Which Ranger Buff Would Work Better?

[dmhelp]

12345678910

[MrStabby]

I would go for the second one as being more fun and interesting and kicking in as the ranger starts to drop off. You might want to add some spells to their list as well to take advantage of these slots.

[loki_ragnarock]

Option 2 is a huge modification to the class that would require a curation of thematically appropriate spells into the expanded ranger spell list, in addition to some head tilt inducing considerations to how that spell advancement table would look. That option would require an enormous amount of work from the knock on effects.

Option 1 requires the least amount of work, is self contained, and is boring but proven.

[Mr Adventurer]

On the other hand, level 13 is far too late to make a difference.

I haven't seen a single classed Ranger, but you could e.g. make Hunter's Mark a class feature that doesn't require Concentration (similar to Hexblade curse).

Edit: with apologies, to answer your actual question, I think the second option would be a significant upgrade from as soon as it came in.

[Aeriox]

Option 1 would definitely help in terms of damage, but it is kinda boring. Option 2 just doesn’t really fit with my idea of a ranger; I’ve always thought of them as more martial than spell-casty. If you’re looking for suggestions, I think something that starts earlier and then scales would work better as a buff.

[Petrocorus]

One thing i have done since the beginning is lifting off the limit of spells known.
At my table, Rangers prepare spell like the Paladin (Half Ranger level rouded down + Wis mod).
That does allows them to benefit from all this utility spells which may compensate for the Ranger's lack of skills and proper class features.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I want to do a single buff to help single classed rangers be competitive without requiring multiple modifications to the class (such as UA ranger or UA class features).

Option 1:

at level 13 gains Strike of the Ancients - once per turn on a weapon attack (self or beastmaster companion) may expend a spell slot to deal 1d8+1d8/slot level (up to 5d8 max) additional force damage (Strike of the Ancients cannot be used on the same turn as Divine Smite or Eldritch Smite)


Option 2:

at level 8 changes from half caster to caster level = level - 4 (e.g. at level 19 has spell slots of a level 15 pure caster, i.e. 8th level slots with 5th level spells), at level 20 changes to level - 3 (i.e. at level 20 has 9th level slots); hail of thorns maxes at 9d10 instead of 6d10


Honestly, the simplest way to make a single class ranger effective is...

Just give Fighters Natural Explorer at first and favored enemy at second and allow for changes on a long rest.

For Spellcasting just give the Eldritch Knight their same spells per day but with the ranger spell list.

Beastmaster needs a lot of work so just ignore that it exist.

[Dienekes]

Both would probably work, I don’t really like either of them. As the first is just cribbing off the Paladin so it will have the same play style, but with slightly different spells they’re now rarely going to use. And the second option essentially turns the Ranger from being primarily an attacker to primarily a spell caster.

Personally, if I wanted a quick and dirty fix for Ranger I’d make it so Hunter’s Mark no longer takes their Concentration slot somewhere around level 6, then either up the damage of HM or give an extra attack somewhere around 14.

That’s about it. Their damage then becomes comparable to the Fighters and Paladins of the game, and they can now actually use the various utility Concentration spells without having their damage fall off even worse.

I’d still say the Ranger class isn’t objectively good. But it’s a functioning quick patch.

[Man_Over_Game]

I prefer #2, but I think both are kind of a wash.

Pure damage buffs aren't interesting, especially on a ranged character (as ranged combat is a lot less complex or chaotic as melee), while the additional spell slots really complicates things. Not to mention that the Ranger has so many at-will damage through spells that they don't really need the first option, and don't have the spell list to justify the second.

That's not saying Rangers have to be melee combatants, but ranged combat is generally superior to melee (in terms of value), and with the negative community attitude towards dual-wielding, most Rangers are played as snipers (which I think is stupid on a 1d10 medium armored character, but that's none of my business).

Why not just give them the equivalent of Arcane Recovery? That way they use the same rules as Paladins, but where Paladins have burst power, Rangers would have consistency. When I play a Ranger, I dip a few levels into Druid for the same concept (more spell slots to fuel my attack rider spells), but now you wouldn't need to. This would also mean more non-combat effects, which I'd debate is the real niche of the Ranger over the Fighter.