their only abilities are incredibly situational, their spells are lame, and your honestly better off multi-classing a druid with a fighter who has some archery buffs, its even bad when multiclass is not allowed! i have made an effort to ban rangers from my games, because unlike paladin they are beyond redemption. who agrees or dissagrees
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hello dearest adventurers! I am the Confused Introvert, i dont know too much about D&D, but im the king of oddly specific and almost useless homebrew cantraps/low level spells, and am currently working on a setting called "Illogical Wizardry" where all of my useless and somewhat absurd spells are implemented to replace the good and known ones (mage hand, fireball, vicious mockery, etc)
Hey look its a troll on the Ranger boards. If your problem was the situational abilities of the PHB those were mostly "fixed" with Tasha's. Even then the PHB Ranger Hunter is a fantastic subclass and fully capable of keeping up with any other martial class.
my 8th level Gloom Stalker Ranger, 2nd level fighter has ruined our campaign because I am able to take out pretty much any wizard, cleric, big bad guy in the 1st round sharpshooter and Alert. I always go first and almost always hit.
The Paladin is decent but cant keep up. We always have food despite never buying rations, we don’t get lost, I can track any creature and in the rare event someone like our cleric does get hurt I am a okay emergency healer. Our Paladin does love pass with out track because he can pretend to be stealthy. Spike growth is great for forcing enemies to suffer while they move very slowly.
when you know your strengths you can make any class powerful and useful or you can pretend you know and troll a board!
i seem to have annoyed the ranger playerbase... i still think multiclassing druid/fighter is better, but ill play one and get back to you all on that. also thanks for making this my most viewed and commented post here lol, its not a "troll" but its really just meant to be a grumpy "this thing kinda sucks" post.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hello dearest adventurers! I am the Confused Introvert, i dont know too much about D&D, but im the king of oddly specific and almost useless homebrew cantraps/low level spells, and am currently working on a setting called "Illogical Wizardry" where all of my useless and somewhat absurd spells are implemented to replace the good and known ones (mage hand, fireball, vicious mockery, etc)
i agree you can make a class good even if its bad, i just dont like rangers
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hello dearest adventurers! I am the Confused Introvert, i dont know too much about D&D, but im the king of oddly specific and almost useless homebrew cantraps/low level spells, and am currently working on a setting called "Illogical Wizardry" where all of my useless and somewhat absurd spells are implemented to replace the good and known ones (mage hand, fireball, vicious mockery, etc)
Hello dearest adventurers! I am the Confused Introvert, i dont know too much about D&D, but im the king of oddly specific and almost useless homebrew cantraps/low level spells, and am currently working on a setting called "Illogical Wizardry" where all of my useless and somewhat absurd spells are implemented to replace the good and known ones (mage hand, fireball, vicious mockery, etc)
i seem to have annoyed the ranger playerbase... i still think multiclassing druid/fighter is better, but ill play one and get back to you all on that. also thanks for making this my most viewed and commented post here lol, its not a "troll" but its really just meant to be a grumpy "this thing kinda sucks" post.
Pick some levels. Build a ranger at each of those levels. Build a fighter/druid at each of those levels. Give each a go at the table. Report back to us.
I agree with the vast majority of the community, though some features could do to be a bit better, there is nothing like a gloomstalker with sharpshooter. With spells like zephyr strike the ranger really gets into their own and can be incredibly powerful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Imagine a sorcerer riding a catoblepas into an epic battle to the last 30 seconds of black-heart by two steps from hell.
Some people can't handle the wiggle room in the text of the ranger mechanics. It's functional even with the strictest interpretation but with a little creativity and smart play rangers can compete any adventurer task with a decent grade.
Most people who hate rangers end up with dms use the lowest reading of the text or can't optimize around "unknown" x factors. Those x factors clearly change the combat output but can't be measured in dpr. (Fogcloud, skil checks, extra resources, space management etc.)
their only abilities are incredibly situational, their spells are lame, and your honestly better off multi-classing a druid with a fighter who has some archery buffs, its even bad when multiclass is not allowed! i have made an effort to ban rangers from my games, because unlike paladin they are beyond redemption. who agrees or dissagrees
you have made an effort to BAN RANGERS!! if your characters see the diamond that is a ranger with sharpshooter, you as a DM do not stop them. if they do so and are unhappy in their combat, their role play, their exploration or their anything, then maybe after a while with their permission you could kill off their character, but you should heavily encourage them to explore all the great things about being a ranger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Imagine a sorcerer riding a catoblepas into an epic battle to the last 30 seconds of black-heart by two steps from hell.
I'm not a ranger fan but I sat down and worked out an aasimar protector swarmkeeper (gathered swarm, Crossbow expert' archery, hunter's mark, aasamir radient, damage, etc) with all the extra damage and pushing enemies into web or spike growth or off a bridge...and it's really good.
Ranger is actually a good class, its problem is that it started out with some very bad choices for subclass: Beast Master is simply terrible, while Hunter can be good but has too many points where it's easy to accidentally mess your build up because you took an option that sounded good initially but was actually weak or at most situational.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The PHB beast master is not terrible. It was "not want people wanted", but is was and is mechanically good, strong even. Especially at and after level 11. This again comes down to tables understanding and using time, travel and travel activities, passive perception correctly, terms of engagement for combat, stealth, surprise, and tactics and reactions.
Beast Masters don't get any bonuses or advantages on any of those beyond what the base Ranger does. And the "best build" options for it usually involve grabbing specific animal companions from obscure sources like modules. And having its best power boost come online at level 11? Most campaigns are over by that point. These are all hallmarks of a bad subclass, not a good one. A good subclass does not require you to do all that in order to be viable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Hunter Rangers often choose an extra 1d8 (4.5) damage once per turn at level 3. Battle Master Fighters get 4d8 (4.5 x 4) per rest extra damage, some with little effects. A Beast Master with a wolf can get about one opportunity attack per combat by using tactical placement with the beast's free movement along with the auto dodge it gets, and that is 2d4+4 (9) once per combat (sometimes more, sometimes less, but I've never had an issue setting up at least one OA per 3-4 round combat). That is on par with the first two comparisons. Add to that that knock down and prone rider, which is most effective at tiers 1 and 2 other beasts have other rider effects
The beast also can often provoke OP from enemies (free of ranger action economy) giving the ranger and their allies a kind of disengage from time to time.
An auto dodging wolf has an effective AC of 20, which vastly exceeds that of the average if tiers 1 or 2 martial classes.
Their HP pool can be extra for the party, and is easily healed either with their hit dice or a basic level one healing spell.
The beast can provide free half cover to an archer ranger. This is often overlooked.
A wolf or other medium beast increases the movement of small rangers. All possible swim, climb, or fly (see vulture, flying medium beast) speed, making these small rangers some of the most mobile PCs.
A wolf has had an effective passive perception of 20 at tier 1, making them able to find hidden enemies almost automatically and making it almost impossible for enemies to sneak up on the party.
The list goes on. And that is just the wolf. Not the frog, spider, panther, blood hawk, vulture, or flying snake. All of which have awesome effects of their own, and some even more damage output.
their only abilities are incredibly situational, their spells are lame, and your honestly better off multi-classing a druid with a fighter who has some archery buffs, its even bad when multiclass is not allowed! i have made an effort to ban rangers from my games, because unlike paladin they are beyond redemption. who agrees or dissagrees
Hello dearest adventurers! I am the Confused Introvert, i dont know too much about D&D, but im the king of oddly specific and almost useless homebrew cantraps/low level spells, and am currently working on a setting called "Illogical Wizardry" where all of my useless and somewhat absurd spells are implemented to replace the good and known ones (mage hand, fireball, vicious mockery, etc)
You are 100% wrong on all accounts.
Wow, are we really still having this conversation?
The pot must, apparently, always be stirred.
Hey look its a troll on the Ranger boards. If your problem was the situational abilities of the PHB those were mostly "fixed" with Tasha's. Even then the PHB Ranger Hunter is a fantastic subclass and fully capable of keeping up with any other martial class.
Troll post is troll post
my 8th level Gloom Stalker Ranger, 2nd level fighter has ruined our campaign because I am able to take out pretty much any wizard, cleric, big bad guy in the 1st round sharpshooter and Alert. I always go first and almost always hit.
The Paladin is decent but cant keep up. We always have food despite never buying rations, we don’t get lost, I can track any creature and in the rare event someone like our cleric does get hurt I am a okay emergency healer. Our Paladin does love pass with out track because he can pretend to be stealthy. Spike growth is great for forcing enemies to suffer while they move very slowly.
when you know your strengths you can make any class powerful and useful or you can pretend you know and troll a board!
i seem to have annoyed the ranger playerbase... i still think multiclassing druid/fighter is better, but ill play one and get back to you all on that. also thanks for making this my most viewed and commented post here lol, its not a "troll" but its really just meant to be a grumpy "this thing kinda sucks" post.
Hello dearest adventurers! I am the Confused Introvert, i dont know too much about D&D, but im the king of oddly specific and almost useless homebrew cantraps/low level spells, and am currently working on a setting called "Illogical Wizardry" where all of my useless and somewhat absurd spells are implemented to replace the good and known ones (mage hand, fireball, vicious mockery, etc)
i agree you can make a class good even if its bad, i just dont like rangers
Hello dearest adventurers! I am the Confused Introvert, i dont know too much about D&D, but im the king of oddly specific and almost useless homebrew cantraps/low level spells, and am currently working on a setting called "Illogical Wizardry" where all of my useless and somewhat absurd spells are implemented to replace the good and known ones (mage hand, fireball, vicious mockery, etc)
i dont have tashas, i need to get it tho
Hello dearest adventurers! I am the Confused Introvert, i dont know too much about D&D, but im the king of oddly specific and almost useless homebrew cantraps/low level spells, and am currently working on a setting called "Illogical Wizardry" where all of my useless and somewhat absurd spells are implemented to replace the good and known ones (mage hand, fireball, vicious mockery, etc)
The thing is rangers aren’t bad , they are prone to being played bad. the core statistics and features are fine, the thing is they are used wrong.
Pick some levels. Build a ranger at each of those levels. Build a fighter/druid at each of those levels. Give each a go at the table. Report back to us.
I agree with the vast majority of the community, though some features could do to be a bit better, there is nothing like a gloomstalker with sharpshooter. With spells like zephyr strike the ranger really gets into their own and can be incredibly powerful.
Imagine a sorcerer riding a catoblepas into an epic battle to the last 30 seconds of black-heart by two steps from hell.
that's basically whats going on inside my head.
Some people can't handle the wiggle room in the text of the ranger mechanics. It's functional even with the strictest interpretation but with a little creativity and smart play rangers can compete any adventurer task with a decent grade.
Most people who hate rangers end up with dms use the lowest reading of the text or can't optimize around "unknown" x factors. Those x factors clearly change the combat output but can't be measured in dpr. (Fogcloud, skil checks, extra resources, space management etc.)
you have made an effort to BAN RANGERS!! if your characters see the diamond that is a ranger with sharpshooter, you as a DM do not stop them. if they do so and are unhappy in their combat, their role play, their exploration or their anything, then maybe after a while with their permission you could kill off their character, but you should heavily encourage them to explore all the great things about being a ranger.
Imagine a sorcerer riding a catoblepas into an epic battle to the last 30 seconds of black-heart by two steps from hell.
that's basically whats going on inside my head.
I'm not a ranger fan but I sat down and worked out an aasimar protector swarmkeeper (gathered swarm, Crossbow expert' archery, hunter's mark, aasamir radient, damage, etc) with all the extra damage and pushing enemies into web or spike growth or off a bridge...and it's really good.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E/RPG geek.
Ranger is actually a good class, its problem is that it started out with some very bad choices for subclass: Beast Master is simply terrible, while Hunter can be good but has too many points where it's easy to accidentally mess your build up because you took an option that sounded good initially but was actually weak or at most situational.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The PHB beast master is not terrible. It was "not want people wanted", but is was and is mechanically good, strong even. Especially at and after level 11. This again comes down to tables understanding and using time, travel and travel activities, passive perception correctly, terms of engagement for combat, stealth, surprise, and tactics and reactions.
Beast Masters don't get any bonuses or advantages on any of those beyond what the base Ranger does. And the "best build" options for it usually involve grabbing specific animal companions from obscure sources like modules. And having its best power boost come online at level 11? Most campaigns are over by that point. These are all hallmarks of a bad subclass, not a good one. A good subclass does not require you to do all that in order to be viable.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Hunter Rangers often choose an extra 1d8 (4.5) damage once per turn at level 3. Battle Master Fighters get 4d8 (4.5 x 4) per rest extra damage, some with little effects. A Beast Master with a wolf can get about one opportunity attack per combat by using tactical placement with the beast's free movement along with the auto dodge it gets, and that is 2d4+4 (9) once per combat (sometimes more, sometimes less, but I've never had an issue setting up at least one OA per 3-4 round combat). That is on par with the first two comparisons. Add to that that knock down and prone rider, which is most effective at tiers 1 and 2 other beasts have other rider effects
The beast also can often provoke OP from enemies (free of ranger action economy) giving the ranger and their allies a kind of disengage from time to time.
An auto dodging wolf has an effective AC of 20, which vastly exceeds that of the average if tiers 1 or 2 martial classes.
Their HP pool can be extra for the party, and is easily healed either with their hit dice or a basic level one healing spell.
The beast can provide free half cover to an archer ranger. This is often overlooked.
A wolf or other medium beast increases the movement of small rangers. All possible swim, climb, or fly (see vulture, flying medium beast) speed, making these small rangers some of the most mobile PCs.
A wolf has had an effective passive perception of 20 at tier 1, making them able to find hidden enemies almost automatically and making it almost impossible for enemies to sneak up on the party.
The list goes on. And that is just the wolf. Not the frog, spider, panther, blood hawk, vulture, or flying snake. All of which have awesome effects of their own, and some even more damage output.