Levels 1-4 do not represent “most of the time”. That’s 20% of the game.
I agree, completely. It was you that said "This describes how a wizard (except bladesingers), cleric, bard (aside from maybe sword and valor) and sorcerer play at every level of the game"
See the underlined quote above. You are the one that said they have to give up on weapons most of the time at 100% of levels to be a primary caster, not me!
I agree that primary casters do not do that at all levels and as I pointed out earlier, a Ranger can start relying primarily on spells around level 6. That is when my Rangers start to rely on spells more than on weapons.
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?
Yes. Would you suggest that crappiest of Sorcerers is not a "primary caster"
By the way I love playing a Shadow Sorcerer. It is my favorite Sorcerer subclass, it has 21 spells at 20th level and I consider a Shadow Sorcerer a primary caster as well.
While we are counting - At 20th level a Cleric can prepare 25 spells, a Warlock has 19, A Druid can prepare 25
So yeah plenty of fill casters are right there close to that number, like I said.
At level 9, your gloomstalker has a meagre 9 spells known (only 6 of which they got to choose) and 9 spell slots
You are wrong. At level 9 a Gloomstalker has 12 spells known, 9 spell slots and 3 free castings that do not require a slot, for 12 spells to cast on a day.
If you don't understand all the ins and outs of Rangers using spells with Tashas then I understand why you might not understand how to play a Ranger as a primary caster.
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?
Again your numbers are just wrong. At 9th level my Shadow Sorcerer had 10 spells. This is 2 less than a 9th level Gloomstalker. My Sorcerer had 14 slots, which is 2 more than the castings than the Ranger.
If you want, I can pick apart the rest of the ranger subclasses but it’s really not necessary.
I am sure you think you will if you continue to use incorrect numbers .
Rangers simply do not get enough spells known, spell levels or spells slots to be considered primary casters.
As I pointed out multiple times, they get around the same number of spells known and same number of castings per day as a lot of other full casters (even though they are not a full caster) and because of this high volume of spells and castings, this makes them very playable as a primary caster and that is their identity as far as I am concerned.
They can’t even compare to the crappiest of sorcerers.
Actually the numbers above show they are right in line with Sorcerers (and Clerics, and Druids and Warlocks)
No primary caster has a d10 HD, base medium armor proficiency or base martial weapon proficiency either.
Again with things that are just not true. All Clerics and all Druids have base medium armor proficiency. So you are just post something that is factually wrong again (unless you don't consider Clerics and Druids primary casters)
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 get that you don't believe this, but I think it is because you don't understand all the ins and outs of Ranger spellcasting and have never tried to build and play such a character.
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!
To correct a few things -
1. Wizards did not exist when the original Githyanki Gish came out in 1981. They used Magic-User levels. Wizard referred specifically to a 10th level Magic-User in 1E.
2. Bards did not have their own spell list at the time, Bards used the Druid spell list.
3. Rangers got both Druid spells and Magic-User spells and used the exact same mechanice as a Magic-User to see if they could learn a spell. So it is incorrect to say they Rangers were divine casters when the original Gish came out. They were both divine and arcane casters.
Today we have a ton more classes and a completely different game design and the mechanics and it would be impossible to field the original Gish, not the least because one of the classes no longer exists. In this respect I think all of the examples capture the original design, theme and intent associated with a Gish and are generally as close as you can get mechanically with the 5E rule set.
Yes, a primary caster should be using their cantrips and spells to attack at every level. I allowed that they may choose to plink away with a crossbow early on so as not to leave accuracy on the table at the expense of damage, since their spell casting attribute is most certainly higher than their dexterity. By level 4 at most, this is folly because they will have invested in their primary casting stat or boosted their casting with their first ASI/feat. Most rangers, OTOH, don’t even get a cantrip. If they do, it’s off the Druid spell list which has very limited attack cantrips that are mostly less attractive than shooting a bow or using a finesse melee weapon, since their dexterity is almost certainly equal to if not higher than their casting attribute. To cast a cantrip means they are almost certainly leaving damage and accuracy on the table. You can play poorly any way you like but don’t claim that’s the way the class was intended to be played.
At level 6, your gloomstalker ranger knows 4 spells plus what they get from their subclass and for being a Tasha’s ranger. The Tasha’s spells are pure utility. That leaves you 4 spells, 2 of which must be level 1 with which to become this spellcasting powerhouse that doesn’t shoot or stab stuff but casts spells instead. Plus 2 cantrips if you went Druidic Warrior. Oh, and 4 whole spell slots. Please enlighten me how the hell you are good for more than ten rounds of combat per day at most with your 4 rocking spells and 4 rocking spell slots. What level 1 and 2 spells are you using to directly affect your opponents rather than to augment yourself personally, augment your attacks or to debuff your enemies followed up by weapons attacks? Produce flame pew pew? Why would you do that when you can shoot or stab your enemy so much more effectively? Especially with a gloomstalker who has two attacks and whose martial abilities are nicely buffed by Dread Ambusher at that point. Again, play as poorly as you like but don’t claim that’s what was intended for the class.
You want to count spells assigned to Tasha’s rangers as spells known but not cantrips for sorcerers? That seems awfully disingenuous. At level 9, your shadow sorcerer knew at least 15 spells, 5 cantrips plus 10 leveled. Primary casters rely on their cantrips the way that rangers rely on their bows or swords so it is absolutely unacceptable to remove them from consideration. They are a defining feature of primary casters in 5e and when you count them as part of their repertoire, all the primary casters, including the ones getting the very least number of spells, outstrip the most well appointed of rangers. In reality, at level 9, your gloomstalker has 12 spells known (only if we disingenuously including the 3 that are single uses only not actually spells known BTW), 9 spell slots and access to level 3 spells at most compared to your shadow sorcerer’s 16 spells known, 14 spells slots and access to level 5 spells.
I will give you that you are right: I misspoke when I said “No primary caster has a d10 HD, base medium armor proficiency or base martial weapon proficiency either.” I’m really bad for doing stuff like that, bad punctuation, mixing up or dropping words. It’s the main reason most all of my posts end up edited. I apologize, I intended to say “No primary caster has a d10 HD and base medium armor proficiency or base martial weapon proficiency either” for the reasons you stated. GTHO with the stuff you went and lifted from dndwiki though. Magic user is indeed the correct term anachronistically but it is no longer accurate enough considering the variety of classes that are considered “magic users” nowadays. It is important to specify wizard contemporarily so that the people discussing the meaning of the term gish don’t go ahead and co-opt magic user to mean magic users that aren’t arcane in nature. Say like those people who want to say rangers are gish, hmmmm. Additionally, it doesn’t matter who they shared their spell lists with; neither bards nor druids drew freely from either of the lists they had access to, bards were specifically arcane casters and rangers were specifically divine casters.
Yes, a primary caster should be using their cantrips and spells to attack at every level. I allowed that they may choose to plink away with a crossbow early on so as not to leave accuracy on the table at the expense of damage, since their spell casting attribute is most certainly higher than their dexterity.
A light crossbow does substantially more damage than a Cantrip.
Typically on point buy a caster will have a 14 or 16 dex unless they have heavy armor, in which case they willm have a high strength.
With a 14 dex you are doing 7.5 damage per hit. The best attack cantrip is firebolt and eldritch blast which do 5.5.
Assuming a 14 dexterity, this is going to be 3.9 damage on average against a 13 AC. Against a 13 AC a firebolt or an eldritch blast will average 3.6 damage and that is only available to Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks. Other cantrips are going to do even less.
Poison spray is the only cantrip that does the same damage as a light crossbow with a 14 dex, but that is both poison damage and it is a save cantrip on the worst stat, so it will land less. Toll The dead also does the same as a light crossbow if the target is already injured, but this is going to be saved with more than the crossbow is going to miss.
By level 4 at most, this is folly because they will have invested in their primary casting stat or boosted their casting with their first ASI/feat.
You are wrong. By level 4 Firebolt is up to 3.85 against AC 13, which is STILL slightly below a 14 dex and a light crossbow.
And this goes for a Ranger as well if they boost Wisdom
You can play poorly any way you like but don’t claim that’s the way the class was intended to be played.
I am claiming anything about intent. I am saying the mechanics reard playing this way and it is the identity of the class.
At level 6, your gloomstalker ranger knows 4 spells plus what they get from their subclass and for being a Tasha’s ranger.
At level 6 they know 10 spells (including cantrips since we are doing that)
Oh, and 4 whole spell slots. Please enlighten me how the hell you are good for more than ten rounds of combat per day at most with your 4 rocking spells and 4 rocking spell slots.
Please read the PHB before you keep posting. A level 6 Ranger has 6 spell slots, not 4. And she has 2 free castings on top of that.
If we are going to discuss effectiveness we need to start from where the class actually is, using the correct numbers for that class.
In any case something like Spike Growth and Thorn Whip is going to do a crap ton of damage.
What level 1 and 2 spells are you using to directly affect your opponents rather than to augment yourself personally, augment your attacks or to debuff your enemies followed up by weapons attacks?
Entangle, Absorb Elements, Cure Wounds, Fog Cloud, Aid, Silence, Lessor Restoration, Silence, Spike Growth, Summmon Beast or really the best of them all - on a Gloomstalker cast Rope Trick to get a short rest in the middle of combat.
Read the PHB (and Tasha's) the spells are there.
Using your spells to augment weapon damage is not an efficient use of spell slots. Control spells beat damage spells whether you are playing a Ranger or a Wizard.
Produce flame pew pew? Why would you do that when you can shoot or stab your enemy so much more effectively?
I don't ever get Produce Flame
Especially with a gloomstalker who has two attacks and whose martial abilities are nicely buffed by Dread Ambusher at that point. Again, play as poorly as you like but don’t claim that’s what was intended for the class.
Numbers matter. A Gloomstalker with a max Wisdom, a club and Shillelagh gives up nothing in Dread Ambusher damage compared to the same Ranger using maximum dexterity and a Rapier. And that Ranger casts spells better than the Ranger with a maximum dexterity.
Add in another cantrip like thornwhip to use with Spike growth and that is the cats meow.
You want to count spells assigned to Tasha’s rangers as spells known but not cantrips for sorcerers? That seems awfully disingenuous. At level 9, your shadow sorcerer knew at least 15 spells, 5 cantrips plus 10 leveled.
Ok and the Ranger knows 14 spells, 12 leveled spells and 2 cantrips.
And at 20th level the Sorcerer knows 21 spells including Cantrips while the Ranger knows 23 including Cantrips.
And Warlocks know less than either of them!
Primary casters rely on their cantrips the way that rangers rely on their bows or swords so it is absolutely unacceptable to remove them from consideration.
Ok put them into consideration. The nubers are still similar and at some levels the Ranger is still actually higher.
They are a defining feature of primary casters in 5e and when you count them as part of their repertoire, all the primary casters, including the ones getting the very least number of spells, outstrip the most well appointed of rangers.
Again facts get in the way. Rangers have access to more spells than several full casters at several different levels.
That is true whether you count cantrips or you don't count cantrips.
In reality, at level 9, your gloomstalker has 12 spells known (only if we disingenuously including the 3 that are single uses only not actually spells known BTW).
Aren't we counting Cantrips now? It is 14.
There are no spells that are single use only. Again please read the rules before you keep debating.
You learn the Primal spells and Ranger is a known spell caster. You can cast them once without using a slot and then cast them again using any slots you have, just like any other spell you "know".
That is how spell slots work in 5E.
compared to your shadow sorcerer’s 16 spells known
At level 9 a Shadow Sorcerer has 15 spells known, not 16 .... including cantrips.
This is one more spell than a Ranger.
I will give you that you are right: I misspoke when I said “No primary caster has a d10 HD, base medium armor proficiency or base martial weapon proficiency either.”
Ok, apology accepted, but that is one of many, many errors.
GTHO with the stuff you went and lifted from dndwiki though. Magic user is indeed the correct term anachronistically but it is no longer accurate enough considering the variety of classes that are considered “magic users” nowadays.
I did not lift anything from the dndwiki and would not even know where to find that information online. I have more experience with 1E than any other version of the game and I have a 1979 copy of the PHB that I have been playing with since 1980. Rangers had Arcane Magic-User spells and spellbooks in 1E, just like a magic-user. That is a fact.
Additionally, it doesn’t matter who they shared their spell lists with; neither bards nor druids drew freely from either of the lists they had access to, bards were specifically arcane casters and rangers were specifically divine casters.
You are just wrong on all of this. I actually had to pull the PHB for Bards to get the exact wording, we do not play a lot of 1E Bards because you have to be at least a dual class 5th level Fighter/5th level Thief before you could take a single level in Bard and you needed crazy high ability scores.
The Bard is covered on pages 117-119 of the 1E PHB. I read begining to end and nothing at all mentions them being Arcane, and it specifically states they are "clerical" and "pray" for their spells. Here is the relevant text: "Bards begin play as fighters and must remain exclusively as fighters until 5th level..... prior to attaining 8th level they must change their class to that of thieves, again sometime between 5th and 9th level they leave off thieving and begin their clerical studies as druids....Number of spells by Druid spell level shows the number of druid (cleric) spells which the bard is able to use in one day. The bard selects which spells he or she wishes to have that day (praying to see if his god will grant them) and casts them exactly as a druid of that level would"
Nowhere does it say Bards are limited in which Druid spells they can select, and it says specifically they pray for their spells.
As I said earlier Rangers get both Druid and Magic User spells, using two separate spell casting progression columns in their spell table, one for their druid spells and one for their magic-user spells. On page 24-25 of the PHBit states "At 8th level Rangers get limited Druid spell ability .... at 9th level Rangers get limited magic-user spell ability ...... The Ranger must check as to which spells he or she can learn, just as if he or she were a magic-user"
As a point of fact Bards were clerical casters in 1E, not arcane casters. They could select any spells freely from the Druid list and were not restricted. Rangers were both Divine and Arcane casters. This is not debatable or open to interpretation, those are the rules of the game from when the Githyhanki "Gish" came on the scene.
I learned a lesson in Shillelagh today. Thanks for that. It’s more attractive than I thought as I had been conflating its wording with GFB and BB. That said, I still don’t agree that you’ve made any compelling argument for rangers being primary casters. Your gloomstalker will still be shooting or hitting things after casting Shillelagh for the duration of the spell (this is using your spells to augment your attacks so not sure why you say that’s a waste of time and then also tout it as a tactic?) This is true of all rangers. Even your fey wanderer will, more often than not, make some sort of martial attack after casting their concentration spell for their ongoing, round to round contribution in combats, unlike the primary casters who will, more often than not, cast attack cantrips or additional spells that don’t require concentration for theirs. Having martial attacks as your main contribution to the game is not primary caster design, D10 HD with medium armour or martial weapons is not primary caster design nor is having class features that mainly buff martial abilities. Furthermore, gaining access to 5th level spells at most is not primary caster design, nor is access to cantrips through optional rules only, nor is extremely limited spells known and spell slots per day. Most importantly, no primary caster starts the game unable to cast spells at all.
Simply getting the ability to cast spells does not make a class a primary caster. The primary casters in game follow a design scheme that rangers don’t. They also play in ways that rangers don’t. Rangers are primary casters only if you change the meaning of primary caster to suit your purpose, the way people have changed the definition of gish to suit their purpose.
Levels 1-4 the 5e ranger is indeed primarily a martial character, I don’t think anyone is actually questioning that. Levels 5-10/11 they are transitional from primarily martial to primarily a spellcaster. What do I mean by primarily? I mean that they rely on their spells more than on their physical combat abilities - whether those spells are combat, control, buff/debull or even illusions to solve the problems they encounter. They are never a magic only class so if that is your definition of a “primary” caster ( as it sounds like it is from your posts) then no they aren’t primary casters. On the other hand, they stop relying on their martial abilities as their primary method of “problem solving” somewhere between levels 6 and 12. I recognize you have problems with the idea of a Gish casting anything except arcane spells but unless you can suggest a decent term for nonarcane casting+martial combos I’m going to continue to use Gish to cover all casting + martial combos. To me wizards (except the bladesinger), clerics and Druids (except maybe the moon Druid), sorcerors and bards (except the 2 martial subclasses) and warlocks (except the hexblade) meet the definitions of three terms: full casters (L9 spells and slots), primary casters (rely on spells more than martial abilities) and CO (Casting Only) casters as they very limited to no real martial ability. Arcane archers, Eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, and paladins are what I would call magic enhanced martials (primarily martial but with some magical ability/enhancements - yes the half caster Paladin too as its spell slots are primarily for enhancing its martial attacks not for spellcasting. The flip side - martial enhanced casters would cover the alchemist and artillerist artificer subclasses. That leaves us with the gishes ( my definition not yours) - ranger, sword and valor bards, bladesingers, hexblades and armoror and battlesmith artificers which of them is the “best” is a source of ongoing fun discussion as each has their adherents. None are CO casters. All are capable fighters and all powerful casters as well. However, notice that only the ranger is an entire class - all the others are selected subclasses. In addition only rangers are effectively fully as capable a martial as a fighter of equal level. It is because they are the ONLY class designed to have this martial and casting ability that I have been claiming that that is their mechanical identity.
I learned a lesson in Shillelagh today. Thanks for that. It’s more attractive than I thought as I had been conflating its wording with GFB and BB. That said, I still don’t agree that you’ve made any compelling argument for rangers being primary casters. Your gloomstalker will still be shooting or hitting things after casting Shillelagh for the duration of the spell (this is using your spells to augment your attacks so not sure why you say that’s a waste of time and then also tout it as a tactic?)
She will be doing on the first attack, but at high level not a lot after that.
This is true of all rangers. Even your fey wanderer will, more often than not, make some sort of martial attack after casting their concentration spell for their ongoing, round to round contribution in combats, unlike the primary casters who will, more often than not, cast attack cantrips or additional spells that don’t require concentration for theirs.
I played a Goblin Fey Wanderer into high level in Tyranny of Dragons, and I rarely attacked with her late in game. Not counting clean up attacks after the fight was essentially over, it was less than once a combat on average. She had a 20 Wisdom but she still had a 16 Dex at 16th level and when she did attack it was either with a Dragontooth Dagger. She was the most powerful PC in the party, the best controller at that level I ever played and also the best face I've ever played with a +18 Deception, +18 Persuasion and +13 Intimidation.
She could Summon (mirthful) Fey multiple times without concentration (putting more than 1 Fey on the battlefield) and she had Cause Fear from the Shadow Touched. Those were the two primary spells she cast and with Beguiling Twist the cause Fear and multiple charms coming out every turn were extremely effective.
Those were her two go-to spells, but she also got mileage out of Dispel Magic, Misty Step and than traditional Ranger spells like Entangle, Fog Could, Silence and Spike Growth. She also used Beast Bond, Speak With Animals, Pass Without Trace and Goodberry quite a bit out of combat.
That is not to say she did not attack at all. In the final battle she summoned two Fuming Fey and then used her dagger because her spells were not very effective against Tiamat.
Simply getting the ability to cast spells does not make a class a primary caster.
Primarily using spells instead of weapons is what makes you a primary caster and Ranger is a good platform to do that from.
Some ideas for Ranger mechanics that I think would help give the class unique identity.
Improve their detect creatures ability. Detach it from the spell slot resource pool. Let them use it a couple/few times per day, or per short rest. Limit the range to within, say, 1000 feet. Gives a creature type and general direction. Maybe have a Nature check to determine the exact type of creature and approximate number.
Keep the Favored terrains, but have the choice give a buff based on the terrain's theme: fire resistance for dessert, cold resistance for arctic, Lightning resistance for coastal, poison resistance for swamp, acid resistance for underdark, thunder resistance for mountain, advantage on Stealth for forest, 5 ft increased movement speed for plains. Limit it to one terrain choice at level 1. Can change terrain choice at level up. Have a feature to choose a second terrain type at a higher level, around 10-11.
Keep Favored Enemy, but have it manifest as Advantage on saves vs special attacks from enemies, usable Wis mod times per day. Like, the Ranger would know and anticipate a charge attack, or a grapple from a bite, or a dragons breath weapon, etc.
Hunter's Mark is a class feature, not a spell. Usable Wis mod times per short rest. Adds d6 to one attack per turn (so could also add it to opportunity attacks). D6 scales to d8 at level 6, d10 at level 11, and d12 at level 17. No concentration, but you cannot "transfer" it to another creature. You'd have to use it again on your bonus action to mark another creature. So, for example, with a +4 mod, you'd have 4 uses of it per short rest, and you could then Hunter's Mark up to 4 creatures each short rest. I think this gives the feature that "focused fire" feeling that I think HM should have. It frees up concentration to encourage using Ranger spells.
So, you've got a flavorful and somewhat unique utility ability to detect what creatures are in the area. You've got a defensive buff themed to a terrain type. You've got a unique defensive buff to saves, themed to creatures' special attacks. And you've got the class' signature offensive feature, no longer a spell, no longer concentration, but limited in other ways.
Ranger's hat is that it has no hat. A ranger can basically fill any hole a party has in roles. Are your party mates a Barbarian, Wizard and a Rogue? Well you can fill the healer role. Paladin, Artificer and a Sorcerer? You can be the stealth role. You can Face, you can Tank, you can DPS, you can be battlefield control.
Rangers are specialists, you choose what role you need to be and you specialize in that role, and it's actually a great boon to the class that their core mechanical role in the game isn't tied to one resource like smites or wildshapes or infusions.
They get movie tropes. Thats their identity in 5th ed and 5.5 Anything that mechanically gets in the way of starting combat gets simplified into oblivion in 5th ed. The concept of rangers is alot of mechanics for non-combat stuff. This clashes with the 5th ed philosophy that everything must be super simple and easy so that we can get to stabbing bad guys. Thus rangers serve no purpose on their own, as they got simplified out of a role.
Ranger's hat is that it has no hat. A ranger can basically fill any hole a party has in roles. Are your party mates a Barbarian, Wizard and a Rogue? Well you can fill the healer role. Paladin, Artificer and a Sorcerer? You can be the stealth role. You can Face, you can Tank, you can DPS, you can be battlefield control.
Rangers are specialists, you choose what role you need to be and you specialize in that role, and it's actually a great boon to the class that their core mechanical role in the game isn't tied to one resource like smites or wildshapes or infusions.
You're not wrong, but I tend to think of rangers as the ultimate generalists - a little of this, a little of that, enough of everything to be a functional solo character. Which can then focus on one or two areas (typically combat and one other).
Ranger's hat is that it has no hat. A ranger can basically fill any hole a party has in roles. Are your party mates a Barbarian, Wizard and a Rogue? Well you can fill the healer role. Paladin, Artificer and a Sorcerer? You can be the stealth role. You can Face, you can Tank, you can DPS, you can be battlefield control.
Rangers are specialists, you choose what role you need to be and you specialize in that role, and it's actually a great boon to the class that their core mechanical role in the game isn't tied to one resource like smites or wildshapes or infusions.
You're not wrong, but I tend to think of rangers as the ultimate generalists - a little of this, a little of that, enough of everything to be a functional solo character. Which can then focus on one or two areas (typically combat and one other).
While I think the most appropriate definition is rangers "range". Meaning they need group travel mechanics for safety, speed and prepared for encounters.
But i do aggree with your statement for its high appeal is a "many hat" playspace. A Ranger base provides a very generic adventurer. They are practically the taste of everything adventure wise( kind of like the infamous one level dip in everything but done mostly right). Several C-rpgs have a general hero class and they feel ranger-like to me.
Favored Enemy, Animal Companion, and Wilderness Magic were the Rangers mechanical identity to various extents in multiple editions. Favored Enemy was the one that was core to them.
Ranger's hat is that it has no hat. A ranger can basically fill any hole a party has in roles. Are your party mates a Barbarian, Wizard and a Rogue? Well you can fill the healer role. Paladin, Artificer and a Sorcerer? You can be the stealth role. You can Face, you can Tank, you can DPS, you can be battlefield control.
Rangers are specialists, you choose what role you need to be and you specialize in that role, and it's actually a great boon to the class that their core mechanical role in the game isn't tied to one resource like smites or wildshapes or infusions.
You're not wrong, but I tend to think of rangers as the ultimate generalists - a little of this, a little of that, enough of everything to be a functional solo character. Which can then focus on one or two areas (typically combat and one other).
While I think the most appropriate definition is rangers "range". Meaning they need group travel mechanics for safety, speed and prepared for encounters.
But i do aggree with your statement for its high appeal is a "many hat" playspace. A Ranger base provides a very generic adventurer. They are practically the taste of everything adventure wise( kind of like the infamous one level dip in everything but done mostly right). Several C-rpgs have a general hero class and they feel ranger-like to me.
You know, if wilderness abilities and favored Enemy are the core features for the Ranger, they could get abilities like Wilderness Stride at one level and then later get the ability to share it with their allies. Same with Favored Enemy; at first they learn how to focus on a single target, later they can give their allies advice on how to do the same.
I watched a YouTube video posted by a "Mr. Welch" called Stranger Ranger Danger: Fixing the D&D Ranger class. And he had some decent ideas that greatly inspired the ideas I'll present below.
Favored Enemy: There are 14 monster types. Let Rangers choose 3 types at level 2, and then another type at every 3rd level after that (levels 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20) for a total of 9 creature types at max level. Give them +1 to hit & damage vs Favored Enemies at level 2. +1 to AC & Saving Throws at level 5. Make the Attack & Damage +2 at level 8. AC & Saves goes to +2 at 11. Make it +3 then at level 14 and level 17. I think this is a unique and decently scaling power for the Ranger that plays into their identity of monster-hunting specialists.
Favored Terrain: First and foremost- expand the terrain types to include urban areas and dungeons. Tombs, caverns, etc. The terrain types need to be defined explicitly and expansively. We don't want the party to enter a 10x10 cave & then fall into an argument over whether it's a dungeon, a cave, a tomb, the Underdark, or just part of the Forest it's in. Second: let the Ranger at level one choose 3 types of terrain. While in those terrain types, they can then add their Proficiency Bonus (or the equivalent bonus based upon Ranger levels, to avoid the multiclass dip) to any skill check they are proficient in. Even on top of Expertise. In addition, any party member or ally within 30 feet who attempts a skill check the Ranger is proficient in can add half that bonus (rounded down). This represents the Ranger sharing their knowledge of the terrain. If the Ranger spends a long rest in a new type of terrain, they can choose to replace one of their known terrains for the new one. And, to represent the Ranger's growing knowledge of different terrain types, let them add a type permanently at levels 5, 10, 15, & 20, for a total of 7 terrain types.
Movement. Rangers are skirmish Fighters, generally. We'll give them a 10 ft movement speed increase at level 6, along with swim & climb speeds. They will ignore difficult terrain penalties in their Favored terrains. Add another 10 ft of Movement at level 12.
Vitality. Rangers are hearty and have great stamina. To represent this, starting at level 4, after any short rest, the Ranger can choose to give themselves Temporary Hitpoints equal to their Wisdom modifier plus their Ranger level. If they are in their Favored Terrain, they get double their Wisdom modifier plus their level.
Preternatural Senses: Rangers can sense the environment around them and have the ability to know if certain creatures are near, based upon signs, tracks, scat, etc. Starting at Level 2, the Ranger can sense the location and type (if it's one of their Favored Enemy types) and number of creatures within 60 feet. This takes an action and is instantaneous. They can do this Wisdom modifier times per long rest. At Level 11, the distance increases to 120 feet. At Level 17, the Ranger gets Blindsight out to 30 feet.
Capstone: At Level 20, the Ranger has perfected their knowledge of creatures and environments. Once per long rest, they can enter a trance-like state giving them perfect knowledge. The trance can be activated as a free action and lasts for one minute. During this time, all bonuses from Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain are doubled.
Probably a lot to edit for balance, power, and to integrate subclasses. But THIS is the kind of playtest material I was hoping for in the Unearthed Arcana. The team at WotC didn't seem to put much thought into the Ranger at all. It was all just the Tasha's bandaids and Hunter's Mark stuff. I don't know if these suggestions (or the ones in Mr. Welch's video) are the right answers. But it's at least trying something.
LOL, I proposed something like the expansions on the foes and terrains over 2 years ago - its nice to see someone folks listen to actually picked up on it - even if it's too late now. realistically the 2024 ranger covers this between getting 3 expertise's and the upgrades to hunter's mark. many of the other ideas are now incorporated into the 2024 ranger either directly or in a modified or other similar way (like getting the exhaustion removal on a short rest rather than temp HP). As I've said earlier in the thread the ranger's mechanical ID is that it is a single class Gish. we all tend to get caught up in the wilderness expert aspect (yes that is important too) but it is secondary not primary. Its story base is the wilderness expretise, its mechanical base is being a Gish.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree, completely. It was you that said "This describes how a wizard (except bladesingers), cleric, bard (aside from maybe sword and valor) and sorcerer play at every level of the game"
See the underlined quote above. You are the one that said they have to give up on weapons most of the time at 100% of levels to be a primary caster, not me!
I agree that primary casters do not do that at all levels and as I pointed out earlier, a Ranger can start relying primarily on spells around level 6. That is when my Rangers start to rely on spells more than on weapons.
Yes. Would you suggest that crappiest of Sorcerers is not a "primary caster"
By the way I love playing a Shadow Sorcerer. It is my favorite Sorcerer subclass, it has 21 spells at 20th level and I consider a Shadow Sorcerer a primary caster as well.
While we are counting - At 20th level a Cleric can prepare 25 spells, a Warlock has 19, A Druid can prepare 25
So yeah plenty of fill casters are right there close to that number, like I said.
You are wrong. At level 9 a Gloomstalker has 12 spells known, 9 spell slots and 3 free castings that do not require a slot, for 12 spells to cast on a day.
If you don't understand all the ins and outs of Rangers using spells with Tashas then I understand why you might not understand how to play a Ranger as a primary caster.
Again your numbers are just wrong. At 9th level my Shadow Sorcerer had 10 spells. This is 2 less than a 9th level Gloomstalker. My Sorcerer had 14 slots, which is 2 more than the castings than the Ranger.
I am sure you think you will if you continue to use incorrect numbers .
As I pointed out multiple times, they get around the same number of spells known and same number of castings per day as a lot of other full casters (even though they are not a full caster) and because of this high volume of spells and castings, this makes them very playable as a primary caster and that is their identity as far as I am concerned.
Actually the numbers above show they are right in line with Sorcerers (and Clerics, and Druids and Warlocks)
Again with things that are just not true. All Clerics and all Druids have base medium armor proficiency. So you are just post something that is factually wrong again (unless you don't consider Clerics and Druids primary casters)
I get that you don't believe this, but I think it is because you don't understand all the ins and outs of Ranger spellcasting and have never tried to build and play such a character.
To correct a few things -
1. Wizards did not exist when the original Githyanki Gish came out in 1981. They used Magic-User levels. Wizard referred specifically to a 10th level Magic-User in 1E.
2. Bards did not have their own spell list at the time, Bards used the Druid spell list.
3. Rangers got both Druid spells and Magic-User spells and used the exact same mechanice as a Magic-User to see if they could learn a spell. So it is incorrect to say they Rangers were divine casters when the original Gish came out. They were both divine and arcane casters.
Today we have a ton more classes and a completely different game design and the mechanics and it would be impossible to field the original Gish, not the least because one of the classes no longer exists. In this respect I think all of the examples capture the original design, theme and intent associated with a Gish and are generally as close as you can get mechanically with the 5E rule set.
Yes, a primary caster should be using their cantrips and spells to attack at every level. I allowed that they may choose to plink away with a crossbow early on so as not to leave accuracy on the table at the expense of damage, since their spell casting attribute is most certainly higher than their dexterity. By level 4 at most, this is folly because they will have invested in their primary casting stat or boosted their casting with their first ASI/feat. Most rangers, OTOH, don’t even get a cantrip. If they do, it’s off the Druid spell list which has very limited attack cantrips that are mostly less attractive than shooting a bow or using a finesse melee weapon, since their dexterity is almost certainly equal to if not higher than their casting attribute. To cast a cantrip means they are almost certainly leaving damage and accuracy on the table. You can play poorly any way you like but don’t claim that’s the way the class was intended to be played.
At level 6, your gloomstalker ranger knows 4 spells plus what they get from their subclass and for being a Tasha’s ranger. The Tasha’s spells are pure utility. That leaves you 4 spells, 2 of which must be level 1 with which to become this spellcasting powerhouse that doesn’t shoot or stab stuff but casts spells instead. Plus 2 cantrips if you went Druidic Warrior. Oh, and 4 whole spell slots. Please enlighten me how the hell you are good for more than ten rounds of combat per day at most with your 4 rocking spells and 4 rocking spell slots. What level 1 and 2 spells are you using to directly affect your opponents rather than to augment yourself personally, augment your attacks or to debuff your enemies followed up by weapons attacks? Produce flame pew pew? Why would you do that when you can shoot or stab your enemy so much more effectively? Especially with a gloomstalker who has two attacks and whose martial abilities are nicely buffed by Dread Ambusher at that point. Again, play as poorly as you like but don’t claim that’s what was intended for the class.
You want to count spells assigned to Tasha’s rangers as spells known but not cantrips for sorcerers? That seems awfully disingenuous. At level 9, your shadow sorcerer knew at least 15 spells, 5 cantrips plus 10 leveled. Primary casters rely on their cantrips the way that rangers rely on their bows or swords so it is absolutely unacceptable to remove them from consideration. They are a defining feature of primary casters in 5e and when you count them as part of their repertoire, all the primary casters, including the ones getting the very least number of spells, outstrip the most well appointed of rangers. In reality, at level 9, your gloomstalker has 12 spells known (only if we disingenuously including the 3 that are single uses only not actually spells known BTW), 9 spell slots and access to level 3 spells at most compared to your shadow sorcerer’s 16 spells known, 14 spells slots and access to level 5 spells.
I will give you that you are right: I misspoke when I said “No primary caster has a d10 HD, base medium armor proficiency or base martial weapon proficiency either.” I’m really bad for doing stuff like that, bad punctuation, mixing up or dropping words. It’s the main reason most all of my posts end up edited. I apologize, I intended to say “No primary caster has a d10 HD and base medium armor proficiency or base martial weapon proficiency either” for the reasons you stated. GTHO with the stuff you went and lifted from dndwiki though. Magic user is indeed the correct term anachronistically but it is no longer accurate enough considering the variety of classes that are considered “magic users” nowadays. It is important to specify wizard contemporarily so that the people discussing the meaning of the term gish don’t go ahead and co-opt magic user to mean magic users that aren’t arcane in nature. Say like those people who want to say rangers are gish, hmmmm. Additionally, it doesn’t matter who they shared their spell lists with; neither bards nor druids drew freely from either of the lists they had access to, bards were specifically arcane casters and rangers were specifically divine casters.
A light crossbow does substantially more damage than a Cantrip.
Typically on point buy a caster will have a 14 or 16 dex unless they have heavy armor, in which case they willm have a high strength.
With a 14 dex you are doing 7.5 damage per hit. The best attack cantrip is firebolt and eldritch blast which do 5.5.
Assuming a 14 dexterity, this is going to be 3.9 damage on average against a 13 AC. Against a 13 AC a firebolt or an eldritch blast will average 3.6 damage and that is only available to Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks. Other cantrips are going to do even less.
Poison spray is the only cantrip that does the same damage as a light crossbow with a 14 dex, but that is both poison damage and it is a save cantrip on the worst stat, so it will land less. Toll The dead also does the same as a light crossbow if the target is already injured, but this is going to be saved with more than the crossbow is going to miss.
You are wrong. By level 4 Firebolt is up to 3.85 against AC 13, which is STILL slightly below a 14 dex and a light crossbow.
And this goes for a Ranger as well if they boost Wisdom
I am claiming anything about intent. I am saying the mechanics reard playing this way and it is the identity of the class.
At level 6 they know 10 spells (including cantrips since we are doing that)
Please read the PHB before you keep posting. A level 6 Ranger has 6 spell slots, not 4. And she has 2 free castings on top of that.
If we are going to discuss effectiveness we need to start from where the class actually is, using the correct numbers for that class.
In any case something like Spike Growth and Thorn Whip is going to do a crap ton of damage.
Entangle, Absorb Elements, Cure Wounds, Fog Cloud, Aid, Silence, Lessor Restoration, Silence, Spike Growth, Summmon Beast or really the best of them all - on a Gloomstalker cast Rope Trick to get a short rest in the middle of combat.
Read the PHB (and Tasha's) the spells are there.
Using your spells to augment weapon damage is not an efficient use of spell slots. Control spells beat damage spells whether you are playing a Ranger or a Wizard.
I don't ever get Produce Flame
Numbers matter. A Gloomstalker with a max Wisdom, a club and Shillelagh gives up nothing in Dread Ambusher damage compared to the same Ranger using maximum dexterity and a Rapier. And that Ranger casts spells better than the Ranger with a maximum dexterity.
Add in another cantrip like thornwhip to use with Spike growth and that is the cats meow.
Ok and the Ranger knows 14 spells, 12 leveled spells and 2 cantrips.
And at 20th level the Sorcerer knows 21 spells including Cantrips while the Ranger knows 23 including Cantrips.
And Warlocks know less than either of them!
Ok put them into consideration. The nubers are still similar and at some levels the Ranger is still actually higher.
Again facts get in the way. Rangers have access to more spells than several full casters at several different levels.
That is true whether you count cantrips or you don't count cantrips.
Aren't we counting Cantrips now? It is 14.
There are no spells that are single use only. Again please read the rules before you keep debating.
You learn the Primal spells and Ranger is a known spell caster. You can cast them once without using a slot and then cast them again using any slots you have, just like any other spell you "know".
That is how spell slots work in 5E.
At level 9 a Shadow Sorcerer has 15 spells known, not 16 .... including cantrips.
This is one more spell than a Ranger.
Ok, apology accepted, but that is one of many, many errors.
I did not lift anything from the dndwiki and would not even know where to find that information online. I have more experience with 1E than any other version of the game and I have a 1979 copy of the PHB that I have been playing with since 1980. Rangers had Arcane Magic-User spells and spellbooks in 1E, just like a magic-user. That is a fact.
You are just wrong on all of this. I actually had to pull the PHB for Bards to get the exact wording, we do not play a lot of 1E Bards because you have to be at least a dual class 5th level Fighter/5th level Thief before you could take a single level in Bard and you needed crazy high ability scores.
The Bard is covered on pages 117-119 of the 1E PHB. I read begining to end and nothing at all mentions them being Arcane, and it specifically states they are "clerical" and "pray" for their spells. Here is the relevant text: "Bards begin play as fighters and must remain exclusively as fighters until 5th level..... prior to attaining 8th level they must change their class to that of thieves, again sometime between 5th and 9th level they leave off thieving and begin their clerical studies as druids....Number of spells by Druid spell level shows the number of druid (cleric) spells which the bard is able to use in one day. The bard selects which spells he or she wishes to have that day (praying to see if his god will grant them) and casts them exactly as a druid of that level would"
Nowhere does it say Bards are limited in which Druid spells they can select, and it says specifically they pray for their spells.
As I said earlier Rangers get both Druid and Magic User spells, using two separate spell casting progression columns in their spell table, one for their druid spells and one for their magic-user spells. On page 24-25 of the PHBit states "At 8th level Rangers get limited Druid spell ability .... at 9th level Rangers get limited magic-user spell ability ...... The Ranger must check as to which spells he or she can learn, just as if he or she were a magic-user"
As a point of fact Bards were clerical casters in 1E, not arcane casters. They could select any spells freely from the Druid list and were not restricted. Rangers were both Divine and Arcane casters. This is not debatable or open to interpretation, those are the rules of the game from when the Githyhanki "Gish" came on the scene.
I learned a lesson in Shillelagh today. Thanks for that. It’s more attractive than I thought as I had been conflating its wording with GFB and BB. That said, I still don’t agree that you’ve made any compelling argument for rangers being primary casters. Your gloomstalker will still be shooting or hitting things after casting Shillelagh for the duration of the spell (this is using your spells to augment your attacks so not sure why you say that’s a waste of time and then also tout it as a tactic?) This is true of all rangers. Even your fey wanderer will, more often than not, make some sort of martial attack after casting their concentration spell for their ongoing, round to round contribution in combats, unlike the primary casters who will, more often than not, cast attack cantrips or additional spells that don’t require concentration for theirs. Having martial attacks as your main contribution to the game is not primary caster design, D10 HD with medium armour or martial weapons is not primary caster design nor is having class features that mainly buff martial abilities. Furthermore, gaining access to 5th level spells at most is not primary caster design, nor is access to cantrips through optional rules only, nor is extremely limited spells known and spell slots per day. Most importantly, no primary caster starts the game unable to cast spells at all.
Simply getting the ability to cast spells does not make a class a primary caster. The primary casters in game follow a design scheme that rangers don’t. They also play in ways that rangers don’t. Rangers are primary casters only if you change the meaning of primary caster to suit your purpose, the way people have changed the definition of gish to suit their purpose.
Levels 1-4 the 5e ranger is indeed primarily a martial character, I don’t think anyone is actually questioning that. Levels 5-10/11 they are transitional from primarily martial to primarily a spellcaster. What do I mean by primarily? I mean that they rely on their spells more than on their physical combat abilities - whether those spells are combat, control, buff/debull or even illusions to solve the problems they encounter. They are never a magic only class so if that is your definition of a “primary” caster ( as it sounds like it is from your posts) then no they aren’t primary casters. On the other hand, they stop relying on their martial abilities as their primary method of “problem solving” somewhere between levels 6 and 12. I recognize you have problems with the idea of a Gish casting anything except arcane spells but unless you can suggest a decent term for nonarcane casting+martial combos I’m going to continue to use Gish to cover all casting + martial combos. To me wizards (except the bladesinger), clerics and Druids (except maybe the moon Druid), sorcerors and bards (except the 2 martial subclasses) and warlocks (except the hexblade) meet the definitions of three terms: full casters (L9 spells and slots), primary casters (rely on spells more than martial abilities) and CO (Casting Only) casters as they very limited to no real martial ability. Arcane archers, Eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, and paladins are what I would call magic enhanced martials (primarily martial but with some magical ability/enhancements - yes the half caster Paladin too as its spell slots are primarily for enhancing its martial attacks not for spellcasting. The flip side - martial enhanced casters would cover the alchemist and artillerist artificer subclasses. That leaves us with the gishes ( my definition not yours) - ranger, sword and valor bards, bladesingers, hexblades and armoror and battlesmith artificers which of them is the “best” is a source of ongoing fun discussion as each has their adherents. None are CO casters. All are capable fighters and all powerful casters as well. However, notice that only the ranger is an entire class - all the others are selected subclasses. In addition only rangers are effectively fully as capable a martial as a fighter of equal level. It is because they are the ONLY class designed to have this martial and casting ability that I have been claiming that that is their mechanical identity.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
She will be doing on the first attack, but at high level not a lot after that.
I played a Goblin Fey Wanderer into high level in Tyranny of Dragons, and I rarely attacked with her late in game. Not counting clean up attacks after the fight was essentially over, it was less than once a combat on average. She had a 20 Wisdom but she still had a 16 Dex at 16th level and when she did attack it was either with a Dragontooth Dagger. She was the most powerful PC in the party, the best controller at that level I ever played and also the best face I've ever played with a +18 Deception, +18 Persuasion and +13 Intimidation.
She could Summon (mirthful) Fey multiple times without concentration (putting more than 1 Fey on the battlefield) and she had Cause Fear from the Shadow Touched. Those were the two primary spells she cast and with Beguiling Twist the cause Fear and multiple charms coming out every turn were extremely effective.
Those were her two go-to spells, but she also got mileage out of Dispel Magic, Misty Step and than traditional Ranger spells like Entangle, Fog Could, Silence and Spike Growth. She also used Beast Bond, Speak With Animals, Pass Without Trace and Goodberry quite a bit out of combat.
That is not to say she did not attack at all. In the final battle she summoned two Fuming Fey and then used her dagger because her spells were not very effective against Tiamat.
Primarily using spells instead of weapons is what makes you a primary caster and Ranger is a good platform to do that from.
Some ideas for Ranger mechanics that I think would help give the class unique identity.
Improve their detect creatures ability. Detach it from the spell slot resource pool. Let them use it a couple/few times per day, or per short rest. Limit the range to within, say, 1000 feet. Gives a creature type and general direction. Maybe have a Nature check to determine the exact type of creature and approximate number.
Keep the Favored terrains, but have the choice give a buff based on the terrain's theme: fire resistance for dessert, cold resistance for arctic, Lightning resistance for coastal, poison resistance for swamp, acid resistance for underdark, thunder resistance for mountain, advantage on Stealth for forest, 5 ft increased movement speed for plains. Limit it to one terrain choice at level 1. Can change terrain choice at level up. Have a feature to choose a second terrain type at a higher level, around 10-11.
Keep Favored Enemy, but have it manifest as Advantage on saves vs special attacks from enemies, usable Wis mod times per day. Like, the Ranger would know and anticipate a charge attack, or a grapple from a bite, or a dragons breath weapon, etc.
Hunter's Mark is a class feature, not a spell. Usable Wis mod times per short rest. Adds d6 to one attack per turn (so could also add it to opportunity attacks). D6 scales to d8 at level 6, d10 at level 11, and d12 at level 17. No concentration, but you cannot "transfer" it to another creature. You'd have to use it again on your bonus action to mark another creature. So, for example, with a +4 mod, you'd have 4 uses of it per short rest, and you could then Hunter's Mark up to 4 creatures each short rest. I think this gives the feature that "focused fire" feeling that I think HM should have. It frees up concentration to encourage using Ranger spells.
So, you've got a flavorful and somewhat unique utility ability to detect what creatures are in the area. You've got a defensive buff themed to a terrain type. You've got a unique defensive buff to saves, themed to creatures' special attacks. And you've got the class' signature offensive feature, no longer a spell, no longer concentration, but limited in other ways.
Thoughts?
There are several threads looking at the UA 2 & 7 rangers and offering some ideas on how Tom prove them in particular and rangers overall.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Ranger's hat is that it has no hat. A ranger can basically fill any hole a party has in roles. Are your party mates a Barbarian, Wizard and a Rogue? Well you can fill the healer role. Paladin, Artificer and a Sorcerer? You can be the stealth role. You can Face, you can Tank, you can DPS, you can be battlefield control.
Rangers are specialists, you choose what role you need to be and you specialize in that role, and it's actually a great boon to the class that their core mechanical role in the game isn't tied to one resource like smites or wildshapes or infusions.
Apparently, the mechanical identity of the Ranger is Hunter's Mark. And that's it. 🤷♂️
They get movie tropes. Thats their identity in 5th ed and 5.5 Anything that mechanically gets in the way of starting combat gets simplified into oblivion in 5th ed. The concept of rangers is alot of mechanics for non-combat stuff. This clashes with the 5th ed philosophy that everything must be super simple and easy so that we can get to stabbing bad guys. Thus rangers serve no purpose on their own, as they got simplified out of a role.
But simple is virtuous and good right? Oh wait...
You're not wrong, but I tend to think of rangers as the ultimate generalists - a little of this, a little of that, enough of everything to be a functional solo character. Which can then focus on one or two areas (typically combat and one other).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
While I think the most appropriate definition is rangers "range". Meaning they need group travel mechanics for safety, speed and prepared for encounters.
But i do aggree with your statement for its high appeal is a "many hat" playspace. A Ranger base provides a very generic adventurer. They are practically the taste of everything adventure wise( kind of like the infamous one level dip in everything but done mostly right). Several C-rpgs have a general hero class and they feel ranger-like to me.
Favored Enemy, Animal Companion, and Wilderness Magic were the Rangers mechanical identity to various extents in multiple editions. Favored Enemy was the one that was core to them.
You know, if wilderness abilities and favored Enemy are the core features for the Ranger, they could get abilities like Wilderness Stride at one level and then later get the ability to share it with their allies. Same with Favored Enemy; at first they learn how to focus on a single target, later they can give their allies advice on how to do the same.
I watched a YouTube video posted by a "Mr. Welch" called Stranger Ranger Danger: Fixing the D&D Ranger class. And he had some decent ideas that greatly inspired the ideas I'll present below.
Favored Enemy: There are 14 monster types. Let Rangers choose 3 types at level 2, and then another type at every 3rd level after that (levels 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20) for a total of 9 creature types at max level. Give them +1 to hit & damage vs Favored Enemies at level 2. +1 to AC & Saving Throws at level 5. Make the Attack & Damage +2 at level 8. AC & Saves goes to +2 at 11. Make it +3 then at level 14 and level 17. I think this is a unique and decently scaling power for the Ranger that plays into their identity of monster-hunting specialists.
Favored Terrain: First and foremost- expand the terrain types to include urban areas and dungeons. Tombs, caverns, etc. The terrain types need to be defined explicitly and expansively. We don't want the party to enter a 10x10 cave & then fall into an argument over whether it's a dungeon, a cave, a tomb, the Underdark, or just part of the Forest it's in. Second: let the Ranger at level one choose 3 types of terrain. While in those terrain types, they can then add their Proficiency Bonus (or the equivalent bonus based upon Ranger levels, to avoid the multiclass dip) to any skill check they are proficient in. Even on top of Expertise. In addition, any party member or ally within 30 feet who attempts a skill check the Ranger is proficient in can add half that bonus (rounded down). This represents the Ranger sharing their knowledge of the terrain. If the Ranger spends a long rest in a new type of terrain, they can choose to replace one of their known terrains for the new one. And, to represent the Ranger's growing knowledge of different terrain types, let them add a type permanently at levels 5, 10, 15, & 20, for a total of 7 terrain types.
Movement. Rangers are skirmish Fighters, generally. We'll give them a 10 ft movement speed increase at level 6, along with swim & climb speeds. They will ignore difficult terrain penalties in their Favored terrains. Add another 10 ft of Movement at level 12.
Vitality. Rangers are hearty and have great stamina. To represent this, starting at level 4, after any short rest, the Ranger can choose to give themselves Temporary Hitpoints equal to their Wisdom modifier plus their Ranger level. If they are in their Favored Terrain, they get double their Wisdom modifier plus their level.
Preternatural Senses: Rangers can sense the environment around them and have the ability to know if certain creatures are near, based upon signs, tracks, scat, etc. Starting at Level 2, the Ranger can sense the location and type (if it's one of their Favored Enemy types) and number of creatures within 60 feet. This takes an action and is instantaneous. They can do this Wisdom modifier times per long rest. At Level 11, the distance increases to 120 feet. At Level 17, the Ranger gets Blindsight out to 30 feet.
Capstone: At Level 20, the Ranger has perfected their knowledge of creatures and environments. Once per long rest, they can enter a trance-like state giving them perfect knowledge. The trance can be activated as a free action and lasts for one minute. During this time, all bonuses from Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain are doubled.
Probably a lot to edit for balance, power, and to integrate subclasses. But THIS is the kind of playtest material I was hoping for in the Unearthed Arcana. The team at WotC didn't seem to put much thought into the Ranger at all. It was all just the Tasha's bandaids and Hunter's Mark stuff. I don't know if these suggestions (or the ones in Mr. Welch's video) are the right answers. But it's at least trying something.
LOL, I proposed something like the expansions on the foes and terrains over 2 years ago - its nice to see someone folks listen to actually picked up on it - even if it's too late now. realistically the 2024 ranger covers this between getting 3 expertise's and the upgrades to hunter's mark. many of the other ideas are now incorporated into the 2024 ranger either directly or in a modified or other similar way (like getting the exhaustion removal on a short rest rather than temp HP). As I've said earlier in the thread the ranger's mechanical ID is that it is a single class Gish. we all tend to get caught up in the wilderness expert aspect (yes that is important too) but it is secondary not primary. Its story base is the wilderness expretise, its mechanical base is being a Gish.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.