There was enough for WotC to comment on it and make a 'revised' version...
My doubts about that stem from the fact that for all their information, this revised version barely touched on any of the issues I've seen people bring up.
'scuse me? it made the ranger competitive damage wise, completely fixed the beast master with a scaling beast and was INSANELY fun to play. What didn't it fix? also, the point was there is a lot of player dissatisfaction and even WotC noticed
Absolutely every ranking sticking the ranger at the bottom of the pile mentions the fact that some of their abilities will often be irrelevant as the reason. Nothing was done to change that. Plus the regular ranger doesn’t exactly suffer in the damage department as is, so I think the question is more what it did fix than what it didn’t.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There was enough for WotC to comment on it and make a 'revised' version...
My doubts about that stem from the fact that for all their information, this revised version barely touched on any of the issues I've seen people bring up.
'scuse me? it made the ranger competitive damage wise, completely fixed the beast master with a scaling beast and was INSANELY fun to play. What didn't it fix? also, the point was there is a lot of player dissatisfaction and even WotC noticed
Absolutely every ranking sticking the ranger at the bottom of the pile mentions the fact that some of their abilities will often be irrelevant as the reason. Nothing was done to change that. Plus the regular ranger doesn’t exactly suffer in the damage department as is, so I think the question is more what it did fix than what it didn’t.
All classes have niche abilities. Divine sense, the ones that stop you aging...no real mechanical abilities. The main problem was that the ranger could not hold up in combat and their Feature abilities are useless (natural explorer, favoured enemy.) The revised ranger fixed both of those, making natural explorer work on any terrain and grant advantage on initiative and favoured enemy granting extra damage
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.
Thank you. Got it. Can I respond to a few of these reasons you’ve listed?
“It is not as good as fighter in DPR” Should it? That is what a fighter does. Exclusively. Yes they have other things they can do with their action surge and subclass abilities, but bringing down the pain in combat with weapons should at least be the thing they do better than everyone else, consistently. I will say this , fighters, if using them, are the feat masters! With so many ASIs they have lots of options. If we compare the ranger to the fighter, can we at least compare them on similar ways? One handed weapon fighting, two weapons fighting, and archery? Using that method the ranger, the way I see the numbers, more than keeps up with the fighter at levels 1 through 10, and has magic and such after level 11, when the fighter really pulls ahead in the fighting thing
”It is not as good as rogue in utility.” It’s a kind different utility. You have to take a specific (optional) rogue subclass to play the rogue that everyone says is “better than the ranger”. Talking specifically about the utility that is worth talking about (not like picking locks and such) with rangers any rogue could use their wonderful expertise in survival, but then they are losing out on applying that to more classic rogue specialities. Being proficient or having expertise in survival is good for tracking and navigation Ranger’s have that too. In their favored terrain they have that plus so much more. So much that is not obtained by the rogue. Also, like the fighter l, the rogue should be better at general utility. All of the complaints about the ranger in combat compared to the fighter and paladin hold true for the rogue but even worse
”It is worse than druid in magic.” Yep! Paladins are worse than clerics. Fighters are worse than wizards. Druids are a spellcaster. That is what they do exclusively. It would be terrible if the ranger class was as good at “natural” spellcasting as the druid...for the druid anyway. Rangers get some great druid spells, and some great spells just to themselves. It’s part of their kit.
”It is not even any good as a mix.” I guess is seems like an opinion to me. If I want to play a fighting druid, a nature skill monkey, or something other than one of the three archetypes mentioned above, a ranger seems like a great choice! On top of that, if using multiclass, the ranger blends well with all three of those classes and makes a great chassis and base class to start with, adding dips of any of the others to focus even more down one path or another. Just like with paladins, sorcerers, fighters, and warlocks.
”I never once used hide in plain sight.” I think this case runs rampant in the game because of poor interpretation of the ability. How often do druids use druidic? Rogues use thieve’s cant? Many classes have little things that don’t get used much or at all. Granted, that is a 10th level ability and should be used, but again, I think it suffers from the lack of play style that would need it and using it in an unoptimal manner. I’ve used it and primeval awareness to great fun and actual effect
“Rarely used favoured enemy, which basically just gives you a language.” I will admit that many games aren’t run in a way that gives a hill or brand about travel, tracking and the like. Similar abilities exist in other subclasses don’t they? Doesn’t battle master have a feature that lets them study a specific creature for like a minute to learn things about it? Wouldn’t a knowledge cleric use their specialization in things like history, religion, and arcana to recall information about mind flayers, a kind of devil, or the habits traits of a specific ooze? Character don’t know all that unless they know all that. What about a troll’s weaknesses? What about a troll?! Who would know about that, in game? A ranger not only could, they would, better than others.
”I did use Natural explorer sometimes but it was an exploration focused campaign (west marches). I felt that everything I could do could be done better by a scout rogue.” If a ranger had the abilities of favored enemy and natural explorer but without the specifics of certain creatures or terrains, that would be super duper crazy! If you are using natural explorer in a game, you aren’t going to get any more use from a scout rogue than you would a ranger. Both classes interact heavily with the nature and survival skills, the rogue exclusively and the ranger that and then some. If a game doesn’t take place in a city or a dungeon with doors and chests than lock picks won’t be of any use. We can call this “catering to the class by the DM” or “campaign dependent” if you want, but all abilities are that.
”If the ranger can't keep up with the paladin and the fighter then it doesn't deserve its d10 hit die.” And here is the point we’ve been fighting about for days. I think they do keep up with both fighter and paladin. The ranger certainly is at the same level as monk, rogue, and barbarian. And, given the right comparisons, they can keep up with the fighter and paladin.
GoodBovine, what do you mean by least powerful? Do you mean least output of damage in combat? Do you mean least powerful in other areas of the game? I will admit I don't understand the definition. At least not by the numbers I use.
It is not as good as fighter in DPR, it is not as good as rogue in utility, it is worse than druid in magic. It is not even any good as a mix. Having played a ranger from 1-20, I never once used hide in plain sight, rarely used favoured enemy, which basically just gives you a language, and granted I did use Natural explorer sometimes but it was an exploration focused campaign (west marches). I felt that everything I could do could be done better by a scout rogue.
If the ranger can't keep up with the paladin and the fighter then it doesn't deserve its d10 hit die.
I kinda get the feeling this convo is going no-where.
ranger defenders, could you answer this question: would you be happy if the ranger got a buff?
This is probably a silly question. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want a class to be "stronger" than the PHB details. Does anyone complain that a particular class is overpowered and deserves a nerf?
I kinda get the feeling this convo is going no-where.
ranger defenders, could you answer this question: would you be happy if the ranger got a buff?
This is probably a silly question. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want a class to be "stronger" than the PHB details. Does anyone complain that a particular class is overpowered and deserves a nerf?
I hear this about wizards a bit actually. Specifically in regards to the Sorcerer. Though I feel like certain members of the team Wizards and team Sorcerers camp have been a war for a while. Wizard fans complained when the UA Class Variants came out and it was discovered that one of the options was allowing Sorcerers and Warlocks the ability to switch out one spell from their prepared list every long rest. The Wizard fans said that it would make playing a Wizard less appealing and Sorcerers more OP because switching out prepared spells every long rest was a Wizard's thing and should only be their thing. Even if such statement was a bit ridiculous.....
So yeah, I do think some people would like certain classes to be nerfed.....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
I kinda get the feeling this convo is going no-where.
ranger defenders, could you answer this question: would you be happy if the ranger got a buff?
That is certainly the direction we are having to go. Honestly, I would prefer that the class and subclass abilities be errataed to read better and/or be interpreted and played better as they are. The way I think they read and should be played don't suffer from any of the complaints others have about them. In lieu of that, and a slick plan to release class feature variants for all of the classes in a new book to sell, WotC has opted to add "options".
I kinda get the feeling this convo is going no-where.
ranger defenders, could you answer this question: would you be happy if the ranger got a buff?
This is probably a silly question. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want a class to be "stronger" than the PHB details. Does anyone complain that a particular class is overpowered and deserves a nerf?
I hear this about wizards a bit actually. Specifically in regards to the Sorcerer. Though I feel like certain members of the team Wizards and team Sorcerers camp have been a war for a while. Wizard fans complained when the UA Class Variants came out and it was discovered that one of the options was allowing Sorcerers and Warlocks the ability to switch out one spell from their prepared list every long rest. The Wizard fans said that it would make playing a Wizard less appealing and Sorcerers more OP because switching out prepared spells every long rest was a Wizard's thing and should only be their thing. Even if such statement was a bit ridiculous.....
So yeah, I do think some people would like certain classes to be nerfed.....
It's only one spell at a time, and it must be for one of the same level. It gives bards, sorcerers, and warlocks some added flexibility without stepping entirely on the toes of spellcasters who prepare their spells. But it was also a UA feature, and UA is almost always dialed back for publication. That said, the UA did leave EKs and ATs out in the cold. I still don't know how I feel about that.
On a somewhat related note, I am not happy with how paladins and rangers acquire their spells. Paladins should learn their spells in the same way all other Charisma-based spellcasters do. And rangers should be preparing their spells as all other Wisdom-based spellcasters do. What that means for their bonus/expanded spell list I haven't yet figured out.
So....people who think rangers are good want a buff......and people who think rangers are bad want a buff......we are getting a buff...........What in tarnation are we fighting about?
So....people who think rangers are good want a buff......and people who think rangers are bad want a buff......we are getting a buff...........Want in tarnation are we fighting about?
I'm assuming that the argument is that just because people want a certain class to get a buff doesn't automatically mean that said class was bad to begin with since people could also want Paladins, Clerics, Bards or Wizards to get buffs to and these classes have been used on this forum as examples of the better classes.
As already stated, people here will die on the hill that they are defending in regards to the opinions of this class and no one is changing their opinions, just getting increasingly more frustrated to the point of borderline lashing out at each other even if that is not their intention.
So....people who think rangers are good want a buff......and people who think rangers are bad want a buff......we are getting a buff...........Want in tarnation are we fighting about?
LOL! Good question. Tarnation is a great word, by the way!
I kinda get the feeling this convo is going no-where.
ranger defenders, could you answer this question: would you be happy if the ranger got a buff?
This is probably a silly question. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want a class to be "stronger" than the PHB details. Does anyone complain that a particular class is overpowered and deserves a nerf?
I hear this about wizards a bit actually. Specifically in regards to the Sorcerer. Though I feel like certain members of the team Wizards and team Sorcerers camp have been a war for a while. Wizard fans complained when the UA Class Variants came out and it was discovered that one of the options was allowing Sorcerers and Warlocks the ability to switch out one spell from their prepared list every long rest. The Wizard fans said that it would make playing a Wizard less appealing and Sorcerers more OP because switching out prepared spells every long rest was a Wizard's thing and should only be their thing. Even if such statement was a bit ridiculous.....
So yeah, I do think some people would like certain classes to be nerfed.....
It's only one spell at a time, and it must be for one of the same level. It gives bards, sorcerers, and warlocks some added flexibility without stepping entirely on the toes of spellcasters who prepare their spells. But it was also a UA feature, and UA is almost always dialed back for publication. That said, the UA did leave EKs and ATs out in the cold. I still don't know how I feel about that.
On a somewhat related note, I am not happy with how paladins and rangers acquire their spells. Paladins should learn their spells in the same way all other Charisma-based spellcasters do. And rangers should be preparing their spells as all other Wisdom-based spellcasters do. What that means for their bonus/expanded spell list I haven't yet figured out.
I agree that its not stepping on anyone's toes, just pointing out that even some Wizard fans, who's class is argued at being one of the best classes in the game, seem threatened by even the tiniest of bones thrown to other casters to give them more options and feel that the Wizard needs more to compensate from this via a buff and how some people like some Sorcerer fans think that Wizards should be nerfed as they are too powerful and can do mostly anything. This was mainly to try and answer the question of "Does anyone complain that a particular class is overpowered and deserves a nerf?" as well as acknowledge that even when the class is argued as the most powerful, some people would still like buffs to them.
Also I agree that I would like the Rangers to prepare spells. Their whole class revolves around being prepared for anything out in the wilderness. Makes sense that spells would be included in that preparation. And the expanded spell list could be treated the same way the Clerics expanded spell lists are, they are always prepared and then you pick and choose with the spells you can add as you level up.
So....people who think rangers are good want a buff......and people who think rangers are bad want a buff......we are getting a buff...........What in tarnation are we fighting about?
I think there's some misconception here. We don't know what final form these class feature variants are going to take. What we do know is these features are being designed to empower players by giving them choices. But these choices should not be obviously better than what's in the PHB. Spell Versatility is relatively minor and something not unique to rangers. But Favored Foe isn't really a buff, either. It's a lateral shift that doesn't actually increase the ranger's power. It simply trades an exploration/social interaction feature for a more combat-focused one.
As for wanting a buff, I think you're misunderstanding the rationale and desire. The ranger, at its absolute worst, is still fine. And being handed a theoretical buff isn't the same as correcting a shortcoming you have perceived the class as having for years. There's no amount of extra options that can make up for that. Just like how a story retcon in a book or film franchise cannot make up for the failings of its predecessor.
I kinda get the feeling this convo is going no-where.
ranger defenders, could you answer this question: would you be happy if the ranger got a buff?
This is probably a silly question. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want a class to be "stronger" than the PHB details. Does anyone complain that a particular class is overpowered and deserves a nerf?
Well, people say that about subclasses all the time. Totem Barbarian, certain Artificer UAs, Moon Druids, etc. There are absolutely people who say that a some features are too powerful relative to other features and some subclasses are too powerful relative to other subclasses.
So....people who think rangers are good want a buff......and people who think rangers are bad want a buff......we are getting a buff...........What in tarnation are we fighting about?
Keep in mind that a lot of people have too much time on their hands right now due to the pandemic-related economic and healthcare fallout. So naturally, there's a lot of desire to burn off energy to do something, even if its a lot of circular arguing on a web forum.
You know what, this conversation is going nowhere. At this point, it's just frustrated people online screaming at each other about something that really does not matter at all. If you think rangers aren't underpowered and should receive no changes, go ahead continuing to nerf your characters with crappy abilities. If you think rangers are underpowered, just use the class feature variants when they come out in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything next month (assuming they keep most of the stuff from the UA).
See you all around, of course excluding those who I have put on my ignore list due to this discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
There was enough for WotC to comment on it and make a 'revised' version...
My doubts about that stem from the fact that for all their information, this revised version barely touched on any of the issues I've seen people bring up.
'scuse me? it made the ranger competitive damage wise, completely fixed the beast master with a scaling beast and was INSANELY fun to play. What didn't it fix? also, the point was there is a lot of player dissatisfaction and even WotC noticed
Absolutely every ranking sticking the ranger at the bottom of the pile mentions the fact that some of their abilities will often be irrelevant as the reason. Nothing was done to change that. Plus the regular ranger doesn’t exactly suffer in the damage department as is, so I think the question is more what it did fix than what it didn’t.
I have to disagree with this, entirely.
Favored enemy didn't see a significant change. A damage bonus was added to give it some combat utility.
Original Natural Explorer was limited to one terrain (three at career end), and only provided exploration phase benefits. The Revised Ranger changed that to being a constant effect in all terrains and also added an in-combat set of benefits.
Primeval Awareness started with letting you know that there was at least one member of a given creature type somewhere within a mile of you, but gave no other information. The Revised Ranger version expanded that to 5 miles, restricted the detection ability to one of your favored enemies, but increased the information gained to include number, general direction, and distance to the creatures.
Honestly, the proposed change to Natural Explorer was really the biggest deal. It took an ability that very situationally gave a decent benefit to a phase of the game that doesn't get a lot of use and turned it into an always useful ability in exploration and combat. Heck, even if the in-combat abilities weren't there, the blanket benefit across all terrain types during exploration is what the ability always should have been from the beginning. Adding to that changes to Primeval Awareness that actually make it useful by helping you actually find those creatures by giving rough location, and the Revised Ranger changes did a LOT to improve how often the abilities could be relevant in game.
Absolutely every ranking sticking the ranger at the bottom of the pile mentions the fact that some of their abilities will often be irrelevant as the reason. Nothing was done to change that. Plus the regular ranger doesn’t exactly suffer in the damage department as is, so I think the question is more what it did fix than what it didn’t.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
All classes have niche abilities. Divine sense, the ones that stop you aging...no real mechanical abilities. The main problem was that the ranger could not hold up in combat and their Feature abilities are useless (natural explorer, favoured enemy.) The revised ranger fixed both of those, making natural explorer work on any terrain and grant advantage on initiative and favoured enemy granting extra damage
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Thank you. Got it. Can I respond to a few of these reasons you’ve listed?
“It is not as good as fighter in DPR” Should it? That is what a fighter does. Exclusively. Yes they have other things they can do with their action surge and subclass abilities, but bringing down the pain in combat with weapons should at least be the thing they do better than everyone else, consistently. I will say this , fighters, if using them, are the feat masters! With so many ASIs they have lots of options. If we compare the ranger to the fighter, can we at least compare them on similar ways? One handed weapon fighting, two weapons fighting, and archery? Using that method the ranger, the way I see the numbers, more than keeps up with the fighter at levels 1 through 10, and has magic and such after level 11, when the fighter really pulls ahead in the fighting thing
”It is not as good as rogue in utility.” It’s a kind different utility. You have to take a specific (optional) rogue subclass to play the rogue that everyone says is “better than the ranger”. Talking specifically about the utility that is worth talking about (not like picking locks and such) with rangers any rogue could use their wonderful expertise in survival, but then they are losing out on applying that to more classic rogue specialities. Being proficient or having expertise in survival is good for tracking and navigation Ranger’s have that too. In their favored terrain they have that plus so much more. So much that is not obtained by the rogue. Also, like the fighter l, the rogue should be better at general utility. All of the complaints about the ranger in combat compared to the fighter and paladin hold true for the rogue but even worse
”It is worse than druid in magic.” Yep! Paladins are worse than clerics. Fighters are worse than wizards. Druids are a spellcaster. That is what they do exclusively. It would be terrible if the ranger class was as good at “natural” spellcasting as the druid...for the druid anyway. Rangers get some great druid spells, and some great spells just to themselves. It’s part of their kit.
”It is not even any good as a mix.” I guess is seems like an opinion to me. If I want to play a fighting druid, a nature skill monkey, or something other than one of the three archetypes mentioned above, a ranger seems like a great choice! On top of that, if using multiclass, the ranger blends well with all three of those classes and makes a great chassis and base class to start with, adding dips of any of the others to focus even more down one path or another. Just like with paladins, sorcerers, fighters, and warlocks.
”I never once used hide in plain sight.” I think this case runs rampant in the game because of poor interpretation of the ability. How often do druids use druidic? Rogues use thieve’s cant? Many classes have little things that don’t get used much or at all. Granted, that is a 10th level ability and should be used, but again, I think it suffers from the lack of play style that would need it and using it in an unoptimal manner. I’ve used it and primeval awareness to great fun and actual effect
“Rarely used favoured enemy, which basically just gives you a language.” I will admit that many games aren’t run in a way that gives a hill or brand about travel, tracking and the like. Similar abilities exist in other subclasses don’t they? Doesn’t battle master have a feature that lets them study a specific creature for like a minute to learn things about it? Wouldn’t a knowledge cleric use their specialization in things like history, religion, and arcana to recall information about mind flayers, a kind of devil, or the habits traits of a specific ooze? Character don’t know all that unless they know all that. What about a troll’s weaknesses? What about a troll?! Who would know about that, in game? A ranger not only could, they would, better than others.
”I did use Natural explorer sometimes but it was an exploration focused campaign (west marches). I felt that everything I could do could be done better by a scout rogue.” If a ranger had the abilities of favored enemy and natural explorer but without the specifics of certain creatures or terrains, that would be super duper crazy! If you are using natural explorer in a game, you aren’t going to get any more use from a scout rogue than you would a ranger. Both classes interact heavily with the nature and survival skills, the rogue exclusively and the ranger that and then some. If a game doesn’t take place in a city or a dungeon with doors and chests than lock picks won’t be of any use. We can call this “catering to the class by the DM” or “campaign dependent” if you want, but all abilities are that.
”If the ranger can't keep up with the paladin and the fighter then it doesn't deserve its d10 hit die.” And here is the point we’ve been fighting about for days. I think they do keep up with both fighter and paladin. The ranger certainly is at the same level as monk, rogue, and barbarian. And, given the right comparisons, they can keep up with the fighter and paladin.
It can and does.
I kinda get the feeling this convo is going no-where.
ranger defenders, could you answer this question: would you be happy if the ranger got a buff?
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
This is probably a silly question. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want a class to be "stronger" than the PHB details. Does anyone complain that a particular class is overpowered and deserves a nerf?
I hear this about wizards a bit actually. Specifically in regards to the Sorcerer. Though I feel like certain members of the team Wizards and team Sorcerers camp have been a war for a while. Wizard fans complained when the UA Class Variants came out and it was discovered that one of the options was allowing Sorcerers and Warlocks the ability to switch out one spell from their prepared list every long rest. The Wizard fans said that it would make playing a Wizard less appealing and Sorcerers more OP because switching out prepared spells every long rest was a Wizard's thing and should only be their thing. Even if such statement was a bit ridiculous.....
So yeah, I do think some people would like certain classes to be nerfed.....
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
That is certainly the direction we are having to go. Honestly, I would prefer that the class and subclass abilities be errataed to read better and/or be interpreted and played better as they are. The way I think they read and should be played don't suffer from any of the complaints others have about them. In lieu of that, and a slick plan to release class feature variants for all of the classes in a new book to sell, WotC has opted to add "options".
It's only one spell at a time, and it must be for one of the same level. It gives bards, sorcerers, and warlocks some added flexibility without stepping entirely on the toes of spellcasters who prepare their spells. But it was also a UA feature, and UA is almost always dialed back for publication. That said, the UA did leave EKs and ATs out in the cold. I still don't know how I feel about that.
On a somewhat related note, I am not happy with how paladins and rangers acquire their spells. Paladins should learn their spells in the same way all other Charisma-based spellcasters do. And rangers should be preparing their spells as all other Wisdom-based spellcasters do. What that means for their bonus/expanded spell list I haven't yet figured out.
So....people who think rangers are good want a buff......and people who think rangers are bad want a buff......we are getting a buff...........What in tarnation are we fighting about?
“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 assuming that the argument is that just because people want a certain class to get a buff doesn't automatically mean that said class was bad to begin with since people could also want Paladins, Clerics, Bards or Wizards to get buffs to and these classes have been used on this forum as examples of the better classes.
As already stated, people here will die on the hill that they are defending in regards to the opinions of this class and no one is changing their opinions, just getting increasingly more frustrated to the point of borderline lashing out at each other even if that is not their intention.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
LOL! Good question. Tarnation is a great word, by the way!
I agree that its not stepping on anyone's toes, just pointing out that even some Wizard fans, who's class is argued at being one of the best classes in the game, seem threatened by even the tiniest of bones thrown to other casters to give them more options and feel that the Wizard needs more to compensate from this via a buff and how some people like some Sorcerer fans think that Wizards should be nerfed as they are too powerful and can do mostly anything. This was mainly to try and answer the question of "Does anyone complain that a particular class is overpowered and deserves a nerf?" as well as acknowledge that even when the class is argued as the most powerful, some people would still like buffs to them.
Also I agree that I would like the Rangers to prepare spells. Their whole class revolves around being prepared for anything out in the wilderness. Makes sense that spells would be included in that preparation. And the expanded spell list could be treated the same way the Clerics expanded spell lists are, they are always prepared and then you pick and choose with the spells you can add as you level up.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
I think there's some misconception here. We don't know what final form these class feature variants are going to take. What we do know is these features are being designed to empower players by giving them choices. But these choices should not be obviously better than what's in the PHB. Spell Versatility is relatively minor and something not unique to rangers. But Favored Foe isn't really a buff, either. It's a lateral shift that doesn't actually increase the ranger's power. It simply trades an exploration/social interaction feature for a more combat-focused one.
As for wanting a buff, I think you're misunderstanding the rationale and desire. The ranger, at its absolute worst, is still fine. And being handed a theoretical buff isn't the same as correcting a shortcoming you have perceived the class as having for years. There's no amount of extra options that can make up for that. Just like how a story retcon in a book or film franchise cannot make up for the failings of its predecessor.
Well, people say that about subclasses all the time. Totem Barbarian, certain Artificer UAs, Moon Druids, etc. There are absolutely people who say that a some features are too powerful relative to other features and some subclasses are too powerful relative to other subclasses.
Keep in mind that a lot of people have too much time on their hands right now due to the pandemic-related economic and healthcare fallout. So naturally, there's a lot of desire to burn off energy to do something, even if its a lot of circular arguing on a web forum.
You know what, this conversation is going nowhere. At this point, it's just frustrated people online screaming at each other about something that really does not matter at all. If you think rangers aren't underpowered and should receive no changes, go ahead continuing to nerf your characters with crappy abilities. If you think rangers are underpowered, just use the class feature variants when they come out in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything next month (assuming they keep most of the stuff from the UA).
See you all around, of course excluding those who I have put on my ignore list due to this discussion.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
So the answer to the original question proposed of this thread, Ranger’s Underpowered?
Yes with an if, or, no with a but.
Actually it is no, but they are the worst class in the game.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Ok, everyone. Let’s let them have the last word.
I have to disagree with this, entirely.
Favored enemy didn't see a significant change. A damage bonus was added to give it some combat utility.
Original Natural Explorer was limited to one terrain (three at career end), and only provided exploration phase benefits. The Revised Ranger changed that to being a constant effect in all terrains and also added an in-combat set of benefits.
Primeval Awareness started with letting you know that there was at least one member of a given creature type somewhere within a mile of you, but gave no other information. The Revised Ranger version expanded that to 5 miles, restricted the detection ability to one of your favored enemies, but increased the information gained to include number, general direction, and distance to the creatures.
Honestly, the proposed change to Natural Explorer was really the biggest deal. It took an ability that very situationally gave a decent benefit to a phase of the game that doesn't get a lot of use and turned it into an always useful ability in exploration and combat. Heck, even if the in-combat abilities weren't there, the blanket benefit across all terrain types during exploration is what the ability always should have been from the beginning. Adding to that changes to Primeval Awareness that actually make it useful by helping you actually find those creatures by giving rough location, and the Revised Ranger changes did a LOT to improve how often the abilities could be relevant in game.