Personally, I think the best way to fix Ranger would be to scrap the whole class and rebuild it from the ground up as a pure martial class without innate access to magic, though they could still have abilities we would classify as supernatural. We could then make Divine Druidic casting accessible through subclasses (one or more), the way FIghters and Rogues get their Arcane casting.
I think there are three fixes that could be made to their current base class:
1. Make Rangers prepared casters like they used to be. We would get a lot more mileage out of their spell list if we didn't have to split it between damage, support and utility the way we do now, making it so that each spell we pick comes with a massive opportunity cost. I don't know why WotC decided to change Rangers from prepared to known casters for 5e, but it was a bad choice.
2. Give the Rangers a moderate buff to passive damage in T3 (not like the concentration requirement of Favored Foe). Something like rolling an extra dice on weapon attacks (a 1d6 weapon becomes a 2d6 weapon) or thereabouts to keep it roughly in line with Improved Divine Smite. Would this put the Ranger a bit ahead on damage compared to Paladins? Probably, but Paladins have amazing defensive and support features like Aura of Protection (how did this even make it into the game?) and Lay on Hands, while also using Charisma as a secondary stat, so the Rangers being a bit ahead in damage seems fair to me.
3. Some more useful high level class features in general. Doesn't need to be directly combat related. Tasha's fixed their abilities in T1&2, not so much in T3&4.
These points wouldn't just be there to push them ahead, but also to make it more appealing to stay with the Ranger class. As it stands right now, I don't see what the higher level Ranger abilities offer compared to just multiclassing after reaching Ranger level 5. R5->Rogue, R5->Fighter and R5->Druid all seem a lot more appealing than staying as a pure Ranger presicely because the higher level abilities pale in comparison to the low and mid level abilities of Rogue, Fighter and Druid. And these are just the ones with overlapping primary stats and themes.
Why would I want Nature's Veil (or, Mielekki forbid, Hide in Plain Sight. Or Vanish at level 14 for that matter) at level 10, when I can Cunning Action at level 7 (Ra5->Ro2)? Why would I care about Feral Senses at level 18, when I can have Blind Fighting at level 6 (Ra5->F1) in addition to my Ranger's original fighting style? Why would I care about Foe Slayer at level 20, when I can have 15 levels in another class?
The answers one could give to these are "Spells!" and "Archetype features!" But the problem with that is that Ranger spellcasting doesn't seem to scale that well compared to abilities like Action Surge or Sneak Attack or everything else Fighters and Rogues get, nor does it stack up to Druid casting. Furthermore, most Ranger archetypes are frontloaded, which means we're usually only giving up on incidental features in return for a massive list of class features. The only Rangers I see benefiting more from going pure than multiclassing would be Beast Master (with a Tasha's companion) and Drake Warden.
I'm not trying to say that Rangers are in a directly bad spot at the moment. A Stalker or Walker of the Gloom and Horizon varieties with Tasha's optional features will probably do fine at most levels in the game, for example. And all Rangers are powerful at level 2-5. But they are in a very awkward spot where the mid and higher level features generally doesn't justify the investment to get them, making multiclassing an improvement by default more than something to be carefully considered.
Personally, I think the best way to fix Ranger would be to scrap the whole class and rebuild it from the ground up as a pure martial class without innate access to magic, though they could still have abilities we would classify as supernatural. We could then make Divine Druidic casting accessible through subclasses (one or more), the way FIghters and Rogues get their Arcane casting.
I think there are three fixes that could be made to their current base class:
1. Make Rangers prepared casters like they used to be. We would get a lot more mileage out of their spell list if we didn't have to split it between damage, support and utility the way we do now, making it so that each spell we pick comes with a massive opportunity cost. I don't know why WotC decided to change Rangers from prepared to known casters for 5e, but it was a bad choice.
2. Give the Rangers a moderate buff to passive damage in T3 (not like the concentration requirement of Favored Foe). Something like rolling an extra dice on weapon attacks (a 1d6 weapon becomes a 2d6 weapon) or thereabouts to keep it roughly in line with Improved Divine Smite. Would this put the Ranger a bit ahead on damage compared to Paladins? Probably, but Paladins have amazing defensive and support features like Aura of Protection (how did this even make it into the game?) and Lay on Hands, while also using Charisma as a secondary stat, so the Rangers being a bit ahead in damage seems fair to me.
3. Some more useful high level class features in general. Doesn't need to be directly combat related. Tasha's fixed their abilities in T1&2, not so much in T3&4.
These points wouldn't just be there to push them ahead, but also to make it more appealing to stay with the Ranger class. As it stands right now, I don't see what the higher level Ranger abilities offer compared to just multiclassing after reaching Ranger level 5. R5->Rogue, R5->Fighter and R5->Druid all seem a lot more appealing than staying as a pure Ranger presicely because the higher level abilities pale in comparison to the low and mid level abilities of Rogue, Fighter and Druid. And these are just the ones with overlapping primary stats and themes.
Why would I want Nature's Veil (or, Mielekki forbid, Hide in Plain Sight. Or Vanish at level 14 for that matter) at level 10, when I can Cunning Action at level 7 (Ra5->Ro2)? Why would I care about Feral Senses at level 18, when I can have Blind Fighting at level 6 (Ra5->F1) in addition to my Ranger's original fighting style? Why would I care about Foe Slayer at level 20, when I can have 15 levels in another class?
The answers one could give to these are "Spells!" and "Archetype features!" But the problem with that is that Ranger spellcasting doesn't seem to scale that well compared to abilities like Action Surge or Sneak Attack or everything else Fighters and Rogues get, nor does it stack up to Druid casting. Furthermore, most Ranger archetypes are frontloaded, which means we're usually only giving up on incidental features in return for a massive list of class features. The only Rangers I see benefiting more from going pure than multiclassing would be Beast Master (with a Tasha's companion) and Drake Warden.
I'm not trying to say that Rangers are in a directly bad spot at the moment. A Stalker or Walker of the Gloom and Horizon varieties with Tasha's optional features will probably do fine at most levels in the game, for example. And all Rangers are powerful at level 2-5. But they are in a very awkward spot where the mid and higher level features generally doesn't justify the investment to get them, making multiclassing an improvement by default more than something to be carefully considered.
It sounds like you don’t like rangers.
I actually love Rangers and I am glad they are a staple of fantasy. I just don't think they are designed well in 5e, especially in higher levels. They have been "fixed" insofar that they are now mechanically functional, between Xanathar and Tasha's, but their high level features are still pretty bad and hard to justify compared to simply multiclassing.
In this (amazing table! Thank you for all of the time and work you put into it!) table is this just 2 weapon attacks for the barbarian and ranger and 4 weapon attacks for the fighter? Rage for the barbarian and hunter’s mark foe slayer for the ranger? 4 vanilla attacks for the fighter?
I went super basic here, I've not raged for the barb nor hunter's mark. I went super vanilla characters without any abilities to highlight the change that each capstone makes (fighter slightly misleading because I effectively bumped them from 2 to four, but the fighter maths is easiest.
Tomorrow if I get a chance I'll factor in rage and hunters mark and do a better 19 to 20 comparison. I can factor in different weapons/fighting styles too but it will take a little more effort.
In this (amazing table! Thank you for all of the time and work you put into it!) table is this just 2 weapon attacks for the barbarian and ranger and 4 weapon attacks for the fighter? Rage for the barbarian and hunter’s mark foe slayer for the ranger? 4 vanilla attacks for the fighter?
I went super basic here, I've not raged for the barb nor hunter's mark. I went super vanilla characters without any abilities to highlight the change that each capstone makes (fighter slightly misleading because I effectively bumped them from 2 to four, but the fighter maths is easiest.
Tomorrow if I get a chance I'll factor in rage and hunters mark and do a better 19 to 20 comparison. I can factor in different weapons/fighting styles too but it will take a little more effort.
As a suggestion, maybe run one for Ranger 5/Rogue 15 as well? I wonder how Sneak Attack would affect things.
In this (amazing table! Thank you for all of the time and work you put into it!) table is this just 2 weapon attacks for the barbarian and ranger and 4 weapon attacks for the fighter? Rage for the barbarian and hunter’s mark foe slayer for the ranger? 4 vanilla attacks for the fighter?
I went super basic here, I've not raged for the barb nor hunter's mark. I went super vanilla characters without any abilities to highlight the change that each capstone makes (fighter slightly misleading because I effectively bumped them from 2 to four, but the fighter maths is easiest.
Tomorrow if I get a chance I'll factor in rage and hunters mark and do a better 19 to 20 comparison. I can factor in different weapons/fighting styles too but it will take a little more effort.
As a suggestion, maybe run one for Ranger 5/Rogue 15 as well? I wonder how Sneak Attack would affect things.
If they do that they need to factor in ranger subclass damage and ranger spell damage/effect as well. Everyone knows 15 levels in rogue will bump single target longbow damage.
In this (amazing table! Thank you for all of the time and work you put into it!) table is this just 2 weapon attacks for the barbarian and ranger and 4 weapon attacks for the fighter? Rage for the barbarian and hunter’s mark foe slayer for the ranger? 4 vanilla attacks for the fighter?
I went super basic here, I've not raged for the barb nor hunter's mark. I went super vanilla characters without any abilities to highlight the change that each capstone makes (fighter slightly misleading because I effectively bumped them from 2 to four, but the fighter maths is easiest.
Tomorrow if I get a chance I'll factor in rage and hunters mark and do a better 19 to 20 comparison. I can factor in different weapons/fighting styles too but it will take a little more effort.
As a suggestion, maybe run one for Ranger 5/Rogue 15 as well? I wonder how Sneak Attack would affect things.
If they do that they need to factor in ranger subclass damage and ranger spell damage/effect as well. Everyone knows 15 levels in rogue will bump single target longbow damage.
To be fair, none of the numbers really matter if we don't take subclass features and other class abilities like Action Surge, Rage or spells into account. There is something to be said for running numbers on infinite resources vs infinite+limited resources, but that's about it. Think just Colossus Slayer vs Colossus Slayer+Hunter's Mark for a comparison of how a Hunter would do with and without spellslots to use. Barbarians should probably be assumed to have advantage as well, seeing as Reckless Attack is advantage on demand.
Part of a ranger’s combat potency comes from how they slowly sip at their spell slot resource and have subclass always on combat boosts. Things like smite and action surge are like fireball in that they do a big thing on one turn, but spread out over an entire day they are far less impressive mathematically.
Part of a ranger’s combat potency comes from how they slowly sip at their spell slot resource and have subclass always on combat boosts. Things like smite and action surge are like fireball in that they do a big thing on one turn, but spread out over an entire day they are far less impressive mathematically.
Indeed, which is a nice little design space they excell at in lower levels and remain mostly relevant in mid levels. I still think a boost to passive damage in T3 baseline for all Rangers and some better T3&4 out of combat features are still warranted to justify not multiclassing. You could be a level 20 Stalker with Dread Ambusher, Umbral Sight, Stalker's Flurry and Foe Slayer, but why would you when you could be a Stalker 5/Rogue (any) 15 with Dread Ambusher, Umbral Sight, 8d6 Sneak Attack etc.
I will stress that I don't think the Rangers are in a bad spot currently. Stalker and Walker with Tasha's are good. Tasha's Beast Master and the Drake Warden seem pretty good too. But Rangers are in a pretty awkward design space because they are an extremely frontloaded class, which heavily favors multiclassing. You can either keep boosting their higher level abilities to be worth picking, which does run the risk of turning them overpowered (late Pathfinder 1 Rangers come to mind, like the Freebooter. A full martial 3rd caster with 2 of the best free party support abilities in the game, readily available at lvls 1 and 4), or you have to scrap the current design and build it up again.
It is also awkward how bloated their bonus action economy is, but I don't think fixing that would solve any issues. If anything, it might make Rangers completely broken in low level play if it is addressed.
Edit: They also have a high reliance on concentration, while also having nothing to help maintain said concentration since they use Dex instead of Con as their strong save. That is part of the reason I would want an additional passive damage boost in T3.
I do agree their high level features are a joke....
Hide in Plain Sight is pretty bad IMO and I think the Feral Senses is a half feature as the second half:
"You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened."
Literally anyone can do that from level 1. Invisible creatures are known unless they hide.
Tom, I really think you are hyper focused on single target damage with the rogue 15 thing. A tier 2 and tier 3 ranger is doing so much more for the group and campaign than simple damage dealing. Level 9, level 11, and all of their 4 set them apart in powerful and unique ways.
Optimus, hide in plain sight is very potent when used correctly, as a set up and use ability. And feral senses’ second part means that they don’t have advantage on you for attacks.
Tom, I really think you are hyper focused on single target damage with the rogue 15 thing. A tier 2 and tier 3 ranger is doing so much more for the group and campaign than simple damage dealing. Level 9, level 11, and all of their 4 set them apart in powerful and unique ways.
Optimus, hide in plain sight is very potent when used correctly, as a set up and use ability. And feral senses’ second part means that they don’t have advantage on you for attacks.
It doesn't say that unfortunately and is not the case. You simply do not get disadvantage when attacking it but it still has advantage on attacking you.
"Feral Senses
At 18th level, you gain preternatural senses that help you fight creatures you can’t see. When you attack a creature you can’t see, your inability to see it doesn’t impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it.
You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened."
As it does not say the creature no long has ADV to hit you they still do....features only do what they say they do.
We disagree hugely on Hide in Plain Sight as PWT already exists and is better in almost every way. There are so few situations that it would be even remotely useful I do not feel like it should be the major thing you get at that level...its terrible IMO.
Tom, I really think you are hyper focused on single target damage with the rogue 15 thing. A tier 2 and tier 3 ranger is doing so much more for the group and campaign than simple damage dealing. Level 9, level 11, and all of their 4 set them apart in powerful and unique ways.
Optimus, hide in plain sight is very potent when used correctly, as a set up and use ability. And feral senses’ second part means that they don’t have advantage on you for attacks.
Seeing as D&D is primarily a combat system, yes, I am partially focused on that, but we could also bring up abilities like Expertise and all the stuff we can get from a subclass. Furthermore, Rangers are one of the 4 martial classes, so it seems obvious to me that combat should be a pretty key part of their abilities.
That being said, I think you are misreading my overall point, because you don't seem to address it. Rangers have a lack of worthwhile class abilities in higher levels, which makes it hard to justify staying as a Ranger. Giving them a passive damage boost in T3 would just be in line with the Fighters and Paladins getting their passive damage boosts in T3 and I think it would be fair, seeing how all the other martial classes tend to score much better on defense than Rangers.
For everything you think the Ranger gets that is good past level 5, you have to count the levels and see how much that same investment could get you in another class. You're usually on the losing exchange of that as a pureclass Ranger. Let's take some examples. I am just referring to the base abilities by name for convenience instead of writing out both them and Tasha's optional features.
Lvl 6: Favored Enemy 2, Natural Explorer 2 vs (Expertise x2, Sneak Attack 1, +1 skill) or (Second Wind, Fighting Style) or (Druidic, prepared 1st lvl druid spells)
Lvl 7: Favored Enemy 2, Natural Explorer 2, Ranger archetype 2. vs (Expertise x2, Sneak Attack 1, +1 skill, Cunning Action) or (Second Wind, Fighting Style, Action Surge) or (Druidic, prepared 1st lvl druid spells, Wildshape, Druid archetype)
Now there will be a lot of variance where I've written in that the classes get their archetype features, so the comparisons will vary depending on what you pick. But as a general rule, you will be able to make a better Ranger by multiclassing than by staying singleclassed. You want to dominate in combat? Fighter has you covered. Skills and utility? If Expertise in 4 skills isn't enough, how about 6 through the Scout Rogue (7 with Tasha's Deft Explorer). Or a smidge of Arcane magic via Arcane Trickster. Want to focus on the magical side of nature? Druids have you beaten, with their cantrips (that doesn't cost you your fighting style), prepared spell lists and larger number of spellslots.
Someone will have to tell me why the Ranger features for these (or other) levels above 5 are worth investing in, given the opportunity cost of not multiclassing. Because flavor aside, I just don't see it.
I will stress again that I like Rangers and I do think they will be mostly functional as they are now as long as you keep to the better archetypes and, ideally, use Tasha's optional features. But that doesn't change that I think Rangers suffer from being very poorly designed from lvl 6-20.
I am not going to get in an extensive point by point refutation. In my view I think the problem is generally above 11 not 6 now with the changes in Tasha's. Generally the 11th level ability was always good, but you had to wade through 6-10 to get there.
Once at 11th it gets interesting because each level you gain substantial things as well. 12th (ASI), 13th 4th level spells, 14th Vanish (not the best), etc
The really, REALLY interesting part, is I think that the Ranger is good enough now to 11 to justify not multi classing until after that point, BUT if you don't multi earlier you may find the benefits of the second class are never really that good as you scale in level. 11/3 ranger/druid is going to find those 2nd level druid spells not that special at 14th level, but a 5/9 character would find 5th level druid spells quite powerful.
I simple disagree with you about the higher level ranger abilities. I think they are mechanically potent and more than justify themselves. I think many people don’t use them well or correctly and/or play a style of game that eliminates an entire portion it’s design and function
Also, anytime we only look at baseline class abilities, the ranger loses, as the get so much from their subclass, more so than paladins, rogues, barbarians, and even some fighters.
I simple disagree with you about the higher level ranger abilities. I think they are mechanically potent and more than justify themselves. I think many people don’t use them well or correctly and/or play a style of game that eliminates an entire portion it’s design and function
Also, anytime we only look at baseline class abilities, the ranger loses, as the get so much from their subclass, more so than paladins, rogues, barbarians, and even some fighters.
Then feel free to explain how, because I don't see what they get that a multiclassed Ra5->F / Ro / D wouldn't do better.
I am not going to get in an extensive point by point refutation. In my view I think the problem is generally above 11 not 6 now with the changes in Tasha's. Generally the 11th level ability was always good, but you had to wade through 6-10 to get there.
Once at 11th it gets interesting because each level you gain substantial things as well. 12th (ASI), 13th 4th level spells, 14th Vanish (not the best), etc
The really, REALLY interesting part, is I think that the Ranger is good enough now to 11 to justify not multi classing until after that point, BUT if you don't multi earlier you may find the benefits of the second class are never really that good as you scale in level. 11/3 ranger/druid is going to find those 2nd level druid spells not that special at 14th level, but a 5/9 character would find 5th level druid spells quite powerful.
This is fair...I think getting that 3rd level spell slot is usually my nope point but I think there are a lot of 11th level features (with Tashas options mind you) that are well worth going to 11 as well.
One of the biggest problems That I see in these discussions is that rangers are basically seen as fighters with some spells that are active mostly as part of a group not as the solo specialist they really are. I grant much of that is coming from a combination of poor design (of the 5e game - no real exploration leg) and poor DMing (few real campaigns with downtime, outside activities etc) instead just a bunch of strung together dungeons). The ranger is, by design I think, already a multiclass - part warrior, part sneak, and part caster. When you MC on top of that you basically stop being a ranger because you’ve lost that balance your R5/T/F/D/C 15 isn’t a ranger they are a whatever with a ranger dip. What are you trying to get with that dip that you can’t get with a F/Barb dip instead? Ok, if your going all the way to R11(-14) your a ranger and as someone pointed out by that time a L1 dip may not get you as much as you think you got. Example: adding rogue 1 gets you expertise in 2 skills (very useful), thieves can’t (useless 98% of the time), + 1d6 sneak damage on attack IF you have advantage (conditionally useful but no longer as bi as it was at L1) and 5 HP (vs 6 as a ranger -not a major difference but every point counts) what do you get as a ranger 12-15? 12) ASI ( + Foe Slayer) 13) L4 spellslot & your 8/11spell (probably a level 4 like conjure woodland beings) (+ FS) 14) improved favored Foe/enemy (3rd Enemy or +1d8 damage for foe), Vanish (weak only because no one seems to actually do exploration/ off road travel except by montage) (+FS) 15) archetype feature: hunter-evasion/stand against the tide/uncanny dodge, beast master-shared spells, GS-Shadowy Dodge ( disadvantage on attacks to foes w/o advantage), HW-Spectral Defense ( uncanny dodge light), MS-Slayers counter (reaction attack before selected saves with a save if hit), FW-Misty Wanderer ( misty step w/o a slot +1other with you), SM- Swarming Dispersal (damage resistance + limited range teleport), DW- Perfected Bond (+1D6bite damage, flight on back at full speed, PB times damage resistance for you/drake) (+ FS)
the question is really are the 2 skills at expertise worth more than Foe slayer +the level goodies? A PHB ranger already has effective expertise in their terrains, so maybe for a Tasha’s ranger but … you have to look not just at what your gaining but what your losing/postponing. So a 2 level dip needs to include foe slayer and the L19 ASI on the ranger side of the teeter totter.
One of the biggest problems That I see in these discussions is that rangers are basically seen as fighters with some spells that are active mostly as part of a group not as the solo specialist they really are. I grant much of that is coming from a combination of poor design (of the 5e game - no real exploration leg) and poor DMing (few real campaigns with downtime, outside activities etc) instead just a bunch of strung together dungeons). The ranger is, by design I think, already a multiclass - part warrior, part sneak, and part caster. When you MC on top of that you basically stop being a ranger because you’ve lost that balance your R5/T/F/D/C 15 isn’t a ranger they are a whatever with a ranger dip. What are you trying to get with that dip that you can’t get with a F/Barb dip instead? Ok, if your going all the way to R11(-14) your a ranger and as someone pointed out by that time a L1 dip may not get you as much as you think you got. Example: adding rogue 1 gets you expertise in 2 skills (very useful), thieves can’t (useless 98% of the time), + 1d6 sneak damage on attack IF you have advantage (conditionally useful but no longer as bi as it was at L1) and 5 HP (vs 6 as a ranger -not a major difference but every point counts) what do you get as a ranger 12-15? 12) ASI ( + Foe Slayer) 13) L4 spellslot & your 8/11spell (probably a level 4 like conjure woodland beings) (+ FS) 14) improved favored Foe/enemy (3rd Enemy or +1d8 damage for foe), Vanish (weak only because no one seems to actually do exploration/ off road travel except by montage) (+FS) 15) archetype feature: hunter-evasion/stand against the tide/uncanny dodge, beast master-shared spells, GS-Shadowy Dodge ( disadvantage on attacks to foes w/o advantage), HW-Spectral Defense ( uncanny dodge light), MS-Slayers counter (reaction attack before selected saves with a save if hit), FW-Misty Wanderer ( misty step w/o a slot +1other with you), SM- Swarming Dispersal (damage resistance + limited range teleport), DW- Perfected Bond (+1D6bite damage, flight on back at full speed, PB times damage resistance for you/drake) (+ FS)
the question is really are the 2 skills at expertise worth more than Foe slayer +the level goodies? A PHB ranger already has effective expertise in their terrains, so maybe for a Tasha’s ranger but … you have to look not just at what your gaining but what your losing/postponing. So a 2 level dip needs to include foe slayer and the L19 ASI on the ranger side of the teeter totter.
That seems arbitrary to me. "Ranger" is more than one thing, since it can be both a specific collection of mechanics (as in the class itself) and something you roleplay. Drizzt do'Urden, the most famous Ranger in D&D lore, doesn't fit with the 5e Ranger mechanics and he was a multiclassed Ranger 5/Fighter 10/Barbarian 1 in 3rd Edition. I believe he has never been showed using actual Ranger magic in any edition either, come to think of it. Yet he is the most iconic representation of the class. A pureclass Fighter with the Outlander or Folk Hero (or just Survival proficiency, really) backgrounds can be just as much of a "Ranger" as someone with the Ranger class.
So I ask; what class and archetype features from lvl 6-20 are worth more than the class and archetype features of Fighter, Rogue or Druid 1-15? I can't see anything unless you're playing Beast Master or Drake Warden, because your animal companion is dependent on those higher level features. This is why I think T3&4 for Rangers need some serious attention.
One of the biggest problems That I see in these discussions is that rangers are basically seen as fighters with some spells that are active mostly as part of a group not as the solo specialist they really are. I grant much of that is coming from a combination of poor design (of the 5e game - no real exploration leg) and poor DMing (few real campaigns with downtime, outside activities etc) instead just a bunch of strung together dungeons). The ranger is, by design I think, already a multiclass - part warrior, part sneak, and part caster. When you MC on top of that you basically stop being a ranger because you’ve lost that balance your R5/T/F/D/C 15 isn’t a ranger they are a whatever with a ranger dip. What are you trying to get with that dip that you can’t get with a F/Barb dip instead? Ok, if your going all the way to R11(-14) your a ranger and as someone pointed out by that time a L1 dip may not get you as much as you think you got. Example: adding rogue 1 gets you expertise in 2 skills (very useful), thieves can’t (useless 98% of the time), + 1d6 sneak damage on attack IF you have advantage (conditionally useful but no longer as bi as it was at L1) and 5 HP (vs 6 as a ranger -not a major difference but every point counts) what do you get as a ranger 12-15? 12) ASI ( + Foe Slayer) 13) L4 spellslot & your 8/11spell (probably a level 4 like conjure woodland beings) (+ FS) 14) improved favored Foe/enemy (3rd Enemy or +1d8 damage for foe), Vanish (weak only because no one seems to actually do exploration/ off road travel except by montage) (+FS) 15) archetype feature: hunter-evasion/stand against the tide/uncanny dodge, beast master-shared spells, GS-Shadowy Dodge ( disadvantage on attacks to foes w/o advantage), HW-Spectral Defense ( uncanny dodge light), MS-Slayers counter (reaction attack before selected saves with a save if hit), FW-Misty Wanderer ( misty step w/o a slot +1other with you), SM- Swarming Dispersal (damage resistance + limited range teleport), DW- Perfected Bond (+1D6bite damage, flight on back at full speed, PB times damage resistance for you/drake) (+ FS)
the question is really are the 2 skills at expertise worth more than Foe slayer +the level goodies? A PHB ranger already has effective expertise in their terrains, so maybe for a Tasha’s ranger but … you have to look not just at what your gaining but what your losing/postponing. So a 2 level dip needs to include foe slayer and the L19 ASI on the ranger side of the teeter totter.
That seems arbitrary to me. "Ranger" is more than one thing, since it can be both a specific collection of mechanics (as in the class itself) and something you roleplay. Drizzt do'Urden, the most famous Ranger in D&D lore, doesn't fit with the 5e Ranger mechanics and he was a multiclassed Ranger 5/Fighter 10/Barbarian 1 in 3rd Edition. I believe he has never been showed using actual Ranger magic in any edition either, come to think of it. Yet he is the most iconic representation of the class. A pureclass Fighter with the Outlander or Folk Hero (or just Survival proficiency, really) backgrounds can be just as much of a "Ranger" as someone with the Ranger class.
So I ask; what class and archetype features from lvl 6-20 are worth more than the class and archetype features of Fighter, Rogue or Druid 1-15? I can't see anything unless you're playing Beast Master or Drake Warden, because your animal companion is dependent on those higher level features. This is why I think T3&4 for Rangers need some serious attention.
I would argue that the Tasha's features at 6 and 10 are excellent and well worth it. The level 7 features are solid, and at level 9 you get 3rd level spells such as Ashardalon’s Stride and Conjure Animals
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It sounds like you don’t like rangers.
Yeah and they provided a way they think the class could be better which is exactly what the title of the thread is.
I actually love Rangers and I am glad they are a staple of fantasy. I just don't think they are designed well in 5e, especially in higher levels. They have been "fixed" insofar that they are now mechanically functional, between Xanathar and Tasha's, but their high level features are still pretty bad and hard to justify compared to simply multiclassing.
I went super basic here, I've not raged for the barb nor hunter's mark. I went super vanilla characters without any abilities to highlight the change that each capstone makes (fighter slightly misleading because I effectively bumped them from 2 to four, but the fighter maths is easiest.
Tomorrow if I get a chance I'll factor in rage and hunters mark and do a better 19 to 20 comparison. I can factor in different weapons/fighting styles too but it will take a little more effort.
As a suggestion, maybe run one for Ranger 5/Rogue 15 as well? I wonder how Sneak Attack would affect things.
If they do that they need to factor in ranger subclass damage and ranger spell damage/effect as well. Everyone knows 15 levels in rogue will bump single target longbow damage.
To be fair, none of the numbers really matter if we don't take subclass features and other class abilities like Action Surge, Rage or spells into account. There is something to be said for running numbers on infinite resources vs infinite+limited resources, but that's about it. Think just Colossus Slayer vs Colossus Slayer+Hunter's Mark for a comparison of how a Hunter would do with and without spellslots to use. Barbarians should probably be assumed to have advantage as well, seeing as Reckless Attack is advantage on demand.
100%
Part of a ranger’s combat potency comes from how they slowly sip at their spell slot resource and have subclass always on combat boosts. Things like smite and action surge are like fireball in that they do a big thing on one turn, but spread out over an entire day they are far less impressive mathematically.
Indeed, which is a nice little design space they excell at in lower levels and remain mostly relevant in mid levels. I still think a boost to passive damage in T3 baseline for all Rangers and some better T3&4 out of combat features are still warranted to justify not multiclassing. You could be a level 20 Stalker with Dread Ambusher, Umbral Sight, Stalker's Flurry and Foe Slayer, but why would you when you could be a Stalker 5/Rogue (any) 15 with Dread Ambusher, Umbral Sight, 8d6 Sneak Attack etc.
I will stress that I don't think the Rangers are in a bad spot currently. Stalker and Walker with Tasha's are good. Tasha's Beast Master and the Drake Warden seem pretty good too. But Rangers are in a pretty awkward design space because they are an extremely frontloaded class, which heavily favors multiclassing. You can either keep boosting their higher level abilities to be worth picking, which does run the risk of turning them overpowered (late Pathfinder 1 Rangers come to mind, like the Freebooter. A full martial 3rd caster with 2 of the best free party support abilities in the game, readily available at lvls 1 and 4), or you have to scrap the current design and build it up again.
It is also awkward how bloated their bonus action economy is, but I don't think fixing that would solve any issues. If anything, it might make Rangers completely broken in low level play if it is addressed.
Edit: They also have a high reliance on concentration, while also having nothing to help maintain said concentration since they use Dex instead of Con as their strong save. That is part of the reason I would want an additional passive damage boost in T3.
I do agree their high level features are a joke....
Hide in Plain Sight is pretty bad IMO and I think the Feral Senses is a half feature as the second half:
"You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened."
Literally anyone can do that from level 1. Invisible creatures are known unless they hide.
Tom, I really think you are hyper focused on single target damage with the rogue 15 thing. A tier 2 and tier 3 ranger is doing so much more for the group and campaign than simple damage dealing. Level 9, level 11, and all of their 4 set them apart in powerful and unique ways.
Optimus, hide in plain sight is very potent when used correctly, as a set up and use ability. And feral senses’ second part means that they don’t have advantage on you for attacks.
It doesn't say that unfortunately and is not the case. You simply do not get disadvantage when attacking it but it still has advantage on attacking you.
"Feral Senses
At 18th level, you gain preternatural senses that help you fight creatures you can’t see. When you attack a creature you can’t see, your inability to see it doesn’t impose disadvantage on your attack rolls against it.
You are also aware of the location of any invisible creature within 30 feet of you, provided that the creature isn’t hidden from you and you aren’t blinded or deafened."
As it does not say the creature no long has ADV to hit you they still do....features only do what they say they do.
We disagree hugely on Hide in Plain Sight as PWT already exists and is better in almost every way. There are so few situations that it would be even remotely useful I do not feel like it should be the major thing you get at that level...its terrible IMO.
Seeing as D&D is primarily a combat system, yes, I am partially focused on that, but we could also bring up abilities like Expertise and all the stuff we can get from a subclass. Furthermore, Rangers are one of the 4 martial classes, so it seems obvious to me that combat should be a pretty key part of their abilities.
That being said, I think you are misreading my overall point, because you don't seem to address it. Rangers have a lack of worthwhile class abilities in higher levels, which makes it hard to justify staying as a Ranger. Giving them a passive damage boost in T3 would just be in line with the Fighters and Paladins getting their passive damage boosts in T3 and I think it would be fair, seeing how all the other martial classes tend to score much better on defense than Rangers.
For everything you think the Ranger gets that is good past level 5, you have to count the levels and see how much that same investment could get you in another class. You're usually on the losing exchange of that as a pureclass Ranger. Let's take some examples. I am just referring to the base abilities by name for convenience instead of writing out both them and Tasha's optional features.
Lvl 6:
Favored Enemy 2, Natural Explorer 2
vs
(Expertise x2, Sneak Attack 1, +1 skill) or (Second Wind, Fighting Style) or (Druidic, prepared 1st lvl druid spells)
Lvl 7:
Favored Enemy 2, Natural Explorer 2, Ranger archetype 2.
vs
(Expertise x2, Sneak Attack 1, +1 skill, Cunning Action)
or
(Second Wind, Fighting Style, Action Surge)
or
(Druidic, prepared 1st lvl druid spells, Wildshape, Druid archetype)
Lvl 9:
Favored Enemy 2, Natural Explorer 2, Ranger archetype 2, 3rd lvl spells
vs
(Expertise x2, Sneak Attack 2, +1 skill, Cunning Action, Rogue archetype)
or
(Second Wind, Fighting Style, Action Surge, Fighter archetype)
or
(Druidic, prepared 2nd lvl druid spells, Wildshape, Druid archetype)
Lvl 11:
Favored Enemy 2, Natural Explorer 3, Ranger archetype 3, 3rd lvl spells, HiPS
vs
(Expertise x4, Sneak Attack 3, +1 skill, Cunning Action, Rogue archetype, Uncanny Dodge)
or
(Second Wind, Fighting Style, Action Surge, Fighter archetype, bonus ASI 1)
or
(Druidic, prepared 3rd lvl druid spells, Wildshape, Druid archetype 2)
Lvl 13:
Favored Enemy 2, Natural Explorer 3, Ranger archetype 3, 4th lvl spells, HiPS
vs
(Expertise x4, Sneak Attack 4, +1 skill, Cunning Action, Rogue archetype, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion)
or
(Second Wind, Fighting Style, Action Surge, Fighter archetype 2, bonus ASI 1)
or
(Druidic, prepared 4th lvl druid spells, Wildshape, Druid archetype 2)
Lvl 15:
Favored Enemy 3, Natural Explorer 3, Ranger archetype 4, 4th lvl spells, HiPS, Vanish
vs
(Expertise x4, Sneak Attack 5, +1 skill, Cunning Action, Rogue archetype 2, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, bonus ASI 1)
or
(Second Wind, Fighting Style, Action Surge, Fighter archetype 3, bonus ASI 1, Indominable)
or
(Druidic, prepared 5th lvl druid spells, Wildshape, Druid archetype 3)
Lvl 17:
Favored Enemy 3, Natural Explorer 3, Ranger archetype 4, 5th lvl spells, HiPS, Vanish
vs
(Expertise x4, Sneak Attack 6, +1 skill, Cunning Action, Rogue archetype 2, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, bonus ASI 1, Reliable Talent)
or
(Second Wind, Fighting Style, Action Surge, Fighter archetype 3, bonus ASI 1, Indominable, Extra Attack 2)
or
(Druidic, prepared 6th lvl druid spells, Wildshape, Druid archetype 3)
Lvl 20:
Favored Enemy 3, Natural Explorer 3, Ranger archetype 4, 5th lvl spells, HiPS, Vanish, Feral Sense, Foe Slayer
vs
(Expertise x4, Sneak Attack 8, +1 skill, Cunning Action, Rogue archetype 3, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, bonus ASI 1, Reliable Talent, Blindsense, Slippery Mind)
or
(Second Wind, Fighting Style, Action Surge, Fighter archetype 4, bonus ASI 2, Indominable 2, Extra Attack 2)
or
(Druidic, prepared 7th lvl druid spells, Wildshape, Druid archetype 4)
Now there will be a lot of variance where I've written in that the classes get their archetype features, so the comparisons will vary depending on what you pick. But as a general rule, you will be able to make a better Ranger by multiclassing than by staying singleclassed. You want to dominate in combat? Fighter has you covered. Skills and utility? If Expertise in 4 skills isn't enough, how about 6 through the Scout Rogue (7 with Tasha's Deft Explorer). Or a smidge of Arcane magic via Arcane Trickster. Want to focus on the magical side of nature? Druids have you beaten, with their cantrips (that doesn't cost you your fighting style), prepared spell lists and larger number of spellslots.
Someone will have to tell me why the Ranger features for these (or other) levels above 5 are worth investing in, given the opportunity cost of not multiclassing. Because flavor aside, I just don't see it.
I will stress again that I like Rangers and I do think they will be mostly functional as they are now as long as you keep to the better archetypes and, ideally, use Tasha's optional features. But that doesn't change that I think Rangers suffer from being very poorly designed from lvl 6-20.
I am not going to get in an extensive point by point refutation. In my view I think the problem is generally above 11 not 6 now with the changes in Tasha's. Generally the 11th level ability was always good, but you had to wade through 6-10 to get there.
Once at 11th it gets interesting because each level you gain substantial things as well. 12th (ASI), 13th 4th level spells, 14th Vanish (not the best), etc
The really, REALLY interesting part, is I think that the Ranger is good enough now to 11 to justify not multi classing until after that point, BUT if you don't multi earlier you may find the benefits of the second class are never really that good as you scale in level. 11/3 ranger/druid is going to find those 2nd level druid spells not that special at 14th level, but a 5/9 character would find 5th level druid spells quite powerful.
I simple disagree with you about the higher level ranger abilities. I think they are mechanically potent and more than justify themselves. I think many people don’t use them well or correctly and/or play a style of game that eliminates an entire portion it’s design and function
Also, anytime we only look at baseline class abilities, the ranger loses, as the get so much from their subclass, more so than paladins, rogues, barbarians, and even some fighters.
Then feel free to explain how, because I don't see what they get that a multiclassed Ra5->F / Ro / D wouldn't do better.
This is fair...I think getting that 3rd level spell slot is usually my nope point but I think there are a lot of 11th level features (with Tashas options mind you) that are well worth going to 11 as well.
One of the biggest problems That I see in these discussions is that rangers are basically seen as fighters with some spells that are active mostly as part of a group not as the solo specialist they really are. I grant much of that is coming from a combination of poor design (of the 5e game - no real exploration leg) and poor DMing (few real campaigns with downtime, outside activities etc) instead just a bunch of strung together dungeons). The ranger is, by design I think, already a multiclass - part warrior, part sneak, and part caster. When you MC on top of that you basically stop being a ranger because you’ve lost that balance your R5/T/F/D/C 15 isn’t a ranger they are a whatever with a ranger dip. What are you trying to get with that dip that you can’t get with a F/Barb dip instead? Ok, if your going all the way to R11(-14) your a ranger and as someone pointed out by that time a L1 dip may not get you as much as you think you got. Example: adding rogue 1 gets you expertise in 2 skills (very useful), thieves can’t (useless 98% of the time), + 1d6 sneak damage on attack IF you have advantage (conditionally useful but no longer as bi as it was at L1) and 5 HP (vs 6 as a ranger -not a major difference but every point counts) what do you get as a ranger 12-15?
12) ASI ( + Foe Slayer)
13) L4 spellslot & your 8/11spell (probably a level 4 like conjure woodland beings) (+ FS)
14) improved favored Foe/enemy (3rd Enemy or +1d8 damage for foe), Vanish (weak only because no one seems to actually do exploration/ off road travel except by montage) (+FS)
15) archetype feature: hunter-evasion/stand against the tide/uncanny dodge, beast master-shared spells, GS-Shadowy Dodge ( disadvantage on attacks to foes w/o advantage), HW-Spectral Defense ( uncanny dodge light), MS-Slayers counter (reaction attack before selected saves with a save if hit), FW-Misty Wanderer ( misty step w/o a slot +1other with you), SM- Swarming Dispersal (damage resistance + limited range teleport), DW- Perfected Bond (+1D6bite damage, flight on back at full speed, PB times damage resistance for you/drake) (+ FS)
the question is really are the 2 skills at expertise worth more than Foe slayer +the level goodies? A PHB ranger already has effective expertise in their terrains, so maybe for a Tasha’s ranger but …
you have to look not just at what your gaining but what your losing/postponing. So a 2 level dip needs to include foe slayer and the L19 ASI on the ranger side of the teeter totter.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
That seems arbitrary to me. "Ranger" is more than one thing, since it can be both a specific collection of mechanics (as in the class itself) and something you roleplay. Drizzt do'Urden, the most famous Ranger in D&D lore, doesn't fit with the 5e Ranger mechanics and he was a multiclassed Ranger 5/Fighter 10/Barbarian 1 in 3rd Edition. I believe he has never been showed using actual Ranger magic in any edition either, come to think of it. Yet he is the most iconic representation of the class. A pureclass Fighter with the Outlander or Folk Hero (or just Survival proficiency, really) backgrounds can be just as much of a "Ranger" as someone with the Ranger class.
So I ask; what class and archetype features from lvl 6-20 are worth more than the class and archetype features of Fighter, Rogue or Druid 1-15? I can't see anything unless you're playing Beast Master or Drake Warden, because your animal companion is dependent on those higher level features. This is why I think T3&4 for Rangers need some serious attention.
I would argue that the Tasha's features at 6 and 10 are excellent and well worth it. The level 7 features are solid, and at level 9 you get 3rd level spells such as Ashardalon’s Stride and Conjure Animals