Ranger 4th level spells: Hot Mess?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

So one of our group who has been a player in 5e and has always wanted to play tier 4 while me and our other DM pack in the campaigns when the published adventures wrap up (levels 11 to 16ish) is going to attempt to DM us from level 15 up. I think he is going to homebrew some stuff and suppliment with some of the dungeons from Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Not sure how long this will go.

Anyway, rather than starting from scratch I was going to use one of my old characters and re-tweak if necessary. I have a Gloomstalker 9/ Battlemaster 4/Rogue 1, which functioned well until retirement. I liked the spellcasting and versatility of being a 5th level caster, so don't really want to re-jig the thing entirely and just go Gloomstalker 3, but as I started looking at the 4th level ranger spells I remembered why I (and pretty much everyone else on the forum) dumps Ranger and multi-classes. The spells are generally pretty niche and/ or concentrations that I can't say are a whole lot better than Hunter's Mark. And that's after basically taking a dead level 10. Anybody actually played a 13th plus level Ranger and got much use out of the 4th level spells?

Failing one of you providing some rationalle for taking a bunch more Ranger levels I'm thinking I might just pick up where I left off and take Rogue 2, with a view to getting Assassin 3. Or I could talk to the DM and see if he will let me take a feat instead of the dead multi-attack from Fighter 5; then it might be worth getting more BM levels.
Thoughts?

[MrStabby]

Some of the ranger options can be good at high levels... depending on campaign. Things like the monster slayer ranger actually becomes pretty cool.

That said, they are short on cool spells and many of them do come from within a subclass list.

If you want level 4 spells but find them underwhelming from the ranger list then there are options like the Ravnica backgrounds and the Eberron races that can open new possibilities.

[Witty Username]

Conjure woodland beings looks like fun. And I have heard good things about Guardian of Nature and summon elemental. The list is definitely short though.

All martial characters have issues at high levels (except maybe paladin), the scaling of high level abilities is just out of whack for them. And the front loading of abilities makes dipping profitable in most cases. But that doesn't mean a high level ranger can't be effective, they have some nice spells on their list overall.

P.S. Gloomstalker, Fey Wanderer and Swarmkeeper are probably the best candidates. Horizon walker's distant strike may be worth it on an archer build.

[TyGuy]

The spells are generally pretty niche and/ or concentrations that I can't say are a whole lot better than Hunter's Mark.

You think summon elemental or greater invisibility aren't a whole lot better than HM?

In your DM's shoes I would consider reinstating the UA of HM charges that are spell slot and concentration free. It's not that rangers don't have great concentration spells, it's that they feel naked without HM.

[Dr. Cliché]

Looking at the spells it seems a pretty nice selection to me. Freedom of Movement is nice utility, Conjure Woodland Beings and Summon Elemental are both very good, Guardian of Nature isn't amazing but could be quite fluffy.

It's not a massive selection but it hardly seems devoid of decent spells.

[Person_Man]

I dislike half casters precisely because of this problem. When you compare them to most other classes at levels 10+, especially full casters, they usually get less.

A fairly simple solution is to give them more class exclusive spells that are roughly on par with what full casters get around the same level. You just have to abolish the Lore Bard, and any other splat book material that borrows spells.

[PhantomSoul]

I dislike half casters precisely because of this problem. When you compare them to most other classes at levels 10+, especially full casters, they usually get less.

A fairly simple solution is to give them more class exclusive spells that are roughly on par with what full casters get around the same level. You just have to abolish the Lore Bard, and any other splat book material that borrows spells.

And the whole Bard Magical Secrets thing, which, really, seems fair in those circumstances.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I hate to say this, but... this was something that 3.5E did right when it came to spellcasters, at least for a while (before introducing class like the Archivist).

[Dr. Cliché]

A fairly simple solution is to give them more class exclusive spells that are roughly on par with what full casters get around the same level. You just have to abolish the Lore Bard, and any other splat book material that borrows spells.

I don't know if this would work as an alternative, but the PF Summoner is a 2/3 caster (IIRC) but it gets some spells at lower levels than normal casters. e.g. it gets Haste as a Lv2 spell.

Could something like this work for Rangers?


Regardless, I'm curious to hear what sort of exclusive spells you have in mind.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I don't know if this would work as an alternative, but the PF Summoner is a 2/3 caster (IIRC) but it gets some spells at lower levels than normal casters. e.g. it gets Haste as a Lv2 spell.

Could something like this work for Rangers?


Regardless, I'm curious to hear what sort of exclusive spells you have in mind.

This was pretty standard for 3.X design, but as 5e is set up it wouldn't really work, especially with multiclass casters and/or spell poaching from Bards. For reference, 3rd edition Bards were 2/3 casters (but with full caster level), but still got access to spells like Otto's Irresistible Dance, Mass Charm Monster, or Greater Shout as 6th level spells, instead of 8th level spells like they'd be for Sorcerers and Wizards. Then again, the standard move for many was to go into the Sublime Chord PrC and get the best of both worlds, with lower spell level access for these spells and others, and still getting access to 9th level spells.

As to OP: there are still some pretty great 4th level Ranger spells, including Greater Invisibility for Gloomstalkers as discussed, but also Freedom of Movement as a good contingency option, or Conjure Woodland Beings if your table is amenable to pixie swarms.

[Person_Man]

I don't know if this would work as an alternative, but the PF Summoner is a 2/3 caster (IIRC) but it gets some spells at lower levels than normal casters. e.g. it gets Haste as a Lv2 spell.

Could something like this work for Rangers?


Regardless, I'm curious to hear what sort of exclusive spells you have in mind.

I’m just going off of pure memory because I don’t feel like digging my older books out of the basement, but 3.5 had the Spell Compendium with a few really good Ranger and Paladin exclusive spells, and Pathfinder did it well too. Tome of Battle had lots of cool maneuvers you could borrow (though in both cases you’d obviously have to fix the math for 5E).

I also really like the idea given above that half casters could get spells at a lower level than full casters. Particularly anything related to nature ribbons/roleplaying, healing, and utility spells in general (as opposed to blasting, save or lose, summons) could easily be one or two levels lower for the Ranger.

[MrStabby]

I think half casters get by as 1) some spells don't drop off with higher level play (command can still shut down an enemy on a failed wisdom save for example, irrespective of CR), and

2) bonus action spells are better for half casters. For a caster the best use of an action is then a cantrip. For a half caster a bonus action spell and an attack action is still a powerful move.

3) utility is always good. Identify or detect magic doesn't get old and isnt done better by a full caster.

[PhantomSoul]

3) utility is always good. Identify or detect magic doesn't get old and isnt done better by a full caster.

Those examples might not be the best ones though; all but one full caster gets Ritual Casting to cast those spells without a spell slot, and all full casters get more spell slots for a given character level if they don't want to cast the spell ritually.

[TyGuy]

A fairly simple solution is to give them more class exclusive spells that are roughly on par with what full casters get around the same level.

For those wondering. Each class has the following number of exclusive spells on their list (pre-Tasha's).
Bard: 4
Cleric: 28
Druid: 22
Paladin: 19
Ranger: 9
Sorcerer: 1
Warlock: 7
Wizard: 40

[ImproperJustice]

I enjoyed making people’s jaw drop when my Monster Slayer Ranger would Banish something.

But that is kinda niche’ and mostly based on the fact that no one plays Monster Slayers, even though I find their spell selection and abilities pretty spiffy, especially in a Curse of Strahd Campaign.

Wind Wall and upcasting Conjure Woodland critters is pretty worthwhile.

I liked the Guardian Spell too.

Maybe it’s me, but I don’t worship at the altar of Hunter’s Mark and seem to have way more fun with my rangers as a skirmish fighter using things like a whip and Zephyr Strike.

[MrStabby]

Those examples might not be the best ones though; all but one full caster gets Ritual Casting to cast those spells without a spell slot, and all full casters get more spell slots for a given character level if they don't want to cast the spell ritually.

I am not sure which is the "one" full caster you are referencing. Sorcerers and warlocks do not by default get ritual casting. Bards do... but have a relatively tight set of spells known and using one to pick up a bunch of utility spells isn't always their idea of a fun game. Cleric and druid don't have identify on their spell list.

[PhantomSoul]

I am not sure which is the "one" full caster you are referencing. Sorcerers and warlocks do not by default get ritual casting. Bards do... but have a relatively tight set of spells known and using one to pick up a bunch of utility spells isn't always their idea of a fun game. Cleric and druid don't have identify on their spell list.

True, I should've caveat-ed better.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

You think summon elemental or greater invisibility aren't a whole lot better than HM?

In your DM's shoes I would consider reinstating the UA of HM charges that are spell slot and concentration free. It's not that rangers don't have great concentration spells, it's that they feel naked without HM.

I guess I'm thinking of a few things with that comment. First Paladins get an iconic spell like Find Greater Steed. Also they can just plain smite if nothing else appeals to them at the time. And that is part of the issue with Rangers: the comparisons to Paladins, and to a lesser extent EKs who by level 13 have 3 attacks per round and 3rd level spells like Haste. Second, the spells I get the most use out of are HM and Pass without Trace, both of which can last an hour (or 2-4 encounters). Third, the 3rd level spells include Plant Growth, which is non-concentration and can be really useful, and Fear, which can also pack a punch. And I guess last, in order to get one casting of these I need to wait 4 levels from my current level 9, which seems a lot by tier 3 (consider what 4 levels of fighter and/or rogue would do).
So by comparison the first thing with Greater Invisibility is the duration. Secondly, the gloomstalker is very adept at being unseen and getting advantage. As a result I'm able to get where I need to go most of the time and don't miss much anyway. Would I cast it and take the damage loss from not having HM up? Yes if I had it, but it'd be pretty situational.
Summon Elemental? Well it's decent at level 7 when the Druid I was just DMing got it. He mostly stopped using it by level 11, and I'm not sure by level 13 it'd be a lot better than just buffing myself.

As per your suggestion, should HM be concentration free? Yes, I think that would help some of the other issues I mentioned. When every other higher level concentration spell is a trade off they just don't look that good. And it might get people playing single classed Rangers, though I could also imagine Ranger would be more attractive as a dip for other casters as well.
I think I've largely talked myself into re-starting this character as a Gloomstalker 9/ BM 3/ Assassin 3 and taking Rogue levels if we continue on.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I enjoyed making people’s jaw drop when my Monster Slayer Ranger would Banish something.

But that is kinda niche’ and mostly based on the fact that no one plays Monster Slayers, even though I find their spell selection and abilities pretty spiffy, especially in a Curse of Strahd Campaign.

Wind Wall and upcasting Conjure Woodland critters is pretty worthwhile.

I liked the Guardian Spell too.

Maybe it’s me, but I don’t worship at the altar of Hunter’s Mark and seem to have way more fun with my rangers as a skirmish fighter using things like a whip and Zephyr Strike.

I don't know about worshiping at any altars, but the big benefit for me of HM (and Pass Without Trace) is the duration. As I mentioned in my reply to another poster, I can potentially get benefit through several encounters with one of these, which enables me to use other slots for utility, healing, etc.

[Theodoxus]

Instead of trying to design a different ability for Bards in lieu of Magical Secrets, seems the easiest solution would be to grant them access only to full caster spell lists. This gets rid of the Find (Greater) Steed stealing from Paladins as well as the Swift Quiver cheese et al from Rangers. (I don't think Artificers get anything unique, spell-wise, but I'm sure some "Big Book of Spells" will materialize someday, so let's be forward thinking.

That change would allow both Paladins (who don't really need it, but it won't hurt) and Rangers (and I guess theoretically Artificers) to obtain "over powered for their level" spells sans worry about another class cheapening them by stealing their thunder earlier.

Magical Secrets would be written thusly:
"By 10th level, you have plundered magical knowledge from a wide spectrum of disciplines. Choose two spells from any of the following classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock or Wizard. A spell you choose must be of a level you can cast, as shown on the Bard table, or a cantrip. The chosen spells count as bard spells for you and are included in the number in the Spells Known column of the Bard table.
You learn two additional spells from any of the referenced classes at 14th level and again at 18th level."

[Misery Esquire]

I think I've largely talked myself into re-starting this character as a Gloomstalker 9/ BM 3/ Assassin 3 and taking Rogue levels if we continue on.

If you're playing the Sharpshooter 400' sniper version of GS/F/Assassin one spell of note is Hail of Thorns. Not because it's particularly impressive, but because it's one of few range agnostic damage buffs that you can cast. That you can upcast from its SL1 slot for more d10s, if you really want.

[Kane0]

4th level Ranger spells, hmm, by my count that's a whopping total of... eight options.

Conjure Woodland beings is pretty good
Dominate Beast isn't great at the stage you get it due to lack of higher CR beasts, and your average save DC
Freedom of Movement isn't terrible, but cuts into your damage output
Grasping Vine is not a great option for its level
Guardian of Nature is interesting but suffers from similar issues to Tenser's Transformation
Locate Creature could be useful if nobody else in the party has access to it, and the campaign calls for it, and you can swap spells around with Tasha's
Stoneskin is pretty terrible
Summon Elemental is pretty good.

So you have two decent summons, a utility spell that you might want to pick up and a buff or two that might have some payoff. I wouldn't call it a hot mess but there is room for improvement.

[Dr. Cliché]

The earlier comparison to Paladin makes me wonder - should Rangers have something else to spend spell slots on?

Like a version of Smite (so that they have a more martial use for spell slots if the spells themselves aren't up to scratch)? Maybe something with less damage but some utility - allowing them a free move or somesuch?



Instead of trying to design a different ability for Bards in lieu of Magical Secrets, seems the easiest solution would be to grant them access only to full caster spell lists. This gets rid of the Find (Greater) Steed stealing from Paladins as well as the Swift Quiver cheese et al from Rangers. (I don't think Artificers get anything unique, spell-wise, but I'm sure some "Big Book of Spells" will materialize someday, so let's be forward thinking.

That change would allow both Paladins (who don't really need it, but it won't hurt) and Rangers (and I guess theoretically Artificers) to obtain "over powered for their level" spells sans worry about another class cheapening them by stealing their thunder earlier.

Magical Secrets would be written thusly:
"By 10th level, you have plundered magical knowledge from a wide spectrum of disciplines. Choose two spells from any of the following classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock or Wizard. A spell you choose must be of a level you can cast, as shown on the Bard table, or a cantrip. The chosen spells count as bard spells for you and are included in the number in the Spells Known column of the Bard table.
You learn two additional spells from any of the referenced classes at 14th level and again at 18th level."

I like this idea.

Though, as an aside, I always thought it was really weird that Bards get to pick spells from other lists but Warlocks don't. Especially since Bards can even take Warlock spells.

'So how did you learn to cast these forbidden spells?'
'I made a pact with Xaphrelion, Dread Fiend of the Outer Reaches. He has granted me this great and terrible power, knowing that when I die my soul will be his to torment for an eternity! What about you? What dark and terrible being did you forge a pact with to gain this knowledge?'
'Me? I learned that power just by playing a flute really well.'
'. . .'

[Theodoxus]

Though, as an aside, I always thought it was really weird that Bards get to pick spells from other lists but Warlocks don't. Especially since Bards can even take Warlock spells.

'So how did you learn to cast these forbidden spells?'
'I made a pact with Xaphrelion, Dread Fiend of the Outer Reaches. He has granted me this great and terrible power, knowing that when I die my soul will be his to torment for an eternity! What about you? What dark and terrible being did you forge a pact with to gain this knowledge?'
'Me? I learned that power just by playing a flute really well.'
'. . .'

Yeah... it would not take a lot of convincing for me to remove Warlock from that list... My singular consideration was the fact that a Bard stealing the spell from a Warlock still places it at the same level for both classes... but I think you're right - heck, next time I have a Bard in a game I run, if they grab a Warlock spell with Magical Secrets, they might be getting an extra special visitor or twelve demanding payment for stolen valor.

[Gignere]

Yeah... it would not take a lot of convincing for me to remove Warlock from that list... My singular consideration was the fact that a Bard stealing the spell from a Warlock still places it at the same level for both classes... but I think you're right - heck, next time I have a Bard in a game I run, if they grab a Warlock spell with Magical Secrets, they might be getting an extra special visitor or twelve demanding payment for stolen valor.

Orpheus used his music to convince Hades to part with a soul. How hard is it to believe that a high level bard used his music and enticed a demonlord to teach him a spell or two?

[quindraco]

The earlier comparison to Paladin makes me wonder - should Rangers have something else to spend spell slots on?

Like a version of Smite (so that they have a more martial use for spell slots if the spells themselves aren't up to scratch)? Maybe something with less damage but some utility - allowing them a free move or somesuch?

Yeah, it's extremely noticeable that Paladins, Moon Druids, and Bladesingers all have ways to just consume slots for non-spells, but Rangers have nothing, with no clear reason why not. I think this would go a long way to making Rangers feel better about having to choose between Extra Attack and spellcasting.

[ImproperJustice]

I don't know about worshiping at any altars, but the big benefit for me of HM (and Pass Without Trace) is the duration. As I mentioned in my reply to another poster, I can potentially get benefit through several encounters with one of these, which enables me to use other slots for utility, healing, etc.

Apologies, I kinda sounded aggressive with the altar comment.

I think I have experienced at a few tables, Rangers who seem to feel compelled to use HM or else their DPS will suffer and they all seem to have this similar miserable expression on their faces.

However, I am glad it serves you well. It’s not my jam, because it feels boring to me, but I respect the extended duration idea.

I don’t think I have ever run out of spells really as a Ranger, and even if I did I probably can still kill things pretty good without them.

But usually my casting would be something like Zephyr strike or Protection from Evil for a whole battle, maybe Wind Wall for one whole battle or Banishment for one whole battle, and there just isn’t that many fights in a day for our groups.

But if you are having long adventuring days that may be more your jam.

[Witty Username]

The earlier comparison to Paladin makes me wonder - should Rangers have something else to spend spell slots on?

Like a version of Smite (so that they have a more martial use for spell slots if the spells themselves aren't up to scratch)? Maybe something with less damage but some utility - allowing them a free move or somesuch?

They do, its called Primeval Awareness, the problem is it sucks. Primal Awareness does a better job, being a set of utility spells on hand to do similar things but better (I would have picked different spells in places but it does its job).

If you are thinking more combat applicable, main lining a Zephyr Strike type effect would probably be best. Or maybe a skill boost, like the soulknife Psi-blolstered knack but using a spell slot. reward use of stealth or athletics mechanics.

[Theodoxus]

Orpheus used his music to convince Hades to part with a soul. How hard is it to believe that a high level bard used his music and enticed a demonlord to teach him a spell or two?

Not hard at all. But something that epic should also not be relegated to downtime handwavium shenanigans. And even so, the demonlord may well have rivals who will be miffed that their super secret he-man girl haters club got infiltrated and tricked into divulging said secret. A Pact creates a bond. Stolen magic creates a problem. I'd probably make a sliding scale. Demons, GOOs and evil Fey would probably all be interested if one of their own started giving away the store for a song. Devils, Genies and good Fey would be less inclined.

Not saying I would do this - honestly, I tend to forget about Pacts and the RP potential therein, so I'm far more likely to also ignore this - but if I were a better DM, both would be more impactful in my games.

[MrStabby]

Instead of trying to design a different ability for Bards in lieu of Magical Secrets, seems the easiest solution would be to grant them access only to full caster spell lists. This gets rid of the Find (Greater) Steed stealing from Paladins as well as the Swift Quiver cheese et al from Rangers. (I don't think Artificers get anything unique, spell-wise, but I'm sure some "Big Book of Spells" will materialize someday, so let's be forward thinking.

That change would allow both Paladins (who don't really need it, but it won't hurt) and Rangers (and I guess theoretically Artificers) to obtain "over powered for their level" spells sans worry about another class cheapening them by stealing their thunder earlier.

Magical Secrets would be written thusly:
"By 10th level, you have plundered magical knowledge from a wide spectrum of disciplines. Choose two spells from any of the following classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock or Wizard. A spell you choose must be of a level you can cast, as shown on the Bard table, or a cantrip. The chosen spells count as bard spells for you and are included in the number in the Spells Known column of the Bard table.
You learn two additional spells from any of the referenced classes at 14th level and again at 18th level."

If there were to be a rework I would say this is the first ability that should be up for a change. The bard spell list is very light on spells that don't appear on other classes spell lists (only compulsion comes to mind) so adding class abilities to get extra spells that come from another class list... it just further fails to build the bard's own identity as a class. It is a missed opportunity to have something bardic rather than generic caster-ish.

[Theodoxus]

OTOH, Bard's are the epitome of "master of none". They're skilled, but not as good as a Rogue. They're healers, but not as good as Clerics or Druids. They're skirmishers, but not as good as Rangers. They're arcanists, but not as good as Sorcerers or Wizards. Their lack of unique spells is a feature, not a bug. Borrowing spells is likewise a direct callback to the master of none premise.

[MrStabby]

OTOH, Bard's are the epitome of "master of none". They're skilled, but not as good as a Rogue. They're healers, but not as good as Clerics or Druids. They're skirmishers, but not as good as Rangers. They're arcanists, but not as good as Sorcerers or Wizards. Their lack of unique spells is a feature, not a bug. Borrowing spells is likewise a direct callback to the master of none premise.

I guess I am not saying it is a poor execution of a good idea, more an OK execution of a bad idea. It is the concept of a class where its power comes from what other classes do that I would say is flawed.

I think your perspective is a missed opportunity though. Bards could be so flavourful and could have their own, very evocative magic. A few decent unique spells of their own would be (to me) so much more flavourful than picking up a couple of spells from any class, but maybe thats just me.

Honestly I think there is an overlap in problem with the ranger spells. Paladins get some good paladin only spells (find (greater) steed, wrathful smite). The ranger spells that are ranger only and good are basically hunters mark... and this doesn't feel like it adds to the class identity in a way that find steed does. Some ranger spells that could change the way the class plays would really help. Between mediocrity, overlap with other classes and spells being a pretty passive and unexciting bump the ranger really suffers - if not for power then at least for fun.

[meandean]

The ranger spells that are ranger only and good are basically hunters mark... and this doesn't feel like it adds to the class identity in a way that find steed does.Probably because the "advantage on tracking" part rarely comes into play. What if the concentration part was the damage buff, and you also got the non-concentration benefit that you simply just know the target's location on this plane, within a certain range of error, and for a certain duration (at least a day).

(You could say that if you then hunter's mark someone else, that means the Spider-Tracer transfers to the new target. Or, you could give the player the option to either just take the damage buff, or to do both parts of the spell and also move over the tracer.)

[Zuras]

I don’t know about “hot mess”, but the spell selection is terrible compared to Paladins, who get Find Greater Steed, Banishment, and two Auras that can completely turn around fights against specific foes. Had one campaign where Aura of Life was the MVP for at least four sessions.

Freedom of movement is a fine buff for a high level druid, when your concentration is more precious than your 4th level spell slots. For a Ranger it’s usually a waste. Most of them are hardly worth preparing—you’re probably better off knowing a situational utility spell and using Hunter's Mark, Hail of Thorns or Lightning Arrow for boosting damage.

What the Ranger really needs is better upcasting options for its bonus action attack spells. If, instead of doing an extra d6 damage, ensnaring strike let you make an extra attack with the restrain effect or added an area effect, or a 4th level spell that combined the effects of a mid sized AoE and left an area with a Spike Growth effect, the casting options wouldn’t feel so underwhelming.

Basically there’s no way for a half caster to compete with a full caster except by self buffs (which are generally more effective, like an EK using Blur when your base AC is 18 and you have proficiency in CON saves without needing a feat) or spells with good action economy (that let them use multiattack while casting).

[MrStabby]

I don’t know about “hot mess”, but the spell selection is terrible compared to Paladins, who get Find Greater Steed, Banishment, and two Auras that can completely turn around fights against specific foes. Had one campaign where Aura of Life was the MVP for at least four sessions.

Freedom of movement is a fine buff for a high level druid, when your concentration is more precious than your 4th level spell slots. For a Ranger it’s usually a waste. Most of them are hardly worth preparing—you’re probably better off prepping the situational utility spells and using Hunter's Mark, Hail of Thorns or Lightning Arrow for boosting damage.

What the Ranger really needs is better upcasting options for its bonus action attack spells. If, instead of doing an extra d6 damage, ensnaring strike let you make an extra attack with the restrain effect or added an area effect, or a 4th level spell that combined the effects of a mid sized AoE and left an area with a Spike Growth effect, the casting options wouldn’t feel so underwhelming.

Basically there’s no way for a half caster to compete with a full caster except by self buffs (which are generally more effective, like an EK using Blur when your base AC is 18 and you have proficiency in CON saves without needing a feat) or spells with good action economy (that let them use multiattack while casting).

Ensnaring stike actually becomes OK when upcast.

Hitting a wizard with it then running away can be moderately effective. Doing a few d6 damage per turn till they pass a strength check can be significant and, if nothing else, a lot of chances to break concentration.

[Zuras]

Ensnaring stike actually becomes OK when upcast.

Hitting a wizard with it then running away can be moderately effective. Doing a few d6 damage per turn till they pass a strength check can be significant and, if nothing else, a lot of chances to break concentration.

Ensnaring strike is better at higher levels, but I’d argue it’s less about upcasting and more about having more known spells so using a slot on a situational one (since bad STR saves aren’t that common) is less problematic. In general the Ranger’s “shoot and arrow and do something cool” spells are fine, they just seem to have run out of ideas before 4th level, and apparently did not realize that the known spells restriction would be so painful. Additional upcasting improvements to the existing spells would have helped the issue.

[MrStabby]

Ensnaring strike is better at higher levels, but I’d argue it’s less about upcasting and more about having more known spells so using a slot on a situational one (since bad STR saves aren’t that common) is less problematic. In general the Ranger’s “shoot and arrow and do something cool” spells are fine, they just seem to have run out of ideas before 4th level, and apparently did not realize that the known spells restriction would be so painful. Additional upcasting improvements to the existing spells would have helped the issue.

For me the pain is concentration. If you go for ensnaring strike then you can't have hunter's mark. With the extended duration of hunter's mark at higher levels it is a real pain to drop it for another effect.

[stoutstien]

For me the pain is concentration. If you go for ensnaring strike then you can't have hunter's mark. With the extended duration of hunter's mark at higher levels it is a real pain to drop it for another effect.

I think that the flaw ranger has is that players look at it like a striker or damage dealer when in play they are better served focusing on control and debuffing.

[MrStabby]

I think that the flaw ranger has is that players look at it like a striker or damage dealer when in play they are better served focusing on control and debuffing.

I don't think the players can really be blamed for this. The class features are rich in damage boosting effects, the spells are rich in damage effects...

And they have fewer opportunities to act as a controller/debuffer than ANY caster class (due to fewer spell slots and fewer different ability scores targetted), are worse at it than a monk, tend to be dex focussed so are less of a grappler. Given where the ranger ranks in terms of debuffing/controling capabilities I would be surprised at people expecting to play them that way.

[stoutstien]

I don't think the players can really be blamed for this. The class features are rich in damage boosting effects, the spells are rich in damage effects...

And they have fewer opportunities to act as a controller/debuffer than ANY caster class (due to fewer spell slots and fewer different ability scores targetted), are worse at it than a monk, tend to be dex focussed so are less of a grappler. Given where the ranger ranks in terms of debuffing/controling capabilities I would be surprised at people expecting to play them that way.

it is a flaw of the game from a presentation and implication of some of the classes. its jarring when you realize wizards make for better tanks than the traditional classes that are fit up for the job.

[Dr. Cliché]

OTOH, Bard's are the epitome of "master of none". They're skilled, but not as good as a Rogue.

But they are as good as a Rogue. Both get Expertise (because Bards are apparently experts in addition to being jacks of all trades) and they even get the same number of Expertise skills. :smallconfused:

[PhantomSoul]

But they are as good as a Rogue. Both get Expertise (because Bards are apparently experts in addition to being jacks of all trades) and they even get the same number of Expertise skills. :smallconfused:

One of my biggest gripes with the Bard Class is what a thematic mess that is. (And then they add in full spellcasting with steal-your-spells to boot... Seems pretty much EXACTLY like a master of everything!)

[GeneralVryth]

One of my biggest gripes with the Bard Class is what a thematic mess that is. (And then they add in full spellcasting with steal-your-spells to boot... Seems pretty much EXACTLY like a master of everything!)

Except they really aren't masters of everything though. I am not sure you can actually name anything they are the masters of above anyone else. What they seem to be is an actual effective implementation of the Jack of All Trades concept because they come close to the masters in almost every category while never really surpassing them.

[PhantomSoul]

Except they really aren't masters of everything though. I am not sure you can actually name anything they are the masters of above anyone else. What they seem to be is an actual effective implementation of the Jack of All Trades concept because they come close to the masters in almost every category while never really surpassing them.

They literally get Expertise, making them equal to rogues (though rogues get a floor removal feature if at high levels and a ceiling guarantee feature at their capstone), and better than everyone else even at others' thematic skills. They're at the maximum for caster type (but I guess maybe you're including that some-but-not-all casters get things like Arcane Recover?), and as a bonus can steal spells from other classes (to make it worse, getting half-caster spells before half-casters). They neither seem nor (from experience) feel Master of None to me in the least, and the best counter-arguments to myself that I'm seeing are their spell list (e.g. healing but not all healing), but they can steal spells so they can be the masters at that too.

[J-H]

Guardian of Nature has good synergy with Elven Accuracy. You get automatic advantage on all your Dex-based attack rolls... and you have advantage on CON saves to keep your Concentration up. Unfortunately it also conflicts with Swift Quiver or Wrath of Nature, which are pretty nice 5th level spells.

For what it's worth, 8th level spells for Clerics and Wizards is pretty limited too. A quick look through the list says the only ones I'm interested in are Illusory Dragon, Power Word Stun, Mind Blank, and Sunburst. The others are either very situational or are best applied to shape a mass battle (Tsunami, Mighty Fortress, Incendiary Cloud, Feeblemind, Earthquake, Control Weather).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I don’t know about “hot mess”, but the spell selection is terrible compared to Paladins, who get Find Greater Steed, Banishment, and two Auras that can completely turn around fights against specific foes. Had one campaign where Aura of Life was the MVP for at least four sessions.

Freedom of movement is a fine buff for a high level druid, when your concentration is more precious than your 4th level spell slots. For a Ranger it’s usually a waste. Most of them are hardly worth preparing—you’re probably better off knowing a situational utility spell and using Hunter's Mark, Hail of Thorns or Lightning Arrow for boosting damage.

What the Ranger really needs is better upcasting options for its bonus action attack spells. If, instead of doing an extra d6 damage, ensnaring strike let you make an extra attack with the restrain effect or added an area effect, or a 4th level spell that combined the effects of a mid sized AoE and left an area with a Spike Growth effect, the casting options wouldn’t feel so underwhelming.

Basically there’s no way for a half caster to compete with a full caster except by self buffs (which are generally more effective, like an EK using Blur when your base AC is 18 and you have proficiency in CON saves without needing a feat) or spells with good action economy (that let them use multiattack while casting).
You seem to be of a similar point of view to me (and I kind of threw in the 'hot mess' title to stimulate discussion). It's not just the mediocre spells.
The most direct comparison is Paladin where some spells are good and thematic, as well as the great Paladin auras. The 10 level Ranger ability, 'hide in plain sight' is just horrible, and the new Tasha's ability could be ok if you don't have a way to get temp. HP regularly. However, there are so many updated ways to get temp. HP that you might not get much use out of this either.
I could see upcasting Aid actually if I was going to keep my character going past 9th in Ranger. And I think you are spot-on with the actual problems with the spells: no real improvements in buffs, lack of good upcasting options, spells that come online too late to be good, nothing really iconic Ranger, and use of concentration. I'd also say the Ranger struggles not only to compete with full casters by tier 3; it also struggles to compete with Fighters once they get their 3rd attack, particularly EK once they get 3rd level spells.
I think some of the updates have helped Rangers through tier 2, but after that they are still going to struggle.

[GeneralVryth]

They literally get Expertise, making them equal to rogues (though rogues get a floor removal feature if at high levels and a ceiling guarantee feature at their capstone), and better than everyone else even at others' thematic skills. They're at the maximum for caster type (but I guess maybe you're including that some-but-not-all casters get things like Arcane Recover?), and as a bonus can steal spells from other classes (to make it worse, getting half-caster spells before half-casters). They neither seem nor (from experience) feel Master of None to me in the least, and the best counter-arguments to myself that I'm seeing are their spell list (e.g. healing but not all healing), but they can steal spells so they can be the masters at that too.

Yeah Bards and Rogues both get Expertise, but Rogues get an additional skill, they get expertise earlier, they get reliable talent (which is probably one of the best skill features in the game), and then as a capstone Rogues can essentially say "I Win" to 1 skill check per short rest no questions asked. The only things Bards have to match that (outside of spells, which is a decent sized bag of tricks admittedly) is Jack of All Trades, and maybe a subclass bonus here or there.

If you want to look at casters. A bard is never going to beat a Life Domain Cleric at healing, that should be pretty self evident. The same goes for Bards trying to out damage any of several Arcane casters (Evocation wizards will roast them, so will several Sorcerers and Warlocks). The control department is the one area where they have a chance, but even there they will never have the breadth of options to match to a situation like a Wizard, or the metamagic backing of a Sorcerer. Even when it comes to buffing fellow party members very little can trump the Twin Spell metamagic.

The place where Bards excel past all comers is when they try and cover several niches. You aren't going to find a better skill user, sword fighter, and spell caster rolled into one than a Swords or Valor bard. That is what well built Jack of All Trades is suppose to be like.

The main weird edge case are spells that are more or less meant to be class features but were just made into spells for convenience. Find Familiar, Hex, Hunter's Mark, Eldritch Blast, Find Steed/Greater Steed etc... The solution is to either make them real class features or mark with them with a tag indicating them as such which means they can't be copied/emulated by other things without explicit permission.

[Person_Man]

They literally get Expertise, making them equal to rogues (though rogues get a floor removal feature if at high levels and a ceiling guarantee feature at their capstone), and better than everyone else even at others' thematic skills. They're at the maximum for caster type (but I guess maybe you're including that some-but-not-all casters get things like Arcane Recover?), and as a bonus can steal spells from other classes (to make it worse, getting half-caster spells before half-casters). They neither seem nor (from experience) feel Master of None to me in the least, and the best counter-arguments to myself that I'm seeing are their spell list (e.g. healing but not all healing), but they can steal spells so they can be the masters at that too.

I agree.

My observation it that the 5E Bard is an overreaction to the 3.5 Bard and 2nd ED Bard, where they were seen as sub-par unless you used splat books. (Though with splat prestige classes or kits they were easily among the strongest). Bards also get a bad rap in most video games and popular culture in general.

And my recollection from 5E play test was that the initial Bards were somewhat weaker, but players posted feedback saying “but MY Bard in previous editions could do X! Why are you ruining my childhood!” So they just kept adding options.

Magical Secrets is really the biggest offender. Its not a bad idea to allow Bards to borrow spells from other classes. But it should come with some modest drawback or restrictions.