good. In a campaign where the DM does not police the adventuring day and long rests (which was mostly the case for me), they are even better.

I would imagine that if a Ranger was able to, during the course of a day, spend all of his spell slots on mostly combat spells, they would end up doing more damage than the Nova Paladin; it's just that the paladins can use their power faster.
I think you're exactly right.

I also think that people tend to look at the Paladin's best case when considering its strength, and not look at its (very lackluster) worst case. A paladin in melee with full resources against a single boss-monster is a total beast. A paladin fighting a flying enemy without any spells is pathetic. Heck, a (non-conquest) paladin trying to fight a large number of weak enemies isn't very impressive either.

I had a beastly paladin in one campaign. Had flametongue, wings of flying, and a great stat line. During one high-level encounter he spent the entire encounter swarmed by a pack of flying gargoyles and wasn't able to contribute at all.

[jaappleton]

Reading a lot of the threads here, I'm noticing there is a LOT of optimization and combos in 5th edition that kind of break logical power curves of classes.

The use of feats, dipping 1-2 levels multiclassing, and closely studying short/long rests and how to abuse them per RAW further exaggerates the power curve some players strive for.

It seems to me every class and subclass is slowly pushed into a "do this combo over and over again to maximized damage per round" or find some unbeatable combination of actions/reactions/spells/reactions. Outrageous 30+ AC's or invulnerability or 500+ damage bursts.

Maybe Rangers don't have quite the top-end combos other classes have, but I find that hard to be a fault of Rangers and not the fault of a system that creates unrealistic combos in the first place to be exploited by OTHER classes that just seem super far fetched.

I'm just too much a roll player I guess and not an optimizer to think that's what D&D should be.

Emphasis mine.

Stop right there with that line of thinking. Optimization does not mean lack of role playing. The Stormwind Fallacy is the best explanation of this. Please, please, please look it up.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm just too much a roll player I guess and not an optimizer to think that's what D&D should be.

Not that people have respected the 'I'm a roleplayer, not a rollplayer' hackneyed line since people started lobbing it at each other on Usenet newsgroups back in the early 80s, but I think you messed it up, as well.

[Yunru]

Emphasis mine.

Stop right there with that line of thinking. Optimization does not mean lack of role playing. The Stormwind Fallacy is the best explanation of this. Please, please, please look it up.

Honestly I'd go one further: A lack of Optimization is a lack of roleplay (in most cases). After all, if your character is a living breathing being, why would they not strive to be the best at the thing that's keeping them alive and/or paid?

[KorvinStarmast]

Honestly I'd go one further: A lack of Optimization is a lack of roleplay (in most cases). After all, if your character is a living breathing being, why would they not strive to be the best at the thing that's keeping them alive and/or paid?
1. Slackers
2. Dilletentes (which points toward MC as a life choice)
3. Personality quirks
4. Generalists

There are other in universe reasons, but those are a few.

5. Poor stats (roll up, the default, can lead to this)



That said, the adventuring world is supposed to be dangerous, so those not putting out their utmost would be expected to fail. Also, for those whose background is something like soldier or sailor, or outlander, the cultural drive to be better would be natural.
For a noble? A criminal? A charlatan? Getting by might be a life attitude that fits with that background.

[strangebloke]

Honestly I'd go one further: A lack of Optimization is a lack of roleplay (in most cases). After all, if your character is a living breathing being, why would they not strive to be the best at the thing that's keeping them alive and/or paid?

specifically this addresses the complaint that "using one combo over and over again is unrealistic."

It doesn't completely address what I think the poster was really getting at though, which is the absurd, thinly justified multiclass build. "Hold on, my paladin needs warlock levels real quick. Any shady entities looking to make deals? Anyone?" That form of play can be pretty weak at times and I understand why people object to it. This isn't so common in 5e because multiclassing is kind of bad in this edition but it was a huge problem in 3.5 and other editions. "My character is a cleric 3/exorsist 2/ruby knight vindicator 7, etc. etc."

But yeah, in general I would say that people who have enough system mastery to build powerful characters are usually people who have been playing a long time and are invested in the game. Even if they don't do a lot of roleplay they'll make a character that's complete and self-consistent. Conversely, a lot of inexperienced players fixate on a wacky gimmick to make their otherwise lackluster character interesting. Whether they're fixated on "this one totally overpowered gimmick that will make your DM cry" or "My character background is clown and I hit people with fish. Isn't that so waaaacky??", their 'roleplay' skill isn't really anything impressive, and their character probably isn't actually that powerful.

Having a strong/interesting character ultimately requires experience. A sorcadin played by a newb is going to be less impactful on the game than a monk played by an experience player. A clown who hits people with fish is going to be less interesting than Joe the Fighter if Joe the Fighter is played by someone who knows what he's doing.

[Ravinsild]

specifically this addresses the complaint that "using one combo over and over again is unrealistic."

It doesn't completely address what I think the poster was really getting at though, which is the absurd, thinly justified multiclass build. "Hold on, my paladin needs warlock levels real quick. Any shady entities looking to make deals? Anyone?" That form of play can be pretty weak at times and I understand why people object to it. This isn't so common in 5e because multiclassing is kind of bad in this edition but it was a huge problem in 3.5 and other editions. "My character is a cleric 3/exorsist 2/ruby knight vindicator 7, etc. etc."

But yeah, in general I would say that people who have enough system mastery to build powerful characters are usually people who have been playing a long time and are invested in the game. Even if they don't do a lot of roleplay they'll make a character that's complete and self-consistent. Conversely, a lot of inexperienced players fixate on a wacky gimmick to make their otherwise lackluster character interesting. Whether they're fixated on "this one totally overpowered gimmick that will make your DM cry" or "My character background is clown and I hit people with fish. Isn't that so waaaacky??", their 'roleplay' skill isn't really anything impressive, and their character probably isn't actually that powerful.

Having a strong/interesting character ultimately requires experience. A sorcadin played by a newb is going to be less impactful on the game than a monk played by an experience player. A clown who hits people with fish is going to be less interesting than Joe the Fighter if Joe the Fighter is played by someone who knows what he's doing.

Meanwhile I tend to blend the two. I like to use tags to build an idea around my character. Since I'm running a brother character it's come out to be something like Red Oni/Blue Oni trope. I'm running the Blue Oni. So my character is like #Observant #Quiet #Cool-Headed #Rational #Calm #Sniper #Stealthy #Thief #Self-Reliant. To further solidify this concept I am pulling from themes from the Ranger (survivalist, loner, outdoorsman, self-sufficient), personality (loyal, quiet, analytical, wise, observant, stays back), his role (support, sniper, assassin, thief) and so forth.

So it's like okay my character can take care of himself, always watches his brothers back, supports his brother in missions usually engaging first and providing a distraction or covering him, has a pet bird that helps with this, is the quiet and calm headed cool blue oni, and has a special rifle. He probably learned how it works and how to maintain it, and he could probably reverse engineer it. It makes sense he would have some background in that and proficiency in tools to do that. So I chose the Skilled Feat.

And that's my character creation process and how I make informed "what would my character do" decisions
It's like yeah okay fair enough I could have picked some turbo OP useful combat feat like Alert, Lucky or whatever the optimization guides rank as gold or light blue but I'm going for flavor.

On the other side of the coin I did pick a good race (due to RP my brother was a Kenku so I felt like I had to be a Kenku for this to work haha) that's at least light blue or dark blue on all Ranger guides, I picked Archery which is always rated light blue to gold, I picked ranged which is always recommended for Rangers...but I KNOWINGLY took Beast Master for the lulz instead of Gloomstalker or Hunter or whatever. He's an assassin, sure so Hunter may have made sense, but he also spends a lot of time alone the forest hunting and communing with nature because in the lore of this world Kenku are japanese mountain spirits that guard holy mountains. So he has a connection with beasts and animals, and I picked a Raven because Raven Man with a Raven Pet! Eyyyy.

When I went to pick my spells though I considered my role, which is something like assassin and support so I chose Goodberry, Healing Spirit, Hail of Thorns and Hunter's Mark. This is versatility, I can heal well in or out of combat, I can AOE and I can single target fine, all light blue or at least dark blue rated spells on the optimization guides. I chose Sharpshooter at level 4 because I'm a SNIPER and of course I would. That's ALWAYS a recommended feat.

So there's some purposefully chosen sub-optimal choices for flavor and fun, and then there's a lot of optimized. I'm trying to optimize my theme of an assassin sniper that supports his close combat brother by providing covering fire, watching his back, creating distractions while he slips in and finishes them off. Sort of like a bot duo lane in League of Legends. He's Red Oni, I'm Blue Oni. I'm a DPS/Support and he's a Blood Hunter glass cannon full DPS killer.

[strangebloke]

snip.

Not to continue the derail for too long but the point is that an experienced player will make a strong character in general except for when it support their character concept. Like they might decide to play a Beastmaster and they might decide to have a pet wolf even though its bad but they'll still try to use that character effectively.

And a well-played beastmaster is a bigger asset to the party than a poorly played sorcadin.

[MaxWilson]

Honestly I'd go one further: A lack of Optimization is a lack of roleplay (in most cases). After all, if your character is a living breathing being, why would they not strive to be the best at the thing that's keeping them alive and/or paid?

And yet, high school dropouts exist.

Roleplaying a mediocrity != lack of roleplay.


And a well-played beastmaster is a bigger asset to the party than a poorly played sorcadin.

1000% agreement there. A poorly-played PC can be an active liability.

[sithlordnergal]

So, I feel like I posted this last month, but I'll put it here as well. The Ranger isn't bad per say. Its a fine ranged DPS class, especially once they get Swift Quiver. The issue with the Ranger is that their core features, the features all Rangers get regardless of subclass, range from useless, to underwhelming, to OP with Favored Terrain. They're basically ribbons that are treated as class abilities. Now, this would be ok...if all of the Ranger subclasses were amazing and made up for the subpar core abilities. But they don't, and that hurts the Ranger over all. And if you don't believe me that the core Ranger abilities are poor, lets take a look at them:


First up, Favored Enemy: Lets be honest, this ability is either useless or underwhelming. You get to choose one creature type, or two Humanoids, and gain advantage on Survival checks to track them, advantage on Intelligence checks to "recall information" about them, and you gain a language that they speak. That's it, nothing more. Not only is this such a niche ability because it restricts you to a single creature type, but you only gain three of them throughout your Ranger career and the advantage you get can be replicated by someone giving you Aid. As a result, Clerics, Druids, Rogues, and Bards can be just as, if not more, effective then the Ranger when it comes to tracking because they can apply their aid, high wisdom scores, and/or expertise to everything instead of just 3 creatures.


Next up, Natural Explorer: This one ranges from, again, useless to unbelievably OP. Once again, you only get 3 Favored Terrains, and if you're outside of your chosen terrains this ability is worthless. If you choose poorly, you could have a chance of never using this ability at all. But when you are in your Favored Terrain it becomes a broken mess that breaks the game. How? Well, look at the boons it grants. You can't get lost unless someone is magically misdirecting you, you double the food you find from foraging so you won't starve, you ignore difficult terrain while you're traveling, you can move at a normal pace while tracking or forging and remain alert, and you actually gain tracking abilities that set you apart from a Rogue with Expertise.

Basically, this ability is so OP that it makes traveling boring because it removes any of the dangers that come with traveling. To put in into perspective, I ran Tomb of Annihilation when it came out. When the party first entered the jungle, the Ranger couldn't make it. They got horribly lost and ended up losing precious time since each and every tile it one day's worth of travel, and you only have a certain number of days to deal with the curse. Next session, the Ranger made it and they realized they'd never be lost again. Due to a combination of casters providing food, and the Ranger leading them, the travel section was boiled down to "Ranger, do you lead? Yes. Cleric, do you provide fresh water? Yes. Ranger, do you cast good berries? Yes. Do you guys wanna do an encounter or skip it this time? Ok, lets skip the travel then."


Next is a Fighting Style, this is pretty standard. The options here are fine and well balanced. No complains here.


Next, Spell Casting: This is sort of a mixed bag. On the one hand, the Ranger spells tend to be pretty decent with only a few trap options. Swift Quiver, Hunter's Mark, Pass Without Trace, and a plethora of really useful utility spells make for a fine spell list. Though you should keep in mind that Swift Quiver is only available to Rangers at level 17, while a Bard can get it at level 10 and make equally good use of it. However, since Rangers are Half Casters they have a very limited number of spell slots, which means they are somewhat limited to what they can cast. To add to this, they also have the fewest spells known of any class. So not only can you cast fewer spells, but you know fewer spells. Thankfully, your life is easier then the Paladin, cause you'll only want to use your spell slots for spell casting, where as Paladins have to choose between Smiting and spell casting. Of course, that's not really by choice since...


Primeval Awareness: Oh look, its the Paladin's Divine Sense but arguably worse. Why is it worse? Welp, for the cost of a spell slot you can sense whether or not there are aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead within 1 mile of you, or 6 miles if you're in your Favored Terrain, for 1 minute. So why is it worse? This ability doesn't give you how many you sense, it doesn't tell you where they are, and it doesn't seem to be blocked by things like rock and dirt. So that indeterminable number of undead you sense could be 6 miles below your feet. Meanwhile, Divine Sense doesn't use a spell slot, gives you the location, and, since it gives the location of each type of creature it senses, you know exactly how many their are. the only downside for Divine Sense is that its only 60 feet and doesn't go through cover.


Next is Extra Attack, which doesn't really need much said about it. Just like the Fighting Style, its a great thing for a martial class to have.


For level 8 there's Land's Stride: This is a pretty useful ability. Being able to ignore non-magical difficult terrain is highly useful at all times, and the extra bit of having advantage on saving throws against plants that impede movement is nice. All in all, a pretty good ability.


Next up, Hide in Plain Sight: This is a terrible ability, probably the worse ability the Ranger gets. In exchange for standing perfectly still, not taking an action or reaction, and spending 1 minute of prep work you gain +10 to stealth. This is, in short, a horrific ability. You have to spend a full minute setting it up, so you can't really use it on the fly if you're trying to escape someone following you, and if you move, take an action, or take a reaction you lose the +10 and would need to spend another minute to gain the +10. Its especially bad since you gain Pass without Trace, which grants you and everyone you can see of your choice within 30 feet of you, +10 to Stealth checks, lasts an Hour, and makes it so you can't be tracked unless someone is using magical means. There is no reason to use this ability when you have that spell available to you, and I always highly suggest taking it unless you have a Druid in the party.


Vanish: This is a poor man's Cunning Action. It allows you to Hide as a Bonus Action, and while that isn't bad per say, I think its too little too late. The Rogue gets Cunning Action at level 2, while Goblins can Hide or Disengage as a Bonus Action naturally. So while it isn't a bad spell, this is not enough for a 14th level ability.


Feral Senses: This is actually the best ability the Ranger has. Its not OP/broken like Natural Explorer and its not useless. It basically gives you 30ft Blindsight while you can see and hear, and it allows you to "see" invisible creatures. Its actually better then something like Devil's Sight or True Sight, since it allows you to bypass spells like Fog Cloud.


Last but not least, Foe Slayer: This is, without a doubt, the worst capstone of all the classes. Once per turn you get to add your Wisdom Modifier to an attack or damage roll before you know the results of your rolls, and you can only do it against your Favored Enemies. So, while Moon Druids are becoming immortal, Wizards are becoming Arcane Masters, Barbarians become insane powerhouses, you get to add +6, at most if you found the Book, to a single attack or damage roll. This capstone is the worst. Not only does it fall flat when you are able to use it, you can only use it on the 3 creature types. If your final boss isn't what you chose, then this capstone may as well not exist. This is a capstone that should have been part of Favored Enemy at level 1, not something given to you at level 20 when everyone else becomes insanely powerful.

------

So, the core Ranger has 11 abilities without counting Subclasses, and 2 of those are Extra Attack and a Fighting Style. Meaning if we wanted to look at Ranger exclusive abilities, we only have 9. And 5 out of those 9 abilities are pretty bad or worse, including the Cap Stone. This means we are left with a class that has 4 good abilities, and one of those 4 is a niche ability that only works in specific terrains, and is useless outside of said terrains. Which in turn means you are left with 3 abilities that are able to be used in all situations, and these are the Ranger's Spells, Vanish, and Feral Senses. Two of those are gained at levels 14 and 18 respectively, and even then Vanish is not that great. Its just better then Hide in Plain Sight.

[Kane0]

Snip

Good breakdown.

Now compare that to Paladin, who gets things like lay on hands, divine sense, divine health, spells prepared, aura of protection and IDS.

[sambojin]

It's just hard to see what Rangers do better, than say for instance, a Land Druid. Except archery. They're better archers. That's all.

So, up to lvl6, where Hunters or Beastmasters are meant to be OK'ish:

Lvl1, you survivalist better than a Ranger, with Goodberry and Create Water taking care of nourishment, and Guidance and high Wis taking care of skills. You can take Shillelagh to SAD melee, but still have nice side-stats, and can use Druidcraft to know the upcoming weather. You know all your spells and can prepare plenty off a useful stat, which gets even better as you level-up.

At lvl2, *Grassland Land* Druid gets some OK'ish combat forms, twice s/r. It takes 1 action/turn to do your "combat power-up!" (it's almost like you cast a spell to buff someone that turn, then got +10-30' movement and 10-19tHP for doing so), but they're not bad. Cow, Draft Horse, Elk, Giant Badger, Giant Wolf Spider, Velociraptor, Wolf. These usually give OK attacks, sometimes with condition riders and/or advantage, better movement and movement-types, and some free HP. You can stay in combat-form for an hour if you don't get knocked out of it by HP loss. +1 spell slot recharge, once per day (so, 3/0/0 +1lvl).

Lvl3 gives you all the other Ranger spells you need, you can recharge 2lvls of spells (4/2/0 +2lvls now), and you've got stuff like Spike Growth or Flaming Sphere or Heat Metal or Hold Person for added damage. They're probably better than Hunter's Mark/Colossus Slayer/Horde Breaker/a crappy animal companion. A lot better. Plus you can have advantage on any skillset from one stat (Enhance Ability, this includes initiative off Dex), use Invisibility, have stacks of healing, and you now have Pass without Trace nice-and-early. Even at this level, you might wildshape plenty of encounters away, so can cast tonnes of Goodberries for tomorrow. Tomorrow's healing and food today, is just another thing druids do better than rangers (why hunt, when you can feed an entire village with yesterday's leftovers?).

Lvl4 gets you an ASI (+2Wis, so +1 to-hit/damage from Shillelagh, and an extra spell prepared and +1DC on them) and more combat forms. Constrictor Snake, Ape, Crocodile, Giant Goat, Giant Poisonous Snake, Jaculi, Warhorse. They're pretty good at this level. Warhorses are murder-machines if you've got another melee'r that likes proning things. So are Jaculi if you don't. Having nearly all the "fighting styles" is good at lvl4. Another lvl2 spell slot as well (4/3/0 +2lvls) for more added damage or utility. 2hr long combat forms.
(smart druids realize how good restrain-on-hit is, even at +4 to-hit as a Crocodile/Constrictor Snake. Other people should bless them, or prone things for them, or give advantage/+to-hit to them. They now have jobs, so you can do yours)

Lvl5 gets you Haste, which even out of wildshape is nice (possibly for others), and Conjure Animals, which gives you animal companions whenever you want, up to CR2 (or heaps of lesser ones. Note how good being one Warhorse or Jaculi was. You now have +4 of them. Or +4 +4-to-hit restrain-on-hit Crocodiles, or a +1 +6-to-hit Giant Constrictor Snake, or +8 +4-to-hit normal Constrictor Snakes. Or +2 Giant Eagles for flying movement. Think of it as "archery" damage, while you just stand back and cantrip stuff, but you also did the best CC spell available). Either spell can be looked at as "extra attack/s". 3lvls worth of recharge (4/3/2 +3lvls), so you can use them a bit as well, alongside your 2nd level damage enhancers for other encounters. But you now have 6 encounters a day covered by "more damage than a Ranger can do" spells, without worrying about wildshape (which is still fine at this level with some forms to save spell slots). Summoning large/huge flyers to ride is totally acceptable if the DM agrees. But it's actually kind-of-hard for a DM to refuse "I'll have 4 Warhorses, please". Which are fine at this level as extra attacks go.

Lvl6 gets you an extra lvl3 spell slot (up to 4 a day now with max-slot recharge, 4/3/3 +3lvls), and every terrain is your favoured terrain for movement purposes. 3hr long combat forms.
(need a tonne of lvl2 or lvl3 spells known and prepared, because sometimes they're a bit situational? You can prepare 10 of them if you really want to, any of them, with 18Wis at lvl6. And change the whole layout to something different tomorrow, to anything you want, any spell, any level, 10 there-of. It makes Sorcs and Rangers cry. Even Bards get a bit emo). You can also easily have 1-3 slots leftover every day for tomorrow's Goodberries, without even planning to, at this level.

Even without min/max statting, combat feats, choosing a good race to help along, or even really trying, a full caster+/-weak melee class is about as good as a melee ranger. There's nothing stopping you trying to make a melee Land Druid, one that would be better at most things than a ranger, it's just that people don't. And this is from one of the weaker subclasses of a fairly weak (melee-wise) class. But they're better at Ranger'ing than a Hunter or a Beastmaster is. Except in Archery. Rangers do that better. But you can go from a beastmaster to a gloomstalker to a hunter every day, depending on your spell-list and wildshape forms, and still be pretty good at druiding. And get better at that every level, too! And 4 Warhorses or Jaculi are some absolute BS "ranged/archery", so the thing Rangers do isn't exactly that good, compared to how Druids do it.

It gets worse as a comparison lvl7+ onwards, just due to sheer spell slot efficiency, so you can always have a decent spell going, even if wildshape starts to taper-off (you are now much better at "archery" and utility, but about the same at melee as a Ranger, because they're not that great at that either).