Why go high-level ranger?

[J-H]

I'm brewing up a werewolf subclass (for someone who was born with the curse or learned to control it), just because it's fun. I initially thought to make it a druid, but Ranger ended up being much better and more balanced.
The subclass features I have lined up are pretty good, including some nice regeneration at level 15. I am concerned that the subclass abilities might end up imbalanced with the right dip combo. I don't know what that combination is, but I feel like the potential is there.

From 16 on, there are no new subclass features (in any Ranger subclass), and the only remaining Ranger features are a situational boost vs. invisible enemies and the super-weak capstone of Wis to damage once per round against some enemies at 20. The 5th-level spells of "know natural stuff" and "teleport via trees" are not an enticement to stay in the class at high levels.

Once the subclass is done, what's the case for ANY ranger staying to Ranger 20 instead of multiclassing?

[Garfunion]

First; I would like to see your werewolf Hunter archetype.
Second; Why didn’t you use the barbarian for your werewolf archetype, to me would make more sense?
Third; The Ranger class as a whole was poorly designed. There are other classes and archetypes that do a better job at being a Ranger. So many of the Ranger’s high-level abilities are worthless.

[AvatarVecna]

I'm brewing up a werewolf subclass (for someone who was born with the curse or learned to control it), just because it's fun. I initially thought to make it a druid, but Ranger ended up being much better and more balanced.
The subclass features I have lined up are pretty good, including some nice regeneration at level 15. I am concerned that the subclass abilities might end up imbalanced with the right dip combo. I don't know what that combination is, but I feel like the potential is there.

From 16 on, there are no new subclass features (in any Ranger subclass), and the only remaining Ranger features are a situational boost vs. invisible enemies and the super-weak capstone of Wis to damage once per round against some enemies at 20. The 5th-level spells of "know natural stuff" and "teleport via trees" are not an enticement to stay in the class at high levels.

Once the subclass is done, what's the case for ANY ranger staying to Ranger 20 instead of multiclassing?

Let's be fair, Ranger is a disappointing class well before lvl 16. Ranger starts the disappointment train right at lvl 1.

EDIT: Like for real, ranger feels like it was balanced around the idea that favored enemy would give combat benefits (so that ranger is OP against favored enemy and weak against non-favored enemies), and then WotC just...forgot to give combat benefits. And even when revised ranger changed that, it was still kinda lame cuz that's how it goes with situational bonuses.

[Garfunion]

One more thing about the Ranger; The paladin and the barbarian are primarily melee weapon focused, why couldn’t they make the Ranger ...well ranged weapon focused?

[J-H]

First; I would like to see your werewolf Hunter archetype.
Second; Why didn’t you use the barbarian for your werewolf archetype, to me would make more sense?
Third; The Ranger class as a whole was poorly designed. There are other classes and archetypes that do a better job at being a Ranger. So many of the Ranger’s high-level abilities are worthless.

I've PM'd it to you.

The idea with this one is that it's someone who has brought his curse under control, and is disciplined and focused, rather than bestial fury. I was inspired by a description of how Cernd controlled his lycanthropy in a Baldur's Gate II fanfic long ago. He's a controlled, competent hunter who uses his abilities and senses rather than letting them rule him. Over time, he masters the curse fully and grows into the powers of a greater werewolf.

I may do two more, one for were-bear (barbarian or fighter), and one for were-rat (rogue), and put them up on DMG for $0.99 or PWYW or something.

[thereaper]

Ranger 1-5 is fine, it just kind of falls down after that. Fortunately, it multiclasses well with Rogue.

[Lille]

Why play a high-level Ranger?

It's called D&D Hard Mode.


One more thing about the Ranger; The paladin and the barbarian are primarily melee weapon focused, why couldn’t they make the Ranger ...well ranged weapon focused?

Because:
A) Building a class to almost exclusively focus on ranged combat is a fair bit different from a focus on melee combat,
B) A lot of Ranger class fantasy focuses on melee weapons, or at least mixing it up between the two, and
C) That's not why they're called "Rangers".

Edit: When I say "class fantasy", what I meant was more "media portrayals".

[AvatarVecna]

One more thing about the Ranger; The paladin and the barbarian are primarily melee weapon focused, why couldn’t they make the Ranger ...well ranged weapon focused?

Aragorn.

EDIT: On that same note, I take big issue with paladins not working with ranged stuff. Boooooo.

[Garfunion]

Because:
A) Building a class to almost exclusively focus on ranged combat is a fair bit different from a focus on melee combat,

Precisely it’ll be different something more unique to the class.



B) A lot of Ranger class fantasy focuses on melee weapons, or at least mixing it up between the two, and
Edit: When I say "class fantasy", what I meant was more "media portrayals".

Which is a misconception for 5e when other classes and archetypes can do a better job.



C) That's not why they're called "Rangers".

Just a little play on words.

[Garfunion]

Aragorn.

EDIT: On that same note, I take big issue with paladins not working with ranged stuff. Boooooo.
Regardless of what was said in the book or in the movie (for his “class”), he was/is a fighter with the outlander background. Especially for 5e.

[Lille]

Precisely it’ll be different something more unique to the class.

I agree that there should be more that's unique to Rangers, but I respectfully disagree that that is where the difference should be. Classic "uniquely Ranger-ish stuff" is more like wilderness survival, self-sufficiency, animal empathy, and similar functions. And those work fine for something that a class is focused on, except WotC isn't willing to put enough effort into this stuff for it to matter.


Which is a misconception for 5e when other classes and archetypes can do a better job.

That's part of the problem, actually. Example: Aragorn. While Aragorn mechanically might work better as a Fighter, he's much more aligned with the ideals of a Ranger, or what Rangers are often imagined or expected to be. For Fighter characters, better examples would be Boromir or Gimli. The problem is, a Ranger is most often imagined to be a certain sort of thing, and the class sort of provides that thing, just not enough.

I guess to simplify my opinion, it feels like:

P1: "Hey, I want to play a Ranger, doing Rangerly things."
P2: "Okay, but don't bother. Just be a Fighter instead."


Just a little play on words.

Alright, that's fair. I've just seen plenty of people that seem to think that's actually what it means, and that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I apologize for assuming.

[Yora]

It's not even a new thing. Rangers have always been one of the worst classes since at least 3rd edition. Perhaps even before that.
Maybe the whole concept just isn't viable as a class.

[Asisreo1]

I don't know...Rangers are the only half-caster with conjure-spells. Since they're better at a distance than cantrip-using spellcasters, being in the backline and summoning frontline helpers can be really good. They could upcast for roughly double the helpers as well, which is good.

It's also good that they are very proficient at ranged since they don't have to worry as much for losing their concentration. Lightning arrow is a good spell which upcasts quite well.

Conjure woodland beings is very good. Unlike conjure animals, there's no CR 0 fey, the lowest fey creature's CR is 1/4 and eight sprites/pixies are just amazing with all their spellcasting abilities.

Conjure volley is a huge spell. Doing 8d8 over a 40ft radius means the average damage from it would be 288 given the DMG's parameters. Of course, it really depends on the encounter but it's a huge AoE that is unique to Rangers.

Swift Quiver is a classic. You get 4 attacks similar to a fighter. Of course, the fighter gets this naturally while the Ranger casts a 5th level spell, but you're not trying to out-fighter the fighter because the fighter can't also cast spells while making two extra attacks, well unless they action surge as an eldritch knight. Spells like conjure barrage or the aforementioned conjure volley which can be cast in the same combat at level 19, means you're dishing out tons of damage.

They aren't the powerhouses like Paladins but they aren't pushovers at this level either. Just don't forget to cast spells or else you're ignoring your true defining class feature.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Assuming you're already 15 levels into Ranger, and that multiclassing is an option in your game, then basically it's the spells. Your archetype features might finish at 15th, but if you are a Gloomstalker you get Seeming for free at 17th, and a Horizon Walker will pick up Teleportation Circle instead. Both of these are powerful spells, useful out of combat even at very high levels of play, and you might not have anyone in your party with access to either. Alternatively, you could just be interested in Swift Quiver or Conjure Volley, which are both decent. As for your last three levels, you're probably better of MCing to some mix of Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, and/or Rogue.

[Kane0]

Because my Rangers (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?595643-By-request-Workshopping-another-Ranger) don't suck (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=22979639&postcount=2) :smalltongue:

I'll see myself out.

Edit: I'm interested in this subclass though, got a link?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

There is an upside to a class that doesn't give much after level 15, it means you don't have to feel bad about multiclassing, and that gives you options to customize. Fighter, rogue and druid for starters are all good 1-3 level dips for a standard dex based ranger. Combined with the fact that most campaigns never get near level 20, it's pretty okay.

If you don't meet the multiclassing requirements because you went strength or valued concentration spells over wisdom based ones, well, you're ****ed.