Give me a situation that makes them weak. I’ll see if I can counterpoint.
Just one? I'll give you a list of them:
Melee combat, especially when using Strength based weapons (due to no heavy armor proficiency).
Bad spell list due to Hunter's Mark taking concentration, as well as most of their other spells.
Objectively worse features at level 1, 3, 6, 10, 14, and 20 than Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues, and Paladins.
Until XGtE came out, all of the subclasses were bad. Until TCoE comes out, Beast Masters will be objectively awful (compare it to Battle Smith Artificers, they're obviously terrible).
More limited weapon options for weapons, armor, and playstyle than most other classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Ok! We should probably talk about these in terms of levels 1-10 and 11-20 as level 11 is a big change in all of the martial classes. Also, anyone who complains that rangers don't deal as much damage as fighters is just being silly. Fighters SHOULD be dealing more martial damage than other martial classes! That is what they do. We should also talk without feats and multiclassing, and with them differently. Rangers are multiclassing kings! Just as paladins, warlocks, fighters, and sorcerers all combine well, so does the ranger, cleric, rogue, druid, and fighter.
Melee combat, especially when using Strength based weapons (due to no heavy armor proficiency).
Rangers can use strength based weapons just fine. The only thing they don't get from their is heavy armor proficiency and a fighting style to match. They are just as able to make strength their main fighting stat as dexterity as they can use thrown weapons to trigger some of their best spells (hail of thorns, lightning arrow, etc.). The heavy armor thing is not a big deal for a dexterity based ranger, and even a strength based ranger can do fine. Plate mail is AC 18 and costs 1500 gp. Half plate gives an AC of 17 (with a 14+ dexterity) and costs less than half. So a strength based ranger could pump strength, have a modest dexterity, and still be able to be on the front line no less than a monk, rogue, hex blade, etc. In fact, from levels 1-10, a strength focused baseline ranger wielding a great sword (2d6 + 1d6 + ability mod) or halberd does more consistent damage than a baseline fighter or paladin (2d6 + ability mod). Also, why do people always compare rangers to fighters and paladins using strength and heavy weapons? That is the wrong archetype for a ranger and unfair to them. It would be the same saying that paladins are crappy archers, or rogues make crappy frontline tanks.
Bad spell list due to Hunter's Mark taking concentration, as well as most of their other spells.
Their spell list is amazing. A first level smite does 2d8. A hunter's mark spell does more than that over a couple of turns. Rogues, fighters, and paladins focus on doing their damage spikes on a single target. Rangers focus on doing their damage spikes on multiple targets. Their spells reinforce this focus. So this is an apples to oranges situation. A single attack that does 100 damage to a goblin is a waste of time and resources. Their spells also do more to the battlefield. Fog cloud can save a party from a mage with power word kill or a beholder. Plant growth can shut down a small army. Their AoE spells are great and a fine use of concentration. When calculating damage output, we should always assume the AoE effects are hitting 2 targets. You should look at the math of a paladin doing a smite compared to a ranger with hail of thorns witting two targets. It's very interesting.
Objectively worse features at level 1, 3, 6, 10, 14, and 20 than Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues, and Paladins.
I assume you are still only talking about combat. Spikes aside, baseline rangers deal more consistent damage than fighter, paladins, rogues, and barbarians from levels 2-10. After that they are fully capable of keeping up with their subclasses and spells. Again, these are single target focused classes versus a multi target focused class. Hunter's double down on this idea with several of their options.
Until XGtE came out, all of the subclasses were bad. Until TCoE comes out, Beast Masters will be objectively awful (compare it to Battle Smith Artificers, they're obviously terrible).
All of your reasons sound more like options to me. The hunter has huge damage and survivability options and does MORE constant damage than a fighter, paladin, rogue, or barbarian up to level 10, and is on even par with them from that point on. The beast master is at worst a baseline ranger, and at best an action expanding, added action option, damage output (levels 11-20) machine. We should talk some specific math. The battle smith artificer is very different from the beast master ranger, and not in a better way. I'll just leave it at my opinion unless you would like to talk more specifics moving forward. People love the battle master, the beast master has b=many of the same kind of effects on the battle field with a wolf, panther, giant frog, crab, etc.
More limited weapon options for weapons, armor, and playstyle than most other classes.
This is not even remotely true. The only thing they lack from any other class in regards to weapons and armor is heavy armor, and they are able to do any of the playstyles they wish (I assume by playstyle you mean function in combat, tank, archer, etc.)
Bad spell list due to Hunter's Mark taking concentration, as well as most of their other spells.
Their spell list is amazing. A first level smite does 2d8. A hunter's mark spell does more than that over a couple of turns. Rogues, fighters, and paladins focus on doing their damage spikes on a single target. Rangers focus on doing their damage spikes on multiple targets. Their spells reinforce this focus. So this is an apples to oranges situation. A single attack that does 100 damage to a goblin is a waste of time and resources. Their spells also do more to the battlefield. Fog cloud can save a party from a mage with power word kill or a beholder. Plant growth can shut down a small army. Their AoE spells are great and a fine use of concentration. When calculating damage output, we should always assume the AoE effects are hitting 2 targets. You should look at the math of a paladin doing a smite compared to a ranger with hail of thorns witting two targets. It's very interesting.
I just want to expand on this.
The reason Hunter's Mark was put as a concentration spell rather than as a non-concentration feature is for balancing purposes. For example, Horizon Walkers can add 1d8 to attacks, increasing to 2d8 at 11th level, Hunter can get 1d8 damage to their attacks, Monster Slayer gets 1d6.
Put simply the stacking of these with Hunters Mark, PLUS the benefits of Multiclassing into other classes offering extra weapon damage (like Clerics, 1d8, Paladins 1d8, more) - especially since you can have some races that can also improve damage on hits like Aasimar -- and it should be easy to see why its concentration. To allow all that stacking without concentration on something, means there's even more room for other strike damage spells - like getting Hex from magic initiate warlock feat.
I can fully undertand why it's concentration. The restriction prevents some insane super-DPS builds. We already have the nukathon Sorcadin build. Let's not give them even more damage-on-hit numbers with a dash of Ranger.
--
I generally find the people who most complain about ranger being underpowered are usually those who focus on "combat". D&D is more than combat. Ranger is not designed as a pure combat class. If all you care about is DPS then it's not the class for you.
Having played a ranger and been in a long campaign with a ranger in party. I can tell you, there's nothing underpowered about them. Assuming of course you know how to play them correctly and you're in a campaign where base class features can be used. If you're not wandering through various environments or encountering favoured enemies with a need to track them, then sure it can feel like you're not getting as much out of it. But that is a campaign/DM thing not a class thing.
Bad spell list due to Hunter's Mark taking concentration, as well as most of their other spells.
Their spell list is amazing. A first level smite does 2d8. A hunter's mark spell does more than that over a couple of turns. Rogues, fighters, and paladins focus on doing their damage spikes on a single target. Rangers focus on doing their damage spikes on multiple targets. Their spells reinforce this focus. So this is an apples to oranges situation. A single attack that does 100 damage to a goblin is a waste of time and resources. Their spells also do more to the battlefield. Fog cloud can save a party from a mage with power word kill or a beholder. Plant growth can shut down a small army. Their AoE spells are great and a fine use of concentration. When calculating damage output, we should always assume the AoE effects are hitting 2 targets. You should look at the math of a paladin doing a smite compared to a ranger with hail of thorns witting two targets. It's very interesting.
I just want to expand on this.
The reason Hunter's Mark was put as a concentration spell rather than as a non-concentration feature is for balancing purposes. For example, Horizon Walkers can add 1d8 to attacks, increasing to 2d8 at 11th level, Hunter can get 1d8 damage to their attacks, Monster Slayer gets 1d6.
Put simply the stacking of these with Hunters Mark, PLUS the benefits of Multiclassing into other classes offering extra weapon damage (like Clerics, 1d8, Paladins 1d8, more) - especially since you can have some races that can also improve damage on hits like Aasimar -- and it should be easy to see why its concentration. To allow all that stacking without concentration on something, means there's even more room for other strike damage spells - like getting Hex from magic initiate warlock feat.
I can fully undertand why it's concentration. The restriction prevents some insane super-DPS builds. We already have the nukathon Sorcadin build. Let's not give them even more damage-on-hit numbers with a dash of Ranger.
--
I generally find the people who most complain about ranger being underpowered are usually those who focus on "combat". D&D is more than combat. Ranger is not designed as a pure combat class. If all you care about is DPS then it's not the class for you.
Having played a ranger and been in a long campaign with a ranger in party. I can tell you, there's nothing underpowered about them. Assuming of course you know how to play them correctly and you're in a campaign where base class features can be used. If you're not wandering through various environments or encountering favoured enemies with a need to track them, then sure it can feel like you're not getting as much out of it. But that is a campaign/DM thing not a class thing.
Well, we know class variant features are in Tasha's, so good chance Hunter's Mark is going no concentration. Also, the argument that you can't do it because it allows some uber build isn't valid - classes are designed to stand on their own. they do not ask - can someone combine this to break the game.
Bad spell list due to Hunter's Mark taking concentration, as well as most of their other spells.
Their spell list is amazing. A first level smite does 2d8. A hunter's mark spell does more than that over a couple of turns. Rogues, fighters, and paladins focus on doing their damage spikes on a single target. Rangers focus on doing their damage spikes on multiple targets. Their spells reinforce this focus. So this is an apples to oranges situation. A single attack that does 100 damage to a goblin is a waste of time and resources. Their spells also do more to the battlefield. Fog cloud can save a party from a mage with power word kill or a beholder. Plant growth can shut down a small army. Their AoE spells are great and a fine use of concentration. When calculating damage output, we should always assume the AoE effects are hitting 2 targets. You should look at the math of a paladin doing a smite compared to a ranger with hail of thorns witting two targets. It's very interesting.
I just want to expand on this.
The reason Hunter's Mark was put as a concentration spell rather than as a non-concentration feature is for balancing purposes. For example, Horizon Walkers can add 1d8 to attacks, increasing to 2d8 at 11th level, Hunter can get 1d8 damage to their attacks, Monster Slayer gets 1d6.
Put simply the stacking of these with Hunters Mark, PLUS the benefits of Multiclassing into other classes offering extra weapon damage (like Clerics, 1d8, Paladins 1d8, more) - especially since you can have some races that can also improve damage on hits like Aasimar -- and it should be easy to see why its concentration. To allow all that stacking without concentration on something, means there's even more room for other strike damage spells - like getting Hex from magic initiate warlock feat.
I can fully undertand why it's concentration. The restriction prevents some insane super-DPS builds. We already have the nukathon Sorcadin build. Let's not give them even more damage-on-hit numbers with a dash of Ranger.
--
I generally find the people who most complain about ranger being underpowered are usually those who focus on "combat". D&D is more than combat. Ranger is not designed as a pure combat class. If all you care about is DPS then it's not the class for you.
Having played a ranger and been in a long campaign with a ranger in party. I can tell you, there's nothing underpowered about them. Assuming of course you know how to play them correctly and you're in a campaign where base class features can be used. If you're not wandering through various environments or encountering favoured enemies with a need to track them, then sure it can feel like you're not getting as much out of it. But that is a campaign/DM thing not a class thing.
Well, we know class variant features are in Tasha's, so good chance Hunter's Mark is going no concentration. Also, the argument that you can't do it because it allows some uber build isn't valid - classes are designed to stand on their own. they do not ask - can someone combine this to break the game.
i say at least make it take no concentration when used against your favored enemy. making the choices of your favored enemy matter even more. or make it still concentration but cant be broken by concentration checks by your favored enemy as you have trained to hunt them and shouldn't loose focus when fighting them
dumb idea but hear me out. Beast master ranger but if they choose or have a tiny Cr 0 beast they can as a bonus action cause their companion to become a cr 1\4 swarm for 1 minute or 10 min. they can do this equal to their wisdom modifier minimum of 1.
I don't think it matters. In a month the new book will be out, we will know for certain what alternative class features are included, the primal beast will likely be included and people can either add or ignore those features.
i say at least make it take no concentration when used against your favored enemy. making the choices of your favored enemy matter even more. or make it still concentration but cant be broken by concentration checks by your favored enemy as you have trained to hunt them and shouldn't loose focus when fighting them
If they stick with the 2019 class feature variants UA then the way it's going to work is that all Rangers will get Hunter's Mark as standard, and can use it for free without concentration a number of times equal to their Wisdom modifier (minimum of 1) per long rest, and can switch targets freely (the original target doesn't have to be reduced to 0 HP first). This is going to be great for primary Rangers, and shouldn't be too abusable for multi-classing as it'll require points in Wisdom to use it multiple times per day; if you're just taking a quick 2-level Ranger dip it'll be one hour and that's it.
The proposed changes also would mean that instead of favoured enemies, simply marking a target with Hunter's Mark will be enough to trigger stuff like Foe Slayer; instead of favoured enemy you get a "build your own ranger" selection of features such as languages, tracking skills etc.
So benefits that previously only applied to favoured enemies will be more reliable, and Hunter's Mark becomes a core class feature; it'll make a big difference to Rangers, but the main difference in terms of strength is that things that require favoured enemy (just Foe Slayer on the core class?) will trigger whenever you want, and you can potentially have Hunter's Mark plus one other concentration spell active at the same time (Magic Initiate (Warlock) for Hex could be about to become really popular for Rangers).
Of course we don't know for sure that any of this will be in Tasha's Cauldron; I'm hoping so as I think the changes make Rangers a lot smoother to play without making them OP. I'm hoping all the changes make it in, though I have my doubts about whether the bonus Hunter's Mark uses will remain concentration free or not; simply having access to bonus castings would greatly help with the previous concentration clashes, as it would be easier to just re-cast it as required, or they might add some condition so it stays up but the effect temporarily deactivates while concentrating on something else?
The ranger isn’t underpowered. Not even the beast master. The baseline ranger class is the most open to DM interpretation of any of the classes.
I feel like you're trolling here, or have a very different experience of rangers than practically everyone else in D&D 5e. Have you played a ranger? Have you played one with another damage dealing character? Have you played more than just a ranger? Do you still think rangers aren't underpowered?
If you answered yes, yes, yes, and yes, you have been doing something wrong. Rangers are underpowered, especially beast masters.
No, they're really not. I ran a game for 6 months for a party of three, and out of the monk, paladin, and ranger it was the ranger who was the MVP. I've played one into Tier 3 and had a blast. Dan Dillon has played a beast master, using the RAW and no house rules, up to level 20. It's not underpowered as a class. If anything, it fills a specific niche (wilderness exploration) a little too well. Their sustained damage output remains competitive with other classes throughout their career, and they come with potent support magic.
The single biggest weakness for beast masters is the dearth of beasts presented in the PHB. A weak beast can hurt, so you need the monster manual to really know what your options are. But other than that they're perfectly functional.
Bad spell list due to Hunter's Mark taking concentration, as well as most of their other spells.
Their spell list is amazing. A first level smite does 2d8. A hunter's mark spell does more than that over a couple of turns. Rogues, fighters, and paladins focus on doing their damage spikes on a single target. Rangers focus on doing their damage spikes on multiple targets. Their spells reinforce this focus. So this is an apples to oranges situation. A single attack that does 100 damage to a goblin is a waste of time and resources. Their spells also do more to the battlefield. Fog cloud can save a party from a mage with power word kill or a beholder. Plant growth can shut down a small army. Their AoE spells are great and a fine use of concentration. When calculating damage output, we should always assume the AoE effects are hitting 2 targets. You should look at the math of a paladin doing a smite compared to a ranger with hail of thorns witting two targets. It's very interesting.
Objectively worse features at level 1, 3, 6, 10, 14, and 20 than Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues, and Paladins.
I assume you are still only talking about combat. Spikes aside, baseline rangers deal more consistent damage than fighter, paladins, rogues, and barbarians from levels 2-10. After that they are fully capable of keeping up with their subclasses and spells. Again, these are single target focused classes versus a multi target focused class. Hunter's double down on this idea with several of their options.
I more or less agree with you on most points, except that Rangers as a class should get a boost to concentration or get a cantrip or two. The reason is that they should be just as functional in melee as a Paladin if the player wants them to be. However, the sustained damage benefits of Hunter's Mark is weakened by it being a concentration spell that is easily disrupted by taking damage. The usual response would be "Just take Warcaster as a feat." The problem with that? Rangers have no cantrips and few spell slots. Thus half the benefit of the Warcaster feat is useless to most Rangers. Compare this to the Paladin, who gets a free concentration boost from level 6 onwards, or the EKnight, who gets cantrips.
Also, the Exploration benefits to Rangers are both a bit OP and it makes outdoor environments in Favored Terrain bland. They allow a party with a Ranger to just whiz on past most outdoor areas with very few rolls, making it difficult for the DM to setup useful challenges. However, being able to hide somewhere after a full minute of camouflaging yourself that gets disrupted once you move or take any action? That is trash for a level 10 feature.
In response to the melee ranger and losing concentration, I'm wondering why we're immediately discounting medium armor just because of stealth. Medium Armor Master is a thing and even if your dex isn't high enough to take advantage of the extra point of AC, it clears the disadvantage on stealth. Hunters Mark doesn't require exceptional Wisdom so relegating Wisdom to your 12, Intelligence to your 10 (so your nature skill can have proficiency and not lose anything from the bonus) and dumping Charisma still allows for your 15 and 14 or 13 to go to dex for AC (maxed at 14 until the extra point from MAM is wanted, if taken) and the other in Strength for Strength based attacks. Constitution gets whatever is left over. If your not choosing a str/con or str/dex race to boost those stats, then you can have an argument, but it falls flat because you're trying have your cake and eat it too. Dual Wielder is a great feat for a melee ranger that isn't going two handed or sword and board. Shield Master works for the sword and board ranger (plus dueling fighting style), and great weapon fighting style is a bit lacking generally for 2 handers. Defensive Fighting style is much better to help with concentration maintenance and let hunters mark deal the extra damage. Yes Vengeance Paladins can get Hunters Mark too, but they're much more offensively focused. Ancients Paladins can fill some ranger flavor, but don't get Hunters Mark.
Dex based melee fighters are a better melee option. Medium Armor at low levels gives the same AC as Chain Mail assuming 14 dex. A rapier gives the same damage for sword and board, Rangers are at no disadvantage for two weapon fighting compared to other classes (queue the action economy arguments because of hunters mark, which other two hand fighters usually won't have and vengeance Pallys don't have Two Weapon Fighting Style to support two hand fighting, it's naturally a cost for the added benefit).
Rangers have options available for their customization for specific builds at the cost of some of the options available to other classes. If you want all of the Fighter options or Paladin options with a touch survival skills, then those options are available. The Ranger is the martial survivalist and Druid is the spellcasting survivalist.
From what I can see, the biggest problem with Ranger is that WotC doesn't put a lot of content in for exploration which should be the bread and butter of the Ranger. If the party had to make due with exploration factors like they do with social or combat factors (ensure that someone can do it or spend gold or do favors to enlist that help) then it would have more weight and fewer people would Boo hoo about the "ribbon" abilities. All to often that gets glossed over because someone doesn't have that skill and DMs are hesitant to gate stuff behind skills that the party doesn't have.
As for the metagame feel for choosing favored enemy and Natural Explorer is a little overblown. The DM should give some guidance on those as part of the character creation process, at least in the form of "We will not be visiting desert or coastal areas and we won't be dealing with undead in this campaign." If the player is thinking of being an undead hunter who specializes in coastal terrains, the character wouldn't make sense in that campaign and there is not a great reason why that character would be looking for work in an area completely outside their expertise. That's akin to a lawyer with training in family law trying to tackle a tax law job with no training in that field and expecting to be as successful. While an accountant might be better suited at aspects of tax law than a lawyer, they still wouldn't bring all of the benefits that a lawyer would bring to the table. The question becomes, is the trade off worth it?
In response to the melee ranger and losing concentration, I'm wondering why we're immediately discounting medium armor just because of stealth. Medium Armor Master is a thing and even if your dex isn't high enough to take advantage of the extra point of AC, it clears the disadvantage on stealth. Hunters Mark doesn't require exceptional Wisdom so relegating Wisdom to your 12, Intelligence to your 10 (so your nature skill can have proficiency and not lose anything from the bonus) and dumping Charisma still allows for your 15 and 14 or 13 to go to dex for AC (maxed at 14 until the extra point from MAM is wanted, if taken) and the other in Strength for Strength based attacks. Constitution gets whatever is left over. If your not choosing a str/con or str/dex race to boost those stats, then you can have an argument, but it falls flat because you're trying have your cake and eat it too. Dual Wielder is a great feat for a melee ranger that isn't going two handed or sword and board. Shield Master works for the sword and board ranger (plus dueling fighting style), and great weapon fighting style is a bit lacking generally for 2 handers. Defensive Fighting style is much better to help with concentration maintenance and let hunters mark deal the extra damage. Yes Vengeance Paladins can get Hunters Mark too, but they're much more offensively focused. Ancients Paladins can fill some ranger flavor, but don't get Hunters Mark.
While I agree with you on the need for expanded exploration opportunities in official adventure modules, I still thing that, as written, the Favored Terrain benefits cheese the survival aspects of wilderness areas. The jungle in Tomb of Annihilation, for instance, was a cakewalk for the party just because there was 1 Ranger in the party and the Wizard had Leomund's Tiny Hut. Snoozefest for anything that was not a direct combat scenario.
If you have a WIS of 12, you won't get much benefit from Foe Slayer. Medium Armor Master is good for a Ranger wanting to boost Stealth, but that doesn't address concentration saves. Having a higher AC does not eliminate the need for concentration saves. The fact is that Warcaster an almost mandatory feat for a melee Ranger, but it's also 1/2 useless cause no cantrips.
It’s funny. People who don’t like exploration SHOULD pick the ranger class, so they can circumvent almost all the exploration. LOL!
For the hide in plain sight ability at level 10, there is a clear break between the two paragraphs there. I always play that as a two part ability. Part 1: Take the minute to apply camouflage. Part 2: Next time you attempt a hide, you get +10. They don’t have to happen one right after the other. I see this like a ninja waiting for their quarry or “disappearing” while being chased. I also read this as an exception to the rule on hiding regarding having to be unseen to try and hide, similar to a wood elf or halfling. So if you are in a battle having done your camouflage beforehand, and a beholder shows up, you can press yourself up against a wall and hide. Also, this ability has no restrictions for a natural environment, let alone favored terrain. It just works. In a city. In a dungeon. Anywhere. Rangers at this level ignore difficult terrain while traveling in their favored terrain, they can move at stealth at a normal pace, remain alert to danger while traveling, and regular difficult terrain doesn’t slow their movement, so they can apply camouflage while traveling, even in between combats, and reapply camouflage.
In response to the melee ranger and losing concentration, I'm wondering why we're immediately discounting medium armor just because of stealth. Medium Armor Master is a thing and even if your dex isn't high enough to take advantage of the extra point of AC, it clears the disadvantage on stealth. Hunters Mark doesn't require exceptional Wisdom so relegating Wisdom to your 12, Intelligence to your 10 (so your nature skill can have proficiency and not lose anything from the bonus) and dumping Charisma still allows for your 15 and 14 or 13 to go to dex for AC (maxed at 14 until the extra point from MAM is wanted, if taken) and the other in Strength for Strength based attacks. Constitution gets whatever is left over. If your not choosing a str/con or str/dex race to boost those stats, then you can have an argument, but it falls flat because you're trying have your cake and eat it too. Dual Wielder is a great feat for a melee ranger that isn't going two handed or sword and board. Shield Master works for the sword and board ranger (plus dueling fighting style), and great weapon fighting style is a bit lacking generally for 2 handers. Defensive Fighting style is much better to help with concentration maintenance and let hunters mark deal the extra damage. Yes Vengeance Paladins can get Hunters Mark too, but they're much more offensively focused. Ancients Paladins can fill some ranger flavor, but don't get Hunters Mark.
While I agree with you on the need for expanded exploration opportunities in official adventure modules, I still thing that, as written, the Favored Terrain benefits cheese the survival aspects of wilderness areas. The jungle in Tomb of Annihilation, for instance, was a cakewalk for the party just because there was 1 Ranger in the party and the Wizard had Leomund's Tiny Hut. Snoozefest for anything that was not a direct combat scenario.
If you have a WIS of 12, you won't get much benefit from Foe Slayer. Medium Armor Master is good for a Ranger wanting to boost Stealth, but that doesn't address concentration saves. Having a higher AC does not eliminate the need for concentration saves. The fact is that Warcaster an almost mandatory feat for a melee Ranger, but it's also 1/2 useless cause no cantrips.
It doesn't eliminate the need for concentration saves, but it does help as you'll take fewer hits. Higher constitution and Resilient (Con) can help. The Ranger can fill a lot of roles with minimal equipment and outside support and can specialize into those roles better with the outside support like feats. The cost is that they can't fulfill those roles as well as classes that specialize in them and require more support when thst want to specialize. This is why people think that they're weaker. They don't consider that the other class would have to accommodate just as much to be able to fulfill the same skill set that the ranger fills. Since much of that skill set is undervalued in 5e, it's not appreciated and therefore considered weak.
As for Foe Slayer with a lower Wisdom, that's no different than a Paladin's Aura of Protection if they decide to tank charisma "because I just Smite". But if you are wanting to use a melee Ranger with concentration spells, then you need to make some concessions. Your options are: 1) Take Warcaster feat. Yes you'll have to go with a race like High Elf (not my choice for a strength build Ranger, but one that I know has a cantrip) to get a cantrip or go sword and board or dual wield to get more benefit out of it. 2) Compromise on stats or roll really high on 4 of them. Dumping Charisma and Intelligence is an option (but then you're giving up on nature skill a bit more. However, like exploration, knowledge skills tend to be overlooked.) That doesn't help a bunch, but it can quite a bit, particularly if you go Mountain Dwarf with two 14s on point buy. Having a 16, 13, 16, 9, 14, 8 or a 16 14 15 9 14 8 or some variation is achievable. 3) Leave Wisdom lower and deal with the consequences. If Foe Slayer being limited at 20 is your biggest concern, you've probably had a pretty good campaign and had quite a lot of fun. 4) Go dex based. A d8 weapon only loses 2.5 average damage to a 2d6 weapon. Dueling fighting style will make up for that. Two weapon fighting is typically boo hooed in 5e, but does compete, has a feat to give you half a shield and boost your damage by 2 average damage by allowing 2 d8s instead of 2 d6s. Your making more rolls meaning you zero out on a turn less frequently and can apply hunters mark to each attack. The action economy isn't always pretty, but it's still manageable. This allows for high dex, high wisdom and medium high constitution.
Many people are more willing to eschew the exploration aspects along with the better healing abilities of the Ranger because those aspects of the game are undervalued and/or other classes can heal better/sooner than the Ranger. However, if your magic users in your party are an EK, a Paladin and a Ranger, those aspects will be much stronger in that campaign and allow those characters to focus more on those aspects of the class than they usually would.
I don't think that anyone will say that Ranger is perfect, but I do think that more that is "wrong" with Ranger is due to expectations that are not fair for the class and lack of support for abilities in official adventures.
While I agree with you on the need for expanded exploration opportunities in official adventure modules, I still thing that, as written, the Favored Terrain benefits cheese the survival aspects of wilderness areas. The jungle in Tomb of Annihilation, for instance, was a cakewalk for the party just because there was 1 Ranger in the party and the Wizard had Leomund's Tiny Hut. Snoozefest for anything that was not a direct combat scenario.
If you have a WIS of 12, you won't get much benefit from Foe Slayer. Medium Armor Master is good for a Ranger wanting to boost Stealth, but that doesn't address concentration saves. Having a higher AC does not eliminate the need for concentration saves. The fact is that Warcaster an almost mandatory feat for a melee Ranger, but it's also 1/2 useless cause no cantrips.
As for Foe Slayer with a lower Wisdom, that's no different than a Paladin's Aura of Protection if they decide to tank charisma "because I just Smite". But if you are wanting to use a melee Ranger with concentration spells, then you need to make some concessions. Your options are: 1) Take Warcaster feat. Yes you'll have to go with a race like High Elf (not my choice for a strength build Ranger, but one that I know has a cantrip) to get a cantrip or go sword and board or dual wield to get more benefit out of it. 2) Compromise on stats or roll really high on 4 of them. Dumping Charisma and Intelligence is an option (but then you're giving up on nature skill a bit more. However, like exploration, knowledge skills tend to be overlooked.) That doesn't help a bunch, but it can quite a bit, particularly if you go Mountain Dwarf with two 14s on point buy. Having a 16, 13, 16, 9, 14, 8 or a 16 14 15 9 14 8 or some variation is achievable. 3) Leave Wisdom lower and deal with the consequences. If Foe Slayer being limited at 20 is your biggest concern, you've probably had a pretty good campaign and had quite a lot of fun. 4) Go dex based. A d8 weapon only loses 2.5 average damage to a 2d6 weapon. Dueling fighting style will make up for that. Two weapon fighting is typically boo hooed in 5e, but does compete, has a feat to give you half a shield and boost your damage by 2 average damage by allowing 2 d8s instead of 2 d6s. Your making more rolls meaning you zero out on a turn less frequently and can apply hunters mark to each attack. The action economy isn't always pretty, but it's still manageable. This allows for high dex, high wisdom and medium high constitution.
The Aura of Protection is a major ability for most players who want a Party-support Paladin and a decent CHA also ties into a lot of Paladin abilities, not just Aura of Protection. See Divine Sense, # of spells you can prepare per day, and Cleansing Touch as well. Lest I remind you that Aura of Protection affects several PCs, not just the Paladin. Comparing the value of CHA for a Paladin to the value of WIS to a Ranger as you have is like saying the internal combustion engine has the same impact as an invention as the electric toothbrush. You are therefore not making a fair comparison here.
RE: AC as mitigation for concentration saves. The Paladin or E.Knight can get the same AC, though. Again, the Paladin doesn't need Warcaster much b/c holy symbol on shield plus not relying on concentration spells as much vs Ranger's reliance on HMark. And the E.Knight actually has several cantrips to use with Warcaster. Plus, don't forget that Fighters also get more ASIs than Rangers, so the relative cost of Warcaster is less for them than it is for a Ranger. So the Ranger is, in essence, paying more and getting less than the E.Knight while paying for something that is partially granted to the Paladin by virtue of advancing to Level 6 and having a decently high CHA, which is what they want anyway.
While I agree with you on the need for expanded exploration opportunities in official adventure modules, I still thing that, as written, the Favored Terrain benefits cheese the survival aspects of wilderness areas. The jungle in Tomb of Annihilation, for instance, was a cakewalk for the party just because there was 1 Ranger in the party and the Wizard had Leomund's Tiny Hut. Snoozefest for anything that was not a direct combat scenario.
If you have a WIS of 12, you won't get much benefit from Foe Slayer. Medium Armor Master is good for a Ranger wanting to boost Stealth, but that doesn't address concentration saves. Having a higher AC does not eliminate the need for concentration saves. The fact is that Warcaster an almost mandatory feat for a melee Ranger, but it's also 1/2 useless cause no cantrips.
As for Foe Slayer with a lower Wisdom, that's no different than a Paladin's Aura of Protection if they decide to tank charisma "because I just Smite". But if you are wanting to use a melee Ranger with concentration spells, then you need to make some concessions. Your options are: 1) Take Warcaster feat. Yes you'll have to go with a race like High Elf (not my choice for a strength build Ranger, but one that I know has a cantrip) to get a cantrip or go sword and board or dual wield to get more benefit out of it. 2) Compromise on stats or roll really high on 4 of them. Dumping Charisma and Intelligence is an option (but then you're giving up on nature skill a bit more. However, like exploration, knowledge skills tend to be overlooked.) That doesn't help a bunch, but it can quite a bit, particularly if you go Mountain Dwarf with two 14s on point buy. Having a 16, 13, 16, 9, 14, 8 or a 16 14 15 9 14 8 or some variation is achievable. 3) Leave Wisdom lower and deal with the consequences. If Foe Slayer being limited at 20 is your biggest concern, you've probably had a pretty good campaign and had quite a lot of fun. 4) Go dex based. A d8 weapon only loses 2.5 average damage to a 2d6 weapon. Dueling fighting style will make up for that. Two weapon fighting is typically boo hooed in 5e, but does compete, has a feat to give you half a shield and boost your damage by 2 average damage by allowing 2 d8s instead of 2 d6s. Your making more rolls meaning you zero out on a turn less frequently and can apply hunters mark to each attack. The action economy isn't always pretty, but it's still manageable. This allows for high dex, high wisdom and medium high constitution.
The Aura of Protection is a major ability for most players who want a Party-support Paladin and a decent CHA also ties into a lot of Paladin abilities, not just Aura of Protection. See Divine Sense, # of spells you can prepare per day, and Cleansing Touch as well. Lest I remind you that Aura of Protection affects several PCs, not just the Paladin. Comparing the value of CHA for a Paladin to the value of WIS to a Ranger as you have is like saying the internal combustion engine has the same impact as an invention as the electric toothbrush. You are therefore not making a fair comparison here.
RE: AC as mitigation for concentration saves. The Paladin or E.Knight can get the same AC, though. Again, the Paladin doesn't need Warcaster much b/c holy symbol on shield plus not relying on concentration spells as much vs Ranger's reliance on HMark. And the E.Knight actually has several cantrips to use with Warcaster. Plus, don't forget that Fighters also get more ASIs than Rangers, so the relative cost of Warcaster is less for them than it is for a Ranger. So the Ranger is, in essence, paying more and getting less than the E.Knight while paying for something that is partially granted to the Paladin by virtue of advancing to Level 6 and having a decently high CHA, which is what they want anyway.
The point about the comparison is that they have to give something up if they want to max certain stats and take feats. What are they maxing out versus what are they giving up. There is always give and take. If you don't like what you have to give up to play the class the way that you want to play the class, then don't play the class.
A fighter can tank, be a melee damager, a ranged damager, and even a controller or an AoE damager. They can't heal aside from the same resources available to each class. The Paladin doesn't get the support to be a ranged fighter or a dual wielder, and their control is more limited and their AoE damage is limited. The ranger can melee damage, range damage, control the battlefield, deal AoE damage, heal and tank. Other classes can do many of those things better, but few can do them all and even they are not as good as the ranger at all of them.
The Ranger isn't supposed to be the default option for the front line melee specialist, but Ranger can fulfill that role. Yes, the EK does get cantrips, but if those cantrips don't include SCAGtrips, what exactly does that do for the EK 90% of the time. They would have to scale up their intellect to be able to use those cantrips effectively. If the cantrip is not a melee cantrip or a save cantrip, that OA will be made at disadvantage. Having a save cantrip is nice for the times when a target has high AC and happens to have poorer saves against the save that you are forcing. Most of the time though, you'll be wanting to use your attacks in combat. Non combat cantrips do give the EK additional utility that the normal fighter doesn't have, but utility isn't a problem for the Ranger unless the DM is hand waving the rules that having a Ranger simplifies. Sure Scout Rogue with the Outlander background can do much of that utility, but it brings no magic or healing to the table and that doesn't help the EK. The EK has to use strength for their melee stat, put points in con, put points in wisdom to cover the skills that the ranger would be filling, and intellect to be decent with most attacking cantrips for them to be fully compared to the Ranger and get more benefit from Warcaster than the Ranger. The fighter gets con saves to boot. But they are weaker against wisdom saves and can be targeted there or with charisma saves, much like a Barbarian. They're weaker against dex saves, particularly if they dump dex and if not they have another stat to add to the list. They have an extra ASI at 6 and 14 to help overcome these deficiencies.
One type of Paladin can use hunter's mark, Vengeance. It can put points in strength, con, and Charisma, forego Warcaster to maintain concentration on hunter's mark, but still has to put a lot of points in wisdom to fulfill the same role that the ranger can fill with those skills.
The Ranger get dex saves, want some wisdom anyway but can eschew it (just like the Paladin can Charisma, but still wants it), and wouldn't likely use the cantrip for Warcaster any more than the fighter would.
The problem that I see is that you want the Ranger to exactly fill the role of either the Paladin or the Fighter without adding additional resources to the build or foregoing abilities that the Ranger has. You're not considering that the Fighter or the Paladin has to use resources to fill the role that the Ranger plays. The fact that the cost of going fighter or Paladin, or Rogue or whatever instead of Ranger doesn't seem high enough to dissuade people doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the Ranger (though I can see why people think that) it's that there hasn't been enough importance placed on some of the abilities that the Ranger brings to the table, either from Wizards, DMs, or both.
If that emphasis was there, then the cost of going away from Ranger early would be seen as higher and the class wouldn't be viewed as needing help. The fact that so much emphasis is placed on combat with a little less emphasis placed on social encounters means that Rangers get a bad rap.
And my point is that Paladins and EKnights can do front-line fighting a mile better than most Rangers because the class is designed better overall to do those things if the players want them to. (And sidenote, how many EKnight players choose to not use any of the SCAG cantrips if given the opporunity to??) Yes, everyone gives something up to do something else, but the base Ranger design seems to definitely favor being an archer/crossbowperson rather than a melee type and that's not how the class is sold to us, the players, so I'm making public note of it.
And my point is that Paladins and EKnights can do front-line fighting a mile better than most Rangers because the class is designed better overall to do those things if the players want them to. (And sidenote, how many EKnight players choose to not use any of the SCAG cantrips if given the opporunity to??) Yes, everyone gives something up to do something else, but the base Ranger design seems to definitely favor being an archer/crossbowperson rather than a melee type and that's not how the class is sold to us, the players, so I'm making public note of it.
Exactly. That's what I meant by "bad at melee/strength" awhile back. They're strictly worse at it than the other martial classes, and they are supposed to be good at it, according to the flavor text and to anyone who has heard of Drizzt Do'Urden.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Give me a situation that makes them weak. I’ll see if I can counterpoint.
Just one? I'll give you a list of them:
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Ok! We should probably talk about these in terms of levels 1-10 and 11-20 as level 11 is a big change in all of the martial classes. Also, anyone who complains that rangers don't deal as much damage as fighters is just being silly. Fighters SHOULD be dealing more martial damage than other martial classes! That is what they do. We should also talk without feats and multiclassing, and with them differently. Rangers are multiclassing kings! Just as paladins, warlocks, fighters, and sorcerers all combine well, so does the ranger, cleric, rogue, druid, and fighter.
I just want to expand on this.
The reason Hunter's Mark was put as a concentration spell rather than as a non-concentration feature is for balancing purposes. For example, Horizon Walkers can add 1d8 to attacks, increasing to 2d8 at 11th level, Hunter can get 1d8 damage to their attacks, Monster Slayer gets 1d6.
Put simply the stacking of these with Hunters Mark, PLUS the benefits of Multiclassing into other classes offering extra weapon damage (like Clerics, 1d8, Paladins 1d8, more) - especially since you can have some races that can also improve damage on hits like Aasimar -- and it should be easy to see why its concentration. To allow all that stacking without concentration on something, means there's even more room for other strike damage spells - like getting Hex from magic initiate warlock feat.
I can fully undertand why it's concentration. The restriction prevents some insane super-DPS builds. We already have the nukathon Sorcadin build. Let's not give them even more damage-on-hit numbers with a dash of Ranger.
--
I generally find the people who most complain about ranger being underpowered are usually those who focus on "combat". D&D is more than combat. Ranger is not designed as a pure combat class. If all you care about is DPS then it's not the class for you.
Having played a ranger and been in a long campaign with a ranger in party. I can tell you, there's nothing underpowered about them. Assuming of course you know how to play them correctly and you're in a campaign where base class features can be used. If you're not wandering through various environments or encountering favoured enemies with a need to track them, then sure it can feel like you're not getting as much out of it. But that is a campaign/DM thing not a class thing.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
Well, we know class variant features are in Tasha's, so good chance Hunter's Mark is going no concentration. Also, the argument that you can't do it because it allows some uber build isn't valid - classes are designed to stand on their own. they do not ask - can someone combine this to break the game.
i say at least make it take no concentration when used against your favored enemy. making the choices of your favored enemy matter even more. or make it still concentration but cant be broken by concentration checks by your favored enemy as you have trained to hunt them and shouldn't loose focus when fighting them
dumb idea but hear me out. Beast master ranger but if they choose or have a tiny Cr 0 beast they can as a bonus action cause their companion to become a cr 1\4 swarm for 1 minute or 10 min. they can do this equal to their wisdom modifier minimum of 1.
I don't think it matters. In a month the new book will be out, we will know for certain what alternative class features are included, the primal beast will likely be included and people can either add or ignore those features.
If they stick with the 2019 class feature variants UA then the way it's going to work is that all Rangers will get Hunter's Mark as standard, and can use it for free without concentration a number of times equal to their Wisdom modifier (minimum of 1) per long rest, and can switch targets freely (the original target doesn't have to be reduced to 0 HP first). This is going to be great for primary Rangers, and shouldn't be too abusable for multi-classing as it'll require points in Wisdom to use it multiple times per day; if you're just taking a quick 2-level Ranger dip it'll be one hour and that's it.
The proposed changes also would mean that instead of favoured enemies, simply marking a target with Hunter's Mark will be enough to trigger stuff like Foe Slayer; instead of favoured enemy you get a "build your own ranger" selection of features such as languages, tracking skills etc.
So benefits that previously only applied to favoured enemies will be more reliable, and Hunter's Mark becomes a core class feature; it'll make a big difference to Rangers, but the main difference in terms of strength is that things that require favoured enemy (just Foe Slayer on the core class?) will trigger whenever you want, and you can potentially have Hunter's Mark plus one other concentration spell active at the same time (Magic Initiate (Warlock) for Hex could be about to become really popular for Rangers).
Of course we don't know for sure that any of this will be in Tasha's Cauldron; I'm hoping so as I think the changes make Rangers a lot smoother to play without making them OP. I'm hoping all the changes make it in, though I have my doubts about whether the bonus Hunter's Mark uses will remain concentration free or not; simply having access to bonus castings would greatly help with the previous concentration clashes, as it would be easier to just re-cast it as required, or they might add some condition so it stays up but the effect temporarily deactivates while concentrating on something else?
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
No, they're really not. I ran a game for 6 months for a party of three, and out of the monk, paladin, and ranger it was the ranger who was the MVP. I've played one into Tier 3 and had a blast. Dan Dillon has played a beast master, using the RAW and no house rules, up to level 20. It's not underpowered as a class. If anything, it fills a specific niche (wilderness exploration) a little too well. Their sustained damage output remains competitive with other classes throughout their career, and they come with potent support magic.
The single biggest weakness for beast masters is the dearth of beasts presented in the PHB. A weak beast can hurt, so you need the monster manual to really know what your options are. But other than that they're perfectly functional.
I more or less agree with you on most points, except that Rangers as a class should get a boost to concentration or get a cantrip or two. The reason is that they should be just as functional in melee as a Paladin if the player wants them to be. However, the sustained damage benefits of Hunter's Mark is weakened by it being a concentration spell that is easily disrupted by taking damage. The usual response would be "Just take Warcaster as a feat." The problem with that? Rangers have no cantrips and few spell slots. Thus half the benefit of the Warcaster feat is useless to most Rangers. Compare this to the Paladin, who gets a free concentration boost from level 6 onwards, or the EKnight, who gets cantrips.
Also, the Exploration benefits to Rangers are both a bit OP and it makes outdoor environments in Favored Terrain bland. They allow a party with a Ranger to just whiz on past most outdoor areas with very few rolls, making it difficult for the DM to setup useful challenges. However, being able to hide somewhere after a full minute of camouflaging yourself that gets disrupted once you move or take any action? That is trash for a level 10 feature.
In response to the melee ranger and losing concentration, I'm wondering why we're immediately discounting medium armor just because of stealth. Medium Armor Master is a thing and even if your dex isn't high enough to take advantage of the extra point of AC, it clears the disadvantage on stealth. Hunters Mark doesn't require exceptional Wisdom so relegating Wisdom to your 12, Intelligence to your 10 (so your nature skill can have proficiency and not lose anything from the bonus) and dumping Charisma still allows for your 15 and 14 or 13 to go to dex for AC (maxed at 14 until the extra point from MAM is wanted, if taken) and the other in Strength for Strength based attacks. Constitution gets whatever is left over. If your not choosing a str/con or str/dex race to boost those stats, then you can have an argument, but it falls flat because you're trying have your cake and eat it too. Dual Wielder is a great feat for a melee ranger that isn't going two handed or sword and board. Shield Master works for the sword and board ranger (plus dueling fighting style), and great weapon fighting style is a bit lacking generally for 2 handers. Defensive Fighting style is much better to help with concentration maintenance and let hunters mark deal the extra damage. Yes Vengeance Paladins can get Hunters Mark too, but they're much more offensively focused. Ancients Paladins can fill some ranger flavor, but don't get Hunters Mark.
Dex based melee fighters are a better melee option. Medium Armor at low levels gives the same AC as Chain Mail assuming 14 dex. A rapier gives the same damage for sword and board, Rangers are at no disadvantage for two weapon fighting compared to other classes (queue the action economy arguments because of hunters mark, which other two hand fighters usually won't have and vengeance Pallys don't have Two Weapon Fighting Style to support two hand fighting, it's naturally a cost for the added benefit).
Rangers have options available for their customization for specific builds at the cost of some of the options available to other classes. If you want all of the Fighter options or Paladin options with a touch survival skills, then those options are available. The Ranger is the martial survivalist and Druid is the spellcasting survivalist.
From what I can see, the biggest problem with Ranger is that WotC doesn't put a lot of content in for exploration which should be the bread and butter of the Ranger. If the party had to make due with exploration factors like they do with social or combat factors (ensure that someone can do it or spend gold or do favors to enlist that help) then it would have more weight and fewer people would Boo hoo about the "ribbon" abilities. All to often that gets glossed over because someone doesn't have that skill and DMs are hesitant to gate stuff behind skills that the party doesn't have.
As for the metagame feel for choosing favored enemy and Natural Explorer is a little overblown. The DM should give some guidance on those as part of the character creation process, at least in the form of "We will not be visiting desert or coastal areas and we won't be dealing with undead in this campaign." If the player is thinking of being an undead hunter who specializes in coastal terrains, the character wouldn't make sense in that campaign and there is not a great reason why that character would be looking for work in an area completely outside their expertise. That's akin to a lawyer with training in family law trying to tackle a tax law job with no training in that field and expecting to be as successful. While an accountant might be better suited at aspects of tax law than a lawyer, they still wouldn't bring all of the benefits that a lawyer would bring to the table. The question becomes, is the trade off worth it?
While I agree with you on the need for expanded exploration opportunities in official adventure modules, I still thing that, as written, the Favored Terrain benefits cheese the survival aspects of wilderness areas. The jungle in Tomb of Annihilation, for instance, was a cakewalk for the party just because there was 1 Ranger in the party and the Wizard had Leomund's Tiny Hut. Snoozefest for anything that was not a direct combat scenario.
If you have a WIS of 12, you won't get much benefit from Foe Slayer. Medium Armor Master is good for a Ranger wanting to boost Stealth, but that doesn't address concentration saves. Having a higher AC does not eliminate the need for concentration saves. The fact is that Warcaster an almost mandatory feat for a melee Ranger, but it's also 1/2 useless cause no cantrips.
It’s funny. People who don’t like exploration SHOULD pick the ranger class, so they can circumvent almost all the exploration. LOL!
For the hide in plain sight ability at level 10, there is a clear break between the two paragraphs there. I always play that as a two part ability. Part 1: Take the minute to apply camouflage. Part 2: Next time you attempt a hide, you get +10. They don’t have to happen one right after the other. I see this like a ninja waiting for their quarry or “disappearing” while being chased. I also read this as an exception to the rule on hiding regarding having to be unseen to try and hide, similar to a wood elf or halfling. So if you are in a battle having done your camouflage beforehand, and a beholder shows up, you can press yourself up against a wall and hide. Also, this ability has no restrictions for a natural environment, let alone favored terrain. It just works. In a city. In a dungeon. Anywhere. Rangers at this level ignore difficult terrain while traveling in their favored terrain, they can move at stealth at a normal pace, remain alert to danger while traveling, and regular difficult terrain doesn’t slow their movement, so they can apply camouflage while traveling, even in between combats, and reapply camouflage.
It doesn't eliminate the need for concentration saves, but it does help as you'll take fewer hits. Higher constitution and Resilient (Con) can help. The Ranger can fill a lot of roles with minimal equipment and outside support and can specialize into those roles better with the outside support like feats. The cost is that they can't fulfill those roles as well as classes that specialize in them and require more support when thst want to specialize. This is why people think that they're weaker. They don't consider that the other class would have to accommodate just as much to be able to fulfill the same skill set that the ranger fills. Since much of that skill set is undervalued in 5e, it's not appreciated and therefore considered weak.
As for Foe Slayer with a lower Wisdom, that's no different than a Paladin's Aura of Protection if they decide to tank charisma "because I just Smite". But if you are wanting to use a melee Ranger with concentration spells, then you need to make some concessions. Your options are: 1) Take Warcaster feat. Yes you'll have to go with a race like High Elf (not my choice for a strength build Ranger, but one that I know has a cantrip) to get a cantrip or go sword and board or dual wield to get more benefit out of it. 2) Compromise on stats or roll really high on 4 of them. Dumping Charisma and Intelligence is an option (but then you're giving up on nature skill a bit more. However, like exploration, knowledge skills tend to be overlooked.) That doesn't help a bunch, but it can quite a bit, particularly if you go Mountain Dwarf with two 14s on point buy. Having a 16, 13, 16, 9, 14, 8 or a 16 14 15 9 14 8 or some variation is achievable. 3) Leave Wisdom lower and deal with the consequences. If Foe Slayer being limited at 20 is your biggest concern, you've probably had a pretty good campaign and had quite a lot of fun. 4) Go dex based. A d8 weapon only loses 2.5 average damage to a 2d6 weapon. Dueling fighting style will make up for that. Two weapon fighting is typically boo hooed in 5e, but does compete, has a feat to give you half a shield and boost your damage by 2 average damage by allowing 2 d8s instead of 2 d6s. Your making more rolls meaning you zero out on a turn less frequently and can apply hunters mark to each attack. The action economy isn't always pretty, but it's still manageable. This allows for high dex, high wisdom and medium high constitution.
Many people are more willing to eschew the exploration aspects along with the better healing abilities of the Ranger because those aspects of the game are undervalued and/or other classes can heal better/sooner than the Ranger. However, if your magic users in your party are an EK, a Paladin and a Ranger, those aspects will be much stronger in that campaign and allow those characters to focus more on those aspects of the class than they usually would.
I don't think that anyone will say that Ranger is perfect, but I do think that more that is "wrong" with Ranger is due to expectations that are not fair for the class and lack of support for abilities in official adventures.
The Aura of Protection is a major ability for most players who want a Party-support Paladin and a decent CHA also ties into a lot of Paladin abilities, not just Aura of Protection. See Divine Sense, # of spells you can prepare per day, and Cleansing Touch as well. Lest I remind you that Aura of Protection affects several PCs, not just the Paladin. Comparing the value of CHA for a Paladin to the value of WIS to a Ranger as you have is like saying the internal combustion engine has the same impact as an invention as the electric toothbrush. You are therefore not making a fair comparison here.
RE: AC as mitigation for concentration saves. The Paladin or E.Knight can get the same AC, though. Again, the Paladin doesn't need Warcaster much b/c holy symbol on shield plus not relying on concentration spells as much vs Ranger's reliance on HMark. And the E.Knight actually has several cantrips to use with Warcaster. Plus, don't forget that Fighters also get more ASIs than Rangers, so the relative cost of Warcaster is less for them than it is for a Ranger. So the Ranger is, in essence, paying more and getting less than the E.Knight while paying for something that is partially granted to the Paladin by virtue of advancing to Level 6 and having a decently high CHA, which is what they want anyway.
The point about the comparison is that they have to give something up if they want to max certain stats and take feats. What are they maxing out versus what are they giving up. There is always give and take. If you don't like what you have to give up to play the class the way that you want to play the class, then don't play the class.
A fighter can tank, be a melee damager, a ranged damager, and even a controller or an AoE damager. They can't heal aside from the same resources available to each class. The Paladin doesn't get the support to be a ranged fighter or a dual wielder, and their control is more limited and their AoE damage is limited. The ranger can melee damage, range damage, control the battlefield, deal AoE damage, heal and tank. Other classes can do many of those things better, but few can do them all and even they are not as good as the ranger at all of them.
The Ranger isn't supposed to be the default option for the front line melee specialist, but Ranger can fulfill that role. Yes, the EK does get cantrips, but if those cantrips don't include SCAGtrips, what exactly does that do for the EK 90% of the time. They would have to scale up their intellect to be able to use those cantrips effectively. If the cantrip is not a melee cantrip or a save cantrip, that OA will be made at disadvantage. Having a save cantrip is nice for the times when a target has high AC and happens to have poorer saves against the save that you are forcing. Most of the time though, you'll be wanting to use your attacks in combat. Non combat cantrips do give the EK additional utility that the normal fighter doesn't have, but utility isn't a problem for the Ranger unless the DM is hand waving the rules that having a Ranger simplifies. Sure Scout Rogue with the Outlander background can do much of that utility, but it brings no magic or healing to the table and that doesn't help the EK. The EK has to use strength for their melee stat, put points in con, put points in wisdom to cover the skills that the ranger would be filling, and intellect to be decent with most attacking cantrips for them to be fully compared to the Ranger and get more benefit from Warcaster than the Ranger. The fighter gets con saves to boot. But they are weaker against wisdom saves and can be targeted there or with charisma saves, much like a Barbarian. They're weaker against dex saves, particularly if they dump dex and if not they have another stat to add to the list. They have an extra ASI at 6 and 14 to help overcome these deficiencies.
One type of Paladin can use hunter's mark, Vengeance. It can put points in strength, con, and Charisma, forego Warcaster to maintain concentration on hunter's mark, but still has to put a lot of points in wisdom to fulfill the same role that the ranger can fill with those skills.
The Ranger get dex saves, want some wisdom anyway but can eschew it (just like the Paladin can Charisma, but still wants it), and wouldn't likely use the cantrip for Warcaster any more than the fighter would.
The problem that I see is that you want the Ranger to exactly fill the role of either the Paladin or the Fighter without adding additional resources to the build or foregoing abilities that the Ranger has. You're not considering that the Fighter or the Paladin has to use resources to fill the role that the Ranger plays. The fact that the cost of going fighter or Paladin, or Rogue or whatever instead of Ranger doesn't seem high enough to dissuade people doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the Ranger (though I can see why people think that) it's that there hasn't been enough importance placed on some of the abilities that the Ranger brings to the table, either from Wizards, DMs, or both.
If that emphasis was there, then the cost of going away from Ranger early would be seen as higher and the class wouldn't be viewed as needing help. The fact that so much emphasis is placed on combat with a little less emphasis placed on social encounters means that Rangers get a bad rap.
And my point is that Paladins and EKnights can do front-line fighting a mile better than most Rangers because the class is designed better overall to do those things if the players want them to. (And sidenote, how many EKnight players choose to not use any of the SCAG cantrips if given the opporunity to??) Yes, everyone gives something up to do something else, but the base Ranger design seems to definitely favor being an archer/crossbowperson rather than a melee type and that's not how the class is sold to us, the players, so I'm making public note of it.
Exactly. That's what I meant by "bad at melee/strength" awhile back. They're strictly worse at it than the other martial classes, and they are supposed to be good at it, according to the flavor text and to anyone who has heard of Drizzt Do'Urden.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You act as if it's bad/hard to make a melee ranger, whether they focus on Strength or Dexterity. And that just isn't true.