No PC does really well against hordes/armies D &D was never intended for that. D&D pits a small “elite” ( hopefully) team against either a series of normal foes that, in total, outnumber them, but, are seldom taken on all at once.OR A small (smaller than the party) group of even more elite villains with a bunch of low powered minions. The ranger - From 1e on - has been designed as a solo version of a team. That is why it’s a Gish and that gishes is the core of the ranger. Until UA2 ( and again after the latest ranger UA) it was designed around the solo “mountainman” picture. That is, the woodsman warrior skilled in magic as well. So it fights essentially like a fighter, has most of the stealth and skills of a rogue, and sufficient spell capability to function solo against relatively small groups of lower level (than it) foes as well as to survive and move easily in uncivilized areas (which in a relatively mideveal setting should be the vast majority of the setting.) the UA2 ranger did away with the wilderness focus (while allowing for those of us who like it to fit it back in smoothly) to focus on the gishness concept. I have no idea why they moved back to a modified Tasha ranger with the later UA ( well I do sort of - I’m betting most folks complained about it not having a wilderness focus and submitted their comments before realizing just home much better the UA2 ranger actually was - I’m guilty of that as well)
if you want a character for a solo adventure take a ranger or a ranger multiclass they are, by far, the best choice as you get the best blend of fighting, stealt and skills and magic. When you take a ranger into a party they make everyone else better because they back everyone else up very effectively with their mix of abilities. So, while I personally love the wilderness aspects of rangers I have come to recognize that their “mechanical” core is not survival and nature but being a well designed Gish.
It sounds like your tables or your DM's are lacking. A great DM looks at the classes played and makes sure tracking and terrian are crucial. A Ranger can guide a party through the most fridged snow storm in the middle of the night, or a sandstorm. A ranger can help a lost party find the trail again, they can forge for plants that make poison or plants that make healing poltices. But all of this is dependent on a PC a DM understanding the role. All features are useless if the DM and player don't value that branch of the game. Hell Turn on dead is useless 95% of the time unless a DM slips in some undead. A High charisma Face is useless if the DM doesn't add in some situations where it becomes crucial.
This is so correct. Many new player, DM and otherwise, only know how to play in the confines of a 24"x36" battle map/mat with a single monster enemy or maybe a couple. They have zero capacity for setup, distances, in game terms of engagement, dealing with multiple enemies at once, or things like elevation, cover, difficult terrain, and the like. Essentially, the game is played by many people in the most basic form possible. Which is fine. However, in these circumstances something like a rogue, fighter, or paladin will shine. Because "stand next to big monster and hit it" works very well when that is all there is to do. When the game gets harder, the ranger is better than the rest.
With Tahsa's Ranger is a caster with extra attack and a ton of spells, good at skills and mobility/scouting options.
Primal spells, Roving, Tireless, Nature's Veil, Druidic Warrior and generally good/great subclass option. Those are the core Ranger abilities that define the class
Then problem with the "Ranger identity" is that people want to play them as a martial, mostly attacking and focusing on weapons. They are not a great martial, they are a caster and they have a better identity if built towards that role by prioritizing Wisdom, taking Druidic Warrior fighting style and using feats to get effective off-list spells.
A Fey Wanderer in particular is a spellcasting control powerhouse with Shadow Touched-Cause Fear and Fey Reinforcements, rivaling any class in the game when it comes to control. Other subclasses have different identities to build towards, but the power of the Ranger is in the spells, not the weapons and people who don't play it that way have trouble with the identity I think.
With Tahsa's Ranger is a caster with extra attack and a ton of spells, good at skills and mobility/scouting options.
Primal spells, Roving, Tireless, Nature's Veil, Druidic Warrior and generally good/great subclass option. Those are the core Ranger abilities that define the class
Then problem with the "Ranger identity" is that people want to play them as a martial, mostly attacking and focusing on weapons. They are not a great martial, they are a caster and they have a better identity if built towards that role by prioritizing Wisdom, taking Druidic Warrior fighting style and using feats to get effective off-list spells.
A Fey Wanderer in particular is a spellcasting control powerhouse with Shadow Touched-Cause Fear and Fey Reinforcements, rivaling any class in the game when it comes to control. Other subclasses have different identities to build towards, but the power of the Ranger is in the spells, not the weapons and people who don't play it that way have trouble with the identity I think.
No class that uses an optional rule to gain an attack cantrip is a primary caster. No class that tops out at level 5 spells is a primary caster. No class that tops out at a base of 11 known spells is a primary caster. No class that tops out at 15 spells per day is a primary caster. Consider also that most ranger spells are either utility or augment a weapon attack in one way or another; they have barely any spells that directly affect their foes. This is not true of any primary caster. Rangers are cool and get a bad rap but that doesn’t make them misunderstood primary casters on par with bards, druids, clerics or wizards (AKA the primary casters in the game).
IMO, rangers are the magically skilly martials whereas the rogue is the mundane skilly martial; paladins are the magically robust martials and the rest of the martials are just straight martials, each mostly just whacking stuff in its own unique way.
Your right, the ranger is not a full caster, nor is it a full martial. What it is, is a well honed balance of both - the primary GISH. Yes the Paladin has the same progression, buts let’s get real - it uses almost all those slots for smites not spells. The arcane archer and Eldritch knight and arcane trickster all access arcane spells but their selections are limited and as third casters their slots are extremely limited. The only thing is that it draws on primal spells not arcane. The UA2 ranger is actually the best of all the 5e versions as it gets 4 full expertises instead of partial expertises, spells at level 1 with cantrips and choosable spells instead of known. The UA2 ranger doesn’t have much if anything of nature oriented ribbon abilities but being able to take expertise in nature and survival at L1 actually eliminates the need for those abilities (as well as advantage really (I rate advantage as equal to a +4 so even at L1 expertise (2x+2=+4) is as good as advantage and by L20 (+12) it far exceeds advantage. At low levels a ranger’s melee/missile abilities are stronger than their spell casting. By L11 they are about equal and by L20 they are stronger as casters. As martials they don’t get action surge and great weapon fighting style but they do get medium armor, shields and two weapon fighting as well as the L5 second attack and effectively from L11 abilities the L11 third attack. As casters no they don’t get L6+spells or as many slots but they get up to L5 spells and enough slots to be useful.When you stop thinking of the ranger as a wilderness martial and start thinking of them as a Gish that can be wilderness oriented you start to see their real power.
Your right, the ranger is not a full caster, nor is it a full martial. What it is, is a well honed balance of both - the primary GISH. Yes the Paladin has the same progression, buts let’s get real - it uses almost all those slots for smites not spells. The arcane archer and Eldritch knight and arcane trickster all access arcane spells but their selections are limited and as third casters their slots are extremely limited. The only thing is that it draws on primal spells not arcane. The UA2 ranger is actually the best of all the 5e versions as it gets 4 full expertises instead of partial expertises, spells at level 1 with cantrips and choosable spells instead of known. The UA2 ranger doesn’t have much if anything of nature oriented ribbon abilities but being able to take expertise in nature and survival at L1 actually eliminates the need for those abilities (as well as advantage really (I rate advantage as equal to a +4 so even at L1 expertise (2x+2=+4) is as good as advantage and by L20 (+12) it far exceeds advantage. At low levels a ranger’s melee/missile abilities are stronger than their spell casting. By L11 they are about equal and by L20 they are stronger as casters. As martials they don’t get action surge and great weapon fighting style but they do get medium armor, shields and two weapon fighting as well as the L5 second attack and effectively from L11 abilities the L11 third attack. As casters no they don’t get L6+spells or as many slots but they get up to L5 spells and enough slots to be useful.When you stop thinking of the ranger as a wilderness martial and start thinking of them as a Gish that can be wilderness oriented you start to see their real power.
I don’t know anything about what the ranger might become as a result of Unearthed Arcana and future rules updates; I can only comment on what the class is now. With respect, I’m honestly not sure how future rules are even really relevant since they are still in development and may never come to fruition in actual gameplay. But then, I’m not certain you are responding to me since I was not quoted. If you are though, I’d further point out that I made no mention of wilderness or nature regarding their identity.
Additionally, for most of the time I’ve gamed, gish has meant arcane + martial. It’s a new thing for me that people want to include ranger and paladin in that mix in 5e. I’m uncomfortable with the idea because it signifies yet another way that the world is changing around me as I age into irrelevance. I see by your signature that you are an old too. Good for you, adapting comfortably with the wee rapscallions ruining everything *indignantly shakes cane at the clouds*
Yes I’m an oldster but adaptable, I wasn’t so much referencing you as the entire thread. To me Gish is not just arcane + martial but rather spellcaster + martial (at least 2 attacks/round by tier 2) so things like sword bards, hexblades and bladesingers are also gishes as they get a second attack. Typically clerics are not as they normally only get a single attack.
Yes I’m an oldster but adaptable, I wasn’t so much referencing you as the entire thread. To me Gish is not just arcane + martial but rather spellcaster + martial (at least 2 attacks/round by tier 2) so things like sword bards, hexblades and bladesingers are also gishes as they get a second attack. Typically clerics are not as they normally only get a single attack.
Gish originally referred to githyanki fighters with wizard levels to gain access to arcane spellcasting. Bards had their own spell list at the time; hexblades and bladesingers didn’t exist as established rulesets. Paladins and rangers got their spells from divine sources, not arcane. Clerics too. I personally bristle at any definition of gish that includes divine casters or classes that have their own spell list as this flies in the face of the term’s origins and shows a lack of understanding of the basic mechanics. Like calling a harpsichord a piano cuz hey, close enough, right? But it is a game so I try not to spend too much time shaking my cane. Cheers!
No class that uses an optional rule to gain an attack cantrip is a primary caster. No class that tops out at level 5 spells is a primary caster. No class that tops out at a base of 11 known spells is a primary caster. No class that tops out at 15 spells per day is a primary caster.
I was pretty specific about my post being about Tasha's Ranger. If you are not playing a Tasha's Ranger with the optional rules then my post is not accurate or relevant. If you are though much of these things above I quoted are not true.
If you are playing Tasha's you get 20 (or 21) spells per day, not 15 and usually 21 known spells (and as high as 22) at 20th level. These numbers put them well into full caster territory and more than some full casters. This is in addition to things that mimic spells, including the ability to turn invisible and give yourself temp hit points multiple times a day.
They are limited to 5th level spells, but there are many good spells of 5th level and below and many that remain viable all the way to level 20.
A Ranger can be played as a primary caster from around level 6 up and do just fine if built for it. That doesn't mean they will never use weapons (and when you do you are generally outrunning full casters using cantrips), but they have a lot of spells per day, a lot of spells known and effective spells. Obviously this works better if you take a race or half feats to gain additional off-list spells.
Consider also that most ranger spells are either utility or augment a weapon attack in one way or another.
This I disagree with this. They do have some good utility spells, especially on the primal list but most of the better ranger spells are combat spells. Absorb Elements, Cure Wounds, Entangle, Lessor Restoration, Spike Growth, Silence, Conjure Woodland Beings, Summon Fey for example.
Goodberry is also really good, but that probably counts as "utility"
They have other spells that lean into weapon attacks and you can play that way using weapon enhancing spells, but I don't think that is what they are best at and their spells are not particularly good at that (not as good as Paladins in particular). Usually I will get ensnaring strike at level 3, but I am not usually keeping it. Usually by level 6 I have traded it for something else.
They have barely any spells that directly affect their foes.
They have great summon and control options, which is what I focused on in my post. Better options than Clerics, Bards or Warlocks in general I think.
You can call them a Gish, but if you put them in with Paladins, Eldritch Knights and Bladelocks, I think they lean into leveled spells a lot more than any of those builds do, so the "identity" from my POV is certainly on the caster side of Gish.
I have played multiple Rangers to high level, so I have experience in this. My Fey Wanderer that I played to 16th level is the best control caster I ever played (due in large part to her subclass) and I have played numerous wizards into tier 3 and one all the way to 20.
I see the Ranger as a gish, but I understand if some people take offense at drudic magic being a replacement for arcane in this re-concept of "gish."
While I want to embrace the Ranger as a "perfect" combination of martial and spellcasting, I still think the pre-Tasha's subclasses are often lacking some things.
A) Ways to boost concentration on spells or negate the concentration aspect for certain spells (Fey Wanderer is an example of how they could have done it for all the subclasses)
B) Less B.Action hogging by core subclass abilities, esp. by Rangers published in Xanathar's.
C) Subclass spells for the PHB Rangers.
D) Great Weapon Fighting style as an option without having to dip into Fighter.
No class that uses an optional rule to gain an attack cantrip is a primary caster. No class that tops out at level 5 spells is a primary caster. No class that tops out at a base of 11 known spells is a primary caster. No class that tops out at 15 spells per day is a primary caster.
I was pretty specific about my post being about Tasha's Ranger. If you are not playing a Tasha's Ranger with the optional rules then my post is not accurate or relevant. If you are though much of these things above I quoted are not true.
If you are playing Tasha's you get 20 (or 21) spells per day, not 15 and usually 21 known spells (and as high as 22) at 20th level. These numbers put them well into full caster territory and more than some full casters. This is in addition to things that mimic spells, including the ability to turn invisible and give yourself temp hit points multiple times a day.
They are limited to 5th level spells, but there are many good spells of 5th level and below and many that remain viable all the way to level 20.
A Ranger can be played as a primary caster from around level 6 up and do just fine if built for it. That doesn't mean they will never use weapons (and when you do you are generally outrunning full casters using cantrips), but they have a lot of spells per day, a lot of spells known and effective spells. Obviously this works better if you take a race or half feats to gain additional off-list spells.
Consider also that most ranger spells are either utility or augment a weapon attack in one way or another.
This I disagree with this. They do have some good utility spells, especially on the primal list but most of the better ranger spells are combat spells. Absorb Elements, Cure Wounds, Entangle, Lessor Restoration, Spike Growth, Silence, Conjure Woodland Beings, Summon Fey for example.
Goodberry is also really good, but that probably counts as "utility"
They have other spells that lean into weapon attacks and you can play that way using weapon enhancing spells, but I don't think that is what they are best at and their spells are not particularly good at that (not as good as Paladins in particular). Usually I will get ensnaring strike at level 3, but I am not usually keeping it. Usually by level 6 I have traded it for something else.
They have barely any spells that directly affect their foes.
They have great summon and control options, which is what I focused on in my post. Better options than Clerics, Bards or Warlocks in general I think.
You can call them a Gish, but if you put them in with Paladins, Eldritch Knights and Bladelocks, I think they lean into leveled spells a lot more than any of those builds do, so the "identity" from my POV is certainly on the caster side of Gish.
I have played multiple Rangers to high level, so I have experience in this. My Fey Wanderer that I played to 16th level is the best control caster I ever played (due in large part to her subclass) and I have played numerous wizards into tier 3 and one all the way to 20.
We are going to have to agree to disagree because your very definition of “primary caster” is specious as far as I’m concerned. Primary caster actually does mean that you will eschew weapons in favour of spells most of the time. A primary caster uses weapons only in the exceedingly rare situations their spells will not serve them better. This is what makes them a PRIMARY CASTER. They primarily cast spells. They do anything else secondarily. This describes how a wizard (except bladesingers), cleric, bard (aside from maybe sword and valor) and sorcerer play at every level of the game not just a single subclass at mid to high levels. Because they are PRIMARY CASTERS.
Even if your definition of primary caster wasn’t out to lunch, a single subclass doesn’t define an entire class. If you want to say a Fey Wanderer is capable and powerful caster among the ranger subclasses? Sure, I can agree with that. If you want to say a horizon walker, hunter, gloomstalker or swarm keeper is a primary caster? Hahahahaha. The existence of bladesingers doesn’t make wizards a martial class. Bards having two decently capable martial subclasses doesn’t mean that bards are suddenly a martial class either.
Like I said, rangers are cool and get a bad rap but that doesn’t mean you get to redefine the way the game works and what words mean in the English language. It’s bad enough what has been done to meaning of gish, let’s not also bastardize the hell out of “primary caster”.
The very notion of a mechanical identity is flawed as a point of comparison to begin with. Rangers lack a mechanical identity, that I would offer is 100% as intended. They are able to be and do anything they are built to be. Most other classes can't do that well or at all, because they have a well defined mechanical identity.
Let's pick a level. Any level. 5, 9, 11, 19, whichever. And let's focus on that, what a ranger can do at that level, and what others can and can't do. Personally, I find levels 4, 9, 11, 13, and 19 to be the most interesting, especially when comparing to fighters, paladins, and rogues.
For example, at level 13, how much total damage can a character put out over three 3-round deadly combats between long rests, with a short rest in between each combat? A fighter, a paladin, a rogue, and a ranger. Then, how much self healing and/or healing of others can those same characters provide? You will find that a rogue has bottom tier damage and no healing, a fighter can heal themself while dealing lots of damage, a paladin that uses all of their spell slots for smites and all of their lay on hands for healing is doing well enough in both damage and healing, and a ranger using spells for damage and healing is doing about the same damage as paladins and fighters while providing 3-4 times the amount of healing.
We are going to have to agree to disagree because your very definition of “primary caster” is specious as far as I’m concerned. Primary caster actually does mean that you will eschew weapons in favour of spells most of the time.
Yes "most of the time" I agree with this. That is different than "extremely rare" though and after 5th level my Rangers are eschewing weapons in favor of spells "most of the time"
A primary caster uses weapons only in the exceedingly rare situations their spells will not serve them better. This describes how a wizard (except bladesingers), cleric, bard (aside from maybe sword and valor) and sorcerer play at every level of the gamenot just a single subclass at mid to high levels. Because they are PRIMARY CASTERS.
This is not true, especially given the underlined. All of these classes you give as an example of primary casters above are generally using weapons "most of the time" in combat at low levels, and most of them will continue to use weapons "most of the time" up until level 5 or so.
A Sorcerer or Wizard or even a 1st level Warlock who is not using weapons is leaving damage on the table. Using a light crossbow at low levels is going to "serve them better" than using a spell. For that reason they are making a ton of light crossbow attacks at that level, i.e. "using weapons most of the time"
I have also played Clerics and Bladesinger Wizards into high level that used weapons much more often at high levels than the Ranger I mentioned above did.
If you want to say a Fey Wanderer is capable and powerful caster among the ranger subclasses? Sure, I can agree with that. If you want to say a horizon walker, hunter, gloomstalker or swarm keeper is a primary caster? Hahahahaha.
The Gloomstalker gets Fear, which is the most powerful 3rd level combat spell in the game. It also gets Greater Invisibility.
A Swarmkeeper gets Faerie Fire and Web, both of which are great spells.
Both of these classes can be played as casters and do quite well.
Like I said, rangers are cool and get a bad rap but that doesn’t mean you get to redefine the way the game works and what words mean in the English language. It’s bad enough what has been done to meaning of gish, let’s not also bastardize the hell out of “primary caster”.
Rangers make great primary casters IMO and all of them are Gishes. You might not like that but it is true and being a primary caster with extra attack is the "mechanical identity" as far as I am concerned.
Levels 1-4 do not represent “most of the time”. That’s 20% of the game. Even if you consider that 90% of games end around level 10, that’s still less than half the time. The fact that levels come proportionally slower as they increase means it’s even less than that in actuality. Yes, it takes a few levels for every class to grow into its identity, which is why you’ll have the primary casters spend that short period of time prolly plinking away with a crossbow. It’s by level 5, after one ASI and when the martials get their defining second attack, that mechanical identities become apparent. Most people don’t even play rangers into the levels where they get what you claim to be their identity. For example, gloomstalkers don’t get fear until level 9 and, as mentioned, most games end at 10. How can a spell they’ll have access to for 10% of the time in most games define the entire class? What were they before that? A deadly martial shooting the crap out of things or chopping them to pieces thanks to dread ambusher and umbral sight, using their spells mainly for utility and to bolster their own combat rather than directly affecting enemies is what. Unlike the primary casters, they’re not attacking with cantrips; they’re not doing AoE’s; they’re not locking down opponents with crowd control; they’re not blowing save or suck spells every round, nor are they blowing direct damage spells every round.
Furthermore, having a very small handful of good spells doesn’t make a character a primary caster. Having a lot of spells known and spell slots does. The crappiest of sorcerers have 21 spells known and 22 spell slots at level 20. The sorcerers that no one wants to play cuz they don’t get enough of those things but somehow your ranger topping out in that range is a primary caster? Not to mention that a bunch of the spells the rangers just get, they don’t even get to choose and they enjoy the most restrictive method of swapping out spells along with the sorcerer and bard. At level 9, your gloomstalker has a meagre 9 spells known (only 6 of which they got to choose) and 9 spell slots. The crappiest of sorcerers has 15 known, all of which they got to choose, and 14 slots. Again, for the sorcerer, that’s not enough to be considered by most as a worthy primary caster but a gloomstalker with less is?
If you want, I can pick apart the rest of the ranger subclasses but it’s really not necessary. Rangers simply do not get enough spells known, spell levels or spells slots to be considered primary casters. They can’t even compare to the crappiest of sorcerers. No primary caster has a d10 HD, base medium armor proficiency or base martial weapon proficiency either. The idea that they play in any way similar to clerics, druids or wizards really makes me question what you think a primary caster is.
Yes I’m an oldster but adaptable, I wasn’t so much referencing you as the entire thread. To me Gish is not just arcane + martial but rather spellcaster + martial (at least 2 attacks/round by tier 2) so things like sword bards, hexblades and bladesingers are also gishes as they get a second attack. Typically clerics are not as they normally only get a single attack.
Gish originally referred to githyanki fighters with wizard levels to gain access to arcane spellcasting. Bards had their own spell list at the time; hexblades and bladesingers didn’t exist as established rulesets. Paladins and rangers got their spells from divine sources, not arcane. Clerics too. I personally bristle at any definition of gish that includes divine casters or classes that have their own spell list as this flies in the face of the term’s origins and shows a lack of understanding of the basic mechanics. Like calling a harpsichord a piano cuz hey, close enough, right? But it is a game so I try not to spend too much time shaking my cane. Cheers!
I’m well aware of the origin of the term Gish. The fact that you can’t see past arcane casting as a part of gishness doesn’t limit my view of it from 40+ years of playing gishes either. I can accept that you have a highly limited view of what a Gish is and are having problems with my statements because of your limited view - but that doesn’t invalidate my statements. Since you have these problems let me restate my position without the use of the term Gish. The mechanical identity of the ranger is that of being a combined martial and caster. The ranger stays more or less even with fighters until level 20 in terms of number of attacks. No they don’t get an outright third attack but every ranger subclass gets an ability at L11 that normally grants a way to take a third (and sometimes more) attack. Rangers are not full casters but the spells they get are sufficiently powerful that a well played ranger transitions from being primarily a martial (in tier 1) to being primarily a caster (in tiers 3&4). The fact that most campaigns end before or early in tier 3 doesn’t change this but does mean that many folks never fully experience this transition in play style - you may be one of these, I don’t know. I know that like ECM03 I have played numerous rangers into tier 4 and have seen it. Like ECM03 I recognize the difference between a full caster and a primary caster. Bards, clerics, Druids, sorcerors and wizards are all both full casters (L9spells, casting from L1 on, @25 spell slots to cast with). They are also primary casters - turning to magic first and physical combat second/last. Using those definitions then even a L2 ranger that casts hunters mark before charging into combat may count as a primary caster (they use their spell(s) before engaging in combat). Levels 1-4 no one has extra attacks ( other than action surge and TWF) and all casters have a small number of slots and limited numbers of spells available. The ranger’s ability to fight as well as a fighter and cast spells nearly as well as a Wizard/cleric/druid means they are potentially the most powerful class at low levels. The only class that actually compares is the cleric. Starting at L5 the cleric drops out as the fighter and ranger get their second attacks. At L6 the 2 combat bards and the bladesinger join the competition but they don’t get the armor protection rangers get their casting is somewhat superior. The hexblade is a possible contender but it’s magical abilities are set up very differently limiting its abilities. The artificers are the only other class with the potential to really do what the ranger does but only 2 of its subclasses (armorer & battle smith) get the second attack at L5. if your Gish has to use arcane magic then your looking at the 2 subclasses of artificer, the bladesinger and maybe the 2 combat bards. If you use the expanded definition you have a lot more choices and ranger is probably the best.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No PC does really well against hordes/armies D &D was never intended for that. D&D pits a small “elite” ( hopefully) team against either a series of normal foes that, in total, outnumber them, but, are seldom taken on all at once.OR A small (smaller than the party) group of even more elite villains with a bunch of low powered minions. The ranger - From 1e on - has been designed as a solo version of a team. That is why it’s a Gish and that gishes is the core of the ranger. Until UA2 ( and again after the latest ranger UA) it was designed around the solo “mountainman” picture. That is, the woodsman warrior skilled in magic as well. So it fights essentially like a fighter, has most of the stealth and skills of a rogue, and sufficient spell capability to function solo against relatively small groups of lower level (than it) foes as well as to survive and move easily in uncivilized areas (which in a relatively mideveal setting should be the vast majority of the setting.) the UA2 ranger did away with the wilderness focus (while allowing for those of us who like it to fit it back in smoothly) to focus on the gishness concept. I have no idea why they moved back to a modified Tasha ranger with the later UA ( well I do sort of - I’m betting most folks complained about it not having a wilderness focus and submitted their comments before realizing just home much better the UA2 ranger actually was - I’m guilty of that as well)
if you want a character for a solo adventure take a ranger or a ranger multiclass they are, by far, the best choice as you get the best blend of fighting, stealt and skills and magic. When you take a ranger into a party they make everyone else better because they back everyone else up very effectively with their mix of abilities. So, while I personally love the wilderness aspects of rangers I have come to recognize that their “mechanical” core is not survival and nature but being a well designed Gish.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
What does the Ranger get?
It gets Gloomstalker.
What does the Gloomstalker get?
It gets to mess up your DM's plans without being a full spellcaster, or a Paladin.
2014 5E mostly
3.5 maybe.
It sounds like your tables or your DM's are lacking. A great DM looks at the classes played and makes sure tracking and terrian are crucial. A Ranger can guide a party through the most fridged snow storm in the middle of the night, or a sandstorm. A ranger can help a lost party find the trail again, they can forge for plants that make poison or plants that make healing poltices. But all of this is dependent on a PC a DM understanding the role. All features are useless if the DM and player don't value that branch of the game. Hell Turn on dead is useless 95% of the time unless a DM slips in some undead. A High charisma Face is useless if the DM doesn't add in some situations where it becomes crucial.
This is so correct. Many new player, DM and otherwise, only know how to play in the confines of a 24"x36" battle map/mat with a single monster enemy or maybe a couple. They have zero capacity for setup, distances, in game terms of engagement, dealing with multiple enemies at once, or things like elevation, cover, difficult terrain, and the like. Essentially, the game is played by many people in the most basic form possible. Which is fine. However, in these circumstances something like a rogue, fighter, or paladin will shine. Because "stand next to big monster and hit it" works very well when that is all there is to do. When the game gets harder, the ranger is better than the rest.
Except Druid has most of the same spells, gets them faster than Rangers, and has a far faster spell lvl progression.
What's your point? Every class has some thing other classes don't and vice versa.
With Tahsa's Ranger is a caster with extra attack and a ton of spells, good at skills and mobility/scouting options.
Primal spells, Roving, Tireless, Nature's Veil, Druidic Warrior and generally good/great subclass option. Those are the core Ranger abilities that define the class
Then problem with the "Ranger identity" is that people want to play them as a martial, mostly attacking and focusing on weapons. They are not a great martial, they are a caster and they have a better identity if built towards that role by prioritizing Wisdom, taking Druidic Warrior fighting style and using feats to get effective off-list spells.
A Fey Wanderer in particular is a spellcasting control powerhouse with Shadow Touched-Cause Fear and Fey Reinforcements, rivaling any class in the game when it comes to control. Other subclasses have different identities to build towards, but the power of the Ranger is in the spells, not the weapons and people who don't play it that way have trouble with the identity I think.
No class that uses an optional rule to gain an attack cantrip is a primary caster. No class that tops out at level 5 spells is a primary caster. No class that tops out at a base of 11 known spells is a primary caster. No class that tops out at 15 spells per day is a primary caster. Consider also that most ranger spells are either utility or augment a weapon attack in one way or another; they have barely any spells that directly affect their foes. This is not true of any primary caster. Rangers are cool and get a bad rap but that doesn’t make them misunderstood primary casters on par with bards, druids, clerics or wizards (AKA the primary casters in the game).
IMO, rangers are the magically skilly martials whereas the rogue is the mundane skilly martial; paladins are the magically robust martials and the rest of the martials are just straight martials, each mostly just whacking stuff in its own unique way.
Your right, the ranger is not a full caster, nor is it a full martial. What it is, is a well honed balance of both - the primary GISH. Yes the Paladin has the same progression, buts let’s get real - it uses almost all those slots for smites not spells. The arcane archer and Eldritch knight and arcane trickster all access arcane spells but their selections are limited and as third casters their slots are extremely limited. The only thing is that it draws on primal spells not arcane. The UA2 ranger is actually the best of all the 5e versions as it gets 4 full expertises instead of partial expertises, spells at level 1 with cantrips and choosable spells instead of known. The UA2 ranger doesn’t have much if anything of nature oriented ribbon abilities but being able to take expertise in nature and survival at L1 actually eliminates the need for those abilities (as well as advantage really (I rate advantage as equal to a +4 so even at L1 expertise (2x+2=+4) is as good as advantage and by L20 (+12) it far exceeds advantage. At low levels a ranger’s melee/missile abilities are stronger than their spell casting. By L11 they are about equal and by L20 they are stronger as casters. As martials they don’t get action surge and great weapon fighting style but they do get medium armor, shields and two weapon fighting as well as the L5 second attack and effectively from L11 abilities the L11 third attack. As casters no they don’t get L6+spells or as many slots but they get up to L5 spells and enough slots to be useful.When you stop thinking of the ranger as a wilderness martial and start thinking of them as a Gish that can be wilderness oriented you start to see their real power.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I don’t know anything about what the ranger might become as a result of Unearthed Arcana and future rules updates; I can only comment on what the class is now. With respect, I’m honestly not sure how future rules are even really relevant since they are still in development and may never come to fruition in actual gameplay. But then, I’m not certain you are responding to me since I was not quoted. If you are though, I’d further point out that I made no mention of wilderness or nature regarding their identity.
Additionally, for most of the time I’ve gamed, gish has meant arcane + martial. It’s a new thing for me that people want to include ranger and paladin in that mix in 5e. I’m uncomfortable with the idea because it signifies yet another way that the world is changing around me as I age into irrelevance. I see by your signature that you are an old too. Good for you, adapting comfortably with the wee rapscallions ruining everything *indignantly shakes cane at the clouds*
Yes I’m an oldster but adaptable, I wasn’t so much referencing you as the entire thread. To me Gish is not just arcane + martial but rather spellcaster + martial (at least 2 attacks/round by tier 2) so things like sword bards, hexblades and bladesingers are also gishes as they get a second attack. Typically clerics are not as they normally only get a single attack.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Gish originally referred to githyanki fighters with wizard levels to gain access to arcane spellcasting. Bards had their own spell list at the time; hexblades and bladesingers didn’t exist as established rulesets. Paladins and rangers got their spells from divine sources, not arcane. Clerics too. I personally bristle at any definition of gish that includes divine casters or classes that have their own spell list as this flies in the face of the term’s origins and shows a lack of understanding of the basic mechanics. Like calling a harpsichord a piano cuz hey, close enough, right? But it is a game so I try not to spend too much time shaking my cane. Cheers!
I was pretty specific about my post being about Tasha's Ranger. If you are not playing a Tasha's Ranger with the optional rules then my post is not accurate or relevant. If you are though much of these things above I quoted are not true.
If you are playing Tasha's you get 20 (or 21) spells per day, not 15 and usually 21 known spells (and as high as 22) at 20th level. These numbers put them well into full caster territory and more than some full casters. This is in addition to things that mimic spells, including the ability to turn invisible and give yourself temp hit points multiple times a day.
They are limited to 5th level spells, but there are many good spells of 5th level and below and many that remain viable all the way to level 20.
A Ranger can be played as a primary caster from around level 6 up and do just fine if built for it. That doesn't mean they will never use weapons (and when you do you are generally outrunning full casters using cantrips), but they have a lot of spells per day, a lot of spells known and effective spells. Obviously this works better if you take a race or half feats to gain additional off-list spells.
This I disagree with this. They do have some good utility spells, especially on the primal list but most of the better ranger spells are combat spells. Absorb Elements, Cure Wounds, Entangle, Lessor Restoration, Spike Growth, Silence, Conjure Woodland Beings, Summon Fey for example.
Goodberry is also really good, but that probably counts as "utility"
They have other spells that lean into weapon attacks and you can play that way using weapon enhancing spells, but I don't think that is what they are best at and their spells are not particularly good at that (not as good as Paladins in particular). Usually I will get ensnaring strike at level 3, but I am not usually keeping it. Usually by level 6 I have traded it for something else.
They have great summon and control options, which is what I focused on in my post. Better options than Clerics, Bards or Warlocks in general I think.
You can call them a Gish, but if you put them in with Paladins, Eldritch Knights and Bladelocks, I think they lean into leveled spells a lot more than any of those builds do, so the "identity" from my POV is certainly on the caster side of Gish.
I have played multiple Rangers to high level, so I have experience in this. My Fey Wanderer that I played to 16th level is the best control caster I ever played (due in large part to her subclass) and I have played numerous wizards into tier 3 and one all the way to 20.
I see the Ranger as a gish, but I understand if some people take offense at drudic magic being a replacement for arcane in this re-concept of "gish."
While I want to embrace the Ranger as a "perfect" combination of martial and spellcasting, I still think the pre-Tasha's subclasses are often lacking some things.
A) Ways to boost concentration on spells or negate the concentration aspect for certain spells (Fey Wanderer is an example of how they could have done it for all the subclasses)
B) Less B.Action hogging by core subclass abilities, esp. by Rangers published in Xanathar's.
C) Subclass spells for the PHB Rangers.
D) Great Weapon Fighting style as an option without having to dip into Fighter.
We are going to have to agree to disagree because your very definition of “primary caster” is specious as far as I’m concerned. Primary caster actually does mean that you will eschew weapons in favour of spells most of the time. A primary caster uses weapons only in the exceedingly rare situations their spells will not serve them better. This is what makes them a PRIMARY CASTER. They primarily cast spells. They do anything else secondarily. This describes how a wizard (except bladesingers), cleric, bard (aside from maybe sword and valor) and sorcerer play at every level of the game not just a single subclass at mid to high levels. Because they are PRIMARY CASTERS.
Even if your definition of primary caster wasn’t out to lunch, a single subclass doesn’t define an entire class. If you want to say a Fey Wanderer is capable and powerful caster among the ranger subclasses? Sure, I can agree with that. If you want to say a horizon walker, hunter, gloomstalker or swarm keeper is a primary caster? Hahahahaha. The existence of bladesingers doesn’t make wizards a martial class. Bards having two decently capable martial subclasses doesn’t mean that bards are suddenly a martial class either.
Like I said, rangers are cool and get a bad rap but that doesn’t mean you get to redefine the way the game works and what words mean in the English language. It’s bad enough what has been done to meaning of gish, let’s not also bastardize the hell out of “primary caster”.
The very notion of a mechanical identity is flawed as a point of comparison to begin with. Rangers lack a mechanical identity, that I would offer is 100% as intended. They are able to be and do anything they are built to be. Most other classes can't do that well or at all, because they have a well defined mechanical identity.
Let's pick a level. Any level. 5, 9, 11, 19, whichever. And let's focus on that, what a ranger can do at that level, and what others can and can't do. Personally, I find levels 4, 9, 11, 13, and 19 to be the most interesting, especially when comparing to fighters, paladins, and rogues.
For example, at level 13, how much total damage can a character put out over three 3-round deadly combats between long rests, with a short rest in between each combat? A fighter, a paladin, a rogue, and a ranger. Then, how much self healing and/or healing of others can those same characters provide? You will find that a rogue has bottom tier damage and no healing, a fighter can heal themself while dealing lots of damage, a paladin that uses all of their spell slots for smites and all of their lay on hands for healing is doing well enough in both damage and healing, and a ranger using spells for damage and healing is doing about the same damage as paladins and fighters while providing 3-4 times the amount of healing.
Yes "most of the time" I agree with this. That is different than "extremely rare" though and after 5th level my Rangers are eschewing weapons in favor of spells "most of the time"
This is not true, especially given the underlined. All of these classes you give as an example of primary casters above are generally using weapons "most of the time" in combat at low levels, and most of them will continue to use weapons "most of the time" up until level 5 or so.
A Sorcerer or Wizard or even a 1st level Warlock who is not using weapons is leaving damage on the table. Using a light crossbow at low levels is going to "serve them better" than using a spell. For that reason they are making a ton of light crossbow attacks at that level, i.e. "using weapons most of the time"
I have also played Clerics and Bladesinger Wizards into high level that used weapons much more often at high levels than the Ranger I mentioned above did.
The Gloomstalker gets Fear, which is the most powerful 3rd level combat spell in the game. It also gets Greater Invisibility.
A Swarmkeeper gets Faerie Fire and Web, both of which are great spells.
Both of these classes can be played as casters and do quite well.
Rangers make great primary casters IMO and all of them are Gishes. You might not like that but it is true and being a primary caster with extra attack is the "mechanical identity" as far as I am concerned.
Levels 1-4 do not represent “most of the time”. That’s 20% of the game. Even if you consider that 90% of games end around level 10, that’s still less than half the time. The fact that levels come proportionally slower as they increase means it’s even less than that in actuality. Yes, it takes a few levels for every class to grow into its identity, which is why you’ll have the primary casters spend that short period of time prolly plinking away with a crossbow. It’s by level 5, after one ASI and when the martials get their defining second attack, that mechanical identities become apparent. Most people don’t even play rangers into the levels where they get what you claim to be their identity. For example, gloomstalkers don’t get fear until level 9 and, as mentioned, most games end at 10. How can a spell they’ll have access to for 10% of the time in most games define the entire class? What were they before that? A deadly martial shooting the crap out of things or chopping them to pieces thanks to dread ambusher and umbral sight, using their spells mainly for utility and to bolster their own combat rather than directly affecting enemies is what. Unlike the primary casters, they’re not attacking with cantrips; they’re not doing AoE’s; they’re not locking down opponents with crowd control; they’re not blowing save or suck spells every round, nor are they blowing direct damage spells every round.
Furthermore, having a very small handful of good spells doesn’t make a character a primary caster. Having a lot of spells known and spell slots does. The crappiest of sorcerers have 21 spells known and 22 spell slots at level 20. The sorcerers that no one wants to play cuz they don’t get enough of those things but somehow your ranger topping out in that range is a primary caster? Not to mention that a bunch of the spells the rangers just get, they don’t even get to choose and they enjoy the most restrictive method of swapping out spells along with the sorcerer and bard. At level 9, your gloomstalker has a meagre 9 spells known (only 6 of which they got to choose) and 9 spell slots. The crappiest of sorcerers has 15 known, all of which they got to choose, and 14 slots. Again, for the sorcerer, that’s not enough to be considered by most as a worthy primary caster but a gloomstalker with less is?
If you want, I can pick apart the rest of the ranger subclasses but it’s really not necessary. Rangers simply do not get enough spells known, spell levels or spells slots to be considered primary casters. They can’t even compare to the crappiest of sorcerers. No primary caster has a d10 HD, base medium armor proficiency or base martial weapon proficiency either. The idea that they play in any way similar to clerics, druids or wizards really makes me question what you think a primary caster is.
I’m well aware of the origin of the term Gish. The fact that you can’t see past arcane casting as a part of gishness doesn’t limit my view of it from 40+ years of playing gishes either. I can accept that you have a highly limited view of what a Gish is and are having problems with my statements because of your limited view - but that doesn’t invalidate my statements. Since you have these problems let me restate my position without the use of the term Gish.
The mechanical identity of the ranger is that of being a combined martial and caster. The ranger stays more or less even with fighters until level 20 in terms of number of attacks. No they don’t get an outright third attack but every ranger subclass gets an ability at L11 that normally grants a way to take a third (and sometimes more) attack. Rangers are not full casters but the spells they get are sufficiently powerful that a well played ranger transitions from being primarily a martial (in tier 1) to being primarily a caster (in tiers 3&4). The fact that most campaigns end before or early in tier 3 doesn’t change this but does mean that many folks never fully experience this transition in play style - you may be one of these, I don’t know. I know that like ECM03 I have played numerous rangers into tier 4 and have seen it.
Like ECM03 I recognize the difference between a full caster and a primary caster. Bards, clerics, Druids, sorcerors and wizards are all both full casters (L9spells, casting from L1 on, @25 spell slots to cast with). They are also primary casters - turning to magic first and physical combat second/last. Using those definitions then even a L2 ranger that casts hunters mark before charging into combat may count as a primary caster (they use their spell(s) before engaging in combat). Levels 1-4 no one has extra attacks ( other than action surge and TWF) and all casters have a small number of slots and limited numbers of spells available. The ranger’s ability to fight as well as a fighter and cast spells nearly as well as a Wizard/cleric/druid means they are potentially the most powerful class at low levels. The only class that actually compares is the cleric. Starting at L5 the cleric drops out as the fighter and ranger get their second attacks. At L6 the 2 combat bards and the bladesinger join the competition but they don’t get the armor protection rangers get their casting is somewhat superior. The hexblade is a possible contender but it’s magical abilities are set up very differently limiting its abilities. The artificers are the only other class with the potential to really do what the ranger does but only 2 of its subclasses (armorer & battle smith) get the second attack at L5.
if your Gish has to use arcane magic then your looking at the 2 subclasses of artificer, the bladesinger and maybe the 2 combat bards. If you use the expanded definition you have a lot more choices and ranger is probably the best.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.