Listen, no-one is saying the ranger can't do damage, but the class features are just lacklustre. Hide in plain sight? favoured enemy? natural explorer? They are....ok, but compared to Aura of protection, various channel divinities, lay on hands and divine smite, they just can't hold up.
Do I seriously have to post a copy of what I put up on the previous page? Because I will. I cover all of those ranger features pretty definitively.
And for anyone still complaining about damage output, don't let the martial weapon proficiency fool you. They're skirmishers. Their damage output regularly outpaces the rogue at all tiers of play.
Your post completely ignores the fact that the 1st level Ranger abilities hardly get any use unless a GM tailors the entire campaign around them.
If Favored Enemy instead gave those same benefits against all creature types and Natural Explorer applied equally to all terrain types simultaneously, then I'd agree with your argument.
When they instead apply 1/12 or less of possible enemies and 1/9th of possible terrain types (including all non-natural terrains as a single type), the amount of time they come into play is a very small percentage of the overall campaign career for a character. And, yes, you gain additional enemies and terrains as the character levels up, but the character never gets to a point where they have benefit of the ability even half the time (unless, as mentioned, the GM tailors the adventure around the player choices).
For comparison, imagine if Barbarian players had to select a terrain type, and that's the only terrain where they could Rage. Or, imagine if Paladins could only Smite against a single creature type.
For me, the main issue with the Ranger core abilities isn't that they are not combat related; it's that they are more restricted in when they can be used than any other class's core abilities. Revised Ranger had it correct when they did away with selecting a terrain type and gave Natural Explorer as a blanket benefit.
The current restrictive approach is, frankly, just indefensibly bad game design that is clinging to concepts that were created decades ago without meaningfully adjusting them to how the game has changed since that time.
This 100%! You got it completely correct.
Also, as for your analogy regarding the Paladin only smiting against a certain creature type, it's even worse than that. It would be like if instead of getting Divine Smite, the Paladin got advantage on insight and intimidation checks against one creature type, or Barbarians getting expertise on Perception checks in their favorite area, instead of getting rage.
The ranger's first level features, and at least half of their 3rd level features suck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Errata: Divine Favor has V and S components. Hunter’s Mark only has a V component. That’s the difference. I forgot. For a two handed weapon wielder (great sword, polearm, longbow, it’s no big deal, but for a shield user it’s tough.
Divine Favor having Verbal and Somatic components is no issue for two handed weapon wielders. They can just take one hand off their weapon to perform the somatic components, and then wield it again after casting the spell. It's not even a problem for paladins who use shields, because they can use their shield as a spellcasting focus.
Not the last part. Only if the spell has a M component.
That is a stupid rule that is not Rules as Intended, even if it is Rules as Written. Every DM that is aware of that quirky idiotic writing of those features should ignore that and play that feature as intended, not as it is currently written.
I’m going to take exception to that. Why would a holy symbol replace verbal or somatic components?
Not verbal components, you only need to talk for those, but somatic components can be done with the same hand as your spellcasting focus, and for Paladins and Clerics their spellcasting focus can be a holy symbol, which can also be their shield. There is a strange quirk discussed heavily in other threads where you can only use a spellcasting focus for spells with material components with no cost that aren't consumed and somatic components, but not just somatic components, which is not RAI.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Listen, no-one is saying the ranger can't do damage, but the class features are just lacklustre. Hide in plain sight? favoured enemy? natural explorer? They are....ok, but compared to Aura of protection, various channel divinities, lay on hands and divine smite, they just can't hold up.
Do I seriously have to post a copy of what I put up on the previous page? Because I will. I cover all of those ranger features pretty definitively.
And for anyone still complaining about damage output, don't let the martial weapon proficiency fool you. They're skirmishers. Their damage output regularly outpaces the rogue at all tiers of play.
Your post completely ignores the fact that the 1st level Ranger abilities hardly get any use unless a GM tailors the entire campaign around them.
If Favored Enemy instead gave those same benefits against all creature types and Natural Explorer applied equally to all terrain types simultaneously, then I'd agree with your argument.
When they instead apply 1/12 or less of possible enemies and 1/9th of possible terrain types (including all non-natural terrains as a single type), the amount of time they come into play is a very small percentage of the overall campaign career for a character. And, yes, you gain additional enemies and terrains as the character levels up, but the character never gets to a point where they have benefit of the ability even half the time (unless, as mentioned, the GM tailors the adventure around the player choices).
For comparison, imagine if Barbarian players had to select a terrain type, and that's the only terrain where they could Rage. Or, imagine if Paladins could only Smite against a single creature type.
For me, the main issue with the Ranger core abilities isn't that they are not combat related; it's that they are more restricted in when they can be used than any other class's core abilities. Revised Ranger had it correct when they did away with selecting a terrain type and gave Natural Explorer as a blanket benefit.
The current restrictive approach is, frankly, just indefensibly bad game design that is clinging to concepts that were created decades ago without meaningfully adjusting them to how the game has changed since that time.
I actually did acknowledge that. Take another look at the following paragraph.
And this is just at Level 1. The problem some players have is that these features are not combat-focused when they think these should be. But these features aren't supposed to be combat features. They practically trivialize the other two pillars of the game: Exploration and Social Interaction. At least, when the ranger is in their element. And no other class can do this. The DM has a responsibility to run a game for everyone at the table. This means not ignoring the ranger's features and strengths. The people who complain about the ranger are the same people who complain about these pillars of the game. They don't care about, literally, 2/3 of the game. If it's not 6-8 medium-hard combat encounters per adventuring day, then it's not D&D for them.
And, if I'm being frank, you kind of proved the point I was making. Because you're only looking at combat potential and ignoring the other two pillars of the game. I also go on to say that style of play is fine. But that doesn't mean every class has to shine in every situation. A ranger in Waterdeep: Dragon Heist is never going to get to use their Natural Explorer. And an Outlander isn't going to get to use their Wanderer feature. That doesn't mean either is badly designed. It means they're ill-suited to the task at hand. They can certainly contribute in other ways, but they might have a hard time being the star. As I've said before, it's asymmetrical design.
You can probably guess that I don't think the restrictive approach is indefensible. Every single class includes choices that could also be described as being restrictive. Having the freedom to make those choices can be empowering. But in order for those choices to mean something, there must be consequences. An opportunity cost, if you will. That, in of itself, isn't a bad thing.
And even if you were to strip away the ranger's Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, they still have access to their base proficiencies, Fighting Style, magic, and can put out more DPR than a rogue. And at almost level. It's not like they're useless. Far from it.
Errata: Divine Favor has V and S components. Hunter’s Mark only has a V component. That’s the difference. I forgot. For a two handed weapon wielder (great sword, polearm, longbow, it’s no big deal, but for a shield user it’s tough.
Divine Favor having Verbal and Somatic components is no issue for two handed weapon wielders. They can just take one hand off their weapon to perform the somatic components, and then wield it again after casting the spell. It's not even a problem for paladins who use shields, because they can use their shield as a spellcasting focus.
Not the last part. Only if the spell has a M component.
That is a stupid rule that is not Rules as Intended, even if it is Rules as Written. Every DM that is aware of that quirky idiotic writing of those features should ignore that and play that feature as intended, not as it is currently written.
I’m going to take exception to that. Why would a holy symbol replace verbal or somatic components?
Not verbal components, you only need to talk for those, but somatic components can be done with the same hand as your spellcasting focus, and for Paladins and Clerics their spellcasting focus can be a holy symbol, which can also be their shield. There is a strange quirk discussed heavily in other threads where you can only use a spellcasting focus for spells with material components with no cost that aren't consumed and somatic components, but not just somatic components, which is not RAI.
I don’t think that’s exactly right. The rules say the hand used to provide the somatic component to a spell counts as a free hand for the purpose of manipulating material components. That’s not the same as saying a hand holding a shield is free to be used to provide somatic components, even if the shield would be a holy symbol. Which, additionally, it isn’t: paladins and clerics can bear their holy symbol on a shield, but that’s something else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Errata: Divine Favor has V and S components. Hunter’s Mark only has a V component. That’s the difference. I forgot. For a two handed weapon wielder (great sword, polearm, longbow, it’s no big deal, but for a shield user it’s tough.
Divine Favor having Verbal and Somatic components is no issue for two handed weapon wielders. They can just take one hand off their weapon to perform the somatic components, and then wield it again after casting the spell. It's not even a problem for paladins who use shields, because they can use their shield as a spellcasting focus.
Not the last part. Only if the spell has a M component.
That is a stupid rule that is not Rules as Intended, even if it is Rules as Written. Every DM that is aware of that quirky idiotic writing of those features should ignore that and play that feature as intended, not as it is currently written.
I’m going to take exception to that. Why would a holy symbol replace verbal or somatic components?
Not verbal components, you only need to talk for those, but somatic components can be done with the same hand as your spellcasting focus, and for Paladins and Clerics their spellcasting focus can be a holy symbol, which can also be their shield. There is a strange quirk discussed heavily in other threads where you can only use a spellcasting focus for spells with material components with no cost that aren't consumed and somatic components, but not just somatic components, which is not RAI.
I don’t think that’s exactly right. The rules say the hand used to provide the somatic component to a spell counts as a free hand for the purpose of manipulating material components. That’s not the same as saying a hand holding a shield is free to be used to provide somatic components, even if the shield would be a holy symbol. Which, additionally, it isn’t: paladins and clerics can bear their holy symbol on a shield, but that’s something else.
That's because it's not right. If the spell has no material components, then any somatic components must be performed with an empty hand. If material components are required, then the same hand manipulating the component(s), regardless of whether it's a focus or pouch, can also perform the somatic components.
So, if a cleric or paladin wants to cast cure wounds, for example, then they need a free hand. Which means either not wearing their shield or sheathing/stowing their weapon. That is both RAW and RAI.
Even if the shield would be a holy symbol. Which, additionally, it isn’t: paladins and clerics can bear their holy symbol on a shield, but that’s something else.
From Sage Advice:
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
That's from Jeremy Crawford, who designs most of the rules for 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Even if the shield would be a holy symbol. Which, additionally, it isn’t: paladins and clerics can bear their holy symbol on a shield, but that’s something else.
From Sage Advice:
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
That's from Jeremy Crawford, who designs most of the rules for 5e.
Welp, good enough for me I guess. Not sure why this couldn’t be put more properly in the PHB, but ok.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Okay, a question for those in this thread who are adamantly opinionated that Rangers are not underpowered:
If the class isn't underpowered and indeed does not suck compared to every other class in the game, why has Wizards of the Coast created and released the "Ranger, Revised" Unearthed Arcana and the "Class Feature Variants" Unearthed Arcana that gave the most "replacements/enhancements" to the Ranger class? If the class is not underpowered and objectively bad, why have the creators of D&D 5e and the RANGER CLASS (all caps for emphasis) tried multiple times to fix it?
Answer that, will ya, before you continue to scream at me and calling me stupid.
Were people calling you stupid? That's not nice.
I can defend ranger though. Possibly because they were mistaken, did not think outside of the box, played games with less of an exploration pillar, or thought that multi classing is bad. Also, at high levels can be pretty good. Hunter's multi attack can be extremely good in campaigns where you fight in wars. Also as proof, I have a level 6 arcane archer / gloom stalker multi class, and it can out damage the wizard, and had higher ac and health.
That doesn't prove ranger isn't underpowered. It is quite opposite to it. If you need to multiclass to make a class powerful, it is a sign that the class has a bad design and maybe even underpowered.
yeah, true, but "needing to multi class to be any good" is not true from what i said, more like "needing to multi class to be better than a class that is, undeniably, way over powered (wizard)"
“...If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.”
From the Sage Advice Compendium (the only official rulings for 5E)
Even if the shield would be a holy symbol. Which, additionally, it isn’t: paladins and clerics can bear their holy symbol on a shield, but that’s something else.
From Sage Advice:
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
That's from Jeremy Crawford, who designs most of the rules for 5e.
Welp, good enough for me I guess. Not sure why this couldn’t be put more properly in the PHB, but ok.
The complete section is...
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component? If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component. If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component. Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other. If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.
“...If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.”
From the Sage Advice Compendium (the only official rulings for 5E)
Third left out the last bit of the “word from on high”.
I left out that section because they were specifically asking about using a shield as a spellcasting focus. The other part is a stupid rule, and I already linked this thread for you to read about that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Anyone who says the paladin is good all the time and the ranger is bad almost all the time is playing this game in a very specifically narrow way. A WoW, JRPG, combat heavy, and narrative-light type of game. Who played the paladin in Critical Role? Paladins and fighters had better be good at hitting things. It’s what they do. Rangers can do so many things better than either of them.
Even if the shield would be a holy symbol. Which, additionally, it isn’t: paladins and clerics can bear their holy symbol on a shield, but that’s something else.
From Sage Advice:
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
That's from Jeremy Crawford, who designs most of the rules for 5e.
Welp, good enough for me I guess. Not sure why this couldn’t be put more properly in the PHB, but ok.
The complete section is...
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component? If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component. If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component. Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other. If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.
This is where it gets inane, but I guess it is what it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I left out that section because they were specifically asking about using a shield as a spellcasting focus. The other part is a stupid rule, and I already linked this thread for you to read about that.
A stupid rule. That is a whole different discussion that I am in favor for! Add this to the bag of holding where all of the rules most players font like put things to be forgotten. Encumbrance, spell components, food and water, travel, etc. all the tidbit rules that makes this game not a video game.
Anyone who says the paladin is good all the time and the ranger is bad almost all the time is playing this game in a very specifically narrow way. A WoW, JRPG, combat heavy, and narrative-light type of game. Who played the paladin in Critical Role? Paladins and fighters had better be good at hitting things. It’s what they do. Rangers can do so many things better than either of them.
And a paladin can also do plenty of things better than both rangers and fighters (nova damage, healing, team support through spells and auras, battlefield control, etc). The ranger should be better than the fighter and paladin at some things, otherwise the different classes would have no purpose of existing. However, paladins are good all the time, unless a DM goes out of their way to make them bad. Fighters are good most of the time, unless they choose a bad subclass or the DM goes out of their way to make them bad. Rangers are bad most of the time, unless the DM goes out of their way to make them good.
That's the issue here. Its not that rangers are incapable of being good, they're not, but they need the DMs help more than any other class in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I left out that section because they were specifically asking about using a shield as a spellcasting focus. The other part is a stupid rule, and I already linked this thread for you to read about that.
A stupid rule. That is a whole different discussion that I am in favor for! Add this to the bag of holding where all of the rules most players font like put things to be forgotten. Encumbrance, spell components, food and water, travel, etc. all the tidbit rules that makes this game not a video game.
Allowing a spellcaster to use a spellcasting focus to cast their spells doesn't make the game a video game. Also, if you want to express how much you love playing gritty D&D where you play everything rules as written and give no leeway to change badly written rules, go make another thread about that. If you want to argue about whether or not a paladin should be able to hold a shield, warhammer, and cast Cure Wounds, go to the linked thread to necro that argument (please don't. It went on way too long). This thread is about whether or not rangers are underpowered.
Hint: They are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Also, no-one is saying the ranger is completely useless, objectively awful, and only doofuses play them. We are saying that compared to a lot of other classes, they are comparatively worse. Not bad, just....less good. I play rangers a lot, and you can have a lot of fun, but it often becomes hard to be useful, especially if there is a scout rogue in the party......
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Also, no-one is saying the ranger is completely useless, objectively awful, and only doofuses play them. We are saying that compared to a lot of other classes, they are comparatively worse. Not bad, just....less good. I play rangers a lot, and you can have a lot of fun, but it often becomes hard to be useful, especially if there is a scout rogue in the party......
Someone here has used the term "objectively bad" to describe rangers, but I digress. The Scout archetype is amazingly good, I'm not going to lie. It's a great ranged skirmisher. But rogues need an archetype to try and do some of the things rangers can do, and rangers have spells and can deal more damage per round on a consistent basis. I think people need to temper their expectations.
The d10 hit die, martial weapon proficiency, and choice of fighting style are probably what's tripping a lot of people up, in my opinion. Because of those features, people expect something that's supposed to stand toe-to-toe with the fighter and paladin. Except the ranger has never been able to do that. Ever. It's always occupied this weird space between druid, fighter, and rogue. And, yes, that means it suffers from something of an identity crisis. But they're still fine.
Fine. That's a good way to describe them. They're fine when they're out of their element. And when they are in their element, they're amazing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This 100%! You got it completely correct.
Also, as for your analogy regarding the Paladin only smiting against a certain creature type, it's even worse than that. It would be like if instead of getting Divine Smite, the Paladin got advantage on insight and intimidation checks against one creature type, or Barbarians getting expertise on Perception checks in their favorite area, instead of getting rage.
The ranger's first level features, and at least half of their 3rd level features suck.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Not verbal components, you only need to talk for those, but somatic components can be done with the same hand as your spellcasting focus, and for Paladins and Clerics their spellcasting focus can be a holy symbol, which can also be their shield. There is a strange quirk discussed heavily in other threads where you can only use a spellcasting focus for spells with material components with no cost that aren't consumed and somatic components, but not just somatic components, which is not RAI.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I actually did acknowledge that. Take another look at the following paragraph.
And, if I'm being frank, you kind of proved the point I was making. Because you're only looking at combat potential and ignoring the other two pillars of the game. I also go on to say that style of play is fine. But that doesn't mean every class has to shine in every situation. A ranger in Waterdeep: Dragon Heist is never going to get to use their Natural Explorer. And an Outlander isn't going to get to use their Wanderer feature. That doesn't mean either is badly designed. It means they're ill-suited to the task at hand. They can certainly contribute in other ways, but they might have a hard time being the star. As I've said before, it's asymmetrical design.
You can probably guess that I don't think the restrictive approach is indefensible. Every single class includes choices that could also be described as being restrictive. Having the freedom to make those choices can be empowering. But in order for those choices to mean something, there must be consequences. An opportunity cost, if you will. That, in of itself, isn't a bad thing.
And even if you were to strip away the ranger's Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, they still have access to their base proficiencies, Fighting Style, magic, and can put out more DPR than a rogue. And at almost level. It's not like they're useless. Far from it.
They're undervalued. I've said that before, too.
I don’t think that’s exactly right. The rules say the hand used to provide the somatic component to a spell counts as a free hand for the purpose of manipulating material components. That’s not the same as saying a hand holding a shield is free to be used to provide somatic components, even if the shield would be a holy symbol. Which, additionally, it isn’t: paladins and clerics can bear their holy symbol on a shield, but that’s something else.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Here, just read this thread to not derail this one:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/49286-spellcasting-focus-prevents-somatic-components
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That's because it's not right. If the spell has no material components, then any somatic components must be performed with an empty hand. If material components are required, then the same hand manipulating the component(s), regardless of whether it's a focus or pouch, can also perform the somatic components.
So, if a cleric or paladin wants to cast cure wounds, for example, then they need a free hand. Which means either not wearing their shield or sheathing/stowing their weapon. That is both RAW and RAI.
From Sage Advice:
That's from Jeremy Crawford, who designs most of the rules for 5e.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Welp, good enough for me I guess. Not sure why this couldn’t be put more properly in the PHB, but ok.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
yeah, true, but "needing to multi class to be any good" is not true from what i said, more like "needing to multi class to be better than a class that is, undeniably, way over powered (wizard)"
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
“...If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.”
From the Sage Advice Compendium (the only official rulings for 5E)
The complete section is...
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component? If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component. If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component. Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other. If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.
Third left out the last bit of the “word from on high”.
I left out that section because they were specifically asking about using a shield as a spellcasting focus. The other part is a stupid rule, and I already linked this thread for you to read about that.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Anyone who says the paladin is good all the time and the ranger is bad almost all the time is playing this game in a very specifically narrow way. A WoW, JRPG, combat heavy, and narrative-light type of game. Who played the paladin in Critical Role? Paladins and fighters had better be good at hitting things. It’s what they do. Rangers can do so many things better than either of them.
This is where it gets inane, but I guess it is what it is.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A stupid rule. That is a whole different discussion that I am in favor for! Add this to the bag of holding where all of the rules most players font like put things to be forgotten. Encumbrance, spell components, food and water, travel, etc. all the tidbit rules that makes this game not a video game.
And a paladin can also do plenty of things better than both rangers and fighters (nova damage, healing, team support through spells and auras, battlefield control, etc). The ranger should be better than the fighter and paladin at some things, otherwise the different classes would have no purpose of existing. However, paladins are good all the time, unless a DM goes out of their way to make them bad. Fighters are good most of the time, unless they choose a bad subclass or the DM goes out of their way to make them bad. Rangers are bad most of the time, unless the DM goes out of their way to make them good.
That's the issue here. Its not that rangers are incapable of being good, they're not, but they need the DMs help more than any other class in the game.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Allowing a spellcaster to use a spellcasting focus to cast their spells doesn't make the game a video game. Also, if you want to express how much you love playing gritty D&D where you play everything rules as written and give no leeway to change badly written rules, go make another thread about that. If you want to argue about whether or not a paladin should be able to hold a shield, warhammer, and cast Cure Wounds, go to the linked thread to necro that argument (please don't. It went on way too long). This thread is about whether or not rangers are underpowered.
Hint: They are.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Also, no-one is saying the ranger is completely useless, objectively awful, and only doofuses play them. We are saying that compared to a lot of other classes, they are comparatively worse. Not bad, just....less good. I play rangers a lot, and you can have a lot of fun, but it often becomes hard to be useful, especially if there is a scout rogue in the party......
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Someone here has used the term "objectively bad" to describe rangers, but I digress. The Scout archetype is amazingly good, I'm not going to lie. It's a great ranged skirmisher. But rogues need an archetype to try and do some of the things rangers can do, and rangers have spells and can deal more damage per round on a consistent basis. I think people need to temper their expectations.
The d10 hit die, martial weapon proficiency, and choice of fighting style are probably what's tripping a lot of people up, in my opinion. Because of those features, people expect something that's supposed to stand toe-to-toe with the fighter and paladin. Except the ranger has never been able to do that. Ever. It's always occupied this weird space between druid, fighter, and rogue. And, yes, that means it suffers from something of an identity crisis. But they're still fine.
Fine. That's a good way to describe them. They're fine when they're out of their element. And when they are in their element, they're amazing.