I’ve DM’d and played in very optimized groups, for about two years. The rest of the time I’m only around one or two optimizers at a table. I see new players and optimization focused players taking the longest in a turn more than anyone.
Optimization is always funny to me because it’s mostly hit points and damage. (Yes. I know it’s more than that. But dealing big single target damage is the name of the game for these builds.) That only takes one dial turned from the DM to be counterbalanced. Otherwise combats are over quick and boring. It seems a pursuit that creates its own problems.
Whatever the causality, we have druids and rangers that conjure animal buddies. Thanks to Tasha’s we have everyone at the table with an extra turn, every round, every combat. Conjure animals is one thing. One turn. That helps the entire party. 1. Command. 2. Quickly move into position (zero hyper tactical positioning). 3. Roll attack all d20s at once (using color matched d20s for each animal) or even beforehand. 4. Use average damage. Done. All of 10 seconds.
Any issues beyond that is poor player decisions. Getting or asking for 8 large creatures, blocking the other PCs, etc. Those types of issues aren’t the spell’s fault anymore than it’s fireball’s fault when the wizard player only has one d6 to roll damage.
Mob rules would normally help but I've never seen a PC send all 8 at one creature (mostly because having one creature in a fight against PC's is pretty much asking for a quick easy combat for them)
It's the issue of rolling 2-3 smaller groups against different AC and potentially different reactions (enemies with parry), melee effects (fire damage from meleeing fire elemental), area effects (shambling mound aura effect with WIS roll) and spells with not only area effect damage but riders ( synaptic static and the 1d6 off attacks and INT rolls they will likely never pass but you still have to roll them each turn)
All this with 8 more creatures is not hugely fun for me tbh...
Online it may be easier but irl where I play 90% of the time it's just not quick
I hear ya. It must come down to personal experience. I’ve just not had that many things going on at once where an attentive player can’t handle it quickly. Maybe myself and anyone else ever using conjure animals I’ve seen in play are also DMs so that kind of accounting at the table isn’t a big deal. We are still talking about a few seconds, from my experiences.
Rangers can’t use a focus. Just like the EK and AT can’t. So what. We have long known that this is fine as the few spells that require a material component either use a weapon, something found in nature, or they can use a spell component pouch like anyone else (in their hip and easily assessable, unlike holding something like a wand).
Conjure spells are a big part of the druids kit, and thereby the ranger’s. Saying it’s bad they rely on that is strange. Everyone relies on a couple of staples from their build. If someone truly doesn’t want to play a nature magic beast conjuring martial, play a fighter or rogue.
Tell a paladin not to smite. Tell a warlock not to eldritch blast. Silly. Rangers conjure animals. Can it take a long time at the table? Yes. Does it have to? No. A prepared player takes no more time to run conjure animals than a prepared player does to run anything else.
I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with any of this.
Rangers *can* use a focus...as of Tasha's. This heavily implies that them not using a focus originally was absolutely an oversight. Note that it's one of the Optional Class Features that is an addition instead of a replacement.
Conjure Animals/Woodland Beings are phenomenal spells. But they are *not* Ranger staple spells. They're *Druid* staples. To compare Conjure spells (of which they get their first at level 9!) To Divine Smite or Eldritch Blast is a false equivalence. The Ranger class fantasy doesn't inherently have conjuring buddies built into it. Not like smiting foes with holy radiance is inherent to the Paladin. Again, conjuring buddies to help you fight is a Druid thing. Which doesn't preclude Rangers from doing the same. But to say it's as inherent to them as Divine Smite is to a Paladin or Eldritch Blast is to a Warlock is unbelievably facetious. Almost as facetious as the idea that Rangers *need* Conjure spells to keep up with the curve at tiers 3+. I've played upwards of 10 Rangers in 5E (over half of them at tiers 3 & 4), not once have I taken a single Conjure spell and not once have I lagged behind in damage. In truth, Conjure Animals doesn't help Rangers keep up with other martials. It helps them completely blow past all other martials and half-casters. Like I said, they're fantastic spells. What they're *not*, however, is required for a Ranger to perform well or for a Ranger's class fantasy. You're looking at Shepherd Druid for that kind of thing.
A prepared player using Conjure Animals will still take longer than a prepared player not using Conjure Animals by simple virtue that, no matter which way you slice it, you have a ton of creatures to give commands to versus not having a ton of creatures to give commands to. Hell, simply saying "all the wolves use the Help action" still takes longer than not having to say that. So let's not start with this.
C'mon Frank. I expect better than this from you.
Which playstyles did you use in those game? How optimized was the groups? I am just curious on how the class was being use. I almost never get to run PC (its DM or no one plays)
On the companion thing I know that there is a bot of legacy lore as an animal companion was class feature for all rangers (one they shared with druids like turn undead was shared with paladin and cleric)
I do agree that the playstyle focused on summoning is much more a part of druid class lore than ranger though.
I used/am using different play styles for different Rangers. Three of my high tier Rangers were archers (Hunter, Monster Slayer, Horizon Walker,) while the BM was a STRanger with a longsword and the Gloom Stalker went TWF. Current Fey Wanderer is low level at the moment, but she's also TWF. Current Monster Slaye wields a whip. My Drake Warden went with a lance. Swarm Keeper also used a bow. I'm looking forward to debuting my new Hunter, who will use a pistol, as well as my second BM, who will focus on Shillelagh.
As you can probably tell, based on my builds, optimization from the party has been all over the spectrum. I've been in groups that are very dedicated optimizers and in groups that actively ask to avoid optimization. And I've been able to keep pace with both types.
True. Rangers are associated with a beast companion. One beast companion. That's what BM's and DW's are meant to exemplify. Summoning an army of pets though, has never been part of the Ranger fantasy.
32 pages and the conclusion is simple: Rangers are good, they were always good even before Tasha’s and the only problem was the bad design in Beastmaster, thankfully fixed.
Well played Rangers will make the most of their versatile spells. Absorb Elements, Goodberry, Ensnaring Strike, Entangle. Hunters Mark is subpar and numbers already shown that is a bad choice, but the community overrated this spell so much that it went against Ranger effectiveness. You can do much more than just extra d6 of damage.
At level 5, Rangers have access to Pass Without a Trace, probably one of the most powerful and underrated spells in the game. Different from Druids (who are probably concentrating in Conjure Animals), you can afford to occupy your concentration slot with this spell. And now your entire group, including the pesky heavy armor users and the wolf pack conjured by your Druid pawn, are deadly silent and ready to surprise your foes. Rangers, alongside Bards and Clerics, also have access to the Silence spell, one of the most effective ways of shutting down spellcasters. Once again the concentration cost for Rangers is low — Bards should be concentrating in Hypnotic Pattern or similar; Clerics bread and butter is Spirits Guardian. Not to mention Aid, Spike Growth and other great spells.
What is the best choice? 1d6 of additional damage or neutralize a spellcaster?
Hunters Mark is a disease and open your mind about all the other Ranger spells is the cure.
One could make hunters mark interact with ranger levels/features so that it doesn't become an easy dip/poach spell. like removing concentration requirement for rangers of a certain level. Perhaps giving an additional scaling for higher level slots used for higher level rangers.
Mathematically I get why hunter’s mark is the way it is. However, I would love if it scaled a damage die in tandem with its duration scaling. A d8 with 8 hours, and a d10 with 24 hours.
I REALLY want ensnaring strike to be a bit better. Specifically, remove the larger creature saving throw advantage and add the spell’s damage on the hit in addition to the start of each turn. Restrained is a great condition, but I think this spell is just a little bit too conservative.
What is the best choice? 1d6 of additional damage or neutralize a spellcaster?
Hunters Mark is a disease and open your mind about all the other Ranger spells is the cure.
And counting
ill take neutralizing that caster and yes silence is wonderful for that. Somewhat less effective outdoors as it may take a round or two to get the 120’ to stop the caster from leaving the area. Of course if you have a lienient DM you could specify that the point is the nock of the arrow your firing at the caster (and hopefully hitting with) then it moves with them.
32 pages and the conclusion is simple: Rangers are good, they were always good even before Tasha’s and the only problem was the bad design in Beastmaster, thankfully fixed.
Even the original beastmaster was more dislike than bad desgn. I still hate having to choose between BA spells and commanding the new beast classes. And there is a significant loss of uninqe features gained at early levels. With just phb content beasmaster or druid was the only way to get blindsight at level 3. PHB beastmaster will always be the king of poison harvesting as well (asumming the dm dosen't change RAW).
one fear I have is wotc will remove the "Main action Command" option instead of just doing vagueness cleanup for the OG beast master.
True. Rangers are associated with a beast companion. One beast companion. That's what BM's and DW's are meant to exemplify. Summoning an army of pets though, has never been part of the Ranger fantasy.
I don't think this is actually a good direction of thought or actually true. There are several good fantasy stories where having the "ranger" call for help from large goups or the ranger finding the right animal for the right job. even if it were true why would you want to limit that type of narative from forming (beyond play balance). If we just asume ranger is path to a build and not a title there are plenty of good fantasy builds that need summon options.
Perrin Aybara from the wheel of time and his pack of wolves.
Mowgli from the jungle book.
The 1982 beast master movies.
Dr. Dolittle
Most disney princesses (I have seen several teen girls use rangers to play this fantasy)
owen from Jurassic park.
pokemon or digimon (as sad as this comparison makes me. some people want to play it)
more
Basically, I Think having the option for someone To use magic to call on multiple diffrent pets is important for certain types of fantasy and story telling. the key is for it to not become a gameplay balance issue or slow down.
Like i said before(in a diffrent thread) one of the coolest ranger ideas I got to play was a ranger that lost companions but their spirits came back to protect him when he used conjure animals.
True. Rangers are associated with a beast companion. One beast companion. That's what BM's and DW's are meant to exemplify. Summoning an army of pets though, has never been part of the Ranger fantasy.
I don't think this is actually a good direction of thought or actually true. There are several good fantasy stories where having the "ranger" call for help from large goups or the ranger finding the right animal for the right job. even if it were true why would you want to limit that type of narative from forming (beyond play balance). If we just asume ranger is path to a build and not a title there are plenty of good fantasy builds that need summon options.
Perrin Aybara from the wheel of time and his pack of wolves.
Mowgli from the jungle book.
The 1982 beast master movies.
Dr. Dolittle
Most disney princesses (I have seen several teen girls use rangers to play this fantasy)
owen from Jurassic park.
pokemon or digimon (as sad as this comparison makes me. some people want to play it)
more
Basically, I Think having the option for someone To use magic to call on multiple diffrent pets is important for certain types of fantasy and story telling. the key is for it to not become a gameplay balance issue or slow down.
Like i said before(in a diffrent thread) one of the coolest ranger ideas I got to play was a ranger that lost companions but their spirits came back to protect him when he used conjure animals.
You misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that they can't or shouldn't be summoners of armies of pets. I'm saying that fantasy isn't intrinsic to the Ranger the same way Smiting the unholy with divine magic is to the Paladin.
Also, an argument could be made that a bunch of your examples are closer to Druids than Rangers, but that's besides the point.
Rangers *can* summon multiple beasts to aid them in battle. It's why they get the Summon and Conjure spells. But being a summoner of beasts is not an intrinsic part of the character fantasy of a Ranger like it is a Druid.
True. Rangers are associated with a beast companion. One beast companion. That's what BM's and DW's are meant to exemplify. Summoning an army of pets though, has never been part of the Ranger fantasy.
I don't think this is actually a good direction of thought or actually true. There are several good fantasy stories where having the "ranger" call for help from large goups or the ranger finding the right animal for the right job. even if it were true why would you want to limit that type of narative from forming (beyond play balance). If we just asume ranger is path to a build and not a title there are plenty of good fantasy builds that need summon options.
Perrin Aybara from the wheel of time and his pack of wolves.
Mowgli from the jungle book.
The 1982 beast master movies.
Dr. Dolittle
Most disney princesses (I have seen several teen girls use rangers to play this fantasy)
owen from Jurassic park.
pokemon or digimon (as sad as this comparison makes me. some people want to play it)
more
Basically, I Think having the option for someone To use magic to call on multiple diffrent pets is important for certain types of fantasy and story telling. the key is for it to not become a gameplay balance issue or slow down.
Like i said before(in a diffrent thread) one of the coolest ranger ideas I got to play was a ranger that lost companions but their spirits came back to protect him when he used conjure animals.
You misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that they can't or shouldn't be summoners of armies of pets. I'm saying that fantasy isn't intrinsic to the Ranger the same way Smiting the unholy with divine magic is to the Paladin.
Also, an argument could be made that a bunch of your examples are closer to Druids than Rangers, but that's besides the point.
Rangers *can* summon multiple beasts to aid them in battle. It's why they get the Summon and Conjure spells. But being a summoner of beasts is not an intrinsic part of the character fantasy of a Ranger like it is a Druid.
I think none of us should assume the fantasies of others. Magic paladins is not my fantastical definition of a paladin. Many peoples fantasy of what a ranger is comes from low magic worlds. That hasn’t been D&D for decades. Perhaps ever. King Arthur had no magic smite abilities. None of the knights did. So just because the alignment of fantastical definitions aren’t the same across the board, doesn’t mean conjure animals is wrong for the ranger. Those people should truly just should play a fighter with a bow.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said Conjure Animals was wrong for the Ranger. Just the opposite.
What I said is that it's not intrinsic to the archetypal fantasy. There's a difference.
I apologize if I mis-understood. I was just trying to say that defining a ranger by what they don't do is a bad train of thought. the You should define a character design by what they want to do. Rignt now the best way to build a "interaction with animals" type is a ranger and I think the mechanics are better suited to ranger than druid. Not all rangers need compainions but when someone wants to play a nature warrior with one or more companions, They should have options to do so. If someone thinks conjure animals slows down the game they should have build options to do somthing diffrent but having it as and option is important. Dms that flat out deny it's use should take care because it fundimentally changes "A mainline progression option" for the ranger (Note: I do not think envoy is one of those dms)
Now, when wotc used the phb beast mechanics to control the character concept that is the real "failure point" of the original beastmaster. wotc left out an option to switch out a beast without it dying. This encourages a single long term companion but they also gave no other tools to reinforce that. No animal resurection (without costly components and other classes). They also gave almost no options for "fixing a situation" the companion isn't suited for. A smart probably ranger wouldn't take a desert scorpion to a sunken ship. Most would want to temporarally befrend a new animal. Some rangers would want to bring their origial companion but they they would need spells to help them function. rangers have less options since they cant prepare spells to fix the situation.
I think if a the OG beasmaster ranger could "prepare" compainons it would be alot better of a design choice. When a new one comes, the old one goes off to hunt. Similarly, if the hunter could "prepare" the 3rd, 7th, and 11th level options it would be a lot more desirable option in comparison to the other classes. I doubt they would even need the extra spell lists, although extra spells are always nice.
I do not understand the hate WotC has for Rangers. The player's handbook made them horrible. Then they came out with the revised ranger and made them worth playing. Then they decided to make them lame again. At the very least they should make the revised ranger allowable in the character creator so people might want to play them again.
The revised ranger had a lot of issues. It was far from balanced and playable. The OG ranger is top tier when the actual rules of the game are used, and Tasha’s offers very nice but highly focused, mostly on DDAL style combat heavy games, optional replacements.
The revised ranger is dead in the water, for many reasons.
The favored enemy feature (a staple of the class) is functionally useless but you do you boo. The reason that they made the revised was that everyone hated the OG version.
It's not useless. It is very useful, if you play the entire game, and not just combat encounters. To say that "everyone hated the OG version" demonstrates how little you know what you're talking about.
Also, Boo should be capitalized with a comma before.
OG Ranger is good for certain campaigns (Icewind Dale or any adventure where you are in 1-2 biomes and fight consistently against certain enemy types) if you have biome diversity and enemy diversity then it's less likely to be impactful.
Tashas Ranger is good in any game due to the general nature of it's abilities but has less to do in the above style game where you might be a literal live saver in a survival style game.
Overall they have their positives but I do think Tashas is the one that is safe to go to more often than not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’ve DM’d and played in very optimized groups, for about two years. The rest of the time I’m only around one or two optimizers at a table. I see new players and optimization focused players taking the longest in a turn more than anyone.
Optimization is always funny to me because it’s mostly hit points and damage. (Yes. I know it’s more than that. But dealing big single target damage is the name of the game for these builds.) That only takes one dial turned from the DM to be counterbalanced. Otherwise combats are over quick and boring. It seems a pursuit that creates its own problems.
Whatever the causality, we have druids and rangers that conjure animal buddies. Thanks to Tasha’s we have everyone at the table with an extra turn, every round, every combat. Conjure animals is one thing. One turn. That helps the entire party. 1. Command. 2. Quickly move into position (zero hyper tactical positioning). 3. Roll attack all d20s at once (using color matched d20s for each animal) or even beforehand. 4. Use average damage. Done. All of 10 seconds.
Any issues beyond that is poor player decisions. Getting or asking for 8 large creatures, blocking the other PCs, etc. Those types of issues aren’t the spell’s fault anymore than it’s fireball’s fault when the wizard player only has one d6 to roll damage.
Mob rules would normally help but I've never seen a PC send all 8 at one creature (mostly because having one creature in a fight against PC's is pretty much asking for a quick easy combat for them)
It's the issue of rolling 2-3 smaller groups against different AC and potentially different reactions (enemies with parry), melee effects (fire damage from meleeing fire elemental), area effects (shambling mound aura effect with WIS roll) and spells with not only area effect damage but riders ( synaptic static and the 1d6 off attacks and INT rolls they will likely never pass but you still have to roll them each turn)
All this with 8 more creatures is not hugely fun for me tbh...
Online it may be easier but irl where I play 90% of the time it's just not quick
I hear ya. It must come down to personal experience. I’ve just not had that many things going on at once where an attentive player can’t handle it quickly. Maybe myself and anyone else ever using conjure animals I’ve seen in play are also DMs so that kind of accounting at the table isn’t a big deal. We are still talking about a few seconds, from my experiences.
I used/am using different play styles for different Rangers. Three of my high tier Rangers were archers (Hunter, Monster Slayer, Horizon Walker,) while the BM was a STRanger with a longsword and the Gloom Stalker went TWF. Current Fey Wanderer is low level at the moment, but she's also TWF. Current Monster Slaye wields a whip. My Drake Warden went with a lance. Swarm Keeper also used a bow. I'm looking forward to debuting my new Hunter, who will use a pistol, as well as my second BM, who will focus on Shillelagh.
As you can probably tell, based on my builds, optimization from the party has been all over the spectrum. I've been in groups that are very dedicated optimizers and in groups that actively ask to avoid optimization. And I've been able to keep pace with both types.
True. Rangers are associated with a beast companion. One beast companion. That's what BM's and DW's are meant to exemplify. Summoning an army of pets though, has never been part of the Ranger fantasy.
32 pages and the conclusion is simple: Rangers are good, they were always good even before Tasha’s and the only problem was the bad design in Beastmaster, thankfully fixed.
Well played Rangers will make the most of their versatile spells. Absorb Elements, Goodberry, Ensnaring Strike, Entangle. Hunters Mark is subpar and numbers already shown that is a bad choice, but the community overrated this spell so much that it went against Ranger effectiveness. You can do much more than just extra d6 of damage.
At level 5, Rangers have access to Pass Without a Trace, probably one of the most powerful and underrated spells in the game. Different from Druids (who are probably concentrating in Conjure Animals), you can afford to occupy your concentration slot with this spell. And now your entire group, including the pesky heavy armor users and the wolf pack conjured by your Druid pawn, are deadly silent and ready to surprise your foes.
Rangers, alongside Bards and Clerics, also have access to the Silence spell, one of the most effective ways of shutting down spellcasters. Once again the concentration cost for Rangers is low — Bards should be concentrating in Hypnotic Pattern or similar; Clerics bread and butter is Spirits Guardian. Not to mention Aid, Spike Growth and other great spells.
What is the best choice? 1d6 of additional damage or neutralize a spellcaster?
Hunters Mark is a disease and open your mind about all the other Ranger spells is the cure.
One could make hunters mark interact with ranger levels/features so that it doesn't become an easy dip/poach spell. like removing concentration requirement for rangers of a certain level. Perhaps giving an additional scaling for higher level slots used for higher level rangers.
Mathematically I get why hunter’s mark is the way it is. However, I would love if it scaled a damage die in tandem with its duration scaling. A d8 with 8 hours, and a d10 with 24 hours.
I REALLY want ensnaring strike to be a bit better. Specifically, remove the larger creature saving throw advantage and add the spell’s damage on the hit in addition to the start of each turn. Restrained is a great condition, but I think this spell is just a little bit too conservative.
And counting
ill take neutralizing that caster and yes silence is wonderful for that. Somewhat less effective outdoors as it may take a round or two to get the 120’ to stop the caster from leaving the area. Of course if you have a lienient DM you could specify that the point is the nock of the arrow your firing at the caster (and hopefully hitting with) then it moves with them.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Even the original beastmaster was more dislike than bad desgn. I still hate having to choose between BA spells and commanding the new beast classes. And there is a significant loss of uninqe features gained at early levels. With just phb content beasmaster or druid was the only way to get blindsight at level 3. PHB beastmaster will always be the king of poison harvesting as well (asumming the dm dosen't change RAW).
one fear I have is wotc will remove the "Main action Command" option instead of just doing vagueness cleanup for the OG beast master.
I don't think this is actually a good direction of thought or actually true. There are several good fantasy stories where having the "ranger" call for help from large goups or the ranger finding the right animal for the right job. even if it were true why would you want to limit that type of narative from forming (beyond play balance). If we just asume ranger is path to a build and not a title there are plenty of good fantasy builds that need summon options.
Basically, I Think having the option for someone To use magic to call on multiple diffrent pets is important for certain types of fantasy and story telling. the key is for it to not become a gameplay balance issue or slow down.
Like i said before(in a diffrent thread) one of the coolest ranger ideas I got to play was a ranger that lost companions but their spirits came back to protect him when he used conjure animals.
You misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that they can't or shouldn't be summoners of armies of pets. I'm saying that fantasy isn't intrinsic to the Ranger the same way Smiting the unholy with divine magic is to the Paladin.
Also, an argument could be made that a bunch of your examples are closer to Druids than Rangers, but that's besides the point.
Rangers *can* summon multiple beasts to aid them in battle. It's why they get the Summon and Conjure spells. But being a summoner of beasts is not an intrinsic part of the character fantasy of a Ranger like it is a Druid.
I think none of us should assume the fantasies of others. Magic paladins is not my fantastical definition of a paladin. Many peoples fantasy of what a ranger is comes from low magic worlds. That hasn’t been D&D for decades. Perhaps ever. King Arthur had no magic smite abilities. None of the knights did. So just because the alignment of fantastical definitions aren’t the same across the board, doesn’t mean conjure animals is wrong for the ranger. Those people should truly just should play a fighter with a bow.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said Conjure Animals was wrong for the Ranger. Just the opposite.
What I said is that it's not intrinsic to the archetypal fantasy. There's a difference.
Who’s archetype?
I apologize if I mis-understood. I was just trying to say that defining a ranger by what they don't do is a bad train of thought. the You should define a character design by what they want to do. Rignt now the best way to build a "interaction with animals" type is a ranger and I think the mechanics are better suited to ranger than druid. Not all rangers need compainions but when someone wants to play a nature warrior with one or more companions, They should have options to do so. If someone thinks conjure animals slows down the game they should have build options to do somthing diffrent but having it as and option is important. Dms that flat out deny it's use should take care because it fundimentally changes "A mainline progression option" for the ranger (Note: I do not think envoy is one of those dms)
Now, when wotc used the phb beast mechanics to control the character concept that is the real "failure point" of the original beastmaster. wotc left out an option to switch out a beast without it dying. This encourages a single long term companion but they also gave no other tools to reinforce that. No animal resurection (without costly components and other classes). They also gave almost no options for "fixing a situation" the companion isn't suited for. A smart probably ranger wouldn't take a desert scorpion to a sunken ship. Most would want to temporarally befrend a new animal. Some rangers would want to bring their origial companion but they they would need spells to help them function. rangers have less options since they cant prepare spells to fix the situation.
I think if a the OG beasmaster ranger could "prepare" compainons it would be alot better of a design choice. When a new one comes, the old one goes off to hunt. Similarly, if the hunter could "prepare" the 3rd, 7th, and 11th level options it would be a lot more desirable option in comparison to the other classes. I doubt they would even need the extra spell lists, although extra spells are always nice.
I do not understand the hate WotC has for Rangers. The player's handbook made them horrible. Then they came out with the revised ranger and made them worth playing. Then they decided to make them lame again. At the very least they should make the revised ranger allowable in the character creator so people might want to play them again.
The revised ranger had a lot of issues. It was far from balanced and playable. The OG ranger is top tier when the actual rules of the game are used, and Tasha’s offers very nice but highly focused, mostly on DDAL style combat heavy games, optional replacements.
The revised ranger is dead in the water, for many reasons.
The favored enemy feature (a staple of the class) is functionally useless but you do you boo. The reason that they made the revised was that everyone hated the OG version.
It's not useless. It is very useful, if you play the entire game, and not just combat encounters. To say that "everyone hated the OG version" demonstrates how little you know what you're talking about.
Also, Boo should be capitalized with a comma before.
I do think it's the opposite:
OG Ranger is good for certain campaigns (Icewind Dale or any adventure where you are in 1-2 biomes and fight consistently against certain enemy types) if you have biome diversity and enemy diversity then it's less likely to be impactful.
Tashas Ranger is good in any game due to the general nature of it's abilities but has less to do in the above style game where you might be a literal live saver in a survival style game.
Overall they have their positives but I do think Tashas is the one that is safe to go to more often than not.