I didn't dodge your question. I answered it further down the page and you chose to ignore it. If you bothered to look at the entire post as a single answer and not a bunch of smaller ones, you'd realize that. [REDACTED]
You keep wanting to compare the ranger to other classes, but that's foolish. You wouldn't compare a cleric and druid and ask yourself, "Now, why would I ever play a druid?" I mean, the cleric is guaranteed more spells, has no restriction on metal armor, and can even wear heavy armor and martial weapons. It's just so superior! What you keep ignoring is that each class is designed with a certain goal in mind. Every mechanic you see is there in service of a story. Some, like druids, lean more heavily into their story than others. When you say the ranger is underpowered, you shouldn't be comparing it to other classes. None of the classes are designed to be equal to one another. Instead, you should ask if the class does a bad job of living up to the fantasy.
And you still can't actually say what would "fix" the ranger. If they did as much damage as the fighter and still did all their rangery things, then the script would be flipped and this thread would be in the fighter forum about how underpowered they are. Because fighters don't do anything else. The entire game design is asymmetrical. Some classes might hold a mirror up to each other, but it's a funhouse mirror. Again, they're not 1:1, nor are they supposed to be.
As for how popular or unpopular rangers are to play, I haven't seen any metrics in years. And back then, they were firmly middle-of-the-pack. Not that this should matter. We should all play what's fun for us. And plenty of people still love them.
I don't know if Ranger is underpowered or not. However, I think Ranger's design was poorly executed to some degree.
Whenever I look at Ranger's build, I always feel it is better to multiclass. Compare to other classes, the opportunity cost* for multiclass is much cheaper when playing ranger. If a class doesn't work out well on its own, there is something wrong with the design.
If the class feature that is more likely to create a disconnection between players and the DM, it is not a good design. Scout Rogue's Survivalist feature brings a similar aspect to the table as Ranger's Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy. However, the Survivalist feature is less likely to create a disconnection between players and the DM.
If a large number of people complain about the same thing, there is a good chance that there is something wrong with it.
I do agree that Ranger should have less combat potential than the fighter since Ranger brings more utility both in combat and out of combat. This isn't a bad thing. As the matter of fact, it is the reason I prefer Ranger than Fighter.
*note: If you don't know what opportunity cost is, take econ 101.
I don't know if Ranger is underpowered or not. However, I think Ranger's design was poorly executed to some degree.
Whenever I look at Ranger's build, I always feel it is better to multiclass. Compare to other classes, the opportunity cost* for multiclass is much cheaper when playing ranger. If a class doesn't work out well on its own, there is something wrong with the design.
If the class feature that is more likely to create a disconnection between players and the DM, it is not a good design. Scout Rogue's Survivalist feature brings a similar aspect to the table as Ranger's Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy. However, the Survivalist feature is less likely to create a disconnection between players and the DM.
If a large number of people complain about the same thing, there is a good chance that there is something wrong with it.
I do agree that Ranger should have less combat potential than the fighter since Ranger brings more utility both in combat and out of combat. This isn't a bad thing. As the matter of fact, it is the reason I prefer Ranger than Fighter.
*note: If you don't know what opportunity cost is, take econ 101.
Start spellcasting at lvl 1 and give slightly more spell slots; drop Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy altogether and adjust spell list (insofar as necessary) to fill that function - basically shift the spells a bit towards a tactical/martial bent from the druid’s. I’d probably make some other adjustments (other Fighting Styles, maybe different saves, maybe even smaller hit die) if it were up to me, but that’d be the essential part.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
It's funny how most people who talk about their extremely powerful RAW PHB Rangers are multi-classed with something else. Yes, Arcane Archer works great with Rangers. Yes, the Assassin subclass is great with Gloomstalkers. That doesn't tell us whether the core base class is worth sticking around for until level 20. The fact that very few power gamers would even consider going to level 20 as a Ranger says something about the relative weakness of the class beyond the first 5 levels.
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.
It's funny how most people who talk about their extremely powerful RAW PHB Rangers are multi-classed with something else. Yes, Arcane Archer works great with Rangers. Yes, the Assassin subclass is great with Gloomstalkers. That doesn't tell us whether the core base class is worth sticking around for until level 20. The fact that very few power gamers would even consider going to level 20 as a Ranger says something about the relative weakness of the class beyond the first 5 levels.
I was literally just about to point that out. If the class is really good for multiclassing, that only shows that it is good for multiclassing. All of the classes can be good to multiclass into for certain builds, even if the base class is less than satisfactory. This is true for Sorcerers, who I have also expressed are a poorly designed class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You keep wanting to compare the ranger to other classes, but that's foolish. You wouldn't compare a cleric and druid and ask yourself, "Now, why would I ever play a druid?" I mean, the cleric is guaranteed more spells, has no restriction on metal armor, and can even wear heavy armor and martial weapons. It's just so superior! What you keep ignoring is that each class is designed with a certain goal in mind. Every mechanic you see is there in service of a story. Some, like druids, lean more heavily into their story than others. When you say the ranger is underpowered, you shouldn't be comparing it to other classes. None of the classes are designed to be equal to one another. Instead, you should ask if the class does a bad job of living up to the fantasy.
It's not foolish. There are people who come onto DDB and ask that very question. Fortunately, in the case of Druids, there are some very good reasons to play a Druid, Wildshape, a variety of control spells, and great summoning spells among them.
So it IS fair to compare the Ranger, as a half-caster/half fighter class to similar part-caster, part-fighter classes, like, hmmmmm, the Paladin maybe? Or say, the Eldritch Knight? This is why the usefulness of taking the Warcaster feat is relevant because other part-caster, part-fighter classes are also likely to benefit somewhat from that feat. Yet for some reason, Rangers get no cantrips and at melee range beyond level 5, are a good deal more vulnerable to concentration saving throws than Paladins.
As to the point about solutions, either create a feat that Rangers can better benefit in place of Warcaster, give Rangers a few cantrips, or give Rangers an automatic boost to concentration saves similar to what they did with War Mages. The solutions exist, but WotC hasn't implemented any of them.
You know what, I'm done with your BS. I'm typically not one for making this public, but you've now been reported for breaking site rules on multiple occasions and I am putting you on my ignore list. It is against the rules of this site to personally attack another poster.
Disagreeing with another user on the effectiveness on a class does not warrant multiple personal attacks.
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.
WotC have attempted fixes of the ranger class because an overwhelming outcry that it is weak, poorly designed, underpowered, etc. Many, I’d say most, players of the game think that. And honestly, for most players and their games at the table, the ranger is underpowered. Most tables I’ve seen (live and on screen) and been a player at can’t, won’t, or don’t like to do the part of the game that rangers are built for. Campaign dependent? Not really. A little. Classes that rely on short rests or long rests are underpowered if that type of rest is ignored. Paladins take a huge hit if the campaign features no undead or fiends. If the party is overloaded with potions and magic items that heal, clerics and such can be less valuable. Instead of campaign dependent, I think of rangers as incredibly thematic! When interacting with their favored terrains and favored creatures rangers are the focal point of knowledge, information, interaction, survival, and story. They are really strong. Specialized? Very much so. But getting advantage and/or expertise in multiple skills (many intelligence and most wisdom) gives them something that fighters and paladins will never have on their own. Can’t even dream of! Not even with a background. Levels 1-10 rangers, yes, even beast masters, easily keep up with fighters and paladins, I’m willing to argue exceeds them at many times, in the pure combat damage output arena. It’s what happens between the fights that makes a big difference. Paladins, high charisma and all, have the ability to be a social interaction leader in between combats, but they use 50% of their skill toolkit to do that. And with zero expertise. Fighters are flexible. No skill based stuff, but lots of ASIs so the potential is their if made intentional. The heavy armor thing is the next thing to talk about regarding in between fights. The game doesn’t support it much, and what it does support, most players ignore. But you can’t wear heavy armor all the time. Or wear a shield all the time. In the middle of the night or while traveling (ranger stuff 🤮) a battle starts NOT having a shield on or plate mail on! Now what?! Who would be able to spot the surprise attack? Several classes, ranger being one of them. I’m ranting now. My point is rangers have been complained about since the beginning. I would be very upset if either paladins or rangers were as powerful in martial combat as a fighters. VERY upset! They shouldn’t be. Fighters are 99% based on combat. It is what they do! I would be upset if rangers had as much nova combat potential as paladins, or as much parental protection of the party during combat potential. They shouldn’t. 80% of what paladins do is based on combat, spells included, nova damage, party protection, and fighting fiends and undead. Rangers are like 50% combat focused, at best. Hunters may hit 65%. But that other 50% is not enjoyed, cared about, used, or even known of to begin with by the majority of players. Rangers do what they do better than other classes and subclasses (I know the outlander background and scout rogue are favorite “replacements”, but neither of those even come close to replacing even just the abilities in favored terrain by itself ). AND they (rangers) can stand toe to toe, bow to bow, sword to sword, with the fighters, paladins, barbarians, rogues, and monks, more than hold their own, and in the right situations outshine them in combat.
Paladins take a huge hit if the campaign features no undead or fiends.
hahaha.....Hahahaha....ha...ha
Oh my god he is serious. I have played a paladin in any type of game you can think of, and they are insanely strong when fighting undead, and insanely strong when fighting anything else. Their smites are ludicrous, their Aura of protection is insane, they are probably the single best solo class in the game.
My good sir, I beg to differ
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.
Paladins take a huge hit if the campaign features no undead or fiends.
hahaha.....Hahahaha....ha...ha
Oh my god he is serious. I have played a paladin in any type of game you can think of, and they are insanely strong when fighting undead, and insanely strong when fighting anything else. Their smites are ludicrous, their Aura of protection is insane, they are probably the single best solo class in the game.
My good sir, I beg to differ
🙂 I’m glad you enjoy paladins. I’ll bet you are excited for the rerelease of HeroQuest too.
Paladins take a huge hit if the campaign features no undead or fiends.
hahaha.....Hahahaha....ha...ha
Oh my god he is serious. I have played a paladin in any type of game you can think of, and they are insanely strong when fighting undead, and insanely strong when fighting anything else. Their smites are ludicrous, their Aura of protection is insane, they are probably the single best solo class in the game.
My good sir, I beg to differ
🙂 I’m glad you enjoy paladins. I’ll bet you are excited for the rerelease of HeroQuest too.
*Me pretending to know what that is* Oh...Yes! Hero....quest. I...am totally waiting for that! very much so.
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.
How much damage does a level 10 paladin with a +4 strength modifier wielding a long sword deal to a skeleton with a critical hit using a 3rd level spell slot smite?
Paladins take a huge hit if the campaign features no undead or fiends. If the party is overloaded with potions and magic items that heal, clerics and such can be less valuable.
I don’t disagree with the essence of your argument, but the above isn’t really true. Paladins more than hold their own in campaigns without undead or fiends, and cleric players love not having to do too much out of combat healing. The paladin’s Divine Sense is very specialized, but only a very minor part of the class’ abilities. Channeling, smiting and spellcasting all still work with nary a fiend or skeleton in sight. In comparison, Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are much narrower. And they don’t have to be: it’s not like giving rangers always-on regardless of terrain type exploration and survival abilities would be problematic, or giving them spells to deal with specific races in whatever way they see fit would break the game.
The Ranger class as is isn’t trash, but I think it could be a lot better at the same general power level but without some defining features being so narrowly set early on. As a DM, variety in encounters and locales is fun. Players enjoy their characters discovering all parts of the world and running into all manner of creatures. Restricting that to keep the ranger’s overly specific abilities relevant most of the time is a shame.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You keep wanting to compare the ranger to other classes, but that's foolish. You wouldn't compare a cleric and druid and ask yourself, "Now, why would I ever play a druid?" I mean, the cleric is guaranteed more spells, has no restriction on metal armor, and can even wear heavy armor and martial weapons. It's just so superior! What you keep ignoring is that each class is designed with a certain goal in mind. Every mechanic you see is there in service of a story. Some, like druids, lean more heavily into their story than others. When you say the ranger is underpowered, you shouldn't be comparing it to other classes. None of the classes are designed to be equal to one another. Instead, you should ask if the class does a bad job of living up to the fantasy.
It's not foolish. There are people who come onto DDB and ask that very question. Fortunately, in the case of Druids, there are some very good reasons to play a Druid, Wildshape, a variety of control spells, and great summoning spells among them.
So it IS fair to compare the Ranger, as a half-caster/half fighter class to similar part-caster, part-fighter classes, like, hmmmmm, the Paladin maybe? Or say, the Eldritch Knight? This is why the usefulness of taking the Warcaster feat is relevant because other part-caster, part-fighter classes are also likely to benefit somewhat from that feat. Yet for some reason, Rangers get no cantrips and at melee range beyond level 5, are a good deal more vulnerable to concentration saving throws than Paladins.
As to the point about solutions, either create a feat that Rangers can better benefit in place of Warcaster, give Rangers a few cantrips, or give Rangers an automatic boost to concentration saves similar to what they did with War Mages. The solutions exist, but WotC hasn't implemented any of them.
You're making a very good case for why War Caster is a good option for rangers with an ASI to spare; especially if they've specialized in Two-Weapon Fighting. Paladins don't get cantrips, either, but you don't need cantrips to take advantage of the 1 Action spell as a reaction. Because any spell which targets a single creature is valid. If a paladin learns hold person from their Sacred Oath (and some do), it's fair game! And, if you really want to go the route of booming blade or green-flame blade, you can always make a character who can. It's not hard. But I also feel this is missing the point.
The classes are not meant to be held up against one another and be considered equal. I still have no idea why there are people who insist they should be. It doesn't make a lick of sense. If they were all equal, then your choice of class wouldn't matter. If their damage output was the same, then there'd be no point in playing a fighter. How many times do I have to say this for detractors to acknowledge this simple fact?
Rangers aren't underpowered, they're undervalued. Favored Enemy is a source of additional languages and a bonus of +5 to gather information. You're an expert at tracking your quarry, their strengths and weaknesses, and their habits. Natural Explorer is even more powerful.
Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel. So, which terrains count as difficult? There are no hard and fast rules for that in the DMG, but Forest and Mountain are common ones. Individual modules are better at determining that on a case-by-case basis. And if you need, or want, to take a shortcut, you're golden.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means. This, again, means not wasting time. Which means fewer random encounters and fewer resources (like rations) expended. And if/when you do get lost, you know something is up.
Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger. This is a bigger deal than it sounds. It means no disadvantage to passive perception. It also means you don't need someone else watching your back, which frees up other party members to handle other tasks.
If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace. This is for scouting ahead, obviously. Because, normally, you have to move at a slow pace (2 mph) to stealth instead of your normal pace (3 mph). It may not seem like a lot, but it can be.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would. This is a bigger deal than it sounds. Again, it can cut down on resources expended. It's less gold you have to spend and less weight you need to carry. And create food and water is a 3rd-level spell. A cleric or druid, if your party has one, won't be able to cast it until 5th level. If you only have a paladin, like my last group, then you're waiting until 9th level. And it stacks with the Outlander's Wanderer feature. Now, all of a sudden, you can safely escort a small caravan or a family of refugees, or adequately take care of a bunch of hirelings.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area. Need a plan of attack? This is how you do it.
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 that's the kind of game they want to play, that's fine. D&D is flexible by design. But, like, if you're just doing dungeon delve after dungeon delve, the ranger is still going to come up short. If it's an urban campaign of courtly intrigue, the ranger is going out of their element. So it's the play style that doesn't jive with the class.
Take a look at their Level 10 feature: Hide in Plain Sight. How many players, do you think, realize the +10 bonus to Dexterity (Stealth) stacks with pass without trace? How many people, do you think, have seen the movie Predator? It might be an unwieldy ability, one used rarely, but it's evocative and powerful when it is. The ranger is full of situational stuff like this. So the player, party, and DM should be actively looking for situations to take advantage of the ranger's features. It won't always work, you can't do much about it when visiting a city, but it's not the great big handicap some very vocal people have made it out to be.
The class isn't perfect, and I do have issues with it. Spellcasting is too weak, in my opinion. Rangers should prepare their spells and receive a full suite of bonus spells for each archetype, as paladins do. And the Beast Master's Animal Companion has two glaring weaknesses. The first is not enough Hit Dice. The second is, in my opinion, an improper application of the ranger's Proficiency Bonus based on a missing Oxford comma. But it is what it is. Fortunately, this is also what house rules are for.
But I do not believe it's underpowered. It's more than capable of keeping up with other classes. It does, however, require a bit more thinking than some other classes do. And I don't mean this as a criticism of other players. I have issues with it, too. I simply do not think I can play Illusionists, for example.
Malleable Illusions
Starting at 6th level, when you cast an illusion spell that has a duration of 1 minute or longer, you can use your action to change the nature of that illusion (using the spell’s normal parameters for the illusion), provided that you can see the illusion.
I have no idea what this means, and it's just 6 levels in. I don't know if it's a matter of comprehension or a lack of creativity, but it's not me. And that's okay. There are thousands of other possible characters I can play using the PHB alone.
How much damage does a level 10 paladin with a +4 strength modifier wielding a long sword deal to a skeleton with a critical hit using a 3rd level spell slot smite?
Now thats a lotta damage. But they do a lot of damage to a bandit with a +3 str mod and a 1st level smite on a normal hit as well.
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.
How much damage does a level 10 paladin with a +4 strength modifier wielding a long sword deal to a skeleton with a critical hit using a 3rd level spell slot smite?
On average 9 more than to a bugbear, under the same circumstances. Lovely, but I wouldn’t think the bugbear will consider this a happy occasion regardless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
How much damage does a level 10 paladin with a +4 strength modifier wielding a long sword deal to a skeleton with a critical hit using a 3rd level spell slot smite?
Now thats a lotta damage. But they do a lot of damage to a bandit with a +3 str mod and a 1st level smite on a normal hit as well.
Paladin (long sword and smite) vs. Bandit #1 = 18.5 (average damage)
Paladin (long sword) vs. Bandit #2 = 9.5 (average damage)
Ranger (rapier and hunter’s mark) vs. Bandit #1= 13
Ranger (rapier and hunter’s mark) vs. Bandit #2= 13
How much damage does a level 10 paladin with a +4 strength modifier wielding a long sword deal to a skeleton with a critical hit using a 3rd level spell slot smite?
On average 9 more than to a bugbear, under the same circumstances. Lovely, but I wouldn’t think the bugbear will consider this a happy occasion regardless.
The answer is 13. 🙂
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
[REDACTED]
I didn't dodge your question. I answered it further down the page and you chose to ignore it. If you bothered to look at the entire post as a single answer and not a bunch of smaller ones, you'd realize that. [REDACTED]
You keep wanting to compare the ranger to other classes, but that's foolish. You wouldn't compare a cleric and druid and ask yourself, "Now, why would I ever play a druid?" I mean, the cleric is guaranteed more spells, has no restriction on metal armor, and can even wear heavy armor and martial weapons. It's just so superior! What you keep ignoring is that each class is designed with a certain goal in mind. Every mechanic you see is there in service of a story. Some, like druids, lean more heavily into their story than others. When you say the ranger is underpowered, you shouldn't be comparing it to other classes. None of the classes are designed to be equal to one another. Instead, you should ask if the class does a bad job of living up to the fantasy.
And you still can't actually say what would "fix" the ranger. If they did as much damage as the fighter and still did all their rangery things, then the script would be flipped and this thread would be in the fighter forum about how underpowered they are. Because fighters don't do anything else. The entire game design is asymmetrical. Some classes might hold a mirror up to each other, but it's a funhouse mirror. Again, they're not 1:1, nor are they supposed to be.
As for how popular or unpopular rangers are to play, I haven't seen any metrics in years. And back then, they were firmly middle-of-the-pack. Not that this should matter. We should all play what's fun for us. And plenty of people still love them.
I don't know if Ranger is underpowered or not. However, I think Ranger's design was poorly executed to some degree.
I do agree that Ranger should have less combat potential than the fighter since Ranger brings more utility both in combat and out of combat. This isn't a bad thing. As the matter of fact, it is the reason I prefer Ranger than Fighter.
*note: If you don't know what opportunity cost is, take econ 101.
Start spellcasting at lvl 1 and give slightly more spell slots; drop Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy altogether and adjust spell list (insofar as necessary) to fill that function - basically shift the spells a bit towards a tactical/martial bent from the druid’s. I’d probably make some other adjustments (other Fighting Styles, maybe different saves, maybe even smaller hit die) if it were up to me, but that’d be the essential part.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It's funny how most people who talk about their extremely powerful RAW PHB Rangers are multi-classed with something else. Yes, Arcane Archer works great with Rangers. Yes, the Assassin subclass is great with Gloomstalkers. That doesn't tell us whether the core base class is worth sticking around for until level 20. The fact that very few power gamers would even consider going to level 20 as a Ranger says something about the relative weakness of the class beyond the first 5 levels.
I was literally just about to point that out. If the class is really good for multiclassing, that only shows that it is good for multiclassing. All of the classes can be good to multiclass into for certain builds, even if the base class is less than satisfactory. This is true for Sorcerers, who I have also expressed are a poorly designed class.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's not foolish. There are people who come onto DDB and ask that very question. Fortunately, in the case of Druids, there are some very good reasons to play a Druid, Wildshape, a variety of control spells, and great summoning spells among them.
So it IS fair to compare the Ranger, as a half-caster/half fighter class to similar part-caster, part-fighter classes, like, hmmmmm, the Paladin maybe? Or say, the Eldritch Knight? This is why the usefulness of taking the Warcaster feat is relevant because other part-caster, part-fighter classes are also likely to benefit somewhat from that feat. Yet for some reason, Rangers get no cantrips and at melee range beyond level 5, are a good deal more vulnerable to concentration saving throws than Paladins.
As to the point about solutions, either create a feat that Rangers can better benefit in place of Warcaster, give Rangers a few cantrips, or give Rangers an automatic boost to concentration saves similar to what they did with War Mages. The solutions exist, but WotC hasn't implemented any of them.
You know what, I'm done with your BS. I'm typically not one for making this public, but you've now been reported for breaking site rules on multiple occasions and I am putting you on my ignore list. It is against the rules of this site to personally attack another poster.
Disagreeing with another user on the effectiveness on a class does not warrant multiple personal attacks.
I'm done with you. Goodbye.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
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.
WotC have attempted fixes of the ranger class because an overwhelming outcry that it is weak, poorly designed, underpowered, etc. Many, I’d say most, players of the game think that. And honestly, for most players and their games at the table, the ranger is underpowered. Most tables I’ve seen (live and on screen) and been a player at can’t, won’t, or don’t like to do the part of the game that rangers are built for. Campaign dependent? Not really. A little. Classes that rely on short rests or long rests are underpowered if that type of rest is ignored. Paladins take a huge hit if the campaign features no undead or fiends. If the party is overloaded with potions and magic items that heal, clerics and such can be less valuable. Instead of campaign dependent, I think of rangers as incredibly thematic! When interacting with their favored terrains and favored creatures rangers are the focal point of knowledge, information, interaction, survival, and story. They are really strong. Specialized? Very much so. But getting advantage and/or expertise in multiple skills (many intelligence and most wisdom) gives them something that fighters and paladins will never have on their own. Can’t even dream of! Not even with a background. Levels 1-10 rangers, yes, even beast masters, easily keep up with fighters and paladins, I’m willing to argue exceeds them at many times, in the pure combat damage output arena. It’s what happens between the fights that makes a big difference. Paladins, high charisma and all, have the ability to be a social interaction leader in between combats, but they use 50% of their skill toolkit to do that. And with zero expertise. Fighters are flexible. No skill based stuff, but lots of ASIs so the potential is their if made intentional. The heavy armor thing is the next thing to talk about regarding in between fights. The game doesn’t support it much, and what it does support, most players ignore. But you can’t wear heavy armor all the time. Or wear a shield all the time. In the middle of the night or while traveling (ranger stuff 🤮) a battle starts NOT having a shield on or plate mail on! Now what?! Who would be able to spot the surprise attack? Several classes, ranger being one of them. I’m ranting now. My point is rangers have been complained about since the beginning. I would be very upset if either paladins or rangers were as powerful in martial combat as a fighters. VERY upset! They shouldn’t be. Fighters are 99% based on combat. It is what they do! I would be upset if rangers had as much nova combat potential as paladins, or as much parental protection of the party during combat potential. They shouldn’t. 80% of what paladins do is based on combat, spells included, nova damage, party protection, and fighting fiends and undead. Rangers are like 50% combat focused, at best. Hunters may hit 65%. But that other 50% is not enjoyed, cared about, used, or even known of to begin with by the majority of players. Rangers do what they do better than other classes and subclasses (I know the outlander background and scout rogue are favorite “replacements”, but neither of those even come close to replacing even just the abilities in favored terrain by itself ). AND they (rangers) can stand toe to toe, bow to bow, sword to sword, with the fighters, paladins, barbarians, rogues, and monks, more than hold their own, and in the right situations outshine them in combat.
hahaha.....Hahahaha....ha...ha
Oh my god he is serious. I have played a paladin in any type of game you can think of, and they are insanely strong when fighting undead, and insanely strong when fighting anything else. Their smites are ludicrous, their Aura of protection is insane, they are probably the single best solo class in the game.
My good sir, I beg to differ
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
🙂 I’m glad you enjoy paladins. I’ll bet you are excited for the rerelease of HeroQuest too.
*Me pretending to know what that is* Oh...Yes! Hero....quest. I...am totally waiting for that! very much so.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
How much damage does a level 10 paladin with a +4 strength modifier wielding a long sword deal to a skeleton with a critical hit using a 3rd level spell slot smite?
I don’t disagree with the essence of your argument, but the above isn’t really true. Paladins more than hold their own in campaigns without undead or fiends, and cleric players love not having to do too much out of combat healing. The paladin’s Divine Sense is very specialized, but only a very minor part of the class’ abilities. Channeling, smiting and spellcasting all still work with nary a fiend or skeleton in sight. In comparison, Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are much narrower. And they don’t have to be: it’s not like giving rangers always-on regardless of terrain type exploration and survival abilities would be problematic, or giving them spells to deal with specific races in whatever way they see fit would break the game.
The Ranger class as is isn’t trash, but I think it could be a lot better at the same general power level but without some defining features being so narrowly set early on. As a DM, variety in encounters and locales is fun. Players enjoy their characters discovering all parts of the world and running into all manner of creatures. Restricting that to keep the ranger’s overly specific abilities relevant most of the time is a shame.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You're making a very good case for why War Caster is a good option for rangers with an ASI to spare; especially if they've specialized in Two-Weapon Fighting. Paladins don't get cantrips, either, but you don't need cantrips to take advantage of the 1 Action spell as a reaction. Because any spell which targets a single creature is valid. If a paladin learns hold person from their Sacred Oath (and some do), it's fair game! And, if you really want to go the route of booming blade or green-flame blade, you can always make a character who can. It's not hard. But I also feel this is missing the point.
The classes are not meant to be held up against one another and be considered equal. I still have no idea why there are people who insist they should be. It doesn't make a lick of sense. If they were all equal, then your choice of class wouldn't matter. If their damage output was the same, then there'd be no point in playing a fighter. How many times do I have to say this for detractors to acknowledge this simple fact?
Rangers aren't underpowered, they're undervalued. Favored Enemy is a source of additional languages and a bonus of +5 to gather information. You're an expert at tracking your quarry, their strengths and weaknesses, and their habits. Natural Explorer is even more powerful.
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 that's the kind of game they want to play, that's fine. D&D is flexible by design. But, like, if you're just doing dungeon delve after dungeon delve, the ranger is still going to come up short. If it's an urban campaign of courtly intrigue, the ranger is going out of their element. So it's the play style that doesn't jive with the class.
Take a look at their Level 10 feature: Hide in Plain Sight. How many players, do you think, realize the +10 bonus to Dexterity (Stealth) stacks with pass without trace? How many people, do you think, have seen the movie Predator? It might be an unwieldy ability, one used rarely, but it's evocative and powerful when it is. The ranger is full of situational stuff like this. So the player, party, and DM should be actively looking for situations to take advantage of the ranger's features. It won't always work, you can't do much about it when visiting a city, but it's not the great big handicap some very vocal people have made it out to be.
The class isn't perfect, and I do have issues with it. Spellcasting is too weak, in my opinion. Rangers should prepare their spells and receive a full suite of bonus spells for each archetype, as paladins do. And the Beast Master's Animal Companion has two glaring weaknesses. The first is not enough Hit Dice. The second is, in my opinion, an improper application of the ranger's Proficiency Bonus based on a missing Oxford comma. But it is what it is. Fortunately, this is also what house rules are for.
But I do not believe it's underpowered. It's more than capable of keeping up with other classes. It does, however, require a bit more thinking than some other classes do. And I don't mean this as a criticism of other players. I have issues with it, too. I simply do not think I can play Illusionists, for example.
I have no idea what this means, and it's just 6 levels in. I don't know if it's a matter of comprehension or a lack of creativity, but it's not me. And that's okay. There are thousands of other possible characters I can play using the PHB alone.
Now thats a lotta damage. But they do a lot of damage to a bandit with a +3 str mod and a 1st level smite on a normal hit as well.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
We should change the name of this thread to Are Rangers and Fighters Underpowered Compared to Paladins.
On average 9 more than to a bugbear, under the same circumstances. Lovely, but I wouldn’t think the bugbear will consider this a happy occasion regardless.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Paladin (long sword and smite) vs. Bandit #1 = 18.5 (average damage)
Paladin (long sword) vs. Bandit #2 = 9.5 (average damage)
Ranger (rapier and hunter’s mark) vs. Bandit #1= 13
Ranger (rapier and hunter’s mark) vs. Bandit #2= 13
Bandits have 11 hit points
The answer is 13. 🙂