As with the ranger most of the time, it seems like a couple of you are making up scenarios and making strict interpretations of the abilities that limit the ranger. On purpose. Why eliminating rules that, that being gone, benefit the paladin.
"Strict" doesn't mean incorrect. That aside, this is just my experience - as someone who plays half caster martial classes more often than not, and as a DM who's seen a lot of modules. Modules can be tailored towards the party, certainly, but as is there's typically not a lot in them that makes the ranger's exploration advantages meaningful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As with the ranger most of the time, it seems like a couple of you are making up scenarios and making strict interpretations of the abilities that limit the ranger. On purpose. Why eliminating rules that, that being gone, benefit the paladin.
As with the ranger most of the time, it seems like a couple of you are making up scenarios and making strict interpretations of the abilities that limit the ranger. On purpose. Why eliminating rules that, that being gone, benefit the paladin.
Can you be more specific?
Someone said that the terrain options listed in the ranger ability don’t cover all possible terrains. I say they do. All natural terrain types fit one of the types listed. A quick google search will find JC agreeing. That’s a player misinterpretation. Not a ranger shortcoming
Then someone says that the rule about S spell components are dumb and should be ignored, allowing a shield holy symbol to take care of it. That is a house rule and huge shift in game balance in favor of the paladin. That is a player issues. Not a ranger issue.
Someone said that most players meta game knowledge about common monsters anyway, and the favored enemy ability is awful because of it. That’s a player issue. Not a ranger issue.
I’ll bet many of the paladin fans ignore the melee weapon attack and melee weapon qualifiers for the smite and improved smite for the paladin. That is blatantly house ruling in huge favor of the paladin.
Someone say that, several people actually, that a DM has to cater a campaign to a ranger in order to make them viable. That is not true. DMs are literally tasked with catering to everything about a the PCs. From backstory to class abilities. Most of the published campaigns have, the way I interpret the ability and rules, 1 to 3 terrain types. Rangers get 3 favored terrains by level 10. They get two favored enemies by level 10 as well. These enemy types aren’t like “adult green dragons” or “fire elementals”. These are huge blankets of types on creatures. Fiends and undead are options, just like the paladin. Someone said that rangers have to meta game in order to be any good. How many of you have played a Ravenloft campaign and built your character to fit thematically? How many of you played the Chult campaign or a sea bound campaign and built your character accordingly? Rangers are no different, and the “meta gaming” they do is only once at first level.
People say that hide in plain sight is dumb and situational. Well don’t complain about it and not be open to a more functional interpretation. Read it as a two part ability that has the same function as a halfling or wood elf.
Primeval awareness is great. It’s the “disturbance in the force” ability. A mile is not that big an area. And being in a favored terrain gives the option of UP TO 6 miles, anywhere from 1 to 6 miles, ranger’s choice, making it very useful. This is an uncreative player and/or lazy DM problem. Not a ranger problem. Their spellcasting is great. Conjure animals can be great and plant growth can stop a small army of heavily armored strength based fighters and paladins.
Landstride is, again, underutilized because most DMs do little more than lay down a grid on a table or on the shared screen. Not using difficult terrain is a DM issue not a ranger problem. Heavy brush, steep stairs, dead or unconscious bodies, all of these and more are and should be difficult terrain, which greatly benefits and separates the ranger above the other martials. But it is most often ignored.
Single target damage is awesome. It’s fun, thematic, and mathematically great. But no one ever talks about the difference in fighting two ogres vs 20 goblins. The numbers are never crunched for the second scenario. That’s not the ranger’s fault. That’s the DM not providing a varied combat scenario.
Most games gloss over travel, overland exploration, survival, encumbrance, rations, and other elements of the game that are combat or counting money and magic items. That isn’t the ranger’s issue. That is a play style issue.
Strength based fighters and paladins are always going to be great at dealing damage. Action surge. Great weapons. Feats. Multiclassing. Auras. Lay on hands. These are all amazing things for combat and fighters and paladins are amazing at it. But they do nothing else. Nothing. Zero.
One person said a fighter can do it all. Yes. But it has to pick a lane. You can strength build big weapon fight or be an archer. Not both (until late mid game, then poorly). So stating all of the options available to a class without the confines of a path for a build is unrealistic and silly.
I'm a relatively new player who's just started playing a ranger in a homebrew campaign. I initially really liked the idea of ranger because of it's out of combat usefulness. However, I wasn't going to choose the ranger until I found the UA Class Feature Variants because the existing class features seemed limiting or poorly designed.
Favored Enemy - This is so highly situational and requires the DM to make special consideration of rangers for players to make good use of it. You either have to choose randomly without any idea whether you will be able to use the ability any time soon or how frequently, or be tipped off by the DM to likely upcoming encounters (especially for level 1). The advantage to track is great but the advantage to recall is slightly less so as intelligence is unlikely to be one of your top 3 ability scores and you probably won't have a decent modifier for it. The recall part also becomes less useful the more you encounter a specific type of creature as the party would remember information from the previous encounters. The additional language also depends on the favored enemy having a language at all. You are put in the position of having to choose between a creature that you think is probably likely to come up more than once, e.g. undead, but which the ability itself is less useful for, or a rarer creature you will encounter less often but the ability may be more useful.
Natural Explorer - Again, very situational and requires the DM to take special consideration. I am really looking forward to the exploration parts of the campaign but this ability almost allows you to gloss over it. I would greatly prefer something less powerful but more widely applicable.
Something I really dislike about both of these is the onus they put on the DM. In order for the player to use their features, the DM has to specifically plan journey/encounters for them. The DM shouldn't have to shoehorn in certain terrains/enemies on a regular basis to allow a character their chance to shine.
Spellcasting - I do quite like the spell list (although the additions from CFV do make sense) but too many of them require concentration. If you are relying on Hunter's Mark to do additional damage (as most rangers seem to) then a massive portion of your other combat focussed spells are ruled out. This also results in a strong push towards ranged fighting to avoid having to constantly make constitution checks. A couple more spells that do a burst of damage or have a melee focus would be good.
Primal Awareness - I hate this feature. It actually gets worse if you are in your favored terrain. At the cost of 1 spell slot/minute you can determine if there is a specific creature type within 1 (or 6) miles of you. You don't know the location, direction, or how many. That 1 mile radius is actually a 3.14 square mile circle or a 4.19 cubic mile sphere if you need to account for height/depth. You have 1 minute per spell slot used to search those areas for your creature. If you are in your favored terrain it becomes a 113.1 square mile circle and a 904.78 cubic mile sphere. The only situation I can think of that it would be remotely useful in is confirming whether a creature is present in a location you are already aware of and there are other, better ways of doing that.
Land's Stride - This isn't as bad as some of the others but still isn't great. The difficult terrain bit is great but by this point you've already got 2 favored terrains where you and your entire party can ignore difficult terrain. The plant stuff is then situational and depends on the DM to use plants in such a way.
Hide in Plain Sight - First off, if I hadn't read a couple of other post about rangers I would never have realised that some people interpret it to mean that you can camouflage yourself and hide when you want. Even re-reading it, that isn't my first thought on how it works. You also have to hide yourself against a solid surface, such as a wall or tree, that is at least as tall and wide as you are. So if I'm in a grassland I can't use this in tall grass or bushes, if I'm in a swamp/river I can't hide amid reeds, I can't even hide in the canopy of a tree. It requires you to know the location and timing (to an extent) of an encounter. You may wish to hide to prevent an encounter or to surprise your enemy. If you are with your party, these outcomes also depend on their ability to hide.
Vanish - Pretty good I think, but how is it compared to other classes features at level 14?
Feral Senses - Pretty good but it would be better if you got it earlier. By 18th level you are approaching the end of your campaign, so having the opportunity to use the feature is likely to depend on your DM (again) situations/encounters for you.
Foe Slayer - The campaign is going to end real soon but you have only just now learned how to fight your favored enemies. You get a bonus to hit/damage a favored enemy once per turn equal to your wisdom modifier. Again, it depends entirely on the DM setting up an encounter to suit your abilities in particular. Another feature that I think you should get much earlier just so that you have the opportunity to use.
Overall, no other class has as many abilities that are so limited/situational. Other classes with utility/non-combat features are able to use their abilities more often/in more ways/to better effect. It can be summed up as: Other classes have to recognise opportunities to use their class features, rangers have to have opportunities specifically created for them. I don't want to put the DM in the position of having to choose to ignore that fact that I mostly can't use my features, cater to my characters abilities, or give me special knowledge of upcoming events.
I'm a relatively new player who's just started playing a ranger in a homebrew campaign. I initially really liked the idea of ranger because of it's out of combat usefulness. However, I wasn't going to choose the ranger until I found the UA Class Feature Variants because the existing class features seemed limiting or poorly designed.
Favored Enemy - This is so highly situational and requires the DM to make special consideration of rangers for players to make good use of it. You either have to choose randomly without any idea whether you will be able to use the ability any time soon or how frequently, or be tipped off by the DM to likely upcoming encounters (especially for level 1). The advantage to track is great but the advantage to recall is slightly less so as intelligence is unlikely to be one of your top 3 ability scores and you probably won't have a decent modifier for it. The recall part also becomes less useful the more you encounter a specific type of creature as the party would remember information from the previous encounters. The additional language also depends on the favored enemy having a language at all. You are put in the position of having to choose between a creature that you think is probably likely to come up more than once, e.g. undead, but which the ability itself is less useful for, or a rarer creature you will encounter less often but the ability may be more useful.
Natural Terrain - Again, very situational and requires the DM to take special consideration. I am really looking forward to the exploration parts of the campaign but this ability almost allows you to gloss over it. I would greatly prefer something less powerful but more widely applicable.
Something I really dislike about both of these is the onus they put on the DM. In order for the player to use their features, the DM has to specifically plan journey/encounters for them. The DM shouldn't have to shoehorn in certain terrains/enemies on a regular basis to allow a character their chance to shine.
Spellcasting - I do quite like the spell list (although the additions from CFV do make sense) but too many of them require concentration. If you are relying on Hunter's Mark to do additional damage (as most rangers seem to) then a massive portion of your other combat focussed spells are ruled out. This also results in a strong push towards ranged fighting to avoid having to constantly make constitution checks. A couple more spells that do a burst of damage or have a melee focus would be good.
Primal Awareness - I hate this feature. It actually gets worse if you are in your favored terrain. At the cost of 1 spell slot/minute you can determine if there is a specific creature type within 1 (or 6) miles of you. You don't know the location, direction, or how many. That 1 mile radius is actually a 3.14 square mile circle or a 4.19 cubic mile sphere if you need to account for height/depth. You have 1 minute per spell slot used to search those areas for your creature. If you are in your favored terrain it becomes a 113.1 square mile circle and a 904.78 cubic mile sphere. The only situation I can think of that it would be remotely useful in is confirming whether a creature is present in a location you are already aware of and there are other, better ways of doing that.
Land's Stride - This isn't as bad as some of the others but still isn't great. The difficult terrain bit is great but by this point you've already got 2 favored terrains where you and your entire party can ignore difficult terrain. The plant stuff is then situational and depends on the DM to use plants in such a way.
Hide in Plain Sight - First off, if I hadn't read a couple of other post about rangers I would never have realised that some people interpret it to mean that you can camouflage yourself and hide when you want. Even re-reading it, that isn't my first thought on how it works. You also have to hide yourself against a solid surface, such as a wall or tree, that is at least as tall and wide as you are. So if I'm in a grassland I can't use this in tall grass or bushes, if I'm in a swamp/river I can't hide amid reeds, I can't even hide in the canopy of a tree. It requires you to know the location and timing (to an extent) of an encounter. You may wish to hide to prevent an encounter or to surprise your enemy. If you are with your party, these outcomes also depend on their ability to hide.
Vanish - Pretty good I think, but how is it compared to other classes features at level 14?
Feral Senses - Pretty good but it would be better if you got it earlier. By 18th level you are approaching the end of your campaign, so having the opportunity to use the feature is likely to depend on your DM (again) situations/encounters for you.
Foe Slayer - The campaign is going to end real soon but you have only just now learned how to fight your favored enemies. You get a bonus to hit/damage a favored enemy once per turn equal to your wisdom modifier. Again, it depends entirely on the DM setting up an encounter to suit your abilities in particular. Another feature that I think you should get much earlier just so that you have the opportunity to use.
Overall, no other class has as many abilities that are so limited/situational. Other classes with utility/non-combat features are able to use their abilities more often/in more ways/to better effect. It can be summed up as: Other classes have to recognise opportunities to use their class features, rangers have to have opportunities specifically created for them. I don't want to put the DM in the position of having to choose to ignore that fact that I mostly can't use my features, cater to my characters abilities, or give me special knowledge of upcoming events.
You’ll find the same people that say the ranger is weak or poorly designed don’t like the class to start with and/or use their abilities in the least functional and harshest interpretation possible. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
You’ll find the same people that say the ranger is weak or poorly designed don’t like the class to start with and/or use their abilities in the least functional and harshest interpretation possible. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
Except, no. The ranger doesn't use their features in a bad way, it's completely up to the DM to make most of your features work. No other class relies on the DM as this one. None.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You’ll find the same people that say the ranger is weak or poorly designed don’t like the class to start with and/or use their abilities in the least functional and harshest interpretation possible. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
I do like the class though, or at least the idea of it, I just think that the current mechanics in the PHB don't do it justice. Okay, maybe I'm not interpreting things in the kindest possible way but that is the genuine meaning that I take away from reading those features and I don't think I'm alone. Other classes don't have to rely on generous interpretations of their rules to function properly.
You’ll find the same people that say the ranger is weak or poorly designed don’t like the class to start with and/or use their abilities in the least functional and harshest interpretation possible. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
I do like the class though, or at least the idea of it, I just think that the current mechanics in the PHB don't do it justice. Okay, maybe I'm not interpreting things in the kindest possible way but that is the genuine meaning that I take away from reading those features and I don't think I'm alone. Other classes don't have to rely on generous interpretations of their rules to function properly.
You're exactly correct. I love the idea of a ranger, but its features aren't as good or useful as they should be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
1) Someone said that most players meta game knowledge about common monsters anyway, and the favored enemy ability is awful because of it. That’s a player issue. Not a ranger issue.
2) I’ll bet many of the paladin fans ignore the melee weapon attack and melee weapon qualifiers for the smite and improved smite for the paladin. That is blatantly house ruling in huge favor of the paladin.
1) I said that. Except I didn't. I listed a number of reasons why Natural Terrain and Favoured Enemy are more circumstantial than just encountering the relevant terrain and/or enemy. I made a note about metagaming when it comes to information checks (and only information checks) in the same sentence I said they could be extremely useful (but sometimes also pointless). But hey, I guess you can read what you want to read.
2) I'll take that bet every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Just assuming a house rule is common doesn't make for a very good argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It occurs to me that I don’t see coordination with the dungeon master or the need for interpretation of an ability or rule as a negative or downside. Apparently many of you do. I’ve heard the term “player agency“ used more and more frequently recently. That isn’t anything I’ve ever had an issue with, personally.
It occurs to me that I don’t see coordination with the dungeon master or the need for interpretation of an ability or rule as a negative or downside. Apparently many of you do. I’ve heard the term “player agency“ used more and more frequently recently. That isn’t anything I’ve ever had an issue with, personally.
I think that is a large part of the disagreement over the issue. For other classes, circumstances where they can use their features occur often enough within the natural flow of the adventure that there isn't an issue but this isn't necessarily the case for rangers. I think it can be a good idea to discuss certain things with your DM at points (e.g. backstories, characters aims/ambitions) so that the DM knows and can tie them into their plans but I personally don't like the idea of coordinating with the DM purely so that I can get more use out of my class mechanics. It feels like it would give me undue influence over the course of the campaign.
I love all of this focus on paladin and to a lesser degree fighter. They are campaign dependent. What are they going to do in a mystery style campaign in which you go to jail if you get in fights.
I don't know, maybe be Dex based so they don't get caught, or kill the people who would arrest them? Or, if they want to obey the law like a good paladin, they could easily be a vital member of the party, as they have good Charisma, and paladins can take proficiency in Insight. Paladins are no less viable in a mystery campaign than Rangers or other martial classes.
I will concede to the devout followers of the mighty paladin that paladins do a lot in a lot of games that most people play. I will ask the same zealots why doesn’t everyone play just play paladins? Or at least paladins as the only martial class along with a wizard every now and then? If they are THAT undisputed, undeniable, and superior to all other martial classes, why does anyone in their right mind ever play a barbarian, rogue, monk, ranger, or fighter?
Because barbarians can be very good damage dealers and tankers, rivaling and surpassing paladins in some aspects (HP, damage resistances, long term damage), rogues are very good damage dealers and skirmishers, monks are . . . well, let's just call them "special," and fighters can dominate combat as well as a paladin in most cases. As for rangers, a lot of people play rangers for their theme, same with monks, barbarians, and every other class in the game.
It occurs to me that I don’t see coordination with the dungeon master or the need for interpretation of an ability or rule as a negative or downside. Apparently many of you do. I’ve heard the term “player agency“ used more and more frequently recently. That isn’t anything I’ve ever had an issue with, personally.
I think that is a large part of the disagreement over the issue. For other classes, circumstances where they can use their features occur often enough within the natural flow of the adventure that there isn't an issue but this isn't necessarily the case for rangers. I think it can be a good idea to discuss certain things with your DM at points (e.g. backstories, characters aims/ambitions) so that the DM knows and can tie them into their plans but I personally don't like the idea of coordinating with the DM purely so that I can get more use out of my class mechanics. It feels like it would give me undue influence over the course of the campaign.
The main downside here is that not every DM is willing or able to tailor the campaign to a large extent. Not every DM comes up with their own adventures, and modules can be hit and miss in how much customization can be done. Doesn't mean it can't be done (or even that DMs shouldn't at least put in some effort), but it's not a given that this will always happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It occurs to me that I don’t see coordination with the dungeon master or the need for interpretation of an ability or rule as a negative or downside. Apparently many of you do. I’ve heard the term “player agency“ used more and more frequently recently. That isn’t anything I’ve ever had an issue with, personally.
I think that is a large part of the disagreement over the issue. For other classes, circumstances where they can use their features occur often enough within the natural flow of the adventure that there isn't an issue but this isn't necessarily the case for rangers. I think it can be a good idea to discuss certain things with your DM at points (e.g. backstories, characters aims/ambitions) so that the DM knows and can tie them into their plans but I personally don't like the idea of coordinating with the DM purely so that I can get more use out of my class mechanics. It feels like it would give me undue influence over the course of the campaign.
The main downside here is that not every DM is willing or able to tailor the campaign to a large extent. Not every DM comes up with their own adventures, and modules can be hit and miss in how much customization can be done. Doesn't mean it can't be done (or even that DMs shouldn't at least put in some effort), but it's not a given that this will always happen.
I agree, and I think this is something that can potentially put people off from playing a ranger.
The ranger's TWF with short swords and hunter's markbreaks even with a dueling paladin using a longsword and Improved Divine Smite (an 11th level feature) with a 1st-level slot once per turn.
Can I get some math for this? First round of this happening I get 18.5 + 2x[Dex mod] average damage for the ranger (using his bonus action and expending a spell slot for Hunter's Mark, and including Colossus Slayer) vs 27 + 2x[Str mod] for the paladin (using his bonus action and expending a spell slot for Divine Favour). Following rounds the ranger adds 2d6 + [Dex mod] to that with his bonus action, while the paladin activates Vow of Enmity. So, breaking even after 3-4 rounds, at a guess?
I expressly wasn't including subclass features and was just comparing their base abilities. Hunter's mark does have a warm-up period and can result in occasional dips, so in round 1 the ranger is only making 2 attacks and dealing 24 damage: (1d6 + 5 + 1d6)*2. After that, they're swinging 3 times on a single target for 36 damage. Assuming the target is strong enough to last 3 rounds, they're averaging 32 DPR. If they have the Dual Wielder feat, then their DPR increases to 34.67. But the paladin is able to smite from turn one, so the math is a little simpler for them. Assuming they're only using 1 1st-level spell slot per turn and not casting any other spells, they're averaging 36.5 DPR: 23 (1d8 + 5 + 2)*2 + 13.5 (3d8). But then they're spending three times the resources for only a nominal gain.
Specifically, only 2 uses of a 1st-level Improved Divine Smite lowers the average to 32 DPR, a dead heat with the TWF ranger armed with scimitars/shortswords. This means paladins need 2 slots to tie, and the third slot is only worth 4.5 DPR.
This is also a slightly more accurate accounting than the default round-down that D&D math tends to operate on. Under that math, they're both at 35. The paladin technically has a slight edge, but they're burning through more resources to do it. They can't afford to smite with every swing of the sword. And remember this slight edge is only possible with Improved Divine Smite and a capped Ability Score. At every lower level, they're outpaced by the ranger.
But if we include archetypes like the Beast Master...
A single longbow hit and two wolf bites averages 31.5 damage: 9.5 (1d8 + 5) + 22 (2d4 + 2 + 4)*2. Casting hail of thorns with a 1st-level slot every turn averages 5.5 (1d10) damage just against the target hit by the arrow. This brings the total average to 37 DPR before even factoring in the AoE. Sadly, I can't find a single legal Animal Companion with a ranged attack to capitalize on Share Spells at 15th level. But by then, rangers have access to 4th-level magic. And the wolf, being a good doggy, isn't done helping out their best friend. Pack Tactics means more chances to hit and crit, and two bites mean two attempts to knock the target prone.
And for the love of Sune, give your Animal Companions some barding. Stick that wolf in a breastplate, on account of its Stealth proficiency, and it has an AC of 20.
The ranger's TWF with short swords and hunter's markbreaks even with a dueling paladin using a longsword and Improved Divine Smite (an 11th level feature) with a 1st-level slot once per turn.
Can I get some math for this? First round of this happening I get 18.5 + 2x[Dex mod] average damage for the ranger (using his bonus action and expending a spell slot for Hunter's Mark, and including Colossus Slayer) vs 27 + 2x[Str mod] for the paladin (using his bonus action and expending a spell slot for Divine Favour). Following rounds the ranger adds 2d6 + [Dex mod] to that with his bonus action, while the paladin activates Vow of Enmity. So, breaking even after 3-4 rounds, at a guess?
I expressly wasn't including subclass features and was just comparing their base abilities. Hunter's mark does have a warm-up period and can result in occasional dips, so in round 1 the ranger is only making 2 attacks and dealing 24 damage: (1d6 + 5 + 1d6)*2. After that, they're swinging 3 times on a single target for 36 damage. Assuming the target is strong enough to last 3 rounds, they're averaging 32 DPR. If they have the Dual Wielder feat, then their DPR increases to 34.67. But the paladin is able to smite from turn one, so the math is a little simpler for them. Assuming they're only using 1 1st-level spell slot per turn and not casting any other spells, they're averaging 36.5 DPR: 23 (1d8 + 5 + 2)*2 + 13.5 (3d8). But then they're spending three times the resources for only a nominal gain.
Specifically, only 2 uses of a 1st-level Improved Divine Smite lowers the average to 32 DPR, a dead heat with the TWF ranger armed with scimitars/shortswords. This means paladins need 2 slots to tie, and the third slot is only worth 4.5 DPR.
This is also a slightly more accurate accounting than the default round-down that D&D math tends to operate on. Under that math, they're both at 35. The paladin technically has a slight edge, but they're burning through more resources to do it. They can't afford to smite with every swing of the sword. And remember this slight edge is only possible with Improved Divine Smite and a capped Ability Score. At every lower level, they're outpaced by the ranger.
But if we include archetypes like the Beast Master...
A single longbow hit and two wolf bites averages 31.5 damage: 9.5 (1d8 + 5) + 22 (2d4 + 2 + 4)*2. Casting hail of thorns with a 1st-level slot every turn averages 5.5 (1d10) damage just against the target hit by the arrow. This brings the total average to 37 DPR before even factoring in the AoE. Sadly, I can't find a single legal Animal Companion with a ranged attack to capitalize on Share Spells at 15th level. But by then, rangers have access to 4th-level magic. And the wolf, being a good doggy, isn't done helping out their best friend. Pack Tactics means more chances to hit and crit, and two bites mean two attempts to knock the target prone.
And for the love of Sune, give your Animal Companions some barding. Stick that wolf in a breastplate, on account of its Stealth proficiency, and it has an AC of 20.
You can even have the ranger sword (rapier) and shield.
Level 11 paladin using a long sword (4.5 + 4.5 + 2 + 5)*2 for 32 average damage.
Level 11 ranger using a rapier (4.5 + 3.5 + 2 + 5)*2 for 30 average damage. (It should be noted that baseline rangers are doing this damage starting at level 8. Paladins are doing (4.5 + 2 + 5)*2 for 23 average damage at levels 8, 9, and 10. And that’s if they used every ASI to boost their attack stat and NOT charisma.)
And again, rangers get their level 11 damage boost from their subclasses. So a hunter would be doing 34.5 average damage and a wolf beast master is doing 37 average damage.
Any paladin can scream ahead by using spell slots for nova damage, and vengeance paladins can add hunter’s mark too for 39 average damage. But rangers are doing fine in the damage department. Rangers can also conjure animals, have AoE spells that do smite level damage (factoring 2+ targets), and plant growth can shut a battle down.
A rogue at levels 11/12 is doing 29.5 average damage.
A baseline fighter with a sword is doing 34.5 average damage. (Obviously action surge adds more and subclasses add a bit more one way or another.)
A baseline barbarian is doing 30 average damage with a great sword.
None of these numbers (from any of us) are factoring in to-hit probability and possible critical hit damage. But any way you shake it rangers are doing as much or a couple of points less average damage than the other martial cases. Not enough of a difference to warrant this ongoing conversation.
I was more interested in the damage calculations to see what specifics others were thinking of, but I would point out that unless the Paladin player thinks he can kill an enemy in one turn by smiting Divine Favour is a strictly better use of a 1st lvl spell slot than spending it on a single Smite. And obviously if damage is that player’s main concern, he’ll rock a twohander instead of going sword-and-board.
Regardless, I agree damage potential isn’t an issue for the Ranger class (not that even recall who claimed otherwise anymore anyway).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
listen.... the problem is this. Do you honestly think that favoured enemy is as good as action surge. Or cunning action. Or Divine smite. Or Action surge, wildshape, danger sense and reckless attack, or any other level 2 ability? If not, that is why we are arguing with you. It is not as good.
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.
listen.... the problem is this. Do you honestly think that favoured enemy is as good as action surge. Or cunning action. Or Divine smite. Or Action surge, wildshape, danger sense and reckless attack, or any other level 2 ability? If not, that is why we are arguing with you. It is not as good.
The ranger’s lvl 2 abilities are Fighting Style and Spellcasting. Those aren’t the issue either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Strict" doesn't mean incorrect. That aside, this is just my experience - as someone who plays half caster martial classes more often than not, and as a DM who's seen a lot of modules. Modules can be tailored towards the party, certainly, but as is there's typically not a lot in them that makes the ranger's exploration advantages meaningful.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Can you be more specific?
Someone said that the terrain options listed in the ranger ability don’t cover all possible terrains. I say they do. All natural terrain types fit one of the types listed. A quick google search will find JC agreeing. That’s a player misinterpretation. Not a ranger shortcoming
Then someone says that the rule about S spell components are dumb and should be ignored, allowing a shield holy symbol to take care of it. That is a house rule and huge shift in game balance in favor of the paladin. That is a player issues. Not a ranger issue.
Someone said that most players meta game knowledge about common monsters anyway, and the favored enemy ability is awful because of it. That’s a player issue. Not a ranger issue.
I’ll bet many of the paladin fans ignore the melee weapon attack and melee weapon qualifiers for the smite and improved smite for the paladin. That is blatantly house ruling in huge favor of the paladin.
Someone say that, several people actually, that a DM has to cater a campaign to a ranger in order to make them viable. That is not true. DMs are literally tasked with catering to everything about a the PCs. From backstory to class abilities. Most of the published campaigns have, the way I interpret the ability and rules, 1 to 3 terrain types. Rangers get 3 favored terrains by level 10. They get two favored enemies by level 10 as well. These enemy types aren’t like “adult green dragons” or “fire elementals”. These are huge blankets of types on creatures. Fiends and undead are options, just like the paladin. Someone said that rangers have to meta game in order to be any good. How many of you have played a Ravenloft campaign and built your character to fit thematically? How many of you played the Chult campaign or a sea bound campaign and built your character accordingly? Rangers are no different, and the “meta gaming” they do is only once at first level.
People say that hide in plain sight is dumb and situational. Well don’t complain about it and not be open to a more functional interpretation. Read it as a two part ability that has the same function as a halfling or wood elf.
Primeval awareness is great. It’s the “disturbance in the force” ability. A mile is not that big an area. And being in a favored terrain gives the option of UP TO 6 miles, anywhere from 1 to 6 miles, ranger’s choice, making it very useful. This is an uncreative player and/or lazy DM problem. Not a ranger problem. Their spellcasting is great. Conjure animals can be great and plant growth can stop a small army of heavily armored strength based fighters and paladins.
Landstride is, again, underutilized because most DMs do little more than lay down a grid on a table or on the shared screen. Not using difficult terrain is a DM issue not a ranger problem. Heavy brush, steep stairs, dead or unconscious bodies, all of these and more are and should be difficult terrain, which greatly benefits and separates the ranger above the other martials. But it is most often ignored.
Single target damage is awesome. It’s fun, thematic, and mathematically great. But no one ever talks about the difference in fighting two ogres vs 20 goblins. The numbers are never crunched for the second scenario. That’s not the ranger’s fault. That’s the DM not providing a varied combat scenario.
Most games gloss over travel, overland exploration, survival, encumbrance, rations, and other elements of the game that are combat or counting money and magic items. That isn’t the ranger’s issue. That is a play style issue.
Strength based fighters and paladins are always going to be great at dealing damage. Action surge. Great weapons. Feats. Multiclassing. Auras. Lay on hands. These are all amazing things for combat and fighters and paladins are amazing at it. But they do nothing else. Nothing. Zero.
One person said a fighter can do it all. Yes. But it has to pick a lane. You can strength build big weapon fight or be an archer. Not both (until late mid game, then poorly). So stating all of the options available to a class without the confines of a path for a build is unrealistic and silly.
I'm a relatively new player who's just started playing a ranger in a homebrew campaign. I initially really liked the idea of ranger because of it's out of combat usefulness. However, I wasn't going to choose the ranger until I found the UA Class Feature Variants because the existing class features seemed limiting or poorly designed.
Favored Enemy - This is so highly situational and requires the DM to make special consideration of rangers for players to make good use of it. You either have to choose randomly without any idea whether you will be able to use the ability any time soon or how frequently, or be tipped off by the DM to likely upcoming encounters (especially for level 1). The advantage to track is great but the advantage to recall is slightly less so as intelligence is unlikely to be one of your top 3 ability scores and you probably won't have a decent modifier for it. The recall part also becomes less useful the more you encounter a specific type of creature as the party would remember information from the previous encounters. The additional language also depends on the favored enemy having a language at all. You are put in the position of having to choose between a creature that you think is probably likely to come up more than once, e.g. undead, but which the ability itself is less useful for, or a rarer creature you will encounter less often but the ability may be more useful.
Natural Explorer - Again, very situational and requires the DM to take special consideration. I am really looking forward to the exploration parts of the campaign but this ability almost allows you to gloss over it. I would greatly prefer something less powerful but more widely applicable.
Something I really dislike about both of these is the onus they put on the DM. In order for the player to use their features, the DM has to specifically plan journey/encounters for them. The DM shouldn't have to shoehorn in certain terrains/enemies on a regular basis to allow a character their chance to shine.
Spellcasting - I do quite like the spell list (although the additions from CFV do make sense) but too many of them require concentration. If you are relying on Hunter's Mark to do additional damage (as most rangers seem to) then a massive portion of your other combat focussed spells are ruled out. This also results in a strong push towards ranged fighting to avoid having to constantly make constitution checks. A couple more spells that do a burst of damage or have a melee focus would be good.
Primal Awareness - I hate this feature. It actually gets worse if you are in your favored terrain. At the cost of 1 spell slot/minute you can determine if there is a specific creature type within 1 (or 6) miles of you. You don't know the location, direction, or how many. That 1 mile radius is actually a 3.14 square mile circle or a 4.19 cubic mile sphere if you need to account for height/depth. You have 1 minute per spell slot used to search those areas for your creature. If you are in your favored terrain it becomes a 113.1 square mile circle and a 904.78 cubic mile sphere. The only situation I can think of that it would be remotely useful in is confirming whether a creature is present in a location you are already aware of and there are other, better ways of doing that.
Land's Stride - This isn't as bad as some of the others but still isn't great. The difficult terrain bit is great but by this point you've already got 2 favored terrains where you and your entire party can ignore difficult terrain. The plant stuff is then situational and depends on the DM to use plants in such a way.
Hide in Plain Sight - First off, if I hadn't read a couple of other post about rangers I would never have realised that some people interpret it to mean that you can camouflage yourself and hide when you want. Even re-reading it, that isn't my first thought on how it works. You also have to hide yourself against a solid surface, such as a wall or tree, that is at least as tall and wide as you are. So if I'm in a grassland I can't use this in tall grass or bushes, if I'm in a swamp/river I can't hide amid reeds, I can't even hide in the canopy of a tree. It requires you to know the location and timing (to an extent) of an encounter. You may wish to hide to prevent an encounter or to surprise your enemy. If you are with your party, these outcomes also depend on their ability to hide.
Vanish - Pretty good I think, but how is it compared to other classes features at level 14?
Feral Senses - Pretty good but it would be better if you got it earlier. By 18th level you are approaching the end of your campaign, so having the opportunity to use the feature is likely to depend on your DM (again) situations/encounters for you.
Foe Slayer - The campaign is going to end real soon but you have only just now learned how to fight your favored enemies. You get a bonus to hit/damage a favored enemy once per turn equal to your wisdom modifier. Again, it depends entirely on the DM setting up an encounter to suit your abilities in particular. Another feature that I think you should get much earlier just so that you have the opportunity to use.
Overall, no other class has as many abilities that are so limited/situational. Other classes with utility/non-combat features are able to use their abilities more often/in more ways/to better effect. It can be summed up as: Other classes have to recognise opportunities to use their class features, rangers have to have opportunities specifically created for them. I don't want to put the DM in the position of having to choose to ignore that fact that I mostly can't use my features, cater to my characters abilities, or give me special knowledge of upcoming events.
You’ll find the same people that say the ranger is weak or poorly designed don’t like the class to start with and/or use their abilities in the least functional and harshest interpretation possible. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
Except, no. The ranger doesn't use their features in a bad way, it's completely up to the DM to make most of your features work. No other class relies on the DM as this one. None.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I do like the class though, or at least the idea of it, I just think that the current mechanics in the PHB don't do it justice. Okay, maybe I'm not interpreting things in the kindest possible way but that is the genuine meaning that I take away from reading those features and I don't think I'm alone. Other classes don't have to rely on generous interpretations of their rules to function properly.
You're exactly correct. I love the idea of a ranger, but its features aren't as good or useful as they should be.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
1) I said that. Except I didn't. I listed a number of reasons why Natural Terrain and Favoured Enemy are more circumstantial than just encountering the relevant terrain and/or enemy. I made a note about metagaming when it comes to information checks (and only information checks) in the same sentence I said they could be extremely useful (but sometimes also pointless). But hey, I guess you can read what you want to read.
2) I'll take that bet every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Just assuming a house rule is common doesn't make for a very good argument.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It occurs to me that I don’t see coordination with the dungeon master or the need for interpretation of an ability or rule as a negative or downside. Apparently many of you do. I’ve heard the term “player agency“ used more and more frequently recently. That isn’t anything I’ve ever had an issue with, personally.
I think that is a large part of the disagreement over the issue. For other classes, circumstances where they can use their features occur often enough within the natural flow of the adventure that there isn't an issue but this isn't necessarily the case for rangers. I think it can be a good idea to discuss certain things with your DM at points (e.g. backstories, characters aims/ambitions) so that the DM knows and can tie them into their plans but I personally don't like the idea of coordinating with the DM purely so that I can get more use out of my class mechanics. It feels like it would give me undue influence over the course of the campaign.
I don't know, maybe be Dex based so they don't get caught, or kill the people who would arrest them? Or, if they want to obey the law like a good paladin, they could easily be a vital member of the party, as they have good Charisma, and paladins can take proficiency in Insight. Paladins are no less viable in a mystery campaign than Rangers or other martial classes.
Because barbarians can be very good damage dealers and tankers, rivaling and surpassing paladins in some aspects (HP, damage resistances, long term damage), rogues are very good damage dealers and skirmishers, monks are . . . well, let's just call them "special," and fighters can dominate combat as well as a paladin in most cases. As for rangers, a lot of people play rangers for their theme, same with monks, barbarians, and every 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
The main downside here is that not every DM is willing or able to tailor the campaign to a large extent. Not every DM comes up with their own adventures, and modules can be hit and miss in how much customization can be done. Doesn't mean it can't be done (or even that DMs shouldn't at least put in some effort), but it's not a given that this will always happen.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I agree, and I think this is something that can potentially put people off from playing a ranger.
I expressly wasn't including subclass features and was just comparing their base abilities. Hunter's mark does have a warm-up period and can result in occasional dips, so in round 1 the ranger is only making 2 attacks and dealing 24 damage: (1d6 + 5 + 1d6)*2. After that, they're swinging 3 times on a single target for 36 damage. Assuming the target is strong enough to last 3 rounds, they're averaging 32 DPR. If they have the Dual Wielder feat, then their DPR increases to 34.67. But the paladin is able to smite from turn one, so the math is a little simpler for them. Assuming they're only using 1 1st-level spell slot per turn and not casting any other spells, they're averaging 36.5 DPR: 23 (1d8 + 5 + 2)*2 + 13.5 (3d8). But then they're spending three times the resources for only a nominal gain.
Specifically, only 2 uses of a 1st-level Improved Divine Smite lowers the average to 32 DPR, a dead heat with the TWF ranger armed with scimitars/shortswords. This means paladins need 2 slots to tie, and the third slot is only worth 4.5 DPR.
This is also a slightly more accurate accounting than the default round-down that D&D math tends to operate on. Under that math, they're both at 35. The paladin technically has a slight edge, but they're burning through more resources to do it. They can't afford to smite with every swing of the sword. And remember this slight edge is only possible with Improved Divine Smite and a capped Ability Score. At every lower level, they're outpaced by the ranger.
But if we include archetypes like the Beast Master...
A single longbow hit and two wolf bites averages 31.5 damage: 9.5 (1d8 + 5) + 22 (2d4 + 2 + 4)*2. Casting hail of thorns with a 1st-level slot every turn averages 5.5 (1d10) damage just against the target hit by the arrow. This brings the total average to 37 DPR before even factoring in the AoE. Sadly, I can't find a single legal Animal Companion with a ranged attack to capitalize on Share Spells at 15th level. But by then, rangers have access to 4th-level magic. And the wolf, being a good doggy, isn't done helping out their best friend. Pack Tactics means more chances to hit and crit, and two bites mean two attempts to knock the target prone.
And for the love of Sune, give your Animal Companions some barding. Stick that wolf in a breastplate, on account of its Stealth proficiency, and it has an AC of 20.
You can even have the ranger sword (rapier) and shield.
Level 11 paladin using a long sword (4.5 + 4.5 + 2 + 5)*2 for 32 average damage.
Level 11 ranger using a rapier (4.5 + 3.5 + 2 + 5)*2 for 30 average damage. (It should be noted that baseline rangers are doing this damage starting at level 8. Paladins are doing (4.5 + 2 + 5)*2 for 23 average damage at levels 8, 9, and 10. And that’s if they used every ASI to boost their attack stat and NOT charisma.)
And again, rangers get their level 11 damage boost from their subclasses. So a hunter would be doing 34.5 average damage and a wolf beast master is doing 37 average damage.
Any paladin can scream ahead by using spell slots for nova damage, and vengeance paladins can add hunter’s mark too for 39 average damage. But rangers are doing fine in the damage department. Rangers can also conjure animals, have AoE spells that do smite level damage (factoring 2+ targets), and plant growth can shut a battle down.
A rogue at levels 11/12 is doing 29.5 average damage.
A baseline fighter with a sword is doing 34.5 average damage. (Obviously action surge adds more and subclasses add a bit more one way or another.)
A baseline barbarian is doing 30 average damage with a great sword.
None of these numbers (from any of us) are factoring in to-hit probability and possible critical hit damage. But any way you shake it rangers are doing as much or a couple of points less average damage than the other martial cases. Not enough of a difference to warrant this ongoing conversation.
I was more interested in the damage calculations to see what specifics others were thinking of, but I would point out that unless the Paladin player thinks he can kill an enemy in one turn by smiting Divine Favour is a strictly better use of a 1st lvl spell slot than spending it on a single Smite. And obviously if damage is that player’s main concern, he’ll rock a twohander instead of going sword-and-board.
Regardless, I agree damage potential isn’t an issue for the Ranger class (not that even recall who claimed otherwise anymore anyway).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
listen.... the problem is this. Do you honestly think that favoured enemy is as good as action surge. Or cunning action. Or Divine smite. Or Action surge, wildshape, danger sense and reckless attack, or any other level 2 ability? If not, that is why we are arguing with you. It is not as good.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The ranger’s lvl 2 abilities are Fighting Style and Spellcasting. Those aren’t the issue either.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].