I was using +3 since essentially any ranger should have at least that bonus by L20, but your right - most rangers should have a wisdom of 18-20 and so a bonus of +4/+5 but that just makes Foe slayer even better. If you have a a 20 wisdom you have the full offset to use SS hitting as often as a fighter that has no way to use GWM. In addition I don’t see anything stopping the ranger from using foe slayer on spell attacks if they can’t find a way to get attack spells.
The major issue is that it's once per turn and only for your enemies if you go that route. And if you do Favored foe then you don't have your concentration and at that level you want that for your ranger spells to keep up on damage at all with the others.
Fighters get a straight up extra attack which is going to increase their damage well beyond with GWM or SS more so. They have plenty of subclass stuff to help them at this point with accuracy.
Barbarian gets 24 STR and 24 CON and infinity rage so they are hitting more often and tanking more damage and depending on the subclass just literally not ever going down.
The paladin stuff is oath specific but can be very huge in the one bigger fight you have a day. Overall it's a mixed bag but most of them are better I feel then the ranger capstone but not all of them
Rogue and Ranger are in the middle. It's good but not awesome.
Monk is terrible as you just get a piddly amount of ki back at the start of a fight.
We are still having people talking about level 20 = level 20, and it doesn’t work that way.
What do rogues, barbarians, fighters, rangers, monks, and paladins look like compared to one another at level 19? How about levels 17 and 16? You’ve GOT to add this all up. One class’s level 20 is not another class’s level 20. It’s the sum of the parts.
We are still having people talking about level 20 = level 20, and it doesn’t work that way.
What do rogues, barbarians, fighters, rangers, monks, and paladins look like compared to one another at level 19? How about levels 17 and 16? You’ve GOT to add this all up. One class’s level 20 is not another class’s level 20. It’s the sum of the parts.
Yeah and that's why it's not a great capstone as it doesn't really build well with the whole kit.
You either only get it against a small subset of creatures that you happen to pick with Favored Enemy or you use Favored Foe and lose your concentration for your ranger spells
I don’t think I’m being very clear. The “bad” capstone isn’t needed the same way the “good” capstones are. Compare a bad capstone class to a good capstone, but at the level before the capstone.
I think the main thing that could be done to improve the Ranger is a total re-thinking of Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy.
Rangers should have a static bonus to tracking, travel, nature knowledge, etc. that applies to all terrains, and an extra bonus that applies to the specific Favored Terrain/Enemy.
I've written it before, but Ranger is really the only class that has their core defining abilities so narrow in focus as they currently are. A change that allowed them to more consistently use these abilities without relying on the campaign to tailor itself to the character would go a long way.
I think the main thing that could be done to improve the Ranger is a total re-thinking of Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy.
Rangers should have a static bonus to tracking, travel, nature knowledge, etc. that applies to all terrains, and an extra bonus that applies to the specific Favored Terrain/Enemy.
I've written it before, but Ranger is really the only class that has their core defining abilities so narrow in focus as they currently are. A change that allowed them to more consistently use these abilities without relying on the campaign to tailor itself to the character would go a long way.
Yeah Tashas certainly helped with this but I agree that the PHB features should get a second pass. Seems like they are based on the PHB survey we got
Agreed, however, it’s much much harder to quantify the suite of traits than it is to look at single traits at a single level. While I suspect you and I would have similar judgements on the values of both the individual pieces and on the collective integrated whole, I’m also fairly certain there are plenty of folks that wouldn’t and it’s subjective enough for both groups to be at least partly right. I think that may be the real reason folks look at damage sooooooooo much - it’s a single, easily quantifiable and calculatable thing. Just trying to compare a L16 Hunter vs a Beastmastervs a gloomstalker vs a horizon walker is hard enough, adding in a fighter, or barbarian or rogue (or Druid/cleric/mage/etc) makes such c9mparisons nearly impossible. Wiithout a lot of other info on the situation, target, and conditions such comparisons are at best difficult and at worst impossible.
I’m finding that rather than trying to build an “ideal” character in a white room I’m having much more fun evolving characters from a back story and personality profile and then picking what seems best to them at the time in the campaign. It’s much more “ what do I feel my weak spots are that need shoring up - or my strengths that could be pushed further?” Than what would be the ideal combo? So I have 3 characters more or less in play right now: 1) Balzeiros - a 1/2 elven PHB ranger 2 ( backup campaign character) out scouting in what looks like it will be a war between a demonic army and a human army for the fate of a continent. We do know that there is an item broken into 7 parts that we have to find and assemble to defeat the bbeg and the demonic hordes he commands. The only thing I’m fairly sure of is that at L4 fiends will be his new favored enemy. But just what I will do at L3 is ??? I’ll figure it out when I get there. 2) Mendartis is a wood elf druidic ranger 2/draconic sorceror 2 without armor ( S:17, D:17, C:15, I:10, W:14, Ch:16) (on standby for a new campaign after being in 3 others already). Again not completely sure what I’ll do with him at L5 but probably take R3 though which subclass will probably be campaign dependent. He did make R3 in the next to last campaign where he became a RATKING in Waterdeep but then gave it up and reverted back to R2/S2 for the last campaign where he was a treasure hunter. Exactly how he has been world walking is something major on his mind so Fey wanderer and horizon walker are both strong possibilities. But hunter, monster slayer and swarm keeper are possibilities depending on the campaign. I recognize that going S3 and getting metamagic is powerful but he is a ranger first, sorceror second so unless something major happens in his next campaign he will go ranger 3 (and probably 4,5 and maybe 6 before going S3) 3) Aviate - (main campaign) Air Genasi Female archer Fey wanderer 6/storm sorceror 1. She has enough experience to go L8 as soon as she gets a break in the action. She has been half of the party’s healing and neither half is a dedicated cleric. She was recently freed from a 1000 year stasis and the rest of the party and their sponsor are pretty much the only folks she knows today. She will almost certainly add a level of sorceror to boost spell capacity when she levels up. each is an interesting build and situation and I’m letting the game play dictate direction of progression rather than going for some idealized “optimal build” . Yes there is a certain amount of metagaming with selections of multiclass to match the multiclassing rules for spell development but that is pretty much it. Even at this level trying to decide how the racial and class features fit together to determine how “powerful” each is is difficult - suffice to say that so far each has been a consistent force within their own teams and at their levels.
*****Comment to be followed up with comments of "situational" and "immunity" and other vague general complaints to reinforce preconceived notions.
***Note: Bill posted right as I was typing my response. His approach is better than my trying to poke at petty criticisms and show just how ridiculous some of these comparisons are. they always leave out something. However, a total package of individual 20th level classes is a better analysis than just capstones. A ranger spends so much time ahead of the curve, its ok to be a little behind at 20th level.
I think the main thing that could be done to improve the Ranger is a total re-thinking of Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy.
Rangers should have a static bonus to tracking, travel, nature knowledge, etc. that applies to all terrains, and an extra bonus that applies to the specific Favored Terrain/Enemy.
I've written it before, but Ranger is really the only class that has their core defining abilities so narrow in focus as they currently are. A change that allowed them to more consistently use these abilities without relying on the campaign to tailor itself to the character would go a long way.
Yeah Tashas certainly helped with this but I agree that the PHB features should get a second pass. Seems like they are based on the PHB survey we got
There are (imnsho) 4 skills that a ranger needs to have: perception, nature, survival and stealth. Of these favored enemy and terrain provide what is essentially expertise to nature and survival skills and tracking of favored enemies. I have been saying that the number of foes and terrains is the real problem as you really need at least 1 more foe and 2 more terrains. That would give the high level ranger expertise in dealing with the majority of terrain types and foe types. I typically use an ASI somewhere to give the ranger The Alertness feat and if they have a subclass that grants expertise I use it for perception. If you are not getting the extra foes and terrains then a reasonable alternate might be to provide a L9 benefit (they only get spell improvements there) of expertise in 2 ( or 1) skills, and/or allowing them to roll nature&survival rolls with advantage.
I think the main thing that could be done to improve the Ranger is a total re-thinking of Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy.
Rangers should have a static bonus to tracking, travel, nature knowledge, etc. that applies to all terrains, and an extra bonus that applies to the specific Favored Terrain/Enemy.
I've written it before, but Ranger is really the only class that has their core defining abilities so narrow in focus as they currently are. A change that allowed them to more consistently use these abilities without relying on the campaign to tailor itself to the character would go a long way.
Yeah Tashas certainly helped with this but I agree that the PHB features should get a second pass. Seems like they are based on the PHB survey we got
There are (imnsho) 4 skills that a ranger needs to have: perception, nature, survival and stealth. Of these favored enemy and terrain provide what is essentially expertise to nature and survival skills and tracking of favored enemies. I have been saying that the number of foes and terrains is the real problem as you really need at least 1 more foe and 2 more terrains. That would give the high level ranger expertise in dealing with the majority of terrain types and foe types. I typically use an ASI somewhere to give the ranger The Alertness feat and if they have a subclass that grants expertise I use it for perception. If you are not getting the extra foes and terrains then a reasonable alternate might be to provide a L9 benefit (they only get spell improvements there) of expertise in 2 ( or 1) skills, and/or allowing them to roll nature&survival rolls with advantage.
I would agree giving them more would solve a lot.
I would also give them all of them eventually as that wouldn't be broken by 17th+ IMO
I realize that is not a popular opinion because of organized play and other such situations, mindsets, or opinions, but there is plenty of room in the NE and FE rules for expansion through interpretation. If you are using these abilities and really truly finding them not great, then simply speak with you DM about a more generous interpretation of “related to”. That alone will open the doors for you suite of wisdom and intelligence skill proficiencies. This still leaves room for you folks that multiclass into rogue.
There are (imnsho) 4 skills that a ranger needs to have: perception, nature, survival and stealth. Of these favored enemy and terrain provide what is essentially expertise to nature and survival skills and tracking of favored enemies. I have been saying that the number of foes and terrains is the real problem as you really need at least 1 more foe and 2 more terrains. That would give the high level ranger expertise in dealing with the majority of terrain types and foe types. I typically use an ASI somewhere to give the ranger The Alertness feat and if they have a subclass that grants expertise I use it for perception. If you are not getting the extra foes and terrains then a reasonable alternate might be to provide a L9 benefit (they only get spell improvements there) of expertise in 2 ( or 1) skills, and/or allowing them to roll nature&survival rolls with advantage.
If a ranger already has a 14 or more in wisdom and possible bonuses from favored enemy or favored terrain I find doubling down on alertness may be a build mistake. Especially when there are some spells to take over those rolls as well.
I have found by smart choices I can always get one(enemies and terrains) to apply and alot of the time both.
I think The key is to diversify but not spread yourself too thin. Understand your role and build. instead of taking alert why not take skilled? alert overlaps with a lot of the things a ranger is already good at and kind of ruins lvl 18( yes I know most games don't go that high). skilled on the other hand can get much more making favored terrain much more powerful.
same with stealth. why take it when your dex is high and you also took passwithout a trace? maybe one of those is better spent elsewhere?
if you do decide to "double down" on watch person or shadow stalker(or any other role)....... don't regret the things you lost out on to do so.
Of the 4 stealth is the one I don’t always take for various reasons based mostly on character development. While alert ( and stealth) may be duplicatable by other features somewhat I think the feat is sufficiently powerful and appropriate for a ranger that they are part of my characters. Never being surprised to me is very big. Taking away invisible and other hidden/unseen advantage is major, the other half the equation - taking away your disadvantage to hit them - is what you get with Feral senses at L18. It doesn’t duplicate it adds to, fully leveling the playing field. +5 to initiative is also a big deal to me at least. I prefer to do unto, not be done unto. Rangers have a huge ability to disrupt opponent’s plans and combat actions but you can’t do that if they go first every round. Stealth is to me a major part of being a ranger - they are normally a single person out there far from any help. I recognize that in game the ranger is almost never on their own but the roleplay part of character creation for me involves designing them to be functional alone in the wilderness and for that stealth is really important. If I’m not building for that I might as well build a fighter, take skilled and get nature and survival. Skilled is always good for a more complete character. For me, for a ranger the next 3 top skills are animal handling, medicine and herbalism kit. With those I can manage pack animals and wild beasts more easily, use a healer’s kit to aide the party or themselves and brew some basic potions including potions of healing making them far more effective and valuable to a party.
Rather than comparing capstones to each other, instead compare them to a level 1 dip in another class. It probably gives you a better idea of the feature's "power level" if you're interested in the comparison.
I’m finding that rather than trying to build an “ideal” character in a white room I’m having much more fun evolving characters from a back story and personality profile and then picking what seems best to them at the time in the campaign.
For me I really enjoy taking a character concept and running with it, it doesn't matter if that leads to subpar damage or combat effectiveness. First and foremost I'm playing a character, not a murderbot or even a class. My fighter has taken a level in Rogue before primarily for Thieves' Cant because it fit with the concept I had. I understand that this doesn't work for all tables, and some people want to excel in combat, and that's fine.
Rather than comparing capstones to each other, instead compare them to a level 1 dip in another class. It probably gives you a better idea of the feature's "power level" if you're interested in the comparison.
not all games allow multiclassing. in-fact as new "options" get produced I see more dms actively creating restrictions more specific to their games. every game I've joined in the last 2 years had a list of restricted optional features.
Rather than comparing capstones to each other, instead compare them to a level 1 dip in another class. It probably gives you a better idea of the feature's "power level" if you're interested in the comparison.
not all games allow multiclassing. in-fact as new "options" get produced I see more dms actively creating restrictions more specific to their games. every game I've joined in the last 2 years had a list of restricted optional features.
Doesn't prevent comparison here though does it?
Do you think these restrictions were relevant to the campaign setting, or were they arbitrarily arrived at? For each individual playing the campaigns did it positively, negatively, or have zero impact on that individual's enjoyment of the game(s)?
I suspect at least some of the restrictions were financial. If you go strictly hard copy it’s not too bad but if your going digital as well it’s 2x the cost + digital subscription costs. For those of us that have been around forever it’s not too bad, but for starting and younger DMs it can be a bit of a financial load.
The problems with comparing capstones to dips: 1) most classes are fairly front loaded with stand alones while tier 4 abilities are designed to feed off of earlier class/subclass abilities. The stand alones look better initially but may not actually play better while the tier 4s may not look strong until you dive into the numbers and synergies. 2) are you comparing the tier 4 single level ability to only the level 1 ability or talking about a 2-3 level dip vs a single level gain? 3) are the gains even really comparable? Take foe slayer and L1 rogue, foe slayer gives you a +3-5 to hit selected high AC capstone enemies, rogue gives you 1 extra skill, expertise in 2 skills, thieves tools and thieves can’t and sneak attack (1D6 once a turn) - none of that is going to help you hit that enemy, thieves tools and can’t? For a L19 ranger? Why?, the sneak damage is minimal, what your really getting with some usefulness is 1 new skill and expertise with 2 skills when combat wise what you may desperately need is that +3-5 to hit.
I suspect at least some of the restrictions were financial. If you go strictly hard copy it’s not too bad but if your going digital as well it’s 2x the cost + digital subscription costs. For those of us that have been around forever it’s not too bad, but for starting and younger DMs it can be a bit of a financial load.
I disagree about financial being the key reason. I've seen players(at multiple virtual tables) beg to buy the content for the dm if they would just let them use it. I think its more of a mental balancing act. narratively some things create inconsistent lore or setting issues. This alters the tone the dm is usually going for especially for dms that want character and backstory interaction.
It also is a mechanically balancing issue for dms to allow consistent rulings.
5e seems to now remove phrases like "climbing doesn't cost extra movement" instead newer material tends to use phrases like " gains a climb speed" one is actually a bit better than the other depending on situations that require "skilled" climbs.
Another example would be the monster slayers third ability.
Hunter’s Sense
At 3rd level, you gain the ability to peer at a creature and magically discern how best to hurt it. As an action, choose one creature you can see within 60 feet of you. You immediately learn whether the creature has any damage immunities, resistances, or vulnerabilities and what they are. If the creature is hidden from divination magic, you sense that it has no damage immunities, resistances, or vulnerabilities.
You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum of once). You regain all expended uses of it when you finish a long rest.
before this type of thing existed many ranger players would ask about immunities and such. the dm would allow skill checks. but with a slayer at the table a dm I find more dms will out right deny a research or lore check and instead say "you dont have the right abilities to figure it out" and will wait for combat clue drops instead. this ends up creating a situation less valuable for PHB rangers all because of perspective shift.
I was using +3 since essentially any ranger should have at least that bonus by L20, but your right - most rangers should have a wisdom of 18-20 and so a bonus of +4/+5 but that just makes Foe slayer even better. If you have a a 20 wisdom you have the full offset to use SS hitting as often as a fighter that has no way to use GWM. In addition I don’t see anything stopping the ranger from using foe slayer on spell attacks if they can’t find a way to get attack spells.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The major issue is that it's once per turn and only for your enemies if you go that route. And if you do Favored foe then you don't have your concentration and at that level you want that for your ranger spells to keep up on damage at all with the others.
Fighters get a straight up extra attack which is going to increase their damage well beyond with GWM or SS more so. They have plenty of subclass stuff to help them at this point with accuracy.
Barbarian gets 24 STR and 24 CON and infinity rage so they are hitting more often and tanking more damage and depending on the subclass just literally not ever going down.
The paladin stuff is oath specific but can be very huge in the one bigger fight you have a day. Overall it's a mixed bag but most of them are better I feel then the ranger capstone but not all of them
Rogue and Ranger are in the middle. It's good but not awesome.
Monk is terrible as you just get a piddly amount of ki back at the start of a fight.
We are still having people talking about level 20 = level 20, and it doesn’t work that way.
What do rogues, barbarians, fighters, rangers, monks, and paladins look like compared to one another at level 19? How about levels 17 and 16? You’ve GOT to add this all up. One class’s level 20 is not another class’s level 20. It’s the sum of the parts.
Yeah and that's why it's not a great capstone as it doesn't really build well with the whole kit.
You either only get it against a small subset of creatures that you happen to pick with Favored Enemy or you use Favored Foe and lose your concentration for your ranger spells
Either way it's not great
I don’t think I’m being very clear. The “bad” capstone isn’t needed the same way the “good” capstones are. Compare a bad capstone class to a good capstone, but at the level before the capstone.
I think the main thing that could be done to improve the Ranger is a total re-thinking of Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy.
Rangers should have a static bonus to tracking, travel, nature knowledge, etc. that applies to all terrains, and an extra bonus that applies to the specific Favored Terrain/Enemy.
I've written it before, but Ranger is really the only class that has their core defining abilities so narrow in focus as they currently are. A change that allowed them to more consistently use these abilities without relying on the campaign to tailor itself to the character would go a long way.
Yeah Tashas certainly helped with this but I agree that the PHB features should get a second pass. Seems like they are based on the PHB survey we got
Agreed, however, it’s much much harder to quantify the suite of traits than it is to look at single traits at a single level. While I suspect you and I would have similar judgements on the values of both the individual pieces and on the collective integrated whole, I’m also fairly certain there are plenty of folks that wouldn’t and it’s subjective enough for both groups to be at least partly right. I think that may be the real reason folks look at damage sooooooooo much - it’s a single, easily quantifiable and calculatable thing. Just trying to compare a L16 Hunter vs a Beastmastervs a gloomstalker vs a horizon walker is hard enough, adding in a fighter, or barbarian or rogue (or Druid/cleric/mage/etc) makes such c9mparisons nearly impossible. Wiithout a lot of other info on the situation, target, and conditions such comparisons are at best difficult and at worst impossible.
I’m finding that rather than trying to build an “ideal” character in a white room I’m having much more fun evolving characters from a back story and personality profile and then picking what seems best to them at the time in the campaign. It’s much more “ what do I feel my weak spots are that need shoring up - or my strengths that could be pushed further?” Than what would be the ideal combo? So I have 3 characters more or less in play right now:
1) Balzeiros - a 1/2 elven PHB ranger 2 ( backup campaign character) out scouting in what looks like it will be a war between a demonic army and a human army for the fate of a continent. We do know that there is an item broken into 7 parts that we have to find and assemble to defeat the bbeg and the demonic hordes he commands. The only thing I’m fairly sure of is that at L4 fiends will be his new favored enemy. But just what I will do at L3 is ??? I’ll figure it out when I get there.
2) Mendartis is a wood elf druidic ranger 2/draconic sorceror 2 without armor ( S:17, D:17, C:15, I:10, W:14, Ch:16) (on standby for a new campaign after being in 3 others already). Again not completely sure what I’ll do with him at L5 but probably take R3 though which subclass will probably be campaign dependent. He did make R3 in the next to last campaign where he became a RATKING in Waterdeep but then gave it up and reverted back to R2/S2 for the last campaign where he was a treasure hunter. Exactly how he has been world walking is something major on his mind so Fey wanderer and horizon walker are both strong possibilities. But hunter, monster slayer and swarm keeper are possibilities depending on the campaign. I recognize that going S3 and getting metamagic is powerful but he is a ranger first, sorceror second so unless something major happens in his next campaign he will go ranger 3 (and probably 4,5 and maybe 6 before going S3)
3) Aviate - (main campaign) Air Genasi Female archer Fey wanderer 6/storm sorceror 1. She has enough experience to go L8 as soon as she gets a break in the action. She has been half of the party’s healing and neither half is a dedicated cleric. She was recently freed from a 1000 year stasis and the rest of the party and their sponsor are pretty much the only folks she knows today. She will almost certainly add a level of sorceror to boost spell capacity when she levels up.
each is an interesting build and situation and I’m letting the game play dictate direction of progression rather than going for some idealized “optimal build” . Yes there is a certain amount of metagaming with selections of multiclass to match the multiclassing rules for spell development but that is pretty much it. Even at this level trying to decide how the racial and class features fit together to determine how “powerful” each is is difficult - suffice to say that so far each has been a consistent force within their own teams and at their levels.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
At 20th level a ranger can have Conjure Volley and swift quiver ( potentially With poison arrows ) in an area covered by multiple cordon of arrows and still potentially get a + to hit or damage. that + to hit is particularly potent when used with Purple worm poison (injury)
*****Comment to be followed up with comments of "situational" and "immunity" and other vague general complaints to reinforce preconceived notions.
***Note: Bill posted right as I was typing my response. His approach is better than my trying to poke at petty criticisms and show just how ridiculous some of these comparisons are. they always leave out something. However, a total package of individual 20th level classes is a better analysis than just capstones. A ranger spends so much time ahead of the curve, its ok to be a little behind at 20th level.
There are (imnsho) 4 skills that a ranger needs to have: perception, nature, survival and stealth. Of these favored enemy and terrain provide what is essentially expertise to nature and survival skills and tracking of favored enemies. I have been saying that the number of foes and terrains is the real problem as you really need at least 1 more foe and 2 more terrains. That would give the high level ranger expertise in dealing with the majority of terrain types and foe types. I typically use an ASI somewhere to give the ranger The Alertness feat and if they have a subclass that grants expertise I use it for perception. If you are not getting the extra foes and terrains then a reasonable alternate might be to provide a L9 benefit (they only get spell improvements there) of expertise in 2 ( or 1) skills, and/or allowing them to roll nature&survival rolls with advantage.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I would agree giving them more would solve a lot.
I would also give them all of them eventually as that wouldn't be broken by 17th+ IMO
I realize that is not a popular opinion because of organized play and other such situations, mindsets, or opinions, but there is plenty of room in the NE and FE rules for expansion through interpretation. If you are using these abilities and really truly finding them not great, then simply speak with you DM about a more generous interpretation of “related to”. That alone will open the doors for you suite of wisdom and intelligence skill proficiencies. This still leaves room for you folks that multiclass into rogue.
If a ranger already has a 14 or more in wisdom and possible bonuses from favored enemy or favored terrain I find doubling down on alertness may be a build mistake. Especially when there are some spells to take over those rolls as well.
I have found by smart choices I can always get one(enemies and terrains) to apply and alot of the time both.
I think The key is to diversify but not spread yourself too thin. Understand your role and build. instead of taking alert why not take skilled? alert overlaps with a lot of the things a ranger is already good at and kind of ruins lvl 18( yes I know most games don't go that high). skilled on the other hand can get much more making favored terrain much more powerful.
same with stealth. why take it when your dex is high and you also took passwithout a trace? maybe one of those is better spent elsewhere?
if you do decide to "double down" on watch person or shadow stalker(or any other role)....... don't regret the things you lost out on to do so.
Of the 4 stealth is the one I don’t always take for various reasons based mostly on character development. While alert ( and stealth) may be duplicatable by other features somewhat I think the feat is sufficiently powerful and appropriate for a ranger that they are part of my characters. Never being surprised to me is very big. Taking away invisible and other hidden/unseen advantage is major, the other half the equation - taking away your disadvantage to hit them - is what you get with Feral senses at L18. It doesn’t duplicate it adds to, fully leveling the playing field. +5 to initiative is also a big deal to me at least. I prefer to do unto, not be done unto. Rangers have a huge ability to disrupt opponent’s plans and combat actions but you can’t do that if they go first every round.
Stealth is to me a major part of being a ranger - they are normally a single person out there far from any help. I recognize that in game the ranger is almost never on their own but the roleplay part of character creation for me involves designing them to be functional alone in the wilderness and for that stealth is really important. If I’m not building for that I might as well build a fighter, take skilled and get nature and survival.
Skilled is always good for a more complete character. For me, for a ranger the next 3 top skills are animal handling, medicine and herbalism kit. With those I can manage pack animals and wild beasts more easily, use a healer’s kit to aide the party or themselves and brew some basic potions including potions of healing making them far more effective and valuable to a party.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Rather than comparing capstones to each other, instead compare them to a level 1 dip in another class. It probably gives you a better idea of the feature's "power level" if you're interested in the comparison.
For me I really enjoy taking a character concept and running with it, it doesn't matter if that leads to subpar damage or combat effectiveness. First and foremost I'm playing a character, not a murderbot or even a class. My fighter has taken a level in Rogue before primarily for Thieves' Cant because it fit with the concept I had. I understand that this doesn't work for all tables, and some people want to excel in combat, and that's fine.
not all games allow multiclassing. in-fact as new "options" get produced I see more dms actively creating restrictions more specific to their games. every game I've joined in the last 2 years had a list of restricted optional features.
Doesn't prevent comparison here though does it?
Do you think these restrictions were relevant to the campaign setting, or were they arbitrarily arrived at? For each individual playing the campaigns did it positively, negatively, or have zero impact on that individual's enjoyment of the game(s)?
I suspect at least some of the restrictions were financial. If you go strictly hard copy it’s not too bad but if your going digital as well it’s 2x the cost + digital subscription costs. For those of us that have been around forever it’s not too bad, but for starting and younger DMs it can be a bit of a financial load.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The problems with comparing capstones to dips:
1) most classes are fairly front loaded with stand alones while tier 4 abilities are designed to feed off of earlier class/subclass abilities. The stand alones look better initially but may not actually play better while the tier 4s may not look strong until you dive into the numbers and synergies.
2) are you comparing the tier 4 single level ability to only the level 1 ability or talking about a 2-3 level dip vs a single level gain?
3) are the gains even really comparable? Take foe slayer and L1 rogue, foe slayer gives you a +3-5 to hit selected high AC capstone enemies, rogue gives you 1 extra skill, expertise in 2 skills, thieves tools and thieves can’t and sneak attack (1D6 once a turn) - none of that is going to help you hit that enemy, thieves tools and can’t? For a L19 ranger? Why?, the sneak damage is minimal, what your really getting with some usefulness is 1 new skill and expertise with 2 skills when combat wise what you may desperately need is that +3-5 to hit.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I disagree about financial being the key reason. I've seen players(at multiple virtual tables) beg to buy the content for the dm if they would just let them use it. I think its more of a mental balancing act. narratively some things create inconsistent lore or setting issues. This alters the tone the dm is usually going for especially for dms that want character and backstory interaction.
It also is a mechanically balancing issue for dms to allow consistent rulings.
5e seems to now remove phrases like "climbing doesn't cost extra movement" instead newer material tends to use phrases like " gains a climb speed" one is actually a bit better than the other depending on situations that require "skilled" climbs.
Another example would be the monster slayers third ability.
Hunter’s Sense
At 3rd level, you gain the ability to peer at a creature and magically discern how best to hurt it. As an action, choose one creature you can see within 60 feet of you. You immediately learn whether the creature has any damage immunities, resistances, or vulnerabilities and what they are. If the creature is hidden from divination magic, you sense that it has no damage immunities, resistances, or vulnerabilities.
You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum of once). You regain all expended uses of it when you finish a long rest.
before this type of thing existed many ranger players would ask about immunities and such. the dm would allow skill checks. but with a slayer at the table a dm I find more dms will out right deny a research or lore check and instead say "you dont have the right abilities to figure it out" and will wait for combat clue drops instead. this ends up creating a situation less valuable for PHB rangers all because of perspective shift.