Every class in D&D 5e has a unique mechanical identity that sets it apart from all the other classes. All but the Ranger. Hear me out.
-The Artificer gets Infusions, where they can make magic items daily for themselves or for the party.
-The Barbarian gets Rage and Reckless Attack, which fuels their combat abilities to fulfill their roles of tank and/or damage dealer.
-The Bard gets Bardic Inspiration along with skill boosts like Expertise & Jack of All Trades. Their Inspiration helps to boost their friends' die rolls, as well as fueling some of the Bard's subclass abilities.
-The Cleric gets Channel Divinity & Turn Undead, as well as Domain Spells. Most Domains expand the Turn Undead so that it affects more creature types, increasing the feature's efficacy.
-The Druid gets Wildshape, which has enormous utility and roleplay value, as well as some combat value (and much more, if they are a Moon Druid.) Wildshape also serves as a resource for some subclass abilities, or as a way to summon a familiar w the Tasha's rules.
-The Fighter gets Action Surge and Extra Attacks. Action Surge is so valuable that many multiclass builds take the 2 level Fighter Dip just to get it.
-The Monk gets Martial Arts and Ki. Some may argue about the efficacy of Ki as a resource pool (though it looks to be improved for 2024), but you can't argue that it isn't unique and flavorful. Monks also get all sorts of unique abilities like running up walls and a late level boost to Saving Throws.
-The Paladin. The poster child for having an absolute glut of features. Lay on Hands. Divine Sense. Divine Smites. Channel Divinity, which fuels their subclass features. And of course... Aura of Protection. Not all of these are unique to Paladin- Clerics have Channel Divinity, too, and get to use it more often than Paladins. But with all their other class-specific features, Paladins are the Champs.
-The Rogue gets Expertise and Sneak Attack, along with Cunning Action. Sure, Bards also get Expertise (and Rangers in Tashas or in the UAs), but Rogues get way more of them. And their other features make them unique in their skirmisher, hit-and-run, single target damage play style.
-The Sorcerer gets Metamagic, the ability to change and affect their spells.
-The Warlock gets their Pact features (Tome, Blade, or Chain) along with Eldritch Invocations. And Despite the arguably too few Pact Spell slots, Pact Magic is mechanically unique and flavorful and makes playing a Warlock feel different from playing any other caster.
-The Wizard gets the most powerful & versatile version of Ritual Casting in the game, along with Arcane Recovery and the ability to know the most spells from the largest, most versatile spell list in the game (if opportunity exists for it with the campaign or adventure).
What does the Ranger get? 🤔 Well, in the 2014 PHB, they get Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain. Both are very flavorful and on brand features for the Ranger. But mechanically... they suck. Basically, they both just give the Ranger Expertise on Nature or Survival checks- IF it involves a Favored Enemy or Terrain. Otherwise... you're screwed & they do nothing. But they don't affect combat really. Maybe you could use an action to do a Nature check to recall facts about a Favored Enemy that would get you tactical information from the DM about an enemy- like AC or resistances or something? But that's dependant upon the DM. And if you don't happen to be in your Favored Terrain or fighting (or tracking) a Favored Enemy? You get nothing.
There are other features for the Ranger, like Primeval Awareness, which lets you sense if creatures are within a mile. Not how many. Not where or which direction. Nor exactly what creature. Just the creature Type. And this costs a spell slot. It's not good. It's on brand, though. Rangers should be able to sense creatures better than most of the other classes. But this feature misses the mark. Pun woefully intended. Tasha's helped improve these slightly. It made Favored Enemy a Foe instead, essentially giving Ranger's a version of Hunter's Mark. And the Terrain thing turned into Deft Explorer, which basically gave one skill Expertise (& a couple of languages).
What about Hunter's Mark? Well if that is supposed to be a feature, then so is Magic Missile for Wizards. Or Cure Wounds for Clerics. Vicious Mockery or Charm Person for Bards. Etc. Hunter's Mark is just a spell that Rangers might take. And, based upon the UAs for 2024 and discussions I've seen about them, nobody can seem to agree what the best version of Hunter's Mark even is.
All of this is to say that the Ranger either doesn't have a unique mechanical identity as a class. Or at least, if they do, it's a very weak one. Imagine if the Paladin's Smites ONLY worked on Undead? Or if the Rogue's Expertise wouldn't work in the dungeon you're in because it's not a "grassland" Terrain? What if it IS in a grassland, but no one can agree what a grassland exactly is? Or if the dungeon doesn't qualify as a grassland, even if it's entrance was located in one?
I don't think the Ranger is necessarily "weak" when it comes to combat. They still are a martial half-caster. They get a fighting style. They have weapons and armor. They have spells. But I just don't think that their UNIQUE mechanical features measure up to any of the other classes, certainly not in terms of power, utility, and applicability. And I haven't been very much encouraged by the 2024 UA treatments that the Ranger got. Sure, the ability to choose 2 Terrains, and to change one of them after a long rest is definitely better. But problems still remain with the Terrain feature. Like there's no Urban terrain. Or Tomb. Or DUNGEON (right there in the title). And the Terrain types aren't clearly defined, so it could lead to arguments over whether that cluster of trees on the map qualifies as a forest or not. And all of this is on top of that the benefits bestowed are just not that great. Advantage or Expertise on Nature or History or tracking/foraging (Survival) checks? Really? How about Fire Resistance in desserts or volcanoes? Cold Resistance in Arctic or Tundras? Advantage on Stealth in Grasslands or Forests? I don't know... something like that? Something that's gonna actually come up more often, so that the Feature actually feels useful and relevant. And maybe if the Favored Enemy/Foe could give some COMBAT features? (More than just a version of Hunter's Mark?) Like, I dunno... maybe some kind of Advantage to hit certain creatures/types?
I don't know. I don't claim to have all the answers. I just know that- to me anyway- the Ranger feels... lacking. Something feels... not quite right about the base class features. I hope they figure something out for 2024. I mean, they managed to improve the Monk, right? So there's hope?
I guess those are it: Favoured enemy and natural explorer. Why D&D made them the ranger’s mechanical identity is beyond me (excuse the pun). I guess bad features for a mediocre class 🤷
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: “Who’s your patron?”
Warlock: “Ummm”
DM: “Hurry Up”
Warlock: “yOu”
*All other players look at each other with utter fear*
__________________________________________________________________________________ Check out my homebrew: My Homebrew
The vanilla Ranger's specialty is excelling in exploration gameplay. Granted, the features were narrow in scope, but the main reason they were undervalued is that many players aren't interested in engaging in an aspect of gameplay their own player characters aren't invested in.
The Ranger's mechanical identity, both in its vanilla incarnation and with its replacement features, is a jack-of-all-trades, a versatile character who can contribute to weapon fighting, magic casting, and skill usage. Their weapon options make them strong melee and ranged attackers, with features to augment their damage output, even if they don't hit as hard as a specialized Fighter. Their magic options include a variety of damage, support, and control options that give them a lot of flexibility, even if they can't cast as well as a dedicated caster. They get an Expertise and a variety of utility options for out-of-battle situations, even if they don't excel in that area like a Rogue or Bard would. Their subclass options emphasize this, in that they have a variety of options that augment different aspects of the Ranger's skillset.
And no, being a jack-of-all-trades doesn't make you a master-of-none. The Rangers I've played with were all strong contributors to the party, because they could contribute in just about any area against enemies that might stymy some party members or to fill up where the rest of the party lacked.
Favored Enemy/Hunter's Mark/Favored terrain. This concept of the hunter is the class identity and it is supported well through the levels. In particular with Tasha's changes that is even better supported.
As for spells being a part of class identity, the smite spells are part of the paladin identity, eldritch blast is part of the warlock identity, and hunter's mark is part of the Ranger identity. The designers have said as much in interviews. Mechanically those spells were factored into the damage curve for each of those classes. Now should they have been made class features. Yes I would have preferred that, but that is how they chose to mechanically implement them. You can see in the UA and in Tasha's different approaches to try in add in a class specific Hunter's Mark (for the Warlock they try to add in EB/Hex, and Paladin Smite).
Original poster. Have you played a ranger at all? The parameters you set in your original post for a class identity is not a thing in the game system. I understand if that's how you see the game. It's simply just not a goal.
Rangers use parts of the game that many new players, young players, organized play players, one-shot players, and power gamers do not interact with. For the rest of us, rangers more than fulfill their function, and then some. Combat, healing, stealth, surprise, knowledge checks, social interaction, survival, travel, lore, and game world interaction are all strong suits of the ranger class, and the subclasses highlight one or more of those when chosen. For a simple reply to your question, my answer is "group mom". With only a few of their spells, rangers protect and advance the party. Take Pass Without Trace and Conjure Animals. Those two alone provide more potential combat power and protection than any of the other class abilities you mentioned above. Some of the other "lackluster" ranger abilities you mentioned require knowing how to use them, perhaps along with some DM interaction. But when used, they are above the curve powerful, making up for their situational occurrences.
Ranger at their core are tailored multi-tools. They build with a lot of little features the player figures out how to use them to complete tasks. Each player picks strong and weak elements to mix and round out their skills. Their "mechanic" is that they are mix of everything. They are the true generic adventurer With choices as to how they want to develop.
For example animal friendship isn't needed on a ranger that builds around favored enemy: beasts.
I have built a diffrent ranger with the idea of having all a different main attribute stat And they all can play a "ranger"
Even some of the "useless" features can make for interesting play if you use negative information or long-term planning to complete goals.
The ranger’s mechanical feature is actually its spell casting. While limited ( especially at lower levels) it provides boosts to both their combat abilities and to their ability to multi task/ multi-purpose in the party. While they are oriented towards outdoor travel/exploration activities with their features, those abilities can be essentially neglected/ignored for things like urban rangers while the ability to cast up to L5 (primal) spells as well as engage in physical combat on a par with a level 1-10 (+) fighter is what sets them apart mechanically from all the other classes.
I would argue that the Paladin gets exactly what you describe, too. Spellcasting, to level 5 (albeit Divine spells, so a slightly different toolset), while being on par with a level 1-10 fighter.
But Paladins ALSO get Lay on Hands, and Divine Smite (granted, they use spell slots, but only if you've hit the target-which makes those slots 100% effective, as opposed to other spells that can hit or miss, save or suck), Aura of Protection (arguably their most valuable feature), and Improved Divine Smite which gives a flat d8 bonus to every attack that hits.
My point was that compared to other classes, the Ranger's features are highly situational, probably DM dependant, and often non-combat oriented. Now, not all features need to be combat-focused. But if they are not combat features, I think the features should be things that can be useful reliably often. This is where the Terrain system fails.
When Drizzt learned from Montolio, he didn't learn just the terrain Montolio lived in. He learned HOW to learn, so that he could travel the Realms and always understand his environment. The UA came close to this idea with the option to choose 2 Terrain types, and to replace one with another after a long rest. However, the bonuses that the Terrain feature grants are still highly situational. Foraging for food doesn't happen at some tables. At others, it doesn't come up because the party may have outfitted with supplies, or the Druid or Ranger cast Goodberry. Tracking also doesn't come up all that often. When it does, it's very satisfying, I'll grant you. But neither of these features, nor some of the Ranger's higher level features- like Tasha's version of Nature's Veil- come close to the usefulness of the Paladin's Aura. It's great in combat and still pretty good out of combat. Their Lay on Hands is a very useful pool of non-spell slot healing, and it can remove some conditions.
I'm not saying Ranger is bad. I'm saying that- especially compared to the Paladin, which is its nearest cousin among the classes- the Ranger feels like it's just... lacking. Whether it's the Paladin's potential for burst damage, their healing potential, their boost to saves for themselves and nearby party members, or their potential for multiclassing into the 3 other Charisma casting classes.... Paladin just feels like it gets way more "stuff" than the Ranger. And since they are the only 2 official half-casters (Sorry Arti's), I think they should be on a more equal playing field. I don't know how that should manifest, but the UAs didn't really explore it at all.
I clearly seem to be in a minority on this, since most responses have argued against my opinion. And that's fine. There are valid points from many points of view.
I agree with you, Poggledop, about the base PHB Ranger. It took about a decade before WotC released the version of Ranger we see in Tasha's Cauldron. It's more flexible, does not require as much out-of-campaign-communication/compromise with the DM and also included a fighting style option that better accentuated the half-Caster part of the Ranger's strengths. While I did not like every change made in Tasha's as a whole, the Ranger version in that volume is mostly a direct improvement. I recommend you take the time to review it in detail.
Yes, the Paladin is a bit OP as a class. From Level 1 to Level 20, there is something good at practically every step for them, whereas a lot of people multi-class out of Ranger to get some Fighter, Rogue, or even Monk levels in there. Not to mention slightly game-breaking spells like Find Greater Steed and Circle of Power. That said, Conjure Woodland Beings is also a game-breaking spell in the right hands (Fly spell for the whole party, sign me up!). Does the Paladin have a stronger mechanical niche carved out for it? Yes. Is the Paladin better at raw nova DPR? Yes. But that doesn't necessarily take away from the versatility and problem-solving capability of the Ranger, which is more diverse in possible effects than that of the Paladin's spells, which focus mostly on doing harm to enemies or protecting allies from enemies during combat. With few exceptions (like Find Greater Steed), the Paladin list is much like the Cleric spell list in its limitations.
Almost everything the paladin class has it needs to stay even remotely viable. Damage output for paladins and rangers, factoring in spell slots expended, leaves rangers many more spell slots for healing. When extra slots are used for healing (goodberry, cure wounds, healing spirit, conjure woodland beings) rangers have several orders of magnitude more healing power than paladins, including lay in hands, all while dealing as much damage, much more damage if the battle starts more than 35' away from the enemy.
To me the 2014 Ranger felt like an oddity, or a class designed for a different game. Most of the other classes had signature toys that really changed them (specifically in combat). The exceptions to me are the wizard, the fighter, and the ranger. I don't think we notice with the wizard and fighter because the wizard's spell list is so big it really obscures that, and the fighter's action surge and extra/extra attack feels special enough. The ranger meanwhile has two features (favored enemy, and natural explorer) that are playing a completely different game than anyone else. It would be like if the bard, instead of getting inspiration, gained abilities that just had to do with making and identifying music that gave no combat bonuses. The bard would still be a full caster and still flavorful to play, but the signature ability would feel lackluster in combat. Similarly the Ranger still feels great to play despite its signature abilities not really working with combat. Tasha's helped that a little by giving us Favored Foe (which was weak), but does scale (badly) with tiers of play.
IMHO, the main reason to play a Ranger is you get a lot of Druid class spells (up to 5th level) but you're better at taking and dealing direct damage than a Druid. There is one mechanical implication I don't like about this, though, which is that Rangers need concentration spells more than E.Knights or Paladins do, since the strength of Rangers is outlasting or outmaneuvering their enemies, not in putting them down ASAP (unless Gloom Stalker, ofc). However, they receive fewer ASIs than Fighters and no aura that boosts their saving throws the way Paladins do. Since I prefer a melee Ranger to a ranged-specialist Ranger, this rubs me the wrong way. However, I know that a big chunk of people who enjoy Rangers like taking Crossbow Expy with Sharpshooty; so that works for them. YMMV.
To me the 2014 Ranger felt like an oddity, or a class designed for a different game. Most of the other classes had signature toys that really changed them (specifically in combat). The exceptions to me are the wizard, the fighter, and the ranger. I don't think we notice with the wizard and fighter because the wizard's spell list is so big it really obscures that, and the fighter's action surge and extra/extra attack feels special enough. The ranger meanwhile has two features (favored enemy, and natural explorer) that are playing a completely different game than anyone else. It would be like if the bard, instead of getting inspiration, gained abilities that just had to do with making and identifying music that gave no combat bonuses. The bard would still be a full caster and still flavorful to play, but the signature ability would feel lackluster in combat. Similarly the Ranger still feels great to play despite its signature abilities not really working with combat. Tasha's helped that a little by giving us Favored Foe (which was weak), but does scale (badly) with tiers of play.
I wouldn't say it's designed for a different game but rather designed to appeal to a different playstyle approach.
I've played with dms tat made almost every feature (all classes) "situational" via interacting with deities, counterspell, anti-magic fields etc. A balanced adventure gave everyone a chance to shine and a chance to struggle. All an experience tailored by the dm.
Now the phb ranger allowed for me to self-service such play. Removing alot of the burden off of the dm. Personally I think dms have a harder time tailoring the world to other classes. (When a paladin or cleric breaks their oath, when a wizard wants custom effects, when a warlock turns on a patron)
Also phb ranger appeals more to a less common gameplay feel.
While a ranger can provide a power fantasy, it's actually not a primary design for it. It's designed for a "creative fantasy." Players who think I want to find my own creative solutions based on x character build and x world building rules. A ranger goes to an apothecary and buys ingredients from their terrain, buys food ingredients they know how to use etc.
To me, a large part of the PHB Ranger discussion comes under the heading “Point in Time”. In 2014 5e was just starting and everyone was feeling their way with the new system. The ranger was (then) hands down the best exploration/survival/travel class. It had comparably damage thru at least L10 with fighters and paladins. It had better range than the vast majority of spells and it had access to most L1-5 primal spells (albet at a reduced rate). However the 5e game morphed away from exploration/travel/wilderness survival rendering much of that fluff not stuff. Then along came Xanther and the scout rogue with not just proficiency but expertise in nature and survival (as well as 4 other skills) making it the new supreme wilderness class. Going scout rogue /druid gave you something very close to a rangers combat and spell abilities with better wilderness abilities. Tasha didn’t really change that dynamic. It did somewhat improve combat and did improve spell casting by giving a bunch of subclass spells to the new subclasses ( without upgrading the older subclasses the same way). Then along came UA2. Most of the ribbon abilities for nature were discarded but they did give the ranger 4 expertises (including 2 at the start) allowing the ranger to simply take expertise in nature and survival without needing the old ribbon abilities. Sadly they then walked that back in the later UA which basically left us with the post Tasha ranger. Because most tables seem to hand wave away the wilderness aspects of the game the effective mechanical identity of the ranger is that it is the only class designed as a true Gish. Yes the Paladin is also a half caster but it uses the vast majority of its slots for nova damage smites not on true spell casting. Even this identity is being diluted with the advent of the artificer as a half caster with access to a second attack and decent armor.
To me, a large part of the PHB Ranger discussion comes under the heading “Point in Time”. In 2014 5e was just starting and everyone was feeling their way with the new system. The ranger was (then) hands down the best exploration/survival/travel class. It had comparably damage thru at least L10 with fighters and paladins. It had better range than the vast majority of spells and it had access to most L1-5 primal spells (albet at a reduced rate). However the 5e game morphed away from exploration/travel/wilderness survival rendering much of that fluff not stuff. Then along came Xanther and the scout rogue with not just proficiency but expertise in nature and survival (as well as 4 other skills) making it the new supreme wilderness class. Going scout rogue /druid gave you something very close to a rangers combat and spell abilities with better wilderness abilities. Tasha didn’t really change that dynamic. It did somewhat improve combat and did improve spell casting by giving a bunch of subclass spells to the new subclasses ( without upgrading the older subclasses the same way). Then along came UA2. Most of the ribbon abilities for nature were discarded but they did give the ranger 4 expertises (including 2 at the start) allowing the ranger to simply take expertise in nature and survival without needing the old ribbon abilities. Sadly they then walked that back in the later UA which basically left us with the post Tasha ranger. Because most tables seem to hand wave away the wilderness aspects of the game the effective mechanical identity of the ranger is that it is the only class designed as a true Gish. Yes the Paladin is also a half caster but it uses the vast majority of its slots for nova damage smites not on true spell casting. Even this identity is being diluted with the advent of the artificer as a half caster with access to a second attack and decent armor.
I sort of agree. The Exploration "pillar" of the game got intentionally stunted like a malnourished child, reducing the potency and necessity of having a good set of survival skillsets in the party (not just the Survival check). However, this is partially the fault of the devs in the first place since A) so much of early published content was just stuff developed by TSR back in the day (before Wizards bought it) converted over to 5E rules; B) the paucity of rules that cover exploration in the DMG; C) low level spells can trivialize a lot of survival-related challenges related to lack of water or food; and D) the paucity of traps, challenges, or cool NPC concepts in the DMG for outdoor environments. As such, exploration never became a solid pillar of the game. So if the devs had actually wanted to make Exploration be a wonderful thing for players to enjoy, they kept that potential perpetually starved from its infancy.
The other dynamic to this is that the early adopters and influencers of the 5E community, including YT personalities, voice actors, etc. never showed a lot of interest in the Exploration pillar either. And I sort of get that 5E is designed as a superhero fantasy involving swords and sorcery where we're supposed to care about the "action scenes", AKA fighting monsters, and cracking jokes with each other. This expectation of superhero-esque adventure also got fed by the success of movies like LotR and the various DC and Marvel stories brought to life in the last 15 years. Therefore, looking at this from the POV of economics, the "demand" for exploration-heavy modules was not particularly strong from 2015 to 2019.
We are, however, seeing a slight resurgence in survival narrative stories, in the computer gaming world. Post-apocalypse and "you are stranded far from civilization" stories have become a bit more popular in the last few years (likely due to a combination of the zombie horror genre and the frequent frustrations brought about by geo-political stagnation both in the US and Europe). For better or worse, though, D&D is not well situated to deal with that segment of the gaming market because of the ways that "superhero power fantasy" is baked into its design principles.
I would say rangers have a more divided group of specialties. they are great for taking down enemy armies, melee hunters can punch, putting themselve in great danger, holes in the defense, ranged hunters can take down great numbers from nearby hills, while gloomstalkers are master ambushers and beast masters can use their animals to attack the food supply. they are also great scouts and guides, good in navigating and producing nourishment. in the fight against an enemy army, rangers are probaly gonna be the only that can do real damage, berserkers and fighters won’t be worth more than 2 to 3 or 1 to 2 compared to soldiers, casters aren’t strong enough in hitpoints to stay alive during the shooting phase. and don’t get me started about bards and rogues in battles, both can be strong, but they won’t survive the onslaught and paladins especially are great for battles, but even then, healers and heavy infantry still can’t come there. so the identity of rangers is the fact that they can make being outnumbered irrelevant
While I agree that rangers don't have the most unique identity, and would even go so far as to say they benefit from multiclassing more than a lot of classes, I could argue that if played correctly a ranger can be counted on as a highly mobile and solid damage dealer with decent battlefield control.
Currently playing a Dhampir gloomstalker/assassin rogue with sharpshooter and piercer feats. Maxed out DEX with spider climb and cunning action. Excellent movement where I can be in a tree, on a wall, on a ceiling and rarely need to be closer than 90 feet from main target in combat. Stay back and hit. Ridiculous stealth.
While none of them are top of the line great, spells such as ensnaring strike, spike growth, plant growth and conjure animals can all be useful.
I would say rangers have a more divided group of specialties. they are great for taking down enemy armies, melee hunters can punch, putting themselve in great danger, holes in the defense, ranged hunters can take down great numbers from nearby hills, while gloomstalkers are master ambushers and beast masters can use their animals to attack the food supply. they are also great scouts and guides, good in navigating and producing nourishment. in the fight against an enemy army, rangers are probaly gonna be the only that can do real damage, berserkers and fighters won’t be worth more than 2 to 3 or 1 to 2 compared to soldiers, casters aren’t strong enough in hitpoints to stay alive during the shooting phase. and don’t get me started about bards and rogues in battles, both can be strong, but they won’t survive the onslaught and paladins especially are great for battles, but even then, healers and heavy infantry still can’t come there. so the identity of rangers is the fact that they can make being outnumbered irrelevant
Wizards, Sorcs, and Druids all have ways to deal with an enemy army advancing on them. Fog Cloud is level 1 spell and one of the best against enemy ranged fire. Wind Wall completely negates attacks from non-magical arrows. Then, on following rounds, use control spells with large AoE or the ever popular Fireball. This isn't even considering the ways that spell casters can fool enemy armies before the fighting starts: Hallucinatory Terrain is on the Bard, Druid, and Wizard spell lists. This is exactly the spell to buy your party time to prepare other defenses and set up traps like pits, oil, and caltrops. I'm not saying that a Ranger cannot do many of these things as well, but they are not the exclusive class that can be effective against an enemy army by a long shot.
I would say rangers have a more divided group of specialties. they are great for taking down enemy armies, melee hunters can punch, putting themselve in great danger, holes in the defense, ranged hunters can take down great numbers from nearby hills, while gloomstalkers are master ambushers and beast masters can use their animals to attack the food supply. they are also great scouts and guides, good in navigating and producing nourishment. in the fight against an enemy army, rangers are probaly gonna be the only that can do real damage, berserkers and fighters won’t be worth more than 2 to 3 or 1 to 2 compared to soldiers, casters aren’t strong enough in hitpoints to stay alive during the shooting phase. and don’t get me started about bards and rogues in battles, both can be strong, but they won’t survive the onslaught and paladins especially are great for battles, but even then, healers and heavy infantry still can’t come there. so the identity of rangers is the fact that they can make being outnumbered irrelevant
Wizards, Sorcs, and Druids all have ways to deal with an enemy army advancing on them. Fog Cloud is level 1 spell and one of the best against enemy ranged fire. Wind Wall completely negates attacks from non-magical arrows. Then, on following rounds, use control spells with large AoE or the ever popular Fireball. This isn't even considering the ways that spell casters can fool enemy armies before the fighting starts: Hallucinatory Terrain is on the Bard, Druid, and Wizard spell lists. This is exactly the spell to buy your party time to prepare other defenses and set up traps like pits, oil, and caltrops. I'm not saying that a Ranger cannot do many of these things as well, but they are not the exclusive class that can be effective against an enemy army by a long shot.
I am not saying advancing toward them, and you can fool what you want, but as long as there come attacks from you, you will get hit in the reaction volley, and casters have low hp and ac
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Every class in D&D 5e has a unique mechanical identity that sets it apart from all the other classes. All but the Ranger. Hear me out.
-The Artificer gets Infusions, where they can make magic items daily for themselves or for the party.
-The Barbarian gets Rage and Reckless Attack, which fuels their combat abilities to fulfill their roles of tank and/or damage dealer.
-The Bard gets Bardic Inspiration along with skill boosts like Expertise & Jack of All Trades. Their Inspiration helps to boost their friends' die rolls, as well as fueling some of the Bard's subclass abilities.
-The Cleric gets Channel Divinity & Turn Undead, as well as Domain Spells. Most Domains expand the Turn Undead so that it affects more creature types, increasing the feature's efficacy.
-The Druid gets Wildshape, which has enormous utility and roleplay value, as well as some combat value (and much more, if they are a Moon Druid.) Wildshape also serves as a resource for some subclass abilities, or as a way to summon a familiar w the Tasha's rules.
-The Fighter gets Action Surge and Extra Attacks. Action Surge is so valuable that many multiclass builds take the 2 level Fighter Dip just to get it.
-The Monk gets Martial Arts and Ki. Some may argue about the efficacy of Ki as a resource pool (though it looks to be improved for 2024), but you can't argue that it isn't unique and flavorful. Monks also get all sorts of unique abilities like running up walls and a late level boost to Saving Throws.
-The Paladin. The poster child for having an absolute glut of features. Lay on Hands. Divine Sense. Divine Smites. Channel Divinity, which fuels their subclass features. And of course... Aura of Protection. Not all of these are unique to Paladin- Clerics have Channel Divinity, too, and get to use it more often than Paladins. But with all their other class-specific features, Paladins are the Champs.
-The Rogue gets Expertise and Sneak Attack, along with Cunning Action. Sure, Bards also get Expertise (and Rangers in Tashas or in the UAs), but Rogues get way more of them. And their other features make them unique in their skirmisher, hit-and-run, single target damage play style.
-The Sorcerer gets Metamagic, the ability to change and affect their spells.
-The Warlock gets their Pact features (Tome, Blade, or Chain) along with Eldritch Invocations. And Despite the arguably too few Pact Spell slots, Pact Magic is mechanically unique and flavorful and makes playing a Warlock feel different from playing any other caster.
-The Wizard gets the most powerful & versatile version of Ritual Casting in the game, along with Arcane Recovery and the ability to know the most spells from the largest, most versatile spell list in the game (if opportunity exists for it with the campaign or adventure).
What does the Ranger get? 🤔 Well, in the 2014 PHB, they get Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain. Both are very flavorful and on brand features for the Ranger. But mechanically... they suck. Basically, they both just give the Ranger Expertise on Nature or Survival checks- IF it involves a Favored Enemy or Terrain. Otherwise... you're screwed & they do nothing. But they don't affect combat really. Maybe you could use an action to do a Nature check to recall facts about a Favored Enemy that would get you tactical information from the DM about an enemy- like AC or resistances or something? But that's dependant upon the DM. And if you don't happen to be in your Favored Terrain or fighting (or tracking) a Favored Enemy? You get nothing.
There are other features for the Ranger, like Primeval Awareness, which lets you sense if creatures are within a mile. Not how many. Not where or which direction. Nor exactly what creature. Just the creature Type. And this costs a spell slot. It's not good. It's on brand, though. Rangers should be able to sense creatures better than most of the other classes. But this feature misses the mark. Pun woefully intended. Tasha's helped improve these slightly. It made Favored Enemy a Foe instead, essentially giving Ranger's a version of Hunter's Mark. And the Terrain thing turned into Deft Explorer, which basically gave one skill Expertise (& a couple of languages).
What about Hunter's Mark? Well if that is supposed to be a feature, then so is Magic Missile for Wizards. Or Cure Wounds for Clerics. Vicious Mockery or Charm Person for Bards. Etc. Hunter's Mark is just a spell that Rangers might take. And, based upon the UAs for 2024 and discussions I've seen about them, nobody can seem to agree what the best version of Hunter's Mark even is.
All of this is to say that the Ranger either doesn't have a unique mechanical identity as a class. Or at least, if they do, it's a very weak one. Imagine if the Paladin's Smites ONLY worked on Undead? Or if the Rogue's Expertise wouldn't work in the dungeon you're in because it's not a "grassland" Terrain? What if it IS in a grassland, but no one can agree what a grassland exactly is? Or if the dungeon doesn't qualify as a grassland, even if it's entrance was located in one?
I don't think the Ranger is necessarily "weak" when it comes to combat. They still are a martial half-caster. They get a fighting style. They have weapons and armor. They have spells. But I just don't think that their UNIQUE mechanical features measure up to any of the other classes, certainly not in terms of power, utility, and applicability. And I haven't been very much encouraged by the 2024 UA treatments that the Ranger got. Sure, the ability to choose 2 Terrains, and to change one of them after a long rest is definitely better. But problems still remain with the Terrain feature. Like there's no Urban terrain. Or Tomb. Or DUNGEON (right there in the title). And the Terrain types aren't clearly defined, so it could lead to arguments over whether that cluster of trees on the map qualifies as a forest or not. And all of this is on top of that the benefits bestowed are just not that great. Advantage or Expertise on Nature or History or tracking/foraging (Survival) checks? Really? How about Fire Resistance in desserts or volcanoes? Cold Resistance in Arctic or Tundras? Advantage on Stealth in Grasslands or Forests? I don't know... something like that? Something that's gonna actually come up more often, so that the Feature actually feels useful and relevant. And maybe if the Favored Enemy/Foe could give some COMBAT features? (More than just a version of Hunter's Mark?) Like, I dunno... maybe some kind of Advantage to hit certain creatures/types?
I don't know. I don't claim to have all the answers. I just know that- to me anyway- the Ranger feels... lacking. Something feels... not quite right about the base class features. I hope they figure something out for 2024. I mean, they managed to improve the Monk, right? So there's hope?
I guess those are it: Favoured enemy and natural explorer. Why D&D made them the ranger’s mechanical identity is beyond me (excuse the pun). I guess bad features for a mediocre class 🤷
DM: “Who’s your patron?”
Warlock: “Ummm”
DM: “Hurry Up”
Warlock: “yOu”
*All other players look at each other with utter fear*
__________________________________________________________________________________
Check out my homebrew: My Homebrew
The vanilla Ranger's specialty is excelling in exploration gameplay. Granted, the features were narrow in scope, but the main reason they were undervalued is that many players aren't interested in engaging in an aspect of gameplay their own player characters aren't invested in.
The Ranger's mechanical identity, both in its vanilla incarnation and with its replacement features, is a jack-of-all-trades, a versatile character who can contribute to weapon fighting, magic casting, and skill usage. Their weapon options make them strong melee and ranged attackers, with features to augment their damage output, even if they don't hit as hard as a specialized Fighter. Their magic options include a variety of damage, support, and control options that give them a lot of flexibility, even if they can't cast as well as a dedicated caster. They get an Expertise and a variety of utility options for out-of-battle situations, even if they don't excel in that area like a Rogue or Bard would. Their subclass options emphasize this, in that they have a variety of options that augment different aspects of the Ranger's skillset.
And no, being a jack-of-all-trades doesn't make you a master-of-none. The Rangers I've played with were all strong contributors to the party, because they could contribute in just about any area against enemies that might stymy some party members or to fill up where the rest of the party lacked.
Favored Enemy/Hunter's Mark/Favored terrain. This concept of the hunter is the class identity and it is supported well through the levels. In particular with Tasha's changes that is even better supported.
As for spells being a part of class identity, the smite spells are part of the paladin identity, eldritch blast is part of the warlock identity, and hunter's mark is part of the Ranger identity. The designers have said as much in interviews. Mechanically those spells were factored into the damage curve for each of those classes. Now should they have been made class features. Yes I would have preferred that, but that is how they chose to mechanically implement them. You can see in the UA and in Tasha's different approaches to try in add in a class specific Hunter's Mark (for the Warlock they try to add in EB/Hex, and Paladin Smite).
Original poster. Have you played a ranger at all? The parameters you set in your original post for a class identity is not a thing in the game system. I understand if that's how you see the game. It's simply just not a goal.
Rangers use parts of the game that many new players, young players, organized play players, one-shot players, and power gamers do not interact with. For the rest of us, rangers more than fulfill their function, and then some. Combat, healing, stealth, surprise, knowledge checks, social interaction, survival, travel, lore, and game world interaction are all strong suits of the ranger class, and the subclasses highlight one or more of those when chosen. For a simple reply to your question, my answer is "group mom". With only a few of their spells, rangers protect and advance the party. Take Pass Without Trace and Conjure Animals. Those two alone provide more potential combat power and protection than any of the other class abilities you mentioned above. Some of the other "lackluster" ranger abilities you mentioned require knowing how to use them, perhaps along with some DM interaction. But when used, they are above the curve powerful, making up for their situational occurrences.
Ranger at their core are tailored multi-tools. They build with a lot of little features the player figures out how to use them to complete tasks. Each player picks strong and weak elements to mix and round out their skills. Their "mechanic" is that they are mix of everything. They are the true generic adventurer With choices as to how they want to develop.
For example animal friendship isn't needed on a ranger that builds around favored enemy: beasts.
I have built a diffrent ranger with the idea of having all a different main attribute stat And they all can play a "ranger"
Even some of the "useless" features can make for interesting play if you use negative information or long-term planning to complete goals.
The ranger’s mechanical feature is actually its spell casting. While limited ( especially at lower levels) it provides boosts to both their combat abilities and to their ability to multi task/ multi-purpose in the party. While they are oriented towards outdoor travel/exploration activities with their features, those abilities can be essentially neglected/ignored for things like urban rangers while the ability to cast up to L5 (primal) spells as well as engage in physical combat on a par with a level 1-10 (+) fighter is what sets them apart mechanically from all the other classes.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I would argue that the Paladin gets exactly what you describe, too. Spellcasting, to level 5 (albeit Divine spells, so a slightly different toolset), while being on par with a level 1-10 fighter.
But Paladins ALSO get Lay on Hands, and Divine Smite (granted, they use spell slots, but only if you've hit the target-which makes those slots 100% effective, as opposed to other spells that can hit or miss, save or suck), Aura of Protection (arguably their most valuable feature), and Improved Divine Smite which gives a flat d8 bonus to every attack that hits.
My point was that compared to other classes, the Ranger's features are highly situational, probably DM dependant, and often non-combat oriented. Now, not all features need to be combat-focused. But if they are not combat features, I think the features should be things that can be useful reliably often. This is where the Terrain system fails.
When Drizzt learned from Montolio, he didn't learn just the terrain Montolio lived in. He learned HOW to learn, so that he could travel the Realms and always understand his environment. The UA came close to this idea with the option to choose 2 Terrain types, and to replace one with another after a long rest. However, the bonuses that the Terrain feature grants are still highly situational. Foraging for food doesn't happen at some tables. At others, it doesn't come up because the party may have outfitted with supplies, or the Druid or Ranger cast Goodberry. Tracking also doesn't come up all that often. When it does, it's very satisfying, I'll grant you. But neither of these features, nor some of the Ranger's higher level features- like Tasha's version of Nature's Veil- come close to the usefulness of the Paladin's Aura. It's great in combat and still pretty good out of combat. Their Lay on Hands is a very useful pool of non-spell slot healing, and it can remove some conditions.
I'm not saying Ranger is bad. I'm saying that- especially compared to the Paladin, which is its nearest cousin among the classes- the Ranger feels like it's just... lacking. Whether it's the Paladin's potential for burst damage, their healing potential, their boost to saves for themselves and nearby party members, or their potential for multiclassing into the 3 other Charisma casting classes.... Paladin just feels like it gets way more "stuff" than the Ranger. And since they are the only 2 official half-casters (Sorry Arti's), I think they should be on a more equal playing field. I don't know how that should manifest, but the UAs didn't really explore it at all.
I clearly seem to be in a minority on this, since most responses have argued against my opinion. And that's fine. There are valid points from many points of view.
I agree with you, Poggledop, about the base PHB Ranger. It took about a decade before WotC released the version of Ranger we see in Tasha's Cauldron. It's more flexible, does not require as much out-of-campaign-communication/compromise with the DM and also included a fighting style option that better accentuated the half-Caster part of the Ranger's strengths. While I did not like every change made in Tasha's as a whole, the Ranger version in that volume is mostly a direct improvement. I recommend you take the time to review it in detail.
Yes, the Paladin is a bit OP as a class. From Level 1 to Level 20, there is something good at practically every step for them, whereas a lot of people multi-class out of Ranger to get some Fighter, Rogue, or even Monk levels in there. Not to mention slightly game-breaking spells like Find Greater Steed and Circle of Power. That said, Conjure Woodland Beings is also a game-breaking spell in the right hands (Fly spell for the whole party, sign me up!). Does the Paladin have a stronger mechanical niche carved out for it? Yes. Is the Paladin better at raw nova DPR? Yes. But that doesn't necessarily take away from the versatility and problem-solving capability of the Ranger, which is more diverse in possible effects than that of the Paladin's spells, which focus mostly on doing harm to enemies or protecting allies from enemies during combat. With few exceptions (like Find Greater Steed), the Paladin list is much like the Cleric spell list in its limitations.
Almost everything the paladin class has it needs to stay even remotely viable. Damage output for paladins and rangers, factoring in spell slots expended, leaves rangers many more spell slots for healing. When extra slots are used for healing (goodberry, cure wounds, healing spirit, conjure woodland beings) rangers have several orders of magnitude more healing power than paladins, including lay in hands, all while dealing as much damage, much more damage if the battle starts more than 35' away from the enemy.
With the PHB Ranger it definitely feels unfinished...almost like it could have been a fighter subclass.
Tasha's definitely changed this for the better.
To me the 2014 Ranger felt like an oddity, or a class designed for a different game. Most of the other classes had signature toys that really changed them (specifically in combat). The exceptions to me are the wizard, the fighter, and the ranger. I don't think we notice with the wizard and fighter because the wizard's spell list is so big it really obscures that, and the fighter's action surge and extra/extra attack feels special enough.
The ranger meanwhile has two features (favored enemy, and natural explorer) that are playing a completely different game than anyone else. It would be like if the bard, instead of getting inspiration, gained abilities that just had to do with making and identifying music that gave no combat bonuses. The bard would still be a full caster and still flavorful to play, but the signature ability would feel lackluster in combat. Similarly the Ranger still feels great to play despite its signature abilities not really working with combat. Tasha's helped that a little by giving us Favored Foe (which was weak), but does scale (badly) with tiers of play.
IMHO, the main reason to play a Ranger is you get a lot of Druid class spells (up to 5th level) but you're better at taking and dealing direct damage than a Druid. There is one mechanical implication I don't like about this, though, which is that Rangers need concentration spells more than E.Knights or Paladins do, since the strength of Rangers is outlasting or outmaneuvering their enemies, not in putting them down ASAP (unless Gloom Stalker, ofc). However, they receive fewer ASIs than Fighters and no aura that boosts their saving throws the way Paladins do. Since I prefer a melee Ranger to a ranged-specialist Ranger, this rubs me the wrong way. However, I know that a big chunk of people who enjoy Rangers like taking Crossbow Expy with Sharpshooty; so that works for them. YMMV.
I wouldn't say it's designed for a different game but rather designed to appeal to a different playstyle approach.
I've played with dms tat made almost every feature (all classes) "situational" via interacting with deities, counterspell, anti-magic fields etc. A balanced adventure gave everyone a chance to shine and a chance to struggle. All an experience tailored by the dm.
Now the phb ranger allowed for me to self-service such play. Removing alot of the burden off of the dm. Personally I think dms have a harder time tailoring the world to other classes. (When a paladin or cleric breaks their oath, when a wizard wants custom effects, when a warlock turns on a patron)
Also phb ranger appeals more to a less common gameplay feel.
While a ranger can provide a power fantasy, it's actually not a primary design for it. It's designed for a "creative fantasy." Players who think I want to find my own creative solutions based on x character build and x world building rules. A ranger goes to an apothecary and buys ingredients from their terrain, buys food ingredients they know how to use etc.
To me, a large part of the PHB Ranger discussion comes under the heading “Point in Time”. In 2014 5e was just starting and everyone was feeling their way with the new system. The ranger was (then) hands down the best exploration/survival/travel class. It had comparably damage thru at least L10 with fighters and paladins. It had better range than the vast majority of spells and it had access to most L1-5 primal spells (albet at a reduced rate). However the 5e game morphed away from exploration/travel/wilderness survival rendering much of that fluff not stuff. Then along came Xanther and the scout rogue with not just proficiency but expertise in nature and survival (as well as 4 other skills) making it the new supreme wilderness class. Going scout rogue /druid gave you something very close to a rangers combat and spell abilities with better wilderness abilities. Tasha didn’t really change that dynamic. It did somewhat improve combat and did improve spell casting by giving a bunch of subclass spells to the new subclasses ( without upgrading the older subclasses the same way). Then along came UA2. Most of the ribbon abilities for nature were discarded but they did give the ranger 4 expertises (including 2 at the start) allowing the ranger to simply take expertise in nature and survival without needing the old ribbon abilities. Sadly they then walked that back in the later UA which basically left us with the post Tasha ranger. Because most tables seem to hand wave away the wilderness aspects of the game the effective mechanical identity of the ranger is that it is the only class designed as a true Gish. Yes the Paladin is also a half caster but it uses the vast majority of its slots for nova damage smites not on true spell casting. Even this identity is being diluted with the advent of the artificer as a half caster with access to a second attack and decent armor.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I sort of agree. The Exploration "pillar" of the game got intentionally stunted like a malnourished child, reducing the potency and necessity of having a good set of survival skillsets in the party (not just the Survival check). However, this is partially the fault of the devs in the first place since A) so much of early published content was just stuff developed by TSR back in the day (before Wizards bought it) converted over to 5E rules; B) the paucity of rules that cover exploration in the DMG; C) low level spells can trivialize a lot of survival-related challenges related to lack of water or food; and D) the paucity of traps, challenges, or cool NPC concepts in the DMG for outdoor environments. As such, exploration never became a solid pillar of the game. So if the devs had actually wanted to make Exploration be a wonderful thing for players to enjoy, they kept that potential perpetually starved from its infancy.
The other dynamic to this is that the early adopters and influencers of the 5E community, including YT personalities, voice actors, etc. never showed a lot of interest in the Exploration pillar either. And I sort of get that 5E is designed as a superhero fantasy involving swords and sorcery where we're supposed to care about the "action scenes", AKA fighting monsters, and cracking jokes with each other. This expectation of superhero-esque adventure also got fed by the success of movies like LotR and the various DC and Marvel stories brought to life in the last 15 years. Therefore, looking at this from the POV of economics, the "demand" for exploration-heavy modules was not particularly strong from 2015 to 2019.
We are, however, seeing a slight resurgence in survival narrative stories, in the computer gaming world. Post-apocalypse and "you are stranded far from civilization" stories have become a bit more popular in the last few years (likely due to a combination of the zombie horror genre and the frequent frustrations brought about by geo-political stagnation both in the US and Europe). For better or worse, though, D&D is not well situated to deal with that segment of the gaming market because of the ways that "superhero power fantasy" is baked into its design principles.
I would say rangers have a more divided group of specialties. they are great for taking down enemy armies, melee hunters can punch, putting themselve in great danger, holes in the defense, ranged hunters can take down great numbers from nearby hills, while gloomstalkers are master ambushers and beast masters can use their animals to attack the food supply. they are also great scouts and guides, good in navigating and producing nourishment. in the fight against an enemy army, rangers are probaly gonna be the only that can do real damage, berserkers and fighters won’t be worth more than 2 to 3 or 1 to 2 compared to soldiers, casters aren’t strong enough in hitpoints to stay alive during the shooting phase. and don’t get me started about bards and rogues in battles, both can be strong, but they won’t survive the onslaught and paladins especially are great for battles, but even then, healers and heavy infantry still can’t come there. so the identity of rangers is the fact that they can make being outnumbered irrelevant
While I agree that rangers don't have the most unique identity, and would even go so far as to say they benefit from multiclassing more than a lot of classes, I could argue that if played correctly a ranger can be counted on as a highly mobile and solid damage dealer with decent battlefield control.
Currently playing a Dhampir gloomstalker/assassin rogue with sharpshooter and piercer feats. Maxed out DEX with spider climb and cunning action. Excellent movement where I can be in a tree, on a wall, on a ceiling and rarely need to be closer than 90 feet from main target in combat. Stay back and hit. Ridiculous stealth.
While none of them are top of the line great, spells such as ensnaring strike, spike growth, plant growth and conjure animals can all be useful.
Wizards, Sorcs, and Druids all have ways to deal with an enemy army advancing on them. Fog Cloud is level 1 spell and one of the best against enemy ranged fire. Wind Wall completely negates attacks from non-magical arrows. Then, on following rounds, use control spells with large AoE or the ever popular Fireball. This isn't even considering the ways that spell casters can fool enemy armies before the fighting starts: Hallucinatory Terrain is on the Bard, Druid, and Wizard spell lists. This is exactly the spell to buy your party time to prepare other defenses and set up traps like pits, oil, and caltrops. I'm not saying that a Ranger cannot do many of these things as well, but they are not the exclusive class that can be effective against an enemy army by a long shot.
I am not saying advancing toward them, and you can fool what you want, but as long as there come attacks from you, you will get hit in the reaction volley, and casters have low hp and ac