wait hold..... on the idea that this thread is just to homebrew fixes is not what i got from improving the ranger. if the majority say this is for homebrew fixes, This will be my last post in thread. I will be out and will no longer participate. (so you now no how to get rid of me)
wizards have stated they want a rewrite of the core rulebooks to be created in the near future (2024?). Improving it means to me, we should be focusing on what would be published in that book to remove the current problems and keep all the core classes within the same scope of power and function of each other. This is why I am so opposed to any major re-writes (removing magic, breaking down hunter options to give to every other ranger, stuff like that.)because wizards will not do anything that undermines the basic function of the class(probably).
The way I see it the best ways to improve are
removing dm or player abuse via vague interpretations of rules.
give the ranger a mode of changing some stuff possibly 1 of the following(favored terrains, Favored enemies, fighting styles, spells known)
turn some stuff into ranger specific equipment, Environmental gear, camo, Ranger only magic items, pet only magic items
consolidate(and possibly complete) harvesting and crafting rules.
new spells. (A spell specifically for resurrect beasts. paladins with mounts, druids, people who just like party pets. PHB rangers could all use it and make the game more interesting) possibly a ranger specific spell that temporarily grants Favored terrains and/or enemies.
Fighting style tweaks Or new ones (druidic warrior should come with something else. prepared spells or rituals or attunement to druid items ) (blind sight should actually help with the invisibility condition)
close off the PHB pet death loophole and instead add a mechanic for swapping them out.
I don't like how the vanilla Beast Master screws over saving throws: both the riders for the beast's attacks and their own saving throws. So I fix that at my table by adding the ranger's proficiency bonus to both the rider and all saving throws; even death saving throws. And I give them additional hit dice─equal to the ranger's level─because I think their hit points are too low. I've also come up with bonus spells for both the Beast Master and Hunter that follow the same conventions as those introduced in Xanathar's. And then I went back and edited those spell lists after Tasha's updated the class' spell list.
The phb pet saving throw sentence is actually worded weird and needs a fix because it has two different meanings.(according to popular discussion) . look another ranger area that has both a good and bad interpretation.
I also think there are several under-implemented parts of the game that cause pet problems. For example, saves and skills for the phb pet could be altered. one way is the dmg had magic items (the minor and major beneficial properties) to grant Proficiencies or increase save dcs.(but other magic users tend to discount a player giving them to a pet). There are also training rules that allow for time adjustments. I think the ranger if using travel time to train their pet should get a boon for training certain ones .
I don't like how the vanilla Beast Master screws over saving throws: both the riders for the beast's attacks and their own saving throws. So I fix that at my table by adding the ranger's proficiency bonus to both the rider and all saving throws; even death saving throws. And I give them additional hit dice─equal to the ranger's level─because I think their hit points are too low. I've also come up with bonus spells for both the Beast Master and Hunter that follow the same conventions as those introduced in Xanathar's. And then I went back and edited those spell lists after Tasha's updated the class' spell list.
The phb pet saving throw sentence is actually worded weird and needs a fix because it has two different meanings.(according to popular discussion) . look another ranger area that has both a good and bad interpretation.
I also think there are several under-implemented parts of the game that cause pet problems. For example, saves and skills for the phb pet could be altered. one way is the dmg had magic items (the minor and major beneficial properties) to grant Proficiencies or increase save dcs.(but other magic users tend to discount a player giving them to a pet). There are also training rules that allow for time adjustments. I think the ranger if using travel time to train their pet should get a boon for training certain ones .
I know the sentence you're talking about, and while an Oxford comma would help I do not think it would be adequate. It's a poorly-written block of text which should have seen at least one more editing pass for clarity of authorial intent. For the life of me, I do not understand how this happened. I would have caught that in college; working for the school paper.
which option is actually the most balanced? what do we actually think is the raw and or RAI? could Raw "any saving throws" actually include the ones it causes AKA increase DC's?
for that matter because the beast needs to be commanded by the ranger does that mean it cant be commanded via charms or spells(making some saves un-necessary ). which is the specific and which is the general rule.
to be fair I think if a dm gives beast gets all of the RAW benefits listed in the base ranger... it is super OP (for certain pets) and some trade offs are needed. that's why I think Tasha's pets actually loose a lot of potential features.
IMO Being proficient in all saves is fine and raw, dc increase isn't needed for pets that have harvestable poisons because of potentially infinite access making it a way to absolutely wreck damage calcuations.
1) Why do you even bother to start with a ranger before dipping out? (instead of say starting with a fighter with the outlander or folk hero background and taking nature as a skill)
Part of it is that the Ranger is legitimately strong in low levels, with a myriad of great features worth picking up. Fighting style, good proficiencies, a spell selection that is, while not straight forward, always usable for something and, finally, extremely frontloaded archetypes. The Gloom Stalker isn't just the best overall Ranger archetype (at least I don't know which would be better), but it also gets both of its playstyle defining abilities at level 3. The other features are nice, but not really necessary.
Even with just 4 spells known, you can pick up great hits like Zephyr Strike, Goodberry, Spike Growth, Pass Without Trace etc. (swap out one of your 1st lvl spells for an additional 2nd lvl spell at Ranger 5).
After reaching level 5, you have a bit of a conundrum. Level 6 typically isn't great and 7 is highly variable. 8 is nice, but it is often worth waiting 1 level on an ASI for a class features. That means we can look to other classes and see what they offer instead, short and long term. If you want to lean into the martial side of the Ranger, going Rogue or Fighter tends to scale better, while also sacrificing little from those classes in turn. I think a Stalker 5-> Ro / F has the potential to outperform singleclassed Ro and F for much of the progression, while sacrificing little of its own in the short run because of how level 6 and 7 tend to work out.
On the other hand, if you want to lean more into the Ranger's gish role, why wouldn't I use these levels to begin with Druid instead? The increased spell progression coupled with having many of the same powerful spells and being a prepared caster is certainly appealing. You also lose very little of your martial abilities since Rangers unlock most of their martial abilities at levels 2-5.
2) What features of the ranger are you looking for or do you like mechanically or thematically that make you bother with it at all rather than just ignore it completely?
I would like to see something in T3 (ideally in the level 11-13 range) that is impactful enough to be worth holding out for. Multiclassing out of the Ranger would be a lot less appealing in T3 than T2, because you'd lose out on the higher level spells and features of other classes, which would make abilities like Vanish and Feral Senses nice enough to keep you over to 5th level spells.
It's either that or we have to seriously reconsider how their T2 progression is.
3) What do you see as it’s place in D&D?
Currently, I'd say it is kinda like a 2nd Edition Human Fighter: While not awful on its own or anything, it is more valuable for what it can become than what it is.
But if the question is what I think the Ranger should be, I'd say I'd love for them to be the martial defined by their archetype more than any other class. The basics of the Ranger class were always fine, or at least not awful, if we look at it from the standpoint of the archetypes having been originally meant to decide their leanings in combat. What is the Hunter if not an attempt to build a martial focused Ranger?
Sticking with Hunter, a few tweaks could've sealed the deal on that. Giant Killer, Steel Will and Escape the Horde could do with some direct tweaking, but otherwise I find lvl 3, 7 and 15 to be fine. I suppose Volley is nice enough for archers (but I would want a bigger radius. 15 ft? Or maybe change it so Rangers can use a bonus action for an additional bow attack). Whirlwind should work off of melee weapon range and not just 5ft range. This would make reach weapons like glaive very interesting options with a lot of potential. I would also like to add a couple more options to reflect the Ranger's options for fighting styles. Not limited to what you picked, but complimentary. Let's assume Volley is for Archery and Whirlwind is for Rangers using a single weapon (1 or 2 handed).
Let's make one for dual wielding: You can make an additional attack with your off-hand weapon when engaging in two-weapon fighting (2 attacks on bonus action). The exact language of the feature would have to be figured out, obviously. Would that be powerful? Yes, absolutely. But it would come with some interesting opportunity costs:
Doing anything other than attacking with both your standard and bonus action, which is often necessary in an actual combat situation, would reduce your damage output notably.
You give up utility and spells granted by other subclasses, since the Hunter does (and should in this example) only have combat features.
You have to be dual wielding (wouldn't work with Polearm Master or Monk unarmed bonus action attacks) and dual wielding is typically behind archery and 2handed in terms of damage dealing since they don't have the feat support.
What is the purpose of this Hunter? Being a dedicated martial Ranger at the cost of every other benefit an archetype could give. It's almost there already, but I find the current lvl 11 features to lack the necessary "umph" to justify it. A 20 dex Hunter with +1 weapons would do 4d6+24 at level 11. A 20 str Fighter with a +1 greatsword would do 6d6+18 at level 11, before rerolling damage from Great Weapon style or adding GWM. That's 38 vs 39 (the latter would also gain more from a crit) before accuracy and the Fighter still has their bonus action, can choose to Action Surge or do a myriad of things with their subclass features, like adding a bunch of damage and other effects as a Battlemaster. The Hunter would litterally only have movement left.
"Would this just be Drizzt the Archetype then?"
Hey! People like Drizzt and he is, for better or worse, the most iconic Ranger in D&D. Having an archetype that reflects that type of Ranger seems sensible to me. And I feel like dual wielding needs some love, so why not give them some in the class most closely associated with it in D&D?
Tasha's updated Beastmaster and the Drake Warden seem to be pretty good at what they do as pet classes and the Gloom Stalker is an interesting way to be a stealthy Ranger. We could also add something for a more caster oriented Ranger, which has gotten more support with the Druidic Warrior fighting style.
Outside of my first group, is there anyone else that has any interest in the exploration/travel features of the ranger or are they effectively wasted on you?
I have come to despise Driz’zt for just the reasons Tom mentioned - he is an iconic character that has a dip into ranger and so too many folks think he ipitomizes what a ranger is supposed to beans to my mind he is , as I said previously , a fighter with a ranger dip not a “real” ranger. Aragorn comes closer to being a true D&D ranger but he doesn’t really use spells, but then Tolkien didn’t really use much magic at all (a great example of a low magic world). So I don’t think we have ever really seen a solid example of travel, exploration etc and how a ranger changes it for a party in any solid fantasy novels, especially the WOtC ones that might be usable to design rangers off of. I’ve seen a lot of that in some western novels and done some irl and that is a major part of being a ranger to my mind.
Outside of my first group, is there anyone else that has any interest in the exploration/travel features of the ranger or are they effectively wasted on you?
Utilizing exploration takes a particular group and DM to work, especially seeing as the mechanics of the game are mostly centered around combat. So while I don't mind Ranger having these features since they are a nice flavor and can be very useful, they should not be dependent on them to be relevant.
I have come to despise Driz’zt for just the reasons Tom mentioned - he is an iconic character that has a dip into ranger and so too many folks think he ipitomizes what a ranger is supposed to beans to my mind he is , as I said previously , a fighter with a ranger dip not a “real” ranger. Aragorn comes closer to being a true D&D ranger but he doesn’t really use spells, but then Tolkien didn’t really use much magic at all (a great example of a low magic world). So I don’t think we have ever really seen a solid example of travel, exploration etc and how a ranger changes it for a party in any solid fantasy novels, especially the WOtC ones that might be usable to design rangers off of. I’ve seen a lot of that in some western novels and done some irl and that is a major part of being a ranger to my mind.
Rangers were primarily martial classes until 5th Edition and the early 5e version of the class also seemed to lean more into that, so I'd say you're on no firmer ground than anyone else when it comes to deciding what a "real" Ranger is. With the right features, archetypes probably could make everyone happy by providing a Ranger flavor they like.
Rangers started as a subclass of fighters it’s true, but even back in 1e they were the magic using subclass and were flavored as the outdoor exploration subclass as opposed to straight combat fighting. The outdoor exploration area along with the spells has always been the core of the class with the martial aspect.
Rangers started as a subclass of fighters it’s true, but even back in 1e they were the magic using subclass and were flavored as the outdoor exploration subclass as opposed to straight combat fighting. The outdoor exploration area along with the spells has always been the core of the class with the martial aspect.
Sure and I'm happy to keep them. I am partial to making the magic stuff more of an archetype thing, but that's just what I would want for a new class. For the current Ranger class, seeing how most of its combat features are tied up in its archetype and has been since the beginning, I think capitalizing on that to make as many people happy as possible would be a good idea. Having archetypes with sufficiently strong higher level features (Ranger still score really well low level) leaning into different things seems like the easiest way to fix most of the issues people have with the class. Hunter almost nailed it, but it feels too weak compared to Stalker to compensate for the lack of spells and other features.
Let me flip this discussion around for a bit. Through a whole bunch of threads here in the ranger forum I keep seeing the same thing - a fairly small core of us (me, Frank, Rosco, Envoy) seem to really like the ranger as is and find we can play it effectively with almost any DM seeing the need only for fairly small tweaks here and there. There is a second (larger it seems) group that is highly dissatisfied with the ranger and fells you have to multiclass out to really do anything with it and that it needs another major rewrite to be an effective class in 5e. I doubt we are ever going to do much besides bicker unless we find some common ground to work from. So let me as those of you in group 2 a couple of questions: 1) Why do you even bother to start with a ranger before dipping out? (instead of say starting with a fighter with the outlander or folk hero background and taking nature as a skill) 2) What features of the ranger are you looking for or do you like mechanically or thematically that make you bother with it at all rather than just ignore it completely? 3) What do you see as it’s place in D&D?
I know I'm way late to the party, but I did want to answer this.
1. Big fan of Ranger; hate multicasting in general. I always go straight [insert class here] and Ranger is not now nor will it ever be the exception. Besides, I find the "bad" features aren't really even that bad.
2. Love the Ranger spellcasting, adore the subclasses' flavor and mechanics, love both Primeval and Primal Awareness, Deft and Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, Nature's Veil, and Vanish.
3. Here's where we get into the weeds of things. Most people will say the Ranger is a survivalist, a warrior of the wilds, and/or the mountain man. And I'm not going to argue against that interpretation. But to this day I have not yet made a Ranger that fits that description myself. My Hunter was an assassin for her Kingdom's government. My Beast Master was part of a mercenary crew. My Gloom Stalker was a street urchin turned erstwhile Queen. My Horizon Walker was a literal superhero. My Monster Slayer takes after Buffy, the Winchesters, and the Belmonts. My Fey Wanderer is practically an adult Alice Liddell. My Swarm Keeper is a riff on Nicholas Cage and his whole "bees!" Fiasco. And my Drake Warden is an anthropologist who who found a baby dragon that imprinted on her.
They span a wide range of professions and styles, but "mountain man" is nowhere in sight. To me, Rangers fulfill two fantasies that are not easily replicated by other classes.
The first of these is "Explorer." And sure, that can mean Lewis and Clark style of exploring unknown swamps, forests, and mountains. But to me, it encompasses so much more. A Ranger explores the Underdark, the Feywild, the Astral Sea, the Ethereal Plane, the Elemental Chaos, the Negative Energy Plane, and the Positive Energy Plane as well as the natural world. More of a frontiersman on steroids. To me, a Ranger should feel just as comfortable in a canoe or a wagon as they do in a spelljammer or solar sailer. It's why Horizon Walker and Fey Wanderer are my favorite subclasses. They take the "Explorer" theme to it's logical extreme.
The second fantasy is the Hunter/Tamer of monsters. Rangers have a connection to the monsters that inhabit the natural world just as much as Clerics and Paladins have a connection to gods, Druids have a connection to the Primal Spirits, and Warlocks have a connection to Eldritch Entities. It's the nature of that connection that sets Rangers apart, however. While Clerics, Paladins, and Druids have a supportive relationship with the Entities they deal with, and Warlocks may or may not be trying to outplay their patrons, Rangers default to having an adversarial relationship with the monsters they are associated with. Whether it's a Monster Slayer hunting vampires, ghosts, and werewolves to protect the innocent (to quote Supernatural: "saving people; hunting things) or Beast Masters, Drake Wardens, and Swarm Keepers taming the monsters they encounter them and using them to hunt down other monsters (this establishing a hierarchical relationship in which the Ranger almost ironically takes the role of Patron,) the Ranger is always on the lookout for things that go bump in the night and are ready to subjugate them.
So there you have it. In my humble opinion, Rangers are Explorers and Hunters/Tamers. The Primal Magic aspect of them comes into play in the same way Buffy or Dean Winchester use magic when it's convenient for them. And the magic of the natural world fits them better than arcane or divine magic because they have an affinity for the monsters that inhabit it and explore every nook and cranny of the natural world as well as the worlds beyond.
In it JC lays down some actual information that proves and disproves something for each one of us, including myself. We have all felt, said, thought, believed, and claimed a lot, and this touches on much of it.
In it JC lays down some actual information that proves and disproves something for each one of us, including myself. We have all felt, said, thought, believed, and claimed a lot, and this touches on much of it.
Some of that interview/sage advice needs to be taken as the thoughts of almost 4 years ago, as for the whole they have a "Ranger class and that doesn't need to be replaced for mechanical reasons" (paraphrasing) has been shown to no longer be the case Undead warlock shows a willingness that may not have existed at the time of the development mindset.
Many of the ranger issue people are listing are kind of linked to some of the base mechanics of the game (most of which are in place for balance, but seem to be extra restrictive to Ranger as noted before a class that seemed to get less development time than the rest within those subsystems), maybe post level 9 or so there could be the introduction of an additional concentration "slot" only usable for ranger spells (to combat the issue people have with concentration-less spells being poached by dips/magical secrets) and maybe the add an additional bonus action (probably with the caveat of adding once per turn to spells like swift quiver).
Before level 9 though maybe a Danger sense-like ability for Constitution that can't be used while exhausted.
Many of the ranger issue people are listing are kind of linked to some of the base mechanics of the game (most of which are in place for balance, but seem to be extra restrictive to Ranger as noted before a class that seemed to get less development time than the rest within those subsystems), maybe post level 9 or so there could be the introduction of an additional concentration "slot" only usable for ranger spells (to combat the issue people have with concentration-less spells being poached by dips/magical secrets) and maybe the add an additional bonus action (probably with the caveat of adding once per turn to spells like swift quiver).
Before level 9 though maybe a Danger sense-like ability for Constitution that can't be used while exhausted.
I like the idea of boosting the Ranger's constitution saves via a class feature. A friend of mine has suggested it too, when we've been talking about it. It would go a long way to make the concentration spells Ranger's rely on feel more reliable.
Let me flip this discussion around for a bit. Through a whole bunch of threads here in the ranger forum I keep seeing the same thing - a fairly small core of us (me, Frank, Rosco, Envoy) seem to really like the ranger as is and find we can play it effectively with almost any DM seeing the need only for fairly small tweaks here and there. There is a second (larger it seems) group that is highly dissatisfied with the ranger and fells you have to multiclass out to really do anything with it and that it needs another major rewrite to be an effective class in 5e. I doubt we are ever going to do much besides bicker unless we find some common ground to work from. So let me as those of you in group 2 a couple of questions: 1) Why do you even bother to start with a ranger before dipping out? (instead of say starting with a fighter with the outlander or folk hero background and taking nature as a skill) 2) What features of the ranger are you looking for or do you like mechanically or thematically that make you bother with it at all rather than just ignore it completely? 3) What do you see as it’s place in D&D?
I know I'm way late to the party, but I did want to answer this.
1. Big fan of Ranger; hate multicasting in general. I always go straight [insert class here] and Ranger is not now nor will it ever be the exception. Besides, I find the "bad" features aren't really even that bad.
2. Love the Ranger spellcasting, adore the subclasses' flavor and mechanics, love both Primeval and Primal Awareness, Deft and Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, Nature's Veil, and Vanish.
3. Here's where we get into the weeds of things. Most people will say the Ranger is a survivalist, a warrior of the wilds, and/or the mountain man. And I'm not going to argue against that interpretation. But to this day I have not yet made a Ranger that fits that description myself. My Hunter was an assassin for her Kingdom's government. My Beast Master was part of a mercenary crew. My Gloom Stalker was a street urchin turned erstwhile Queen. My Horizon Walker was a literal superhero. My Monster Slayer takes after Buffy, the Winchesters, and the Belmonts. My Fey Wanderer is practically an adult Alice Liddell. My Swarm Keeper is a riff on Nicholas Cage and his whole "bees!" Fiasco. And my Drake Warden is an anthropologist who who found a baby dragon that imprinted on her.
They span a wide range of professions and styles, but "mountain man" is nowhere in sight. To me, Rangers fulfill two fantasies that are not easily replicated by other classes.
The first of these is "Explorer." And sure, that can mean Lewis and Clark style of exploring unknown swamps, forests, and mountains. But to me, it encompasses so much more. A Ranger explores the Underdark, the Feywild, the Astral Sea, the Ethereal Plane, the Elemental Chaos, the Negative Energy Plane, and the Positive Energy Plane as well as the natural world. More of a frontiersman on steroids. To me, a Ranger should feel just as comfortable in a canoe or a wagon as they do in a spelljammer or solar sailer. It's why Horizon Walker and Fey Wanderer are my favorite subclasses. They take the "Explorer" theme to it's logical extreme.
The second fantasy is the Hunter/Tamer of monsters. Rangers have a connection to the monsters that inhabit the natural world just as much as Clerics and Paladins have a connection to gods, Druids have a connection to the Primal Spirits, and Warlocks have a connection to Eldritch Entities. It's the nature of that connection that sets Rangers apart, however. While Clerics, Paladins, and Druids have a supportive relationship with the Entities they deal with, and Warlocks may or may not be trying to outplay their patrons, Rangers default to having an adversarial relationship with the monsters they are associated with. Whether it's a Monster Slayer hunting vampires, ghosts, and werewolves to protect the innocent (to quote Supernatural: "saving people; hunting things) or Beast Masters, Drake Wardens, and Swarm Keepers taming the monsters they encounter them and using them to hunt down other monsters (this establishing a hierarchical relationship in which the Ranger almost ironically takes the role of Patron,) the Ranger is always on the lookout for things that go bump in the night and are ready to subjugate them.
So there you have it. In my humble opinion, Rangers are Explorers and Hunters/Tamers. The Primal Magic aspect of them comes into play in the same way Buffy or Dean Winchester use magic when it's convenient for them. And the magic of the natural world fits them better than arcane or divine magic because they have an affinity for the monsters that inhabit it and explore every nook and cranny of the natural world as well as the worlds beyond.
Rangers can indeed be a lot of different things, because the basics are flavorful while not being restrictive. And I think the base features (even PHB features) combined with sufficiently strong archetypes could go a long way to please everyone.
Gloom Stalkers are great for sneaky variants of the Ranger, like assassins, ambush hunters and Underdark explorers. Tasha's Beastmaster and Drakewarden are good for companion classes. Horizon Walker and Fey Wanderer buy into the more exotic parts of the world. I would love to see a new archetype that goes all in on being a martial class and, hey, why not one that focuses more on spellcasting and less on martial stuff as well?
Many of the ranger issue people are listing are kind of linked to some of the base mechanics of the game (most of which are in place for balance, but seem to be extra restrictive to Ranger as noted before a class that seemed to get less development time than the rest within those subsystems), maybe post level 9 or so there could be the introduction of an additional concentration "slot" only usable for ranger spells (to combat the issue people have with concentration-less spells being poached by dips/magical secrets) and maybe the add an additional bonus action (probably with the caveat of adding once per turn to spells like swift quiver).
Many of the ranger issue people are listing are kind of linked to some of the base mechanics of the game (most of which are in place for balance, but seem to be extra restrictive to Ranger as noted before a class that seemed to get less development time than the rest within those subsystems), maybe post level 9 or so there could be the introduction of an additional concentration "slot" only usable for ranger spells (to combat the issue people have with concentration-less spells being poached by dips/magical secrets) and maybe the add an additional bonus action (probably with the caveat of adding once per turn to spells like swift quiver).
Before level 9 though maybe a Danger sense-like ability for Constitution that can't be used while exhausted.
I like the idea of boosting the Ranger's constitution saves via a class feature. A friend of mine has suggested it too, when we've been talking about it. It would go a long way to make the concentration spells Ranger's rely on feel more reliable.
Let me flip this discussion around for a bit. Through a whole bunch of threads here in the ranger forum I keep seeing the same thing - a fairly small core of us (me, Frank, Rosco, Envoy) seem to really like the ranger as is and find we can play it effectively with almost any DM seeing the need only for fairly small tweaks here and there. There is a second (larger it seems) group that is highly dissatisfied with the ranger and fells you have to multiclass out to really do anything with it and that it needs another major rewrite to be an effective class in 5e. I doubt we are ever going to do much besides bicker unless we find some common ground to work from. So let me as those of you in group 2 a couple of questions: 1) Why do you even bother to start with a ranger before dipping out? (instead of say starting with a fighter with the outlander or folk hero background and taking nature as a skill) 2) What features of the ranger are you looking for or do you like mechanically or thematically that make you bother with it at all rather than just ignore it completely? 3) What do you see as it’s place in D&D?
I know I'm way late to the party, but I did want to answer this.
1. Big fan of Ranger; hate multicasting in general. I always go straight [insert class here] and Ranger is not now nor will it ever be the exception. Besides, I find the "bad" features aren't really even that bad.
2. Love the Ranger spellcasting, adore the subclasses' flavor and mechanics, love both Primeval and Primal Awareness, Deft and Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, Nature's Veil, and Vanish.
3. Here's where we get into the weeds of things. Most people will say the Ranger is a survivalist, a warrior of the wilds, and/or the mountain man. And I'm not going to argue against that interpretation. But to this day I have not yet made a Ranger that fits that description myself. My Hunter was an assassin for her Kingdom's government. My Beast Master was part of a mercenary crew. My Gloom Stalker was a street urchin turned erstwhile Queen. My Horizon Walker was a literal superhero. My Monster Slayer takes after Buffy, the Winchesters, and the Belmonts. My Fey Wanderer is practically an adult Alice Liddell. My Swarm Keeper is a riff on Nicholas Cage and his whole "bees!" Fiasco. And my Drake Warden is an anthropologist who who found a baby dragon that imprinted on her.
They span a wide range of professions and styles, but "mountain man" is nowhere in sight. To me, Rangers fulfill two fantasies that are not easily replicated by other classes.
The first of these is "Explorer." And sure, that can mean Lewis and Clark style of exploring unknown swamps, forests, and mountains. But to me, it encompasses so much more. A Ranger explores the Underdark, the Feywild, the Astral Sea, the Ethereal Plane, the Elemental Chaos, the Negative Energy Plane, and the Positive Energy Plane as well as the natural world. More of a frontiersman on steroids. To me, a Ranger should feel just as comfortable in a canoe or a wagon as they do in a spelljammer or solar sailer. It's why Horizon Walker and Fey Wanderer are my favorite subclasses. They take the "Explorer" theme to it's logical extreme.
The second fantasy is the Hunter/Tamer of monsters. Rangers have a connection to the monsters that inhabit the natural world just as much as Clerics and Paladins have a connection to gods, Druids have a connection to the Primal Spirits, and Warlocks have a connection to Eldritch Entities. It's the nature of that connection that sets Rangers apart, however. While Clerics, Paladins, and Druids have a supportive relationship with the Entities they deal with, and Warlocks may or may not be trying to outplay their patrons, Rangers default to having an adversarial relationship with the monsters they are associated with. Whether it's a Monster Slayer hunting vampires, ghosts, and werewolves to protect the innocent (to quote Supernatural: "saving people; hunting things) or Beast Masters, Drake Wardens, and Swarm Keepers taming the monsters they encounter them and using them to hunt down other monsters (this establishing a hierarchical relationship in which the Ranger almost ironically takes the role of Patron,) the Ranger is always on the lookout for things that go bump in the night and are ready to subjugate them.
So there you have it. In my humble opinion, Rangers are Explorers and Hunters/Tamers. The Primal Magic aspect of them comes into play in the same way Buffy or Dean Winchester use magic when it's convenient for them. And the magic of the natural world fits them better than arcane or divine magic because they have an affinity for the monsters that inhabit it and explore every nook and cranny of the natural world as well as the worlds beyond.
Rangers can indeed be a lot of different things, because the basics are flavorful while not being restrictive. And I think the base features (even PHB features) combined with sufficiently strong archetypes could go a long way to please everyone.
Gloom Stalkers are great for sneaky variants of the Ranger, like assassins, ambush hunters and Underdark explorers. Tasha's Beastmaster and Drakewarden are good for companion classes. Horizon Walker and Fey Wanderer buy into the more exotic parts of the world. I would love to see a new archetype that goes all in on being a martial class and, hey, why not one that focuses more on spellcasting and less on martial stuff as well?
Yeah for me Tasha's and XGtE fixed ranger to the point I mostly do not see many problems left with it in the realm that 95% of people play in (levels 1-11).
Beyond these levels the boosts you mention here would make a solo classed ranger more competitive with an "optimized" team .
To the point that people have seem PHB Beastmasters work at level 20...great I guess? It hasn't even been close to my experience where they struggled and abandoned the class at level 5 but to each there own I guess.
In an unoptimized group PHB ranger will be fine as the group is less likely to care about the balance between classes as they are not running the "optimized" builds we keep comparing in this thread. Which is completely fine....I have been in games like that (no one played ranger but still) and it was a fun time.
However, the more "optimized" games I have been in the Ranger has felt underwhelming in the non-combat parts of the game with PHB options. I know its a small sample set so I realize YMMV.
Overall its definitely OK to see the higher level features as having lower value for a lot of game tables even after Tashas as they provide benefits that are generally outclassed by spells/other features IMO.
What is NOT ok is to assume people are "Ignorant" of the ranger and that is the only reason they cannot see eye to eye on the PHB options and the higher level features. Their experiences and insights are just as valuable as yours. Obviously they got enough feedback to warrant change and it was given in the levels that 90% of people play in. I think they would have touched on higher level features but they really didn't bother with ANY class to mess with anything beyond level 10.
To say they were placating a vocal group of players.....so what? Isn't that what they should be striving for? The people who want to play the class but find it wanting seem like the best people to ask to make positive changes in the game.
Personally I think JC backpedaled mostly because they did not want to have to reprint the PHB and they have a weird complex around not admitting mistakes even when its blatantly obvious they did. Its a perception thing with WotC and I am not sure why they do it.
They put fixes in for Beastmaster, PHB ranger features, and gave XGtE rangers more spells known....so they are aware of the issues that people had with ranger and are giving options for fixes so its obvious they care and put a LOT of time into the fixes.
Just puzzling how they decided to go about communicating around these....it makes no sense.
What is the standard people use to measure the usefulness of an area of effect ability? Because people seem to value Volley and Whirlwind a lot higher than I would.
Edit: To clarify, I mean how many average targets per area etc?
It depends. Either 2, 3, or 3+. I typically account for 3 and sparingly.
For example, a rogue at level 19 is doing an average of 46.5/round with a +3 bow over 3 battles totaling 12 rounds. A hunter using only hunter’s mark and a +3 bow is doing an average of 36.5/round, but adding in hitting 3 enemies once per battle with both volley and a level 4 hail of thorns now does an average of 54.38/round. A beast master with a wolf, +3 bow, and only hunter’s mark is doing 42/round (NOT assuming 1 AoO/battle, as I normally do), and 57.88 when hitting 3 enemies with a level 4 hail of thorns once per battle.
What is the standard people use to measure the usefulness of an area of effect ability? Because people seem to value Volley and Whirlwind a lot higher than I would.
Edit: To clarify, I mean how many average targets per area etc?
It depends. Either 2, 3, or 3+. I typically account for 3 and sparingly.
For example, a rogue at level 19 is doing an average of 46.5/round with a +3 bow over 3 battles totaling 12 rounds. A hunter using only hunter’s mark and a +3 bow is doing an average of 36.5/round, but adding in hitting 3 enemies once per battle with both volley and a level 4 hail of thorns now does an average of 54.38/round. A beast master with a wolf, +3 bow, and only hunter’s mark is doing 42/round (NOT assuming 1 AoO/battle, as I normally do), and 57.88 when hitting 3 enemies with a level 4 hail of thorns once per battle.
A baseline paladin using a +3 great sword and one 1st level and one 4th level divine smite per battle is doing an average of 46.88/round damage in the same 12 rounds over 3 battles.
Thank you again Envoy, you’ve done a better job of describing what I love about the ranger than I’ve managed so far - don’t be too surprised to portions quoted in other threads or even latter in this one 😁. I have used the mountain man trope a lot to try to remind folks that what sets the ranger apart is that he/she is, to a large extent, an outsider to normal society that steps in sometimes but isn’t really a part of. The scout rogue is, to my mind, a member of society that steps out to do a job and then returns. Pretty much the same thing for the ranger dipped fighter/barbarian. Somewhat the difference between the guy who lives 5 blocks from mom’s house but goes traveling every vacation to see the world and/or goes to a different national park to go camping ( with a tent, food, and full equipment) and the lady who has spent her life traveling the world living in many different places and maybe takes time off to center herself by simply walking into a national forest for a week/10 days with nothing but the clothes on her back and a decent knife and lives off the land in the middle of of nowhere away from society. They have very different world views.
Thank you again Envoy, you’ve done a better job of describing what I love about the ranger than I’ve managed so far - don’t be too surprised to portions quoted in other threads or even latter in this one 😁. I have used the mountain man trope a lot to try to remind folks that what sets the ranger apart is that he/she is, to a large extent, an outsider to normal society that steps in sometimes but isn’t really a part of. The scout rogue is, to my mind, a member of society that steps out to do a job and then returns. Pretty much the same thing for the ranger dipped fighter/barbarian. Somewhat the difference between the guy who lives 5 blocks from mom’s house but goes traveling every vacation to see the world and/or goes to a different national park to go camping ( with a tent, food, and full equipment) and the lady who has spent her life traveling the world living in many different places and maybe takes time off to center herself by simply walking into a national forest for a week/10 days with nothing but the clothes on her back and a decent knife and lives off the land in the middle of of nowhere away from society. They have very different world views.
I think there is a reductive element here, because the classes should primarily give access to mechanics first and only flavor insofar it establishes some basics. We don't want people to have to ask themselves if a Ranger can be a ruthless assassin instead of being Aragorn, for example, because mechanically the class is capable of being either if the player wants it to.
I think a slightly better way to think of the Ranger identity would be them as the "spec ops martial". With an additional skill proficiency and more direct out of combat features, their flavor has a lot to do with specializing in roles that other warrior classes might not be able or willing to. Their archetypes allow them to specialize in all manners of things.
Mechanically the problem the Ranger suffers now that they have mostly fixed their overall progression, with better spells and archetypes, is that they are a very frontloaded class. And, maybe to an extent, that playing a Ranger well requires a fair bit more understanding than a Paladin or Fighter, both in and out of combat. A lot of Ranger spells are not as obviously useful as Divine Smite or Action Surge, for example, even if they can turn the outcome of the fight.
The latter isn't really a problem, because it seems to me that enough people are interested in the flavor of the Ranger to give them a try, but the former does make it so Rangers get a lot of value out of multiclassing. I would argue so much value, in fact, that one has to justify staying as a Ranger instead of multiclassing from a building perspective. A few tweaks to features in the lvl 6-7 and 10-13 ranges would go a long way to fix that.
What tweaks Tom? I think you’ve said some somewhere in the previous 16 pages but let’s put some specifics down without having to reread everything to find them again.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
wait hold..... on the idea that this thread is just to homebrew fixes is not what i got from improving the ranger. if the majority say this is for homebrew fixes, This will be my last post in thread. I will be out and will no longer participate. (so you now no how to get rid of me)
wizards have stated they want a rewrite of the core rulebooks to be created in the near future (2024?). Improving it means to me, we should be focusing on what would be published in that book to remove the current problems and keep all the core classes within the same scope of power and function of each other. This is why I am so opposed to any major re-writes (removing magic, breaking down hunter options to give to every other ranger, stuff like that.)because wizards will not do anything that undermines the basic function of the class(probably).
The way I see it the best ways to improve are
The phb pet saving throw sentence is actually worded weird and needs a fix because it has two different meanings.(according to popular discussion) . look another ranger area that has both a good and bad interpretation.
I also think there are several under-implemented parts of the game that cause pet problems. For example, saves and skills for the phb pet could be altered. one way is the dmg had magic items (the minor and major beneficial properties) to grant Proficiencies or increase save dcs.(but other magic users tend to discount a player giving them to a pet). There are also training rules that allow for time adjustments. I think the ranger if using travel time to train their pet should get a boon for training certain ones .
I know the sentence you're talking about, and while an Oxford comma would help I do not think it would be adequate. It's a poorly-written block of text which should have seen at least one more editing pass for clarity of authorial intent. For the life of me, I do not understand how this happened. I would have caught that in college; working for the school paper.
so lets look at it
which option is actually the most balanced? what do we actually think is the raw and or RAI? could Raw "any saving throws" actually include the ones it causes AKA increase DC's?
for that matter because the beast needs to be commanded by the ranger does that mean it cant be commanded via charms or spells(making some saves un-necessary ). which is the specific and which is the general rule.
to be fair I think if a dm gives beast gets all of the RAW benefits listed in the base ranger... it is super OP (for certain pets) and some trade offs are needed. that's why I think Tasha's pets actually loose a lot of potential features.
IMO Being proficient in all saves is fine and raw, dc increase isn't needed for pets that have harvestable poisons because of potentially infinite access making it a way to absolutely wreck damage calcuations.
Part of it is that the Ranger is legitimately strong in low levels, with a myriad of great features worth picking up. Fighting style, good proficiencies, a spell selection that is, while not straight forward, always usable for something and, finally, extremely frontloaded archetypes. The Gloom Stalker isn't just the best overall Ranger archetype (at least I don't know which would be better), but it also gets both of its playstyle defining abilities at level 3. The other features are nice, but not really necessary.
Even with just 4 spells known, you can pick up great hits like Zephyr Strike, Goodberry, Spike Growth, Pass Without Trace etc. (swap out one of your 1st lvl spells for an additional 2nd lvl spell at Ranger 5).
After reaching level 5, you have a bit of a conundrum. Level 6 typically isn't great and 7 is highly variable. 8 is nice, but it is often worth waiting 1 level on an ASI for a class features. That means we can look to other classes and see what they offer instead, short and long term. If you want to lean into the martial side of the Ranger, going Rogue or Fighter tends to scale better, while also sacrificing little from those classes in turn. I think a Stalker 5-> Ro / F has the potential to outperform singleclassed Ro and F for much of the progression, while sacrificing little of its own in the short run because of how level 6 and 7 tend to work out.
On the other hand, if you want to lean more into the Ranger's gish role, why wouldn't I use these levels to begin with Druid instead? The increased spell progression coupled with having many of the same powerful spells and being a prepared caster is certainly appealing. You also lose very little of your martial abilities since Rangers unlock most of their martial abilities at levels 2-5.
I would like to see something in T3 (ideally in the level 11-13 range) that is impactful enough to be worth holding out for. Multiclassing out of the Ranger would be a lot less appealing in T3 than T2, because you'd lose out on the higher level spells and features of other classes, which would make abilities like Vanish and Feral Senses nice enough to keep you over to 5th level spells.
It's either that or we have to seriously reconsider how their T2 progression is.
Currently, I'd say it is kinda like a 2nd Edition Human Fighter: While not awful on its own or anything, it is more valuable for what it can become than what it is.
But if the question is what I think the Ranger should be, I'd say I'd love for them to be the martial defined by their archetype more than any other class. The basics of the Ranger class were always fine, or at least not awful, if we look at it from the standpoint of the archetypes having been originally meant to decide their leanings in combat. What is the Hunter if not an attempt to build a martial focused Ranger?
Sticking with Hunter, a few tweaks could've sealed the deal on that. Giant Killer, Steel Will and Escape the Horde could do with some direct tweaking, but otherwise I find lvl 3, 7 and 15 to be fine. I suppose Volley is nice enough for archers (but I would want a bigger radius. 15 ft? Or maybe change it so Rangers can use a bonus action for an additional bow attack). Whirlwind should work off of melee weapon range and not just 5ft range. This would make reach weapons like glaive very interesting options with a lot of potential. I would also like to add a couple more options to reflect the Ranger's options for fighting styles. Not limited to what you picked, but complimentary. Let's assume Volley is for Archery and Whirlwind is for Rangers using a single weapon (1 or 2 handed).
Let's make one for dual wielding: You can make an additional attack with your off-hand weapon when engaging in two-weapon fighting (2 attacks on bonus action). The exact language of the feature would have to be figured out, obviously. Would that be powerful? Yes, absolutely. But it would come with some interesting opportunity costs:
What is the purpose of this Hunter? Being a dedicated martial Ranger at the cost of every other benefit an archetype could give. It's almost there already, but I find the current lvl 11 features to lack the necessary "umph" to justify it. A 20 dex Hunter with +1 weapons would do 4d6+24 at level 11. A 20 str Fighter with a +1 greatsword would do 6d6+18 at level 11, before rerolling damage from Great Weapon style or adding GWM. That's 38 vs 39 (the latter would also gain more from a crit) before accuracy and the Fighter still has their bonus action, can choose to Action Surge or do a myriad of things with their subclass features, like adding a bunch of damage and other effects as a Battlemaster. The Hunter would litterally only have movement left.
"Would this just be Drizzt the Archetype then?"
Hey! People like Drizzt and he is, for better or worse, the most iconic Ranger in D&D. Having an archetype that reflects that type of Ranger seems sensible to me. And I feel like dual wielding needs some love, so why not give them some in the class most closely associated with it in D&D?
Tasha's updated Beastmaster and the Drake Warden seem to be pretty good at what they do as pet classes and the Gloom Stalker is an interesting way to be a stealthy Ranger. We could also add something for a more caster oriented Ranger, which has gotten more support with the Druidic Warrior fighting style.
Outside of my first group, is there anyone else that has any interest in the exploration/travel features of the ranger or are they effectively wasted on you?
I have come to despise Driz’zt for just the reasons Tom mentioned - he is an iconic character that has a dip into ranger and so too many folks think he ipitomizes what a ranger is supposed to beans to my mind he is , as I said previously , a fighter with a ranger dip not a “real” ranger. Aragorn comes closer to being a true D&D ranger but he doesn’t really use spells, but then Tolkien didn’t really use much magic at all (a great example of a low magic world). So I don’t think we have ever really seen a solid example of travel, exploration etc and how a ranger changes it for a party in any solid fantasy novels, especially the WOtC ones that might be usable to design rangers off of. I’ve seen a lot of that in some western novels and done some irl and that is a major part of being a ranger to my mind.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Utilizing exploration takes a particular group and DM to work, especially seeing as the mechanics of the game are mostly centered around combat. So while I don't mind Ranger having these features since they are a nice flavor and can be very useful, they should not be dependent on them to be relevant.
Rangers were primarily martial classes until 5th Edition and the early 5e version of the class also seemed to lean more into that, so I'd say you're on no firmer ground than anyone else when it comes to deciding what a "real" Ranger is. With the right features, archetypes probably could make everyone happy by providing a Ranger flavor they like.
Rangers started as a subclass of fighters it’s true, but even back in 1e they were the magic using subclass and were flavored as the outdoor exploration subclass as opposed to straight combat fighting. The outdoor exploration area along with the spells has always been the core of the class with the martial aspect.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Sure and I'm happy to keep them. I am partial to making the magic stuff more of an archetype thing, but that's just what I would want for a new class. For the current Ranger class, seeing how most of its combat features are tied up in its archetype and has been since the beginning, I think capitalizing on that to make as many people happy as possible would be a good idea. Having archetypes with sufficiently strong higher level features (Ranger still score really well low level) leaning into different things seems like the easiest way to fix most of the issues people have with the class. Hunter almost nailed it, but it feels too weak compared to Stalker to compensate for the lack of spells and other features.
I know I'm way late to the party, but I did want to answer this.
1. Big fan of Ranger; hate multicasting in general. I always go straight [insert class here] and Ranger is not now nor will it ever be the exception. Besides, I find the "bad" features aren't really even that bad.
2. Love the Ranger spellcasting, adore the subclasses' flavor and mechanics, love both Primeval and Primal Awareness, Deft and Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, Nature's Veil, and Vanish.
3. Here's where we get into the weeds of things. Most people will say the Ranger is a survivalist, a warrior of the wilds, and/or the mountain man. And I'm not going to argue against that interpretation. But to this day I have not yet made a Ranger that fits that description myself. My Hunter was an assassin for her Kingdom's government. My Beast Master was part of a mercenary crew. My Gloom Stalker was a street urchin turned erstwhile Queen. My Horizon Walker was a literal superhero. My Monster Slayer takes after Buffy, the Winchesters, and the Belmonts. My Fey Wanderer is practically an adult Alice Liddell. My Swarm Keeper is a riff on Nicholas Cage and his whole "bees!" Fiasco. And my Drake Warden is an anthropologist who who found a baby dragon that imprinted on her.
They span a wide range of professions and styles, but "mountain man" is nowhere in sight. To me, Rangers fulfill two fantasies that are not easily replicated by other classes.
The first of these is "Explorer." And sure, that can mean Lewis and Clark style of exploring unknown swamps, forests, and mountains. But to me, it encompasses so much more. A Ranger explores the Underdark, the Feywild, the Astral Sea, the Ethereal Plane, the Elemental Chaos, the Negative Energy Plane, and the Positive Energy Plane as well as the natural world. More of a frontiersman on steroids. To me, a Ranger should feel just as comfortable in a canoe or a wagon as they do in a spelljammer or solar sailer. It's why Horizon Walker and Fey Wanderer are my favorite subclasses. They take the "Explorer" theme to it's logical extreme.
The second fantasy is the Hunter/Tamer of monsters. Rangers have a connection to the monsters that inhabit the natural world just as much as Clerics and Paladins have a connection to gods, Druids have a connection to the Primal Spirits, and Warlocks have a connection to Eldritch Entities. It's the nature of that connection that sets Rangers apart, however. While Clerics, Paladins, and Druids have a supportive relationship with the Entities they deal with, and Warlocks may or may not be trying to outplay their patrons, Rangers default to having an adversarial relationship with the monsters they are associated with. Whether it's a Monster Slayer hunting vampires, ghosts, and werewolves to protect the innocent (to quote Supernatural: "saving people; hunting things) or Beast Masters, Drake Wardens, and Swarm Keepers taming the monsters they encounter them and using them to hunt down other monsters (this establishing a hierarchical relationship in which the Ranger almost ironically takes the role of Patron,) the Ranger is always on the lookout for things that go bump in the night and are ready to subjugate them.
So there you have it. In my humble opinion, Rangers are Explorers and Hunters/Tamers. The Primal Magic aspect of them comes into play in the same way Buffy or Dean Winchester use magic when it's convenient for them. And the magic of the natural world fits them better than arcane or divine magic because they have an affinity for the monsters that inhabit it and explore every nook and cranny of the natural world as well as the worlds beyond.
I think all of us on these forums should watch this video until the end, starting at 00:21:00.
https://youtu.be/-vE28Saqcow
In it JC lays down some actual information that proves and disproves something for each one of us, including myself. We have all felt, said, thought, believed, and claimed a lot, and this touches on much of it.
Some of that interview/sage advice needs to be taken as the thoughts of almost 4 years ago, as for the whole they have a "Ranger class and that doesn't need to be replaced for mechanical reasons" (paraphrasing) has been shown to no longer be the case Undead warlock shows a willingness that may not have existed at the time of the development mindset.
Many of the ranger issue people are listing are kind of linked to some of the base mechanics of the game (most of which are in place for balance, but seem to be extra restrictive to Ranger as noted before a class that seemed to get less development time than the rest within those subsystems), maybe post level 9 or so there could be the introduction of an additional concentration "slot" only usable for ranger spells (to combat the issue people have with concentration-less spells being poached by dips/magical secrets) and maybe the add an additional bonus action (probably with the caveat of adding once per turn to spells like swift quiver).
Before level 9 though maybe a Danger sense-like ability for Constitution that can't be used while exhausted.
I like the idea of boosting the Ranger's constitution saves via a class feature. A friend of mine has suggested it too, when we've been talking about it. It would go a long way to make the concentration spells Ranger's rely on feel more reliable.
Rangers can indeed be a lot of different things, because the basics are flavorful while not being restrictive. And I think the base features (even PHB features) combined with sufficiently strong archetypes could go a long way to please everyone.
Gloom Stalkers are great for sneaky variants of the Ranger, like assassins, ambush hunters and Underdark explorers. Tasha's Beastmaster and Drakewarden are good for companion classes. Horizon Walker and Fey Wanderer buy into the more exotic parts of the world. I would love to see a new archetype that goes all in on being a martial class and, hey, why not one that focuses more on spellcasting and less on martial stuff as well?
Can you please elaborate on this?
Yeah for me Tasha's and XGtE fixed ranger to the point I mostly do not see many problems left with it in the realm that 95% of people play in (levels 1-11).
Beyond these levels the boosts you mention here would make a solo classed ranger more competitive with an "optimized" team .
To the point that people have seem PHB Beastmasters work at level 20...great I guess? It hasn't even been close to my experience where they struggled and abandoned the class at level 5 but to each there own I guess.
In an unoptimized group PHB ranger will be fine as the group is less likely to care about the balance between classes as they are not running the "optimized" builds we keep comparing in this thread. Which is completely fine....I have been in games like that (no one played ranger but still) and it was a fun time.
However, the more "optimized" games I have been in the Ranger has felt underwhelming in the non-combat parts of the game with PHB options. I know its a small sample set so I realize YMMV.
Overall its definitely OK to see the higher level features as having lower value for a lot of game tables even after Tashas as they provide benefits that are generally outclassed by spells/other features IMO.
What is NOT ok is to assume people are "Ignorant" of the ranger and that is the only reason they cannot see eye to eye on the PHB options and the higher level features. Their experiences and insights are just as valuable as yours. Obviously they got enough feedback to warrant change and it was given in the levels that 90% of people play in. I think they would have touched on higher level features but they really didn't bother with ANY class to mess with anything beyond level 10.
To say they were placating a vocal group of players.....so what? Isn't that what they should be striving for? The people who want to play the class but find it wanting seem like the best people to ask to make positive changes in the game.
Personally I think JC backpedaled mostly because they did not want to have to reprint the PHB and they have a weird complex around not admitting mistakes even when its blatantly obvious they did. Its a perception thing with WotC and I am not sure why they do it.
They put fixes in for Beastmaster, PHB ranger features, and gave XGtE rangers more spells known....so they are aware of the issues that people had with ranger and are giving options for fixes so its obvious they care and put a LOT of time into the fixes.
Just puzzling how they decided to go about communicating around these....it makes no sense.
It depends. Either 2, 3, or 3+. I typically account for 3 and sparingly.
For example, a rogue at level 19 is doing an average of 46.5/round with a +3 bow over 3 battles totaling 12 rounds. A hunter using only hunter’s mark and a +3 bow is doing an average of 36.5/round, but adding in hitting 3 enemies once per battle with both volley and a level 4 hail of thorns now does an average of 54.38/round. A beast master with a wolf, +3 bow, and only hunter’s mark is doing 42/round (NOT assuming 1 AoO/battle, as I normally do), and 57.88 when hitting 3 enemies with a level 4 hail of thorns once per battle.
A baseline paladin using a +3 great sword and one 1st level and one 4th level divine smite per battle is doing an average of 46.88/round damage in the same 12 rounds over 3 battles.
Thank you again Envoy, you’ve done a better job of describing what I love about the ranger than I’ve managed so far - don’t be too surprised to portions quoted in other threads or even latter in this one 😁. I have used the mountain man trope a lot to try to remind folks that what sets the ranger apart is that he/she is, to a large extent, an outsider to normal society that steps in sometimes but isn’t really a part of. The scout rogue is, to my mind, a member of society that steps out to do a job and then returns. Pretty much the same thing for the ranger dipped fighter/barbarian. Somewhat the difference between the guy who lives 5 blocks from mom’s house but goes traveling every vacation to see the world and/or goes to a different national park to go camping ( with a tent, food, and full equipment) and the lady who has spent her life traveling the world living in many different places and maybe takes time off to center herself by simply walking into a national forest for a week/10 days with nothing but the clothes on her back and a decent knife and lives off the land in the middle of of nowhere away from society. They have very different world views.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I think there is a reductive element here, because the classes should primarily give access to mechanics first and only flavor insofar it establishes some basics. We don't want people to have to ask themselves if a Ranger can be a ruthless assassin instead of being Aragorn, for example, because mechanically the class is capable of being either if the player wants it to.
I think a slightly better way to think of the Ranger identity would be them as the "spec ops martial". With an additional skill proficiency and more direct out of combat features, their flavor has a lot to do with specializing in roles that other warrior classes might not be able or willing to. Their archetypes allow them to specialize in all manners of things.
Mechanically the problem the Ranger suffers now that they have mostly fixed their overall progression, with better spells and archetypes, is that they are a very frontloaded class. And, maybe to an extent, that playing a Ranger well requires a fair bit more understanding than a Paladin or Fighter, both in and out of combat. A lot of Ranger spells are not as obviously useful as Divine Smite or Action Surge, for example, even if they can turn the outcome of the fight.
The latter isn't really a problem, because it seems to me that enough people are interested in the flavor of the Ranger to give them a try, but the former does make it so Rangers get a lot of value out of multiclassing. I would argue so much value, in fact, that one has to justify staying as a Ranger instead of multiclassing from a building perspective. A few tweaks to features in the lvl 6-7 and 10-13 ranges would go a long way to fix that.
What tweaks Tom? I think you’ve said some somewhere in the previous 16 pages but let’s put some specifics down without having to reread everything to find them again.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.