Aaron, I did outline why BM can be, even unrevised a nightmare class that is totally undefendable against in open terrain with melee only or short range combatants in tier 1. Lets not forget that potential.
As for weak links in combat, the callous BM isnt particularly weak, he has all the same ranger abilities as other rangers, and a speed bump pet to put between them and danger. If that speed bump is able to be positioned to gain opportunity attacks all the better (your rogue playstyle experience will pay off there) But like any class if there is no group synergy some classes are vulnerable (the all armourless group with no healer) If there is synergy a Shepherd druid who can grant you and your pet temporary hitpoints with their totem will make that speed bump more effective where as a mage with dragons breath could turn your pet into a flamethrower, (and you might have to check if thats possible the wording is not friendly)
Is that to say the Beast Master is a subclass for all occasions? No, most definitely not, but then few subclasses are. But neither is it as restrictive as some and incapable of being utilised.
#addendum. I do feel that melee rangers are in for a rough time no matter the subclass. A melee beastmaster is problematic in division of incoming attacks, proximity to damage dealers and vulnerability to incoming aoe. That would not be a fun experience unless your opponents oddly ignored you in favour of a (no doubt heavier armoured) ally.
I was gonna ask the same thing. My littlebrother's halfling ranger is a gloomstalker. And with, attack, extra attack, gloomstalker attack (with 1d8 necrotic dmg) and off hand attack or hunter's mark. That ******* hurts! And he is only lvl 5! I don't think that ranger is that shitty. A few abilities could be better but else, ranger is a fine class. ^^ IMHO of course.
A large part of why many think Rangers are underpowered is that the image of a Ranger for many people is Aragorn or Drizzt Do'Urden. Those are mostly melee characters. Buuuuut, most good Ranger spells require concentration And the Warcaster feat is crappier for Rangers than for most casters b/c Rangers get ZERO cantrips.
One of the major arguments for how defenders of the status quo PHB Ranger frame their argument is that their spells supplement their weapon proficiencies to boost damage. Here is where the melee Ranger has problems. While the core Ranger has access to some very useful spells, most of their better combat options are concentration spells, including the popular ones like Hunter’s Mark, Zephyr Strike, and Conjure Animals. However, the Ranger has fewer spell slots than a Paladin with 16 or higher Charisma. Just as importantly, they are not proficient in heavy armor and lose out on stealthiness in medium armor. This means that the average Ranger who gets within striking range of a level equivalent monster with Multiattack is likely to lose her concentration spell in a round or two of combat. This is a design flaw for a class whose archetype includes such characters as Aragorn and Drizzt Do’Urden. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to think that some portion of the often low satisfaction with this class is due to the apparent mismatch with what most people think of when they hear ‘”ranger” versus what it is currently restricted to being.
So shouldn't there be a class feature or at least a feat better than Warcaster for melee Rangers?
Song, No game system is likely to let you do everything, or if it did wouldnt everyone be the same thing? Your asking shouldnt there be an option to do X? Thats understandable but the reality of having the ability to know precisely what each class can do in advance (oh if only life were like that!) is that we can choose from the options that will work for our character concept.
Its why I stated rangers will have a bad time in melee. There are a lot of 'point of failure' opportunities. Knowing that in advance should tell you designing a melee ranger concept will be, if 'off the rack' a challenge and likely to underperform. Or knowing that in advance should determine what you would need to make those points of failure points to design around. - being hit and losing concentration is bad. Not being hit is good. Polearm, stand 10' away and batter the opponent with a 1d10+1d6 huntersmark. Polearm master and when you arent adding huntersmark or you cant cast it, hit them with the blunt end as well (although your dm might not give you the 10' reach with the blunt end, imagining that flurry in action around obstacles or in a tunnel is hilarious and out of an old martial art movies thats been sped up.) If your buddy the fighter / barb / disposable beastmaster pet dodging and praying in front of you doesnt fall, then you arent being hit. Other options are to take warcaster / res con to plaster over the defences.
If you want to play a high damage wilderness warrior in melee, then there is always rogue scout.
@Moondruidsneversleep Like I have said in other threads, IF Rangers are supposed to underperform in melee, that should be said right from the get-go. The PHB's examples of a Ranger should all be archers or crossbow(wo)men. Wielding a glaive or halberd only works on Medium sized or larger characters, so no, that's not really a solution. Also being on the front lines, you are subject to attack by everything, not just opponents with a 5 foot reach.
My point is, WotC can FIX the concentration problem by publishing a feat in the next manual of Elminster/Mordenkainen/Whoever that lets classes like Ranger and Paladin benefit from the concentration found in Warcaster while having something Better than cantrip opportunity attacks (b/c they get NO cantrips). Feats are expensive for Rangers and Paladins. They are already MAD classes. Seriously, it's NOT that hard.
For those of you who are curious, I wrote just such a feat in the Homebrew section. Esoteric Entanglement. It fixes just this problem by letting the character have a chance to recuperate the spent spell slot when concentration is disrupted (which is inevitable) while also getting advantage on concentration checks when injured.
I just realized, the GWF fighting style isn't even part of the Ranger kit. It's not necessary, but it certainly helps if you're going to rely on that. But that would mean dipping Fighter, which returns us to the question of whether Rangers were designed from the beginning to be a class that nobody wants to play to level 20.
If D&D classes were students in a high school, the Ranger would probably get dubbed "Most Likely to get Divorced."
I think this was an intentional oversight, but wrong imo. Ranger should have it, two of the "classic" ranger archetypes use two-handed weapons: Aragorn and Minx.
I think this was an intentional oversight, but wrong imo. Ranger should have it, two of the "classic" ranger archetypes use two-handed weapons: Aragorn and Minx.
I would say that Aaragorn uses a hand-and-a-half sword, which in DnD would most closely map over to the Longsword (Versatile).
What @VanCucci said about the Ranger having their design space shrunk by expanded options for other classes is true. The Ranger base class redesign hasn't happened in large part b/c the class's identity has been siphoned off into Fighters, Paladins and Rogues.
* Fighters get more more Fighting Styles than Rangers, doing better at melee at high levels (via their Attack action). Archery and two weapon fighting is also in their wheelhouse.
* Ancients Paladin is almost a melee Ranger already. Both are half casters, both can cast healing spells and both use fey-powers.
* Rogues, what with getting advantage being fairly easy in this edition, can outdamage Rangers in a lot of one vs. one situations and get all their dodge/disengage/dash options much, much earlier. It's no wonder so many people who play Rangers start as Rogues.
Given all of this similarity, it feels like the Ranger class got fleshed out After all of these three classes.
Perhaps what WotC should have done was to not have a Ranger class At All and instead farmed out more of what we currently call its core mechanics and abilities instead into Druid, Fighter and Rogue subclasses.
Perhaps what WotC should have done was to not have a Ranger class At All and instead farmed out more of what we currently call its core mechanics and abilities instead into Druid, Fighter and Rogue subclasses.
If you played in the playtest ... this is exactly what they did. The Fighter was the core class and ranger was a subclass, along with Paladin. I guess it didn't go over well.
The ranger chassis is the issue and how exploration really isn't an equal player to the other two pillars in most games.
Level 1 is fluff and exploration only. Avoids the lvl 1 dip which is a plus. They get some nice skill choices.
Level 2 is the specialization of combat and they miss out on Great Weapon (which I would homebrew) and they get their spells. Which is often overlooked but rangers get some nice spells.
Level 3 Subclass specialization + an Exploration feature that some DMs dont like
Level 6 improvements to my not so exciting lvl 1 feature ... makes my exploration more well rounded but not as interesting. More like a band-aid if the DM decides to go underground and you didnt pick that.
Level 8 Landstride - ok situational ability that rides on the ASI which is the main benefit
Level 10 - first cool ability but is it? Hide in plain sight. its an out of combat ability and probably doesn't come up very often. Maybe if this extended to your companions? It's basically kinda like pass with out trace spell that you get a way later at 10th lvl and takes a min and you cant move. ? Again they get a situational ability that may never come up.
Level 14 - Vanish. It takes 14 lvls for the ranger to get an ability in its chassis that isn't a spell to stand out as useful.
Level 18 - Feral Senses - another cool ability but maybe too late? Players probably multi-classed by now. This would have been amazing at an earlier level.
Level 20 - Foe Slayer - The ranger can get choose to use your wisdom to attack & damage rolls once per turn before or after your role ONLY verses a favored enemy. Situational benefit that might not ever get used in some games. "DM: We arent fighting dragons, giants or undead ... so I guess you dont get to use your lvl 20. Hmmm I guess I can toss a couple in for you to shine."
Really the Rangers power/fun is in the spells and subclass benefits. Which is why I think a lot of people complain about the beast master because it doesn't elevate the rest of the core features enough.
In play, I don't feel the ranger is that bad from my experience. I like exploration! But, I can see how in many games the rangers choices and abilities might not ever be used.
I think the UA ranger tried to fix the chassis, but over did it. They decided to fix it in the subclasses and spells.
* Fighters get more more Fighting Styles than Rangers, doing better at melee at high levels (via their Attack action). Archery and two weapon fighting is also in their wheelhouse.
* Ancients Paladin is almost a melee Ranger already. Both are half casters, both can cast healing spells and both use fey-powers.
* Rogues, what with getting advantage being fairly easy in this edition, can outdamage Rangers in a lot of one vs. one situations and get all their dodge/disengage/dash options much, much earlier. It's no wonder so many people who play Rangers start as Rogues.
Fighters get lots of attacks and ASI
Paladins get Smite, lay on hands, and auras.
Rogues get Sneak attack, uncanny dodge, evasion ...
Barbarian gets Rage
Compare these to the above. These classes have more core features that are useful and come up often.
Having new Ranger spells in Xanathar's is certainly an improvement from the limited PHB options. What they did not fix was the vulnerability of the Ranger to losing their concentration spells and the low value of the Warcaster feat in relation to cantrip-less caster classes like Ranger and Paladin.
In terms of the base class, the devs seem to have tacked on various ribbon abilities to the Fighter and added spells to it. However, it doesn't feel like they playtested the class much before OKing it for publication, which is why most of the core abilities are unsatisfying outside of borderline metagame-y situations where the DM and the player inform each other about exploration and class choice, which is the opposite of what you can expect in most AL campaigns and conference one-shots.
In terms of the base class, the devs seem to have tacked on various ribbon abilities to the Fighter and added spells to it. However, it doesn't feel like they playtested the class much before OKing it for publication, which is why most of the core abilities are unsatisfying outside of borderline metagame-y situations where the DM and the player inform each other about exploration and class choice, which is the opposite of what you can expect in most AL campaigns and conference one-shots.
Interestingly, this is easily the biggest concern (of mine) with the Ranger. The level 1 features of Ranger are 100% situational depending on whether or not the DM gave enough foreshadowing about the terrain and monster types prevalent in the campaign, and the player deciphered them correctly while building the character. No other class is this circumstantial with their level 1 features, especially not with immutable choices.
It's also good to note that every single other class in the game has a feature or ability at level 1 that directly relates to combat. Even if it's just spellcasting ability, like the Druid and Warlock, everyone else gets something with a combat relevant effect, often 2 different ones. But not the Ranger.
In terms of the base class, the devs seem to have tacked on various ribbon abilities to the Fighter and added spells to it. However, it doesn't feel like they playtested the class much before OKing it for publication, which is why most of the core abilities are unsatisfying outside of borderline metagame-y situations where the DM and the player inform each other about exploration and class choice, which is the opposite of what you can expect in most AL campaigns and conference one-shots.
Interestingly, this is easily the biggest concern (of mine) with the Ranger. The level 1 features of Ranger are 100% situational depending on whether or not the DM gave enough foreshadowing about the terrain and monster types prevalent in the campaign, and the player deciphered them correctly while building the character. No other class is this circumstantial with their level 1 features, especially not with immutable choices.
It's also good to note that every single other class in the game has a feature or ability at level 1 that directly relates to combat. Even if it's just spellcasting ability, like the Druid and Warlock, everyone else gets something with a combat relevant effect, often 2 different ones. But not the Ranger.
I think it was playtested a lot. They were considering it to be their 5th class in the basic rules (it's now the bard in essentials).
The last statement I agree with and aligns with my statements above. The basic chassis they built the ranger on doesn't have any impact on the combat pillar until much later. IMO, the designers felt the Exploration pillar would be such a huge thing in games the ranger didn't need the combat core feature because of their combat focused spells. Making it Hunter's mark would probably have been the fix needed, but I maybe they were gun shy from that being their feature from 4e?
Rangers just pale in comparison to stuff like arcane archers, it’s ridiculous
Yeah, the fact that your best Ranger builds are OTHER classes with a splash of Ranger tells you just how messed up it is. You want to be a Ranger, take 3 levels of it and then do the rest as something else, my "ranger" is currently 5 levels ranger, 2 rogue, will ultimately be 11 Rogue, 4 Bard and 5 Ranger.
Rangers just pale in comparison to stuff like arcane archers, it’s ridiculous
Nothing in an Arcane Archer's toolkit compares to the usefulness of the ranger's spell list. If you're in it solely for the damage then yeah naturally Fighters are more geared in that direction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Aaron, I did outline why BM can be, even unrevised a nightmare class that is totally undefendable against in open terrain with melee only or short range combatants in tier 1. Lets not forget that potential.
As for weak links in combat, the callous BM isnt particularly weak, he has all the same ranger abilities as other rangers, and a speed bump pet to put between them and danger. If that speed bump is able to be positioned to gain opportunity attacks all the better (your rogue playstyle experience will pay off there) But like any class if there is no group synergy some classes are vulnerable (the all armourless group with no healer) If there is synergy a Shepherd druid who can grant you and your pet temporary hitpoints with their totem will make that speed bump more effective where as a mage with dragons breath could turn your pet into a flamethrower, (and you might have to check if thats possible the wording is not friendly)
Is that to say the Beast Master is a subclass for all occasions? No, most definitely not, but then few subclasses are. But neither is it as restrictive as some and incapable of being utilised.
#addendum. I do feel that melee rangers are in for a rough time no matter the subclass. A melee beastmaster is problematic in division of incoming attacks, proximity to damage dealers and vulnerability to incoming aoe. That would not be a fun experience unless your opponents oddly ignored you in favour of a (no doubt heavier armoured) ally.
I was gonna ask the same thing. My littlebrother's halfling ranger is a gloomstalker. And with, attack, extra attack, gloomstalker attack (with 1d8 necrotic dmg) and off hand attack or hunter's mark. That ******* hurts! And he is only lvl 5! I don't think that ranger is that shitty. A few abilities could be better but else, ranger is a fine class. ^^ IMHO of course.
A large part of why many think Rangers are underpowered is that the image of a Ranger for many people is Aragorn or Drizzt Do'Urden. Those are mostly melee characters. Buuuuut, most good Ranger spells require concentration And the Warcaster feat is crappier for Rangers than for most casters b/c Rangers get ZERO cantrips.
One of the major arguments for how defenders of the status quo PHB Ranger frame their argument is that their spells supplement their weapon proficiencies to boost damage. Here is where the melee Ranger has problems. While the core Ranger has access to some very useful spells, most of their better combat options are concentration spells, including the popular ones like Hunter’s Mark, Zephyr Strike, and Conjure Animals. However, the Ranger has fewer spell slots than a Paladin with 16 or higher Charisma. Just as importantly, they are not proficient in heavy armor and lose out on stealthiness in medium armor. This means that the average Ranger who gets within striking range of a level equivalent monster with Multiattack is likely to lose her concentration spell in a round or two of combat. This is a design flaw for a class whose archetype includes such characters as Aragorn and Drizzt Do’Urden. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to think that some portion of the often low satisfaction with this class is due to the apparent mismatch with what most people think of when they hear ‘”ranger” versus what it is currently restricted to being.
So shouldn't there be a class feature or at least a feat better than Warcaster for melee Rangers?
Song, No game system is likely to let you do everything, or if it did wouldnt everyone be the same thing? Your asking shouldnt there be an option to do X? Thats understandable but the reality of having the ability to know precisely what each class can do in advance (oh if only life were like that!) is that we can choose from the options that will work for our character concept.
Its why I stated rangers will have a bad time in melee. There are a lot of 'point of failure' opportunities. Knowing that in advance should tell you designing a melee ranger concept will be, if 'off the rack' a challenge and likely to underperform. Or knowing that in advance should determine what you would need to make those points of failure points to design around. - being hit and losing concentration is bad. Not being hit is good. Polearm, stand 10' away and batter the opponent with a 1d10+1d6 huntersmark. Polearm master and when you arent adding huntersmark or you cant cast it, hit them with the blunt end as well (although your dm might not give you the 10' reach with the blunt end, imagining that flurry in action around obstacles or in a tunnel is hilarious and out of an old martial art movies thats been sped up.) If your buddy the fighter / barb / disposable beastmaster pet dodging and praying in front of you doesnt fall, then you arent being hit. Other options are to take warcaster / res con to plaster over the defences.
If you want to play a high damage wilderness warrior in melee, then there is always rogue scout.
@Moondruidsneversleep Like I have said in other threads, IF Rangers are supposed to underperform in melee, that should be said right from the get-go. The PHB's examples of a Ranger should all be archers or crossbow(wo)men. Wielding a glaive or halberd only works on Medium sized or larger characters, so no, that's not really a solution. Also being on the front lines, you are subject to attack by everything, not just opponents with a 5 foot reach.
My point is, WotC can FIX the concentration problem by publishing a feat in the next manual of Elminster/Mordenkainen/Whoever that lets classes like Ranger and Paladin benefit from the concentration found in Warcaster while having something Better than cantrip opportunity attacks (b/c they get NO cantrips). Feats are expensive for Rangers and Paladins. They are already MAD classes. Seriously, it's NOT that hard.
For those of you who are curious, I wrote just such a feat in the Homebrew section. Esoteric Entanglement. It fixes just this problem by letting the character have a chance to recuperate the spent spell slot when concentration is disrupted (which is inevitable) while also getting advantage on concentration checks when injured.
I just realized, the GWF fighting style isn't even part of the Ranger kit. It's not necessary, but it certainly helps if you're going to rely on that. But that would mean dipping Fighter, which returns us to the question of whether Rangers were designed from the beginning to be a class that nobody wants to play to level 20.
If D&D classes were students in a high school, the Ranger would probably get dubbed "Most Likely to get Divorced."
I think this was an intentional oversight, but wrong imo. Ranger should have it, two of the "classic" ranger archetypes use two-handed weapons: Aragorn and Minx.
I would say that Aaragorn uses a hand-and-a-half sword, which in DnD would most closely map over to the Longsword (Versatile).
What @VanCucci said about the Ranger having their design space shrunk by expanded options for other classes is true. The Ranger base class redesign hasn't happened in large part b/c the class's identity has been siphoned off into Fighters, Paladins and Rogues.
* Fighters get more more Fighting Styles than Rangers, doing better at melee at high levels (via their Attack action). Archery and two weapon fighting is also in their wheelhouse.
* Ancients Paladin is almost a melee Ranger already. Both are half casters, both can cast healing spells and both use fey-powers.
* Rogues, what with getting advantage being fairly easy in this edition, can outdamage Rangers in a lot of one vs. one situations and get all their dodge/disengage/dash options much, much earlier. It's no wonder so many people who play Rangers start as Rogues.
Given all of this similarity, it feels like the Ranger class got fleshed out After all of these three classes.
Perhaps what WotC should have done was to not have a Ranger class At All and instead farmed out more of what we currently call its core mechanics and abilities instead into Druid, Fighter and Rogue subclasses.
If you played in the playtest ... this is exactly what they did. The Fighter was the core class and ranger was a subclass, along with Paladin. I guess it didn't go over well.
The ranger chassis is the issue and how exploration really isn't an equal player to the other two pillars in most games.
Really the Rangers power/fun is in the spells and subclass benefits. Which is why I think a lot of people complain about the beast master because it doesn't elevate the rest of the core features enough.
In play, I don't feel the ranger is that bad from my experience. I like exploration! But, I can see how in many games the rangers choices and abilities might not ever be used.
I think the UA ranger tried to fix the chassis, but over did it. They decided to fix it in the subclasses and spells.
Compare these to the above. These classes have more core features that are useful and come up often.
Having new Ranger spells in Xanathar's is certainly an improvement from the limited PHB options. What they did not fix was the vulnerability of the Ranger to losing their concentration spells and the low value of the Warcaster feat in relation to cantrip-less caster classes like Ranger and Paladin.
In terms of the base class, the devs seem to have tacked on various ribbon abilities to the Fighter and added spells to it. However, it doesn't feel like they playtested the class much before OKing it for publication, which is why most of the core abilities are unsatisfying outside of borderline metagame-y situations where the DM and the player inform each other about exploration and class choice, which is the opposite of what you can expect in most AL campaigns and conference one-shots.
Interestingly, this is easily the biggest concern (of mine) with the Ranger. The level 1 features of Ranger are 100% situational depending on whether or not the DM gave enough foreshadowing about the terrain and monster types prevalent in the campaign, and the player deciphered them correctly while building the character. No other class is this circumstantial with their level 1 features, especially not with immutable choices.
It's also good to note that every single other class in the game has a feature or ability at level 1 that directly relates to combat. Even if it's just spellcasting ability, like the Druid and Warlock, everyone else gets something with a combat relevant effect, often 2 different ones. But not the Ranger.
I think it was playtested a lot. They were considering it to be their 5th class in the basic rules (it's now the bard in essentials).
The last statement I agree with and aligns with my statements above. The basic chassis they built the ranger on doesn't have any impact on the combat pillar until much later. IMO, the designers felt the Exploration pillar would be such a huge thing in games the ranger didn't need the combat core feature because of their combat focused spells. Making it Hunter's mark would probably have been the fix needed, but I maybe they were gun shy from that being their feature from 4e?
Any news on a new revised ranger that will be available for DDB?
nope, and there won't be until Wizards publishes something, but they seem to have dropped all interest in providing a revised ranger.
Rangers just pale in comparison to stuff like arcane archers, it’s ridiculous
Yeah, the fact that your best Ranger builds are OTHER classes with a splash of Ranger tells you just how messed up it is. You want to be a Ranger, take 3 levels of it and then do the rest as something else, my "ranger" is currently 5 levels ranger, 2 rogue, will ultimately be 11 Rogue, 4 Bard and 5 Ranger.
Nothing in an Arcane Archer's toolkit compares to the usefulness of the ranger's spell list. If you're in it solely for the damage then yeah naturally Fighters are more geared in that direction.