Your suggestions look fine, but let me rephrase 1 key criticism I haven't focused too much on for the Ranger class (not directly at your suggestions); it's too DM dependant and it shouldn't be. I think it is a fundamentally bad design philosophy to leave some of the key sides to a class up for the DM to deal with because WotC either couldn't or didn't want to create features that are universally applicable.
This is first and foremost. I find if you are playing with a dm who just accepts rangers as valid and stops arguing about "memory" and "related" you will find rangers (and all classes as well) get a good and balanced experience.
before fixing any thing ranger we need to actually have it understood. many times taking away or altering features removes some desirable benefit others want.
how can we tell how powerful the ranger is when we cant even agree on things uses. Like swift quiver: poison duplication. if a dm says coated ammo is similar or not will drastically change the experience. same with the interpretation of "moving" For HIPS.
Wotc just needs to start removing any vagueness to the class. We could have had that fixed along time ago if they would just actually respond to RAW ranger questions rather than just answering if the same sage advice questions over and over.
Your suggestions look fine, but let me rephrase 1 key criticism I haven't focused too much on for the Ranger class (not directly at your suggestions); it's too DM dependant and it shouldn't be. I think it is a fundamentally bad design philosophy to leave some of the key sides to a class up for the DM to deal with because WotC either couldn't or didn't want to create features that are universally applicable.
This is first and foremost. I find if you are playing with a dm who just accepts rangers as valid and stops arguing about "memory" and "related" you will find rangers (and all classes as well) get a good and balanced experience.
before fixing any thing ranger we need to actually have it understood. many times taking away or altering features removes some desirable benefit others want.
how can we tell how powerful the ranger is when we cant even agree on things uses. Like swift quiver: poison duplication. if a dm says coated ammo is similar or not will drastically change the experience. same with the interpretation of "moving" For HIPS.
Wotc just needs to start removing any vagueness to the class. We could have had that fixed along time ago if they would just actually respond to RAW ranger questions rather than just answering if the same sage advice questions over and over.
I think its kind of condescending to think that DMs "just dont understand" the ranger.....its more that their abilities are poorly defined requiring a lot more time/effort to parse them in a way that is actually meaningful to the table.
Its not a comprehension element its an actual dependence on the DM to force the rangers abilities to be meaningful.
Which your second point is spot on....make them less vague and actually DEFINE WHAT THEY CAN DO.
Their answer to that (mixed bag response I guess?) was to give us the Tasha's options which I think are a vast improvement on the class as a whole. I see it as a huge win and I feel the ranger stands on its own now no issues if you use the Tasha's options. My only issue with them now is: Feral Senses, Favored Foe Concentration, and Foe Slayer (which would be fixed for the most part if you just remove concentration on Favored Foe).
Land's Stride works perfectly with plant growth. It shape the ground of the battlefield and lockdown a small army of enemy troops.
By level 10 the ranger has the same expertise in nature and survival, in all of the situations where it would matter, just as any rogue and the scout rogue. For those tables that entirley skip over getting from place a to place b, the ranger makes that faster, safer, and smoother for the entire party as well.
Hide in plain sight works in the exact same way that the two racial versions do. HiPS is one minute to setup. Then the ranger can hide by only needing to press themself up against something. Literally disappear in plain sight with a +10 to the roll. As the words are written this is a two-part ability with a setup condition and then an activation. Very potent.
Vanish is great. All of the stuff the rogue is doing, and something that no fighter, barbarian, or paladin can do, is now done by all rangers.
Feral senses works like this. Rangers no longer have disadvantage on attack rolls based on lack of sight. Darkness, fog cloud (which is a spell fo them), blindness, whatever, the ranger now is hitting harder than ever. A fog cloud (huge with an upcast) neuters everyone's advantages and disadvantages, but not now the ranger. Since the ranger does NOT have disadvantage it now has advantage. Putting them way ahead of the rest of the battlefield with only a level 1 or 2 spell slot. The second part is not explicit, but it is simple, and the rogue's version works similar. If the ranger is not blinded or defended, they are NOT attacked with advantage against an invisible non-hidden enemy. Easy.
Over 3 rounds of combat a warlock is doing 56.20 at level 20 with one of four 5th level spell slots and a +3 rod of the pact keeper. A rogue with advantage, sneak attack, and a +3 bow is doing 48.03. A barbarian with is doing 50.65. A paladin with a greatsword, and enmity on turn one using a 1st level divine smite is doing an average of 42.5 over three rounds. A hunter ranger is doing 35.7 against one enemy with only hunter's mark and a longbow. All of this is against one target and hitting 95% of the time based on magic items, advantages, fighting styles, and other factors. In order for GWM folks to get bonus action attacks, they need to be fighting and killing enemies. If they are killing enemies they aren't getting 100% from big one attack hits, like from a rogue, or from all of the procs of hex from 4 hits from a warlock, so both of those go down. If we are fighting multiple enemies, then the ranger hunter comes online. If the hunter, just one time in a 3 round battle, has just 3 targets in a medium cluster then they deal average damage of 50.6. So with more than one enemy on the battlefield everyone else's damage goes down a bit while the ranger's goes up. This is the fireball equation. A rogue doing 48 damage is THE BEST it can do. It is the best average damage. Every time the enemy number increases the ranger, all rangers, has spells and tools to increase their damage output. In situation when a rogue, warlock, or paladin would be overwhelmed, a ranger has tolls to slow, stop, hinder, or kill them force.
Your suggestions look fine, but let me rephrase 1 key criticism I haven't focused too much on for the Ranger class (not directly at your suggestions); it's too DM dependant and it shouldn't be. I think it is a fundamentally bad design philosophy to leave some of the key sides to a class up for the DM to deal with because WotC either couldn't or didn't want to create features that are universally applicable.
This is first and foremost. I find if you are playing with a dm who just accepts rangers as valid and stops arguing about "memory" and "related" you will find rangers (and all classes as well) get a good and balanced experience.
before fixing any thing ranger we need to actually have it understood. many times taking away or altering features removes some desirable benefit others want.
how can we tell how powerful the ranger is when we cant even agree on things uses. Like swift quiver: poison duplication. if a dm says coated ammo is similar or not will drastically change the experience. same with the interpretation of "moving" For HIPS.
Wotc just needs to start removing any vagueness to the class. We could have had that fixed along time ago if they would just actually respond to RAW ranger questions rather than just answering if the same sage advice questions over and over.
I think its kind of condescending to think that DMs "just dont understand" the ranger.....its more that their abilities are poorly defined requiring a lot more time/effort to parse them in a way that is actually meaningful to the table.
Its not a comprehension element its an actual dependence on the DM to force the rangers abilities to be meaningful.
Which your second point is spot on....make them less vague and actually DEFINE WHAT THEY CAN DO.
Their answer to that (mixed bag response I guess?) was to give us the Tasha's options which I think are a vast improvement on the class as a whole. I see it as a huge win and I feel the ranger stands on its own now no issues if you use the Tasha's options. My only issue with them now is: Feral Senses, Favored Foe Concentration, and Foe Slayer (which would be fixed for the most part if you just remove concentration on Favored Foe).
DMs are literally tasked with making all of the PCs meaningful. That is the function of the game and the DM's role. This is NOT a computer game.
Just because a vocal portion of the internet D&D crowd that believes themselves to be the meta and currently thinks that no table is doing anything besides large combat against a single enemy target doe snot mean that is even close to the actual situation for the rest of the 90% of tables.
Only full spellcasters can close the gap of terms of engagement better than a ranger. No other martial class can do anything close. And strong melee martial builds are going to lose complete rounds of attacking due to mobility and lack of ranged attacks. That is guaranteed. A ranger can finish a fight before it even starts.
Your suggestions look fine, but let me rephrase 1 key criticism I haven't focused too much on for the Ranger class (not directly at your suggestions); it's too DM dependant and it shouldn't be. I think it is a fundamentally bad design philosophy to leave some of the key sides to a class up for the DM to deal with because WotC either couldn't or didn't want to create features that are universally applicable.
This is first and foremost. I find if you are playing with a dm who just accepts rangers as valid and stops arguing about "memory" and "related" you will find rangers (and all classes as well) get a good and balanced experience.
before fixing any thing ranger we need to actually have it understood. many times taking away or altering features removes some desirable benefit others want.
how can we tell how powerful the ranger is when we cant even agree on things uses. Like swift quiver: poison duplication. if a dm says coated ammo is similar or not will drastically change the experience. same with the interpretation of "moving" For HIPS.
Wotc just needs to start removing any vagueness to the class. We could have had that fixed along time ago if they would just actually respond to RAW ranger questions rather than just answering if the same sage advice questions over and over.
I think its kind of condescending to think that DMs "just dont understand" the ranger.....its more that their abilities are poorly defined requiring a lot more time/effort to parse them in a way that is actually meaningful to the table.
Its not a comprehension element its an actual dependence on the DM to force the rangers abilities to be meaningful.
Which your second point is spot on....make them less vague and actually DEFINE WHAT THEY CAN DO.
Their answer to that (mixed bag response I guess?) was to give us the Tasha's options which I think are a vast improvement on the class as a whole. I see it as a huge win and I feel the ranger stands on its own now no issues if you use the Tasha's options. My only issue with them now is: Feral Senses, Favored Foe Concentration, and Foe Slayer (which would be fixed for the most part if you just remove concentration on Favored Foe).
DMs are literally tasked with making all of the PCs meaningful. That is the function of the game and the DM's role. This is NOT a computer game.
Just because a vocal portion of the internet D&D crowd that believes themselves to be the meta and currently thinks that no table is doing anything besides large combat against a single enemy target doe snot mean that is even close to the actual situation for the rest of the 90% of tables.
Yes but if one players abilities require a lot of extra work (which at this point several people have mentioned) then its fair to say they are not well designed.
The WotC team heard this and created the Tasha's options for that exact reason.
Only full spellcasters can close the gap of terms of engagement better than a ranger. No other martial class can do anything close. And strong melee martial builds are going to lose complete rounds of attacking due to mobility and lack of ranged attacks. That is guaranteed. A ranger can finish a fight before it even starts.
Full disagree here...not sure how they are any better at stopping a fight than say a samurai fighter who can make 9 attacks on their first turn with Sharpshooter damage....they nova out to literally over 120+ damage which a ranger cannot accomplish without several rounds of attacks and the minonmancy spells.
Zealot Barbarian is literally the best DPR in the game with GWM+PAM and reckless attack with their extra damage on first hit...with the pounce ability and their increased movement they can close distance fast.
Hexblade Warlocks do significantly more damage with a similar build as well and have teleportation or just straight up flight to help them.
Overall there are several martial options that just straight up out DPR a ranger at high levels.
Thats not to say rangers do not do bad but to say there is NO other martial class to compare is laughable at best.
Your suggestions look fine, but let me rephrase 1 key criticism I haven't focused too much on for the Ranger class (not directly at your suggestions); it's too DM dependant and it shouldn't be. I think it is a fundamentally bad design philosophy to leave some of the key sides to a class up for the DM to deal with because WotC either couldn't or didn't want to create features that are universally applicable.
This is first and foremost. I find if you are playing with a dm who just accepts rangers as valid and stops arguing about "memory" and "related" you will find rangers (and all classes as well) get a good and balanced experience.
before fixing any thing ranger we need to actually have it understood. many times taking away or altering features removes some desirable benefit others want.
how can we tell how powerful the ranger is when we cant even agree on things uses. Like swift quiver: poison duplication. if a dm says coated ammo is similar or not will drastically change the experience. same with the interpretation of "moving" For HIPS.
Wotc just needs to start removing any vagueness to the class. We could have had that fixed along time ago if they would just actually respond to RAW ranger questions rather than just answering if the same sage advice questions over and over.
I think its kind of condescending to think that DMs "just dont understand" the ranger.....its more that their abilities are poorly defined requiring a lot more time/effort to parse them in a way that is actually meaningful to the table.
Its not a comprehension element its an actual dependence on the DM to force the rangers abilities to be meaningful.
Which your second point is spot on....make them less vague and actually DEFINE WHAT THEY CAN DO.
Their answer to that (mixed bag response I guess?) was to give us the Tasha's options which I think are a vast improvement on the class as a whole. I see it as a huge win and I feel the ranger stands on its own now no issues if you use the Tasha's options. My only issue with them now is: Feral Senses, Favored Foe Concentration, and Foe Slayer (which would be fixed for the most part if you just remove concentration on Favored Foe).
DMs are literally tasked with making all of the PCs meaningful. That is the function of the game and the DM's role. This is NOT a computer game.
Just because a vocal portion of the internet D&D crowd that believes themselves to be the meta and currently thinks that no table is doing anything besides large combat against a single enemy target doe snot mean that is even close to the actual situation for the rest of the 90% of tables.
Yes but if one players abilities require a lot of extra work (which at this point several people have mentioned) then its fair to say they are not well designed.
The WotC team heard this and created the Tasha's options for that exact reason.
It’s not a lot of work. It’s different work than used for power gaming optimization combat only focused tables.
Only full spellcasters can close the gap of terms of engagement better than a ranger. No other martial class can do anything close. And strong melee martial builds are going to lose complete rounds of attacking due to mobility and lack of ranged attacks. That is guaranteed. A ranger can finish a fight before it even starts.
Full disagree here...not sure how they are any better at stopping a fight than say a samurai fighter who can make 9 attacks on their first turn with Sharpshooter damage....they nova out to literally over 120+ damage which a ranger cannot accomplish without several rounds of attacks and the minonmancy spells.
Zealot Barbarian is literally the best DPR in the game with GWM+PAM and reckless attack with their extra damage on first hit...with the pounce ability and their increased movement they can close distance fast.
Hexblade Warlocks do significantly more damage with a similar build as well and have teleportation or just straight up flight to help them.
Overall there are several martial options that just straight up out DPR a ranger at high levels.
Thats not to say rangers do not do bad but to say there is NO other martial class to compare is laughable at best.
I love it people try to disregard things that all rangers can easily do with build specific counter examples. Yes a samurai and zealot can deal a lot of damage, and each of them have non of the rest of the benefits of a ranger, paladin, rogue, or spellcaster. We are again taking corner case builds, vastly different ones at that, and comparing them to the ranger and saying the ranger is bad.
So now we have the stealth, hiding, and skills of a rogue or scout rogue, the survival of a character with a specific background, the ranged combat abilities of an archer fighter with a specific subclass, the conjuring, crowd control, and AoE of a full spellcaster, the plant and animal interaction of a druid, and the healing of a support build with magic. Wow. It takes 5 characters to cover all of what a ranger, all rangers, baseline handbook rangers, can do innately.
Your suggestions look fine, but let me rephrase 1 key criticism I haven't focused too much on for the Ranger class (not directly at your suggestions); it's too DM dependant and it shouldn't be. I think it is a fundamentally bad design philosophy to leave some of the key sides to a class up for the DM to deal with because WotC either couldn't or didn't want to create features that are universally applicable.
This is first and foremost. I find if you are playing with a dm who just accepts rangers as valid and stops arguing about "memory" and "related" you will find rangers (and all classes as well) get a good and balanced experience.
before fixing any thing ranger we need to actually have it understood. many times taking away or altering features removes some desirable benefit others want.
how can we tell how powerful the ranger is when we cant even agree on things uses. Like swift quiver: poison duplication. if a dm says coated ammo is similar or not will drastically change the experience. same with the interpretation of "moving" For HIPS.
Wotc just needs to start removing any vagueness to the class. We could have had that fixed along time ago if they would just actually respond to RAW ranger questions rather than just answering if the same sage advice questions over and over.
I think its kind of condescending to think that DMs "just dont understand" the ranger.....its more that their abilities are poorly defined requiring a lot more time/effort to parse them in a way that is actually meaningful to the table.
Its not a comprehension element its an actual dependence on the DM to force the rangers abilities to be meaningful.
Which your second point is spot on....make them less vague and actually DEFINE WHAT THEY CAN DO.
Their answer to that (mixed bag response I guess?) was to give us the Tasha's options which I think are a vast improvement on the class as a whole. I see it as a huge win and I feel the ranger stands on its own now no issues if you use the Tasha's options. My only issue with them now is: Feral Senses, Favored Foe Concentration, and Foe Slayer (which would be fixed for the most part if you just remove concentration on Favored Foe).
DMs are literally tasked with making all of the PCs meaningful. That is the function of the game and the DM's role. This is NOT a computer game.
Just because a vocal portion of the internet D&D crowd that believes themselves to be the meta and currently thinks that no table is doing anything besides large combat against a single enemy target doe snot mean that is even close to the actual situation for the rest of the 90% of tables.
Yes but if one players abilities require a lot of extra work (which at this point several people have mentioned) then its fair to say they are not well designed.
The WotC team heard this and created the Tasha's options for that exact reason.
It’s not a lot of work. It’s different work than used for power gaming optimization combat only focused tables.
It is....and several people have shared their frustration but apparently that is not enough evidence to believe that people struggle with it? Or the fact that WotC completely replaced said features with new options when no other class got the same treatment? (only ONE other class got a feature replacement option and it was basically the same just slightly tweaked)
I won't go down the rabbit hole of ALL SIX of the different ranger variants there has been but needless to say there is enough evidence to suggest that, yes indeed a good amount of people found the abilities to be lacking.
Please be fair when it comes to concerns of others and do not write them off as "not understanding". I get the PHB class works for you but its obvious it doesn't for a lot of people.
Only full spellcasters can close the gap of terms of engagement better than a ranger. No other martial class can do anything close. And strong melee martial builds are going to lose complete rounds of attacking due to mobility and lack of ranged attacks. That is guaranteed. A ranger can finish a fight before it even starts.
Full disagree here...not sure how they are any better at stopping a fight than say a samurai fighter who can make 9 attacks on their first turn with Sharpshooter damage....they nova out to literally over 120+ damage which a ranger cannot accomplish without several rounds of attacks and the minonmancy spells.
Zealot Barbarian is literally the best DPR in the game with GWM+PAM and reckless attack with their extra damage on first hit...with the pounce ability and their increased movement they can close distance fast.
Hexblade Warlocks do significantly more damage with a similar build as well and have teleportation or just straight up flight to help them.
Overall there are several martial options that just straight up out DPR a ranger at high levels.
Thats not to say rangers do not do bad but to say there is NO other martial class to compare is laughable at best.
I love it people try to disregard things that all rangers can easily do with build specific counter examples. Yes a samurai and zealot can deal a lot of damage, and each of them have non of the rest of the benefits of a ranger, paladin, rogue, or spellcaster. We are again taking corner case builds, vastly different ones at that, and comparing them to the ranger and saying the ranger is bad.
So now we have the stealth, hiding, and skills of a rogue or scout rogue, the survival of a character with a specific background, the ranged combat abilities of an archer fighter with a specific subclass, the conjuring, crowd control, and AoE of a full spellcaster, the plant and animal interaction of a druid, and the healing of a support build with magic. Wow. It takes 5 characters to cover all of what a ranger, all rangers, baseline handbook rangers, can do innately.
You say end a fight before it starts....the best way to do that is to kill the thing fast. Its just as vaild as any ranger spell option....I do not see anything on their list that lets them actually remove a creature from combat completely like Banishment or the like....so lets be real here.
Crowd control, Conjuring, and the like are all good and I have ROUTINELY suggested that ranger gets good spells enough to not warrant leaving the class before 9th level. I do get it.
But nothing beyond that 9th level is amazing enough to suggest that not another single martial class cannot turn the tide of a battle with their abilites....even if it is just completely erasing a high level threat with a metric shit ton of damage.
Leaving aside the constant quest for more damage (I actually do get it and given that 5e is a hyper focused combat game sadly it makes sense so maybe we can come back to it later hung?) Tom, Optimus and I made some suggestions for upgrading the core abilities or fulling reworking them ( I did read yours to. - still thinking them over). Optimus, your saying that as things stand now you don’t see much reason not to MC sometime after L9-11, would that opinion change if tom’s or my ideas were actually instituted? If not how would you redo them to make them something that would reset your thinking? Same question fo everyone else too.
in the mean time I’m starting to look at the subclasses and think about what I would change there as well. First up the Hunter - my change here would be simple - instead of having to choose one of the options permanently at L3,7, 11, & 15 you would get all at that level and would have to declare which you were using each round. The ranger, and especially the hunter, is the jack of all trades class and limiting to only one of each of those abilities all the time is crazy. Take L3 - colossus slayer and giant killer are meant for taking on single foes, colossus slayer is more archer oriented while giant killer is more melee oriented while horde breaker is more masses of foes oriented. Same thing at L7,11, and 15. I don’t think it would be OP and would make the hunter far more versatile.
Well, we are at an impasse then. The metric several of you are exclusively using to say the ranger doesn’t hold up past levels 5 or 9 is Purely for single target damage, which is NOT what the ranger’s role focus is past level 10. From levels 2 through 10 they deal some of the highest single target damage of any martial build. If maintaining that past level 10 is of great value to someone, go for it.
To be fair my entire criticism is regarding the PHB NE and FE features which I feel are the underwhelming sections of the PHB Ranger.
Otherwise ranger does fine for the most part. ---- Ranger underpowered thread
At no time did I state they were fact...and this a forum for discussing opinions. The simple fact that I state my opinions with conviction and accompanying information is just that and should not be seen as anything else.
I get the sense you want me to apologize for expressing my opinion? While I appreciate your honesty I will not do so as there is nothing wrong with bluntly stating an opinion. ---
--- Ranger underpowered thread
Funny how often one finds opinions on data that suddenly turn into facts. like a 70% satisfaction rating is a failure in a Wotc survey. I say most of the population is satisfied with the ranger and only a select loud majority actually wants any thing new beyond tashas and PHB sharing the space for ranger. Most haters cant even agree on what is bad.
Phb ranger exists and wizards has stated tasha's is not a replacement. but some people are ok with white lies that prove their point. I try not to be one of them.
Out of 6 attempts to change the ranger it has stayed mostly the same.(almost every tasha ability can be shown as similar but with trade off benefit and loss) That speaks to its robust nature. They have admitted bad design in the past. Summon statblocks, TWF, and errata. They have yet to actually say ranger is flawed or bad. They said tasha's is an option for those who are dissatisfied.
Tasha’s offered options for the ranger to put them in line with other hyper combat focused subclass option in Tasha’s. The entire book is optional. Someone who assumes Tasha’s is there as a fix for the ranger is wrong. It’s an option for a particular play style that is not the majority. If it was the majority than a permanent change at the root would be in order. That has not been done.
Yes, Rosco. Elections are won in margins of less then 2%. A 70% satisfaction rate is high.
Aren't y'all tired of rehashing the same conversations over and over? Of going in circles again and again?
1. Rangers don't nova very well. There. That's a fact. If you're looking for a character to nova, then by all means, I encourage you to go Samurai or Batltemaster Fighter or to play a Paladin and blow all your slots on Divine Smite. Whatever. The Ranger, however, does deal impressive consistent damage that usually comes with riders from their subclasses. They can keep up with Fighters (not surpass, but who the **** is asking them to?) while having additional riders. That's in combat. In addition, they are entirely more capable than any Fighter when combat stops.
2. Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, and Hide in Plain Sight are divisive abilities. Fine. We can stop debating the merits of them now. People who like them can use them to their fullest and people who don't can take Favored Foe, Deft Explorer, and Nature's Veil instead (or any combination thereof.) Let's move on.
Tasha’s offered options for the ranger to put them in line with other hyper combat focused subclass option in Tasha’s. The entire book is optional. Someone who assumes Tasha’s is there as a fix for the ranger is wrong. It’s an option for a particular play style that is not the majority. If it was the majority than a permanent change at the root would be in order. That has not been done.
Yes, Rosco. Elections are won in margins of less then 2%. A 70% satisfaction rate is high.
I am not sure where you get the 70% satisfied rate but its was considerably lower than that when revised ranger came out....
A quote from WotC:
"Over the past year, you’ve seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin"
Ultimately JC backtracked on it some but I think its more WotC inability to change old material but rather just create something new and call that the "fix" rather than the actual dissatisfaction that's obviously surrounded the class since the early 5e days. (See hexblade, Tasha's ranger, Undead Warlock, etc...)
Obviously regardless it was enough dissatisfaction for them to make changes...they did not try NEARLY as hard for any other class and that is telling in itself.
Aren't y'all tired of rehashing the same conversations over and over? Of going in circles again and again?
1. Rangers don't nova very well. There. That's a fact. If you're looking for a character to nova, then by all means, I encourage you to go Samurai or Batltemaster Fighter or to play a Paladin and blow all your slots on Divine Smite. Whatever. The Ranger, however, does deal impressive consistent damage that usually comes with riders from their subclasses. They can keep up with Fighters (not surpass, but who the **** is asking them to?) while having additional riders. That's in combat. In addition, they are entirely more capable than any Fighter when combat stops.
2. Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, and Hide in Plain Sight are divisive abilities. Fine. We can stop debating the merits of them now. People who like them can use them to their fullest and people who don't can take Favored Foe, Deft Explorer, and Nature's Veil instead (or any combination thereof.) Let's move on.
Agreed...but this whole thread was started to suggest what could be fixed and when people made suggestions about abilities in #2 you get people saying:
This is first and foremost. I find if you are playing with a dm who just accepts rangers as valid and stops arguing about "memory" and "related" you will find rangers (and all classes as well) get a good and balanced experience.
before fixing any thing ranger we need to actually have it understood. many times taking away or altering features removes some desirable benefit others want.
how can we tell how powerful the ranger is when we cant even agree on things uses. Like swift quiver: poison duplication. if a dm says coated ammo is similar or not will drastically change the experience. same with the interpretation of "moving" For HIPS.
Wotc just needs to start removing any vagueness to the class. We could have had that fixed along time ago if they would just actually respond to RAW ranger questions rather than just answering if the same sage advice questions over and over.
Making the assumption that people just "dont understand the class" and that's why they think the features are bad....when in reality people understand them and see them as badly designed features.
If you want to move on from the topic then stop assuming:
1. People haven't played the PHB Ranger or DM'd for them
2. That people do not understand the PHB ranger features
Its not really productive to conversation if you constantly make baseless assumptions about people's play history or knowledge base.
I have DM'd and played PHB rangers....their features (beyond spellcasting and their martial components) are bad IMO. Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, Hide in Plain Sight, Foe slayer, and Feral Senses are IMO poorly written and do not synergize well with the kit as a whole. Favored Foe comes close to working and would actually work well with ranger if you invested in it more. As your levels progress you should lose concentration for it and it should give you other features that are tied to your subclass.
THAT would actually make the feature meaningfully progress where it feels good to stay in the class past level 9 after you get your most useful spells.
Tasha’s offered options for the ranger to put them in line with other hyper combat focused subclass option in Tasha’s. The entire book is optional. Someone who assumes Tasha’s is there as a fix for the ranger is wrong. It’s an option for a particular play style that is not the majority. If it was the majority than a permanent change at the root would be in order. That has not been done.
Yes, Rosco. Elections are won in margins of less then 2%. A 70% satisfaction rate is high.
I am not sure where you get the 70% satisfied rate but its was considerably lower than that when revised ranger came out....
A quote from WotC:
"Over the past year, you’ve seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin"
Ultimately JC backtracked on it some but I think its more WotC inability to change old material but rather just create something new and call that the "fix" rather than the actual dissatisfaction that's obviously surrounded the class since the early 5e days. (See hexblade, Tasha's ranger, Undead Warlock, etc...)
Obviously regardless it was enough dissatisfaction for them to make changes...they did not try NEARLY as hard for any other class and that is telling in itself.
What a ranger is happens to be the issue. WotC doesn’t put out stuff below some crazy satisfaction rating. Like 80%.
Its so funny to me that you think that because rangers hit more in Tasha’s that is somehow self evident of terribleness of the original. I see that more as as pacifier. I’m a room with 100 adults and 1 crying infant, you don’t have all of the adults put in earplugs, you give the infant a pacifier. The game is the core 3 books. All the rest is optional fluff, not fixes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is first and foremost. I find if you are playing with a dm who just accepts rangers as valid and stops arguing about "memory" and "related" you will find rangers (and all classes as well) get a good and balanced experience.
before fixing any thing ranger we need to actually have it understood. many times taking away or altering features removes some desirable benefit others want.
how can we tell how powerful the ranger is when we cant even agree on things uses. Like swift quiver: poison duplication. if a dm says coated ammo is similar or not will drastically change the experience. same with the interpretation of "moving" For HIPS.
Wotc just needs to start removing any vagueness to the class. We could have had that fixed along time ago if they would just actually respond to RAW ranger questions rather than just answering if the same sage advice questions over and over.
I think its kind of condescending to think that DMs "just dont understand" the ranger.....its more that their abilities are poorly defined requiring a lot more time/effort to parse them in a way that is actually meaningful to the table.
Its not a comprehension element its an actual dependence on the DM to force the rangers abilities to be meaningful.
Which your second point is spot on....make them less vague and actually DEFINE WHAT THEY CAN DO.
Their answer to that (mixed bag response I guess?) was to give us the Tasha's options which I think are a vast improvement on the class as a whole. I see it as a huge win and I feel the ranger stands on its own now no issues if you use the Tasha's options. My only issue with them now is: Feral Senses, Favored Foe Concentration, and Foe Slayer (which would be fixed for the most part if you just remove concentration on Favored Foe).
Land's Stride works perfectly with plant growth. It shape the ground of the battlefield and lockdown a small army of enemy troops.
By level 10 the ranger has the same expertise in nature and survival, in all of the situations where it would matter, just as any rogue and the scout rogue. For those tables that entirley skip over getting from place a to place b, the ranger makes that faster, safer, and smoother for the entire party as well.
Hide in plain sight works in the exact same way that the two racial versions do. HiPS is one minute to setup. Then the ranger can hide by only needing to press themself up against something. Literally disappear in plain sight with a +10 to the roll. As the words are written this is a two-part ability with a setup condition and then an activation. Very potent.
Vanish is great. All of the stuff the rogue is doing, and something that no fighter, barbarian, or paladin can do, is now done by all rangers.
Feral senses works like this. Rangers no longer have disadvantage on attack rolls based on lack of sight. Darkness, fog cloud (which is a spell fo them), blindness, whatever, the ranger now is hitting harder than ever. A fog cloud (huge with an upcast) neuters everyone's advantages and disadvantages, but not now the ranger. Since the ranger does NOT have disadvantage it now has advantage. Putting them way ahead of the rest of the battlefield with only a level 1 or 2 spell slot. The second part is not explicit, but it is simple, and the rogue's version works similar. If the ranger is not blinded or defended, they are NOT attacked with advantage against an invisible non-hidden enemy. Easy.
Over 3 rounds of combat a warlock is doing 56.20 at level 20 with one of four 5th level spell slots and a +3 rod of the pact keeper. A rogue with advantage, sneak attack, and a +3 bow is doing 48.03. A barbarian with is doing 50.65. A paladin with a greatsword, and enmity on turn one using a 1st level divine smite is doing an average of 42.5 over three rounds. A hunter ranger is doing 35.7 against one enemy with only hunter's mark and a longbow. All of this is against one target and hitting 95% of the time based on magic items, advantages, fighting styles, and other factors. In order for GWM folks to get bonus action attacks, they need to be fighting and killing enemies. If they are killing enemies they aren't getting 100% from big one attack hits, like from a rogue, or from all of the procs of hex from 4 hits from a warlock, so both of those go down. If we are fighting multiple enemies, then the ranger hunter comes online. If the hunter, just one time in a 3 round battle, has just 3 targets in a medium cluster then they deal average damage of 50.6. So with more than one enemy on the battlefield everyone else's damage goes down a bit while the ranger's goes up. This is the fireball equation. A rogue doing 48 damage is THE BEST it can do. It is the best average damage. Every time the enemy number increases the ranger, all rangers, has spells and tools to increase their damage output. In situation when a rogue, warlock, or paladin would be overwhelmed, a ranger has tolls to slow, stop, hinder, or kill them force.
DMs are literally tasked with making all of the PCs meaningful. That is the function of the game and the DM's role. This is NOT a computer game.
Just because a vocal portion of the internet D&D crowd that believes themselves to be the meta and currently thinks that no table is doing anything besides large combat against a single enemy target doe snot mean that is even close to the actual situation for the rest of the 90% of tables.
Only full spellcasters can close the gap of terms of engagement better than a ranger. No other martial class can do anything close. And strong melee martial builds are going to lose complete rounds of attacking due to mobility and lack of ranged attacks. That is guaranteed. A ranger can finish a fight before it even starts.
Yes but if one players abilities require a lot of extra work (which at this point several people have mentioned) then its fair to say they are not well designed.
The WotC team heard this and created the Tasha's options for that exact reason.
Full disagree here...not sure how they are any better at stopping a fight than say a samurai fighter who can make 9 attacks on their first turn with Sharpshooter damage....they nova out to literally over 120+ damage which a ranger cannot accomplish without several rounds of attacks and the minonmancy spells.
Zealot Barbarian is literally the best DPR in the game with GWM+PAM and reckless attack with their extra damage on first hit...with the pounce ability and their increased movement they can close distance fast.
Hexblade Warlocks do significantly more damage with a similar build as well and have teleportation or just straight up flight to help them.
Overall there are several martial options that just straight up out DPR a ranger at high levels.
Thats not to say rangers do not do bad but to say there is NO other martial class to compare is laughable at best.
It’s not a lot of work. It’s different work than used for power gaming optimization combat only focused tables.
I love it people try to disregard things that all rangers can easily do with build specific counter examples. Yes a samurai and zealot can deal a lot of damage, and each of them have non of the rest of the benefits of a ranger, paladin, rogue, or spellcaster. We are again taking corner case builds, vastly different ones at that, and comparing them to the ranger and saying the ranger is bad.
So now we have the stealth, hiding, and skills of a rogue or scout rogue, the survival of a character with a specific background, the ranged combat abilities of an archer fighter with a specific subclass, the conjuring, crowd control, and AoE of a full spellcaster, the plant and animal interaction of a druid, and the healing of a support build with magic. Wow. It takes 5 characters to cover all of what a ranger, all rangers, baseline handbook rangers, can do innately.
It is....and several people have shared their frustration but apparently that is not enough evidence to believe that people struggle with it?
Or the fact that WotC completely replaced said features with new options when no other class got the same treatment? (only ONE other class got a feature replacement option and it was basically the same just slightly tweaked)
I won't go down the rabbit hole of ALL SIX of the different ranger variants there has been but needless to say there is enough evidence to suggest that, yes indeed a good amount of people found the abilities to be lacking.
Please be fair when it comes to concerns of others and do not write them off as "not understanding". I get the PHB class works for you but its obvious it doesn't for a lot of people.
You say end a fight before it starts....the best way to do that is to kill the thing fast. Its just as vaild as any ranger spell option....I do not see anything on their list that lets them actually remove a creature from combat completely like Banishment or the like....so lets be real here.
Crowd control, Conjuring, and the like are all good and I have ROUTINELY suggested that ranger gets good spells enough to not warrant leaving the class before 9th level. I do get it.
But nothing beyond that 9th level is amazing enough to suggest that not another single martial class cannot turn the tide of a battle with their abilites....even if it is just completely erasing a high level threat with a metric shit ton of damage.
Leaving aside the constant quest for more damage (I actually do get it and given that 5e is a hyper focused combat game sadly it makes sense so maybe we can come back to it later hung?) Tom, Optimus and I made some suggestions for upgrading the core abilities or fulling reworking them ( I did read yours to. - still thinking them over). Optimus, your saying that as things stand now you don’t see much reason not to MC sometime after L9-11, would that opinion change if tom’s or my ideas were actually instituted? If not how would you redo them to make them something that would reset your thinking? Same question fo everyone else too.
in the mean time I’m starting to look at the subclasses and think about what I would change there as well. First up the Hunter - my change here would be simple - instead of having to choose one of the options permanently at L3,7, 11, & 15 you would get all at that level and would have to declare which you were using each round. The ranger, and especially the hunter, is the jack of all trades class and limiting to only one of each of those abilities all the time is crazy. Take L3 - colossus slayer and giant killer are meant for taking on single foes, colossus slayer is more archer oriented while giant killer is more melee oriented while horde breaker is more masses of foes oriented. Same thing at L7,11, and 15. I don’t think it would be OP and would make the hunter far more versatile.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Well, we are at an impasse then. The metric several of you are exclusively using to say the ranger doesn’t hold up past levels 5 or 9 is Purely for single target damage, which is NOT what the ranger’s role focus is past level 10. From levels 2 through 10 they deal some of the highest single target damage of any martial build. If maintaining that past level 10 is of great value to someone, go for it.
Funny how often one finds opinions on data that suddenly turn into facts. like a 70% satisfaction rating is a failure in a Wotc survey. I say most of the population is satisfied with the ranger and only a select loud majority actually wants any thing new beyond tashas and PHB sharing the space for ranger. Most haters cant even agree on what is bad.
Phb ranger exists and wizards has stated tasha's is not a replacement. but some people are ok with white lies that prove their point. I try not to be one of them.
Out of 6 attempts to change the ranger it has stayed mostly the same.(almost every tasha ability can be shown as similar but with trade off benefit and loss) That speaks to its robust nature. They have admitted bad design in the past. Summon statblocks, TWF, and errata. They have yet to actually say ranger is flawed or bad. They said tasha's is an option for those who are dissatisfied.
Tasha’s offered options for the ranger to put them in line with other hyper combat focused subclass option in Tasha’s. The entire book is optional. Someone who assumes Tasha’s is there as a fix for the ranger is wrong. It’s an option for a particular play style that is not the majority. If it was the majority than a permanent change at the root would be in order. That has not been done.
Yes, Rosco. Elections are won in margins of less then 2%. A 70% satisfaction rate is high.
Aren't y'all tired of rehashing the same conversations over and over? Of going in circles again and again?
1. Rangers don't nova very well. There. That's a fact. If you're looking for a character to nova, then by all means, I encourage you to go Samurai or Batltemaster Fighter or to play a Paladin and blow all your slots on Divine Smite. Whatever. The Ranger, however, does deal impressive consistent damage that usually comes with riders from their subclasses. They can keep up with Fighters (not surpass, but who the **** is asking them to?) while having additional riders. That's in combat. In addition, they are entirely more capable than any Fighter when combat stops.
2. Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, and Hide in Plain Sight are divisive abilities. Fine. We can stop debating the merits of them now. People who like them can use them to their fullest and people who don't can take Favored Foe, Deft Explorer, and Nature's Veil instead (or any combination thereof.) Let's move on.
I am not sure where you get the 70% satisfied rate but its was considerably lower than that when revised ranger came out....
A quote from WotC:
"Over the past year, you’ve seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin"
Source: UA_RevisedRanger.pdf (wizards.com)
Ultimately JC backtracked on it some but I think its more WotC inability to change old material but rather just create something new and call that the "fix" rather than the actual dissatisfaction that's obviously surrounded the class since the early 5e days.
(See hexblade, Tasha's ranger, Undead Warlock, etc...)
Obviously regardless it was enough dissatisfaction for them to make changes...they did not try NEARLY as hard for any other class and that is telling in itself.
Yep I’ve been trying 😁
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Agreed...but this whole thread was started to suggest what could be fixed and when people made suggestions about abilities in #2 you get people saying:
Making the assumption that people just "dont understand the class" and that's why they think the features are bad....when in reality people understand them and see them as badly designed features.
If you want to move on from the topic then stop assuming:
1. People haven't played the PHB Ranger or DM'd for them
2. That people do not understand the PHB ranger features
Its not really productive to conversation if you constantly make baseless assumptions about people's play history or knowledge base.
I have DM'd and played PHB rangers....their features (beyond spellcasting and their martial components) are bad IMO. Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, Hide in Plain Sight, Foe slayer, and Feral Senses are IMO poorly written and do not synergize well with the kit as a whole. Favored Foe comes close to working and would actually work well with ranger if you invested in it more. As your levels progress you should lose concentration for it and it should give you other features that are tied to your subclass.
THAT would actually make the feature meaningfully progress where it feels good to stay in the class past level 9 after you get your most useful spells.
What a ranger is happens to be the issue. WotC doesn’t put out stuff below some crazy satisfaction rating. Like 80%.
Its so funny to me that you think that because rangers hit more in Tasha’s that is somehow self evident of terribleness of the original. I see that more as as pacifier. I’m a room with 100 adults and 1 crying infant, you don’t have all of the adults put in earplugs, you give the infant a pacifier. The game is the core 3 books. All the rest is optional fluff, not fixes.