If I had to label him with something from 5e, he's an artificer. Probably with the guild artisan background, on account of his time at Mom's Friendly Robot Company.
A 3rd level fireball ONLY deals an average of 21 damage to a single target (assuming a 50% successful save).
If you're casting a fireball only on one target, you're wasting your spell slots. Fireball is an AoE spell, in an entirely different class than martial classes.
Right. Just like grading a ranger’s damage output completely within the confines of the parameters used for a fighter or paladin.
No, because Ranger, Fighter, and Paladins are in the same class of damage dealers as each other, while Wizards, Sorcerers, and anyone else with fireball and AoE spells is completely different. Rangers, Fighters, and Paladins attack one person each time they attack, while Fireball can damage more than a dozen creatures at once. This is comparing apples and oranges. Fighters are Fuji, Paladins are Granny Smith, and Rangers are a bruised unripe Red Delicious.
I don't really agree on "Ranger, Fighter, and Paladins are in the same class of damage dealers". I think ranger is somewhat in between full frontline class such as Fighter and Paladins and skirmisher class such as rogue and monk.
I think we should bring rogue and monk into comparison as well.
It is true that rangers are partially skirmishers, but they are more similar to Paladins and Fighters than Rogues and Monks, IMO. If you want to do comparisons to rogues and monks, feel free to do so. They're probably not as relevant to the discussion, but could be worth talking about. Rogues will do more damage than Rangers almost all the time, though. I think monks will do on average less, but can do noticeable more than Rangers using their Ki points. Just some hypotheses, though.
Sneak attack basically keeps up, some of the time, with the three martials we’ve been discussing recently (29.5 at level 11). A critical sneak attack, although it’s nova damage, is completely random uncontrollable nova damage. Rogues get to “keep up” with the others very comfortably and without much fuss, but they don’t deal nor damage than the others, not even rangers. Again, rangers get their damage more from their subclasses than any other class.
Why is there so much insistence on only comparing base classes here? Base classes aren't equal in strength; Fighter is the strongest base martial class hands down, and is less dependent on its sub-classes to compete. Rangers are more like Rogues in that the base class is relatively weak, but they get a lot more out of their sub-classes (which play very differently, whereas most Fighter sub-classes are just theming what the Fighter class already does).
You can't just compare classes to each other, just as you can't compare individual abilities, as taken out of context they don't mean anything.
The Ranger isn't underpowered; the main issues with Rangers is that some of their abilities work in annoying ways, like favoured enemy and favoured terrain, which you either need to pick to fit a campaign (and your DM then needs to stick with it a meaningful amount) or they're useless 90% of the time. The only thing mechanically in combat that I think is really a problem is concentration competition, but the UA seems to make clear that WotC intend to reduce that.
And ultimately there's a really easy way to determine which is the best class in D&D; the one that lets you be the character you want to play as is the best class, everything else is bad. If you want to play a stealthy, magic ranger, then Fighter simply isn't an option as even Eldritch Knight doesn't really crossover into what a Ranger does.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Why is there so much insistence on only comparing base classes here? Base classes aren't equal in strength; Fighter is the strongest base martial class hands down, and is less dependent on its sub-classes to compete. Rangers are more like Rogues in that the base class is relatively weak, but they get a lot more out of their sub-classes (which play very differently, whereas most Fighter sub-classes are just theming what the Fighter class already does).
You can't just compare classes to each other, just as you can't compare individual abilities, as taken out of context they don't mean anything.
The Ranger isn't underpowered; the main issues with Rangers is that some of their abilities work in annoying ways, like favoured enemy and favoured terrain, which you either need to pick to fit a campaign (and your DM then needs to stick with it a meaningful amount) or they're useless 90% of the time. The only thing mechanically in combat that I think is really a problem is concentration competition, but the UA seems to make clear that WotC intend to reduce that.
And ultimately there's a really easy way to determine which is the best class in D&D; the one that lets you be the character you want to play as is the best class, everything else is bad. If you want to play a stealthy, magic ranger, then Fighter simply isn't an option as even Eldritch Knight doesn't really crossover into what a Ranger does.
I’m a fan of the PHB ranger class, it’s subclasses, and interpretation of the abilities within. As far as the conversation here recently, my take is three passionate people with different opinions on some vague math focused solely on combat with nothing to do on a Wednesday evening. LOL! I tend to involve myself (always a bad idea) when negative claims about the are made and not supported. You’re right. Without some super specific parameters comparing anything is wish-washy. I think that’s why the classes that get compared, “power built”, and claimed to be the “strongest” are the very same that function easily in a “white room” combat world.
This is all insane. I came onto this thread hoping to see some interesting opinions on the Ranger Class, and whether or not it is Underpowered.
I found a Post-Nuclear Warzone.
In General, I agree with Third; Rangers are less optimal as a damage-dealer than a Fighter or Paladin.
Additionally, I feel that the Ranger's Abilities at early levels are Lackluster, and leave quite a bit to be desired, which is the only reason I came onto this thread in the first place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Seven there shall be/In the halls of the eighth/Eights shall witness/Eight and eight and eight and eight/Blood of the father/Blood of the sun/Endless darkness/Day is done
Whether rangers are "less optimal as a damage-dealer than a Fighter or Paladin" depends entirely on how you define the word "optimal". Which, in my opinion, makes it a useless metric. They're not flashy or "bursty", but they're more than capable of keeping up over the long haul. With a 20 in their attack stats, a ranger with Two-Weapon Fighting and hunter's mark is in only 4 DPR behind a fighter armed with a greatsword and trained in the accompanying fighting style. (For those at home, 36 and 40 respectively.) And that's before factoring in other perks of their subclass, which is where most of the ranger's strength lies. And that's without magic items or feats. Hunters, just from their 3rd-level feature, can add anywhere from 1d8 to a whole other weapon attack. Beast Masters at 11th-level can deal 31 DPR with a longbow, a wolf, and without expending a spell slot.
Rangers, since the days of AD&D when they were just a fighter kit, have already straddled this weird intersection of lines between druid, fighter, and rogue. And over the decades, a lot of people have just never been happy with it. I think it's because they don't know what to do with it. And maybe the game designers haven't always known what to do with it, either.
And here's the crazy thing about fighters: they don't have to use Action Surge to attack. They can Activate a Magic Item, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, and more. Yes, it can yield high damage for a turn. But that's not the only thing it can do. And it's super weird to me that this is all some people seem to care about.
I believe that everyone is going to make comparisons of classes based on what they personally like or want out of any class. This lack of agreement on what definition(s) we’re trying to point and counterpoint about make it an impossible task.
I believe that everyone is going to make comparisons of classes based on what they personally like or want out of any class. This lack of agreement on what definition(s) we’re trying to point and counterpoint about make it an impossible task.
And some of that is to be expected. Nobody should play a character that doesn't appeal to them. I have a half-orc hexblade warlock gladiator whose honor as a warrior is compromised because their power isn't their own. There's a big ol' asterisk next to their record in the arena, but I digress. Just looking at the races, classes, and backgrounds in the PHB there are 1,404 possible combinations. That's not even getting into the many subraces and archetypes a character can adopt, let alone any deeper granularity. There are 30 mountain dwarf champion fighters just from choosing their two fighting styles.
I think the big hangup here is that some of us are having trouble with the fact that certain classes have a stronger core than others. And those other classes get more features from their archetypes to help them grow in power. It's asymmetrical design. If a ranger was as good at dealing damage as a fighter then there would be no point in playing a fighter. At all. Zero. A fighter does one thing really well and that's it! The ranger is flexible and can contribute to other challenges in ways the fighter just can't. And to say the ranger is underpowered because it lags a little behind in one area is to miss the point. If the ranger's damage output was higher, then the script would be flipped and this thread would be about how fighters are underpowered in their forum.
I believe that everyone is going to make comparisons of classes based on what they personally like or want out of any class. This lack of agreement on what definition(s) we’re trying to point and counterpoint about make it an impossible task.
And some of that is to be expected. Nobody should play a character that doesn't appeal to them. I have a half-orc hexblade warlock gladiator whose honor as a warrior is compromised because their power isn't their own. There's a big ol' asterisk next to their record in the arena, but I digress. Just looking at the races, classes, and backgrounds in the PHB there are 1,404 possible combinations. That's not even getting into the many subraces and archetypes a character can adopt, let alone any deeper granularity. There are 30 mountain dwarf champion fighters just from choosing their two fighting styles.
I think the big hangup here is that some of us are having trouble with the fact that certain classes have a stronger core than others. And those other classes get more features from their archetypes to help them grow in power. It's asymmetrical design. If a ranger was as good at dealing damage as a fighter then there would be no point in playing a fighter. At all. Zero. A fighter does one thing really well and that's it! The ranger is flexible and can contribute to other challenges in ways the fighter just can't. And to say the ranger is underpowered because it lags a little behind in one area is to miss the point. If the ranger's damage output was higher, then the script would be flipped and this thread would be about how fighters are underpowered in their forum.
Yep. 100% agree. The ranger isn’t as good a spellcaster as the wizard, either. LOL!
I’d also like to say that thanks to Adventurers League players (because DDAL is basically just some strict house rules with a very large pool of players), KISS RAW players (I find them to be video game people, new players, or players who played a lot of 4E), and a couple (now old) (very unofficial) Tweets by JC (taken as the final word/gospel) the PHB baseline ranger and both PHB ranger subclasses are misinterpreted in a way to “weaken them”, especially how many (previously mentioned) players play the game. If you like the ranger, interpreting the rules in a kinder way will improve your ranger game. If you dislike the ranger, interpret the rules in a kinder or quit smack talking.
That’s mean. I’m sorry. I’ll change that to, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all.” -Thumper
I think forums are an awful place to discuss things, oddly enough.
Why do you think rangers are less optimal than their fighter and paladin pals?
What is lackluster about the early abilities, if you don’t mind me asking?
The internet is always a less than desirable location to have any discussion, for the most part (this is due to a lot of psychological effects that being in front of a screen instead of a person has on our actions and words).
Because rangers are less optimal in melee combat, are always having to give up concentration and bonus actions in combat for spells, dual-wielding attacks, and subclass features, are more MAD than fighters, and often more MAD than Paladins.
As for the early level abilities, just compare them to what the other classes get.
Level 1 Features Fighter: Fighting Style and Second Wind. This lets them be good at their style of fighting early on (which fits the class) and regain a decent amount of hit points once a short rest. Paladin: Divine Sense and Lay on Hands. This gives them a good utility ability to sense otherworldly creatures as well as being able to heal themselves or others and get rid of poisons/diseases once a long rest. Ranger: Favored Enemy and Natural Terrain. Both of which are utility features, and are completely campaign and DM dependent.
Lets analyze these features, then. The fighter gets two features that help them in combat, healing and fighting improvements, while paladins get 1.25 features that help in combat, and .75 utility features, including healing and sensing if any celestials, undead, or fiends are within 60 feet of you and where they are. Divine Sense is mostly not a combat oriented feature, but it can be used to help fight invisible creatures, so it counts a 25% of a combat feature. However, the ranger gets no combat oriented features, which is strange because they're a martial half-caster, meaning they probably should get at least one feature that helps them in combat. Unfortunately, no. They get none. Nada. Not only do they fail to get any combat features, but the utility features they do get are practically useless unless the DM specifically lets you know beforehand who you will be fighting and where you will be doing it.
Level 2 Features Fighter: Action Surge. This feature is combat oriented (again, fitting the class), normally used to increase damage by taking two Attack actions, but it has other uses. Paladin: Fighting Style, Spellcasting, Divine Smite. They get melee fighting styles (not Two-Weapon Fighting, though), melee damage increases from expending spell slots, and divine charisma-based spellcasting. Ranger: Fighting Style and Spellcasting. They get the same fighting styles as Paladin, but Great Weapon Fighting and Protection are traded for Two-Weapon Fighting and Archery, as well as primal wisdom-based spellcasting.
Now, Fighters do get only one feature at this level, but its because they got their Fighting Style earlier and got an extremely potent combat ability. Paladins get a combat feature (fighting style), a combat/utility feature (spellcasting), and a combat ability (divine smite). Rangers get a combat feature (fighting style) and a combat/utility feature (spellcasting). Though all 3 of these classes are supposed to focus on martial combat, the ranger class already has less combat features than the paladin and fighter, and the ones they do get are more restrictive (hunter's mark requires concentration to long-term improve damage, while divine smite is momentary instantaneous damage).
Level 3 Features Fighter: Martial Archetype. This is their subclass, mostly improving their combat and damage potency. Paladin: Divine Health and Sacred Oath. They get a small benefit of ignoring disease (so now the person who cures diseases cannot be diseased even momentarily) and their subclass. Their subclasses are very diverse, but most of them increase combat abilities in some way and give damaging/controlling spells. Ranger: Ranger Archetype and Primeval Awareness. This is their subclass, all of which can increase damage in some way, and a weird ranger divine sense-y feature.
This is where things get a bit more complicated. All of the classes get their subclasses here, all of the subclasses increasing their combat abilities, but some do more than others. Still, all of them give them a combat ability. Then, paladins get a survival feature (divine health), and rangers get an annoying ability that is a headache for every DM, and bad for every ranger due to expending a spell slot. Honestly, that Primeval Awareness could have just been a 1st level ranger spell to keep it available to the tables and rangers that want the headache, but not automatically given. Still, up to this point, Fighters and Paladins get more satisfying abilities and more combat abilities than the Ranger.
So, to conclude, Favored Enemy is mostly useless, Natural Terrain is DM and campaign dependent, Land Stride is mostly useful, but not great compared to some later level paladin or fighter features, and Hide in Plain Sight is an awful ability.
Can you see why people find the lower levels of ranger to be lackluster?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Okay, a question for those in this thread who are adamantly opinionated that Rangers are not underpowered:
If the class isn't underpowered and indeed does not suck compared to every other class in the game, why has Wizards of the Coast created and released the "Ranger, Revised" Unearthed Arcana and the "Class Feature Variants" Unearthed Arcana that gave the most "replacements/enhancements" to the Ranger class? If the class is not underpowered and objectively bad, why have the creators of D&D 5e and the RANGER CLASS (all caps for emphasis) tried multiple times to fix it?
Answer that, will ya, before you continue to scream at me and calling me stupid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
i thought it was weak for the longest time. its really not. it is weaker than paladin and wizard, but those are both the best classes in dnd. it also depends on the type/style of campaign. in fighting, they can be pretty good, but are still outmatched by quite a few others. where they shine is utility (espielsilly in wilderness), and versatility.
I’d also like to say that thanks to Adventurers League players (because DDAL is basically just some strict house rules with a very large pool of players), KISS RAW players (I find them to be video game people, new players, or players who played a lot of 4E), and a couple (now old) (very unofficial) Tweets by JC (taken as the final word/gospel) the PHB baseline ranger and both PHB ranger subclasses are misinterpreted in a way to “weaken them”, especially how many (previously mentioned) players play the game. If you like the ranger, interpreting the rules in a kinder way will improve your ranger game. If you dislike the ranger, interpret the rules in a kinder or quit smack talking.
That’s mean. I’m sorry. I’ll change that to, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all.” -Thumper
Whose feelings am I going to hurt by saying that Rangers are underpowered? Am I going to hurt the feelings of the class? Am I going to hurt the feelings of the game designers of WotC? Was it wrong of the community to dis on D&D 4e because the majority of them didn't like it?
It hurts no one to point out a problem. That's like saying a doctor is being rude when they tell someone that they have Stage 4 cancer. Diagnosing an issue with a class option for a tabletop roleplaying game does not harm anyone, even emotionally. And even if doing so somehow hurt the feelings of someone, it is not the fault of the person sounding the alarm about the problem, it's the fault of the person who got emotionally attached to a class in a game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Okay, a question for those in this thread who are adamantly opinionated that Rangers are not underpowered:
If the class isn't underpowered and indeed does not suck compared to every other class in the game, why has Wizards of the Coast created and released the "Ranger, Revised" Unearthed Arcana and the "Class Feature Variants" Unearthed Arcana that gave the most "replacements/enhancements" to the Ranger class? If the class is not underpowered and objectively bad, why have the creators of D&D 5e and the RANGER CLASS (all caps for emphasis) tried multiple times to fix it?
Answer that, will ya, before you continue to scream at me and calling me stupid.
Were people calling you stupid? That's not nice.
I can defend ranger though. Possibly because they were mistaken, did not think outside of the box, played games with less of an exploration pillar, or thought that multi classing is bad. Also, at high levels can be pretty good. Hunter's multi attack can be extremely good in campaigns where you fight in wars. Also as proof, I have a level 6 arcane archer / gloom stalker multi class, and it can out damage the wizard, and had higher ac and health.
Wizards of the Coast has tried several times to "tweak" the Ranger, all in Unearthed Arcana, and almost all of them abandoned. Both the original attempt and the revised version were scrapped, and they have their reasons for doing so. Wizards also made it clear that they were never going to invalidate the PHB version of the class. And we still don't know how the class feature variants will play out. The UA is almost always tuned down from how it was playtested.
That said, people are going to complain. They're always going to complain. Some people, who are vocal and do not necessarily represent a majority of the players, think the ranger is underpowered. And this...isn't new. The ranger has been unpopular ever since it became its own class in 2nd edition AD&D. People didn't like it when WotC took their crack at it in 3 or 3.5, either. The version we got in Pathfinder was better, but still only Tier 4.
And when people, consumers, complain about a niche not being filled, any smart business is going to make something to fill that niche. Rangers got a lot of attention with the class feature variants because some people have been noisy. That doesn't mean they're right; this is an opinion and opinions are subjective, not objective. But they're making themselves heard and the squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say.
The ranger, as it exists in the PHB, is not built like other martial classes. But that doesn't mean it's bad at its job. And it doesn't mean the class is badly designed if DMs don't utilize more the pillars of play the ranger is designed to support. There is a, rather obvious in my opinion, disconnect between player/DM expectation and preference of playstyle. Because some people prefer to play a certain way, they eschew the things that truly make some classes shine. But just like how even a muscle-bound fighter or *gasp* barbarian can have a role in a campaign of courtly intrigue, the ranger can still work outside of its element.
The ranger is just so front-loaded with features for the Exploration and Social Interaction pillars that it turns off people hoping to play an Aragorn or Drizz't clone. It's a popular dip, though, for groups that allow multiclassing.
Wizard's of the Coast has tried several times to "tweak" the Ranger, all in Unearthed Arcana, and almost all of them abandoned. Both the original attempt and the revised version were scrapped, and they have their reasons for doing so. Wizard's also made it clear that they were never going to invalidate the PHB version of the class. And we still don't know how the class feature variants will play out. The UA is almost always tuned down from how it was playtested.
I have to say, nice job dodging the question. I was almost fooled for a moment. You addressed them trying to fix the ranger multiple times now, but failed to answer the question. Why does Wizards of the Coast feel the need to try and fix a class with multiple attempts to do so if the class is not in need of fixing? And, yes, UA is almost always tuned down before being officially published (there are notable exceptions, like the Genie warlock), but by the mere fact that they have made 4 Unearthed Arcana fixes for the Ranger class that I am aware of (Non-spellcasting ranger, and the 3 you listed), it is extremely unlikely that they will significantly nerf the fixes they made in the CFV UA.
That said, people are going to complain. They're always going to complain. Some people, who are vocal and do not necessarily represent a majority of the players, think the ranger is underpowered. And this...isn't new. The ranger has been unpopular ever since it became its own class in 2nd edition AD&D. People didn't like it when WotC took their crack at it in 3 or 3.5, either. The version we got in Pathfinder was better, but still only Tier 4.
And when people, consumers, complain about a niche not being filled, any smart business is going to make something to fill that niche. Rangers got a lot of attention with the class feature variants because some people have been noisy. That doesn't mean they're right; this is an opinion and opinions are subjective, not objective. But they're making themselves heard and the squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say.
Yes, people always complain. You, in fact, am complaining about people complaining. I think the vast majority of D&D players complain about some aspect of the game at some point. Whether or not the group that wants a ranger fix is in the minority, I don't know if we have accurate feedback from a large enough sample of the community to show whether one group is in the minority, but rangers are the most unpopular and un-played class in D&D 5e.
The ranger, as it exists in the PHB, is not built like other martial classes. But that doesn't mean it's bad at its job. And it doesn't mean the class is badly designed if DMs don't utilize more the pillars of play the ranger is designed to support. There is a, rather obvious in my opinion, disconnect between player/DM expectation and preference of playstyle. Because some people prefer to play a certain way, they eschew the things that truly make some classes shine. But just like how even a muscle-bound fighter or *gasp* barbarian can have a role in a campaign of courtly intrigue, the ranger can still work outside of its element.
The ranger is just so front-loaded with features for the Exploration and Social Interaction pillars that it turns off people hoping to play an Aragorn or Drizz't clone. It's a popular dip, though, for groups that allow multiclassing.
ANd the monk and rogue and warlock aren't built like any of the other classes who are meant to do similar things to them, but people don't tend to complain about them being bad at their job as much as they do about Rangers. It is bad class design to have your class's effectiveness be largely dependent on the DM. Sure, every class's effectiveness is up to the DM, as the DM can only have ranged flying monsters against a party consisting of paladins, monks, and barbarians, but a DM choosing to do that is purposeful. If the DM can easily accidentally screw a character by having the campaign take place in Outer Space, the Arctic, or the Underdark when the Ranger's Natural Terrain is the Grasslands.
It isn't the front-loaded nature of the class that turns me off of the Ranger, every class in this edition is front-loaded. The thing is, the other classes are front-loaded for combat. All of them. Every single class, from Artificers to Wizards, has the majority of its first features focusing on combat. However, most of the Ranger's first features are not. D&D 5e is a system balanced around combat. If you try to balance non-combat features against combat features, you will always end up with imbalance. You guys keep saying "apples and oranges." That actually applies to what I have been saying. It is impossible to compare apples and oranges, combat and non-combat features, and you cannot justify the combat imbalance between Rangers and Paladins/Fighters by saying "they get non-combat features to balance it out!"
Edit: Also, it being a popular class to multiclass into isn't a way to tell whether or not the class is underpowered.
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?
Aragorn and Drizzt are pretty terrible archetypes for the Ranger class though, especially if we’re talking about spells (never mind concentration). Aragorn arguably couldn’t use magic, and if he did it’d be because of his ancestry. Drizzt only used his innate spells - which makes sense, since he was created when AD&D was current and Rangers couldn’t cast spells until mid-level. Drizzt is mostly a Fighter, whatever paltry Ranger levels he has in the mix are there pretty much only to justify being sneaky and not dying from starvation or exposure after leaving Menzoberranzan on his lonesome. In 5E I’d class Aragorn as a Paladin well before considering Ranger levels, and both are probably easiest characterized as Fighters with an appropriate background.
I think that actually illustrates the issue with the Ranger class as well, since the devs seem to have thought of these two and others a bit too much when creating the mechanics for Rangers and not enough when working on the Fighter class; probably because the class names needed to stay connected to well-known characters from before. For my money, a Ranger class that put a bit more emphasis on spellcasting and a Fighter archetype for skirmishers/ambushers/guerilla warriors would have been more sensible to keep the classes distinct enough while offering plenty of options for the players to build whatever martial character they envision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If I had to label him with something from 5e, he's an artificer. Probably with the guild artisan background, on account of his time at Mom's Friendly Robot Company.
Sneak attack basically keeps up, some of the time, with the three martials we’ve been discussing recently (29.5 at level 11). A critical sneak attack, although it’s nova damage, is completely random uncontrollable nova damage. Rogues get to “keep up” with the others very comfortably and without much fuss, but they don’t deal nor damage than the others, not even rangers. Again, rangers get their damage more from their subclasses than any other class.
Everyone take a long rest.
Why is there so much insistence on only comparing base classes here? Base classes aren't equal in strength; Fighter is the strongest base martial class hands down, and is less dependent on its sub-classes to compete. Rangers are more like Rogues in that the base class is relatively weak, but they get a lot more out of their sub-classes (which play very differently, whereas most Fighter sub-classes are just theming what the Fighter class already does).
You can't just compare classes to each other, just as you can't compare individual abilities, as taken out of context they don't mean anything.
The Ranger isn't underpowered; the main issues with Rangers is that some of their abilities work in annoying ways, like favoured enemy and favoured terrain, which you either need to pick to fit a campaign (and your DM then needs to stick with it a meaningful amount) or they're useless 90% of the time. The only thing mechanically in combat that I think is really a problem is concentration competition, but the UA seems to make clear that WotC intend to reduce that.
And ultimately there's a really easy way to determine which is the best class in D&D; the one that lets you be the character you want to play as is the best class, everything else is bad. If you want to play a stealthy, magic ranger, then Fighter simply isn't an option as even Eldritch Knight doesn't really crossover into what a Ranger does.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I’m a fan of the PHB ranger class, it’s subclasses, and interpretation of the abilities within. As far as the conversation here recently, my take is three passionate people with different opinions on some vague math focused solely on combat with nothing to do on a Wednesday evening. LOL! I tend to involve myself (always a bad idea) when negative claims about the are made and not supported. You’re right. Without some super specific parameters comparing anything is wish-washy. I think that’s why the classes that get compared, “power built”, and claimed to be the “strongest” are the very same that function easily in a “white room” combat world.
This is all insane. I came onto this thread hoping to see some interesting opinions on the Ranger Class, and whether or not it is Underpowered.
I found a Post-Nuclear Warzone.
In General, I agree with Third; Rangers are less optimal as a damage-dealer than a Fighter or Paladin.
Additionally, I feel that the Ranger's Abilities at early levels are Lackluster, and leave quite a bit to be desired, which is the only reason I came onto this thread in the first place.
Seven there shall be/In the halls of the eighth/Eights shall witness/Eight and eight and eight and eight/Blood of the father/Blood of the sun/Endless darkness/Day is done
Savior/Sovereign/Saint Foresworn/Traitor/Trusted/Tortured Truthborn/Chosen/Cursed
Created by deities/Created by mortals/Created by powers unseen/Unheard of
Fate speaks of one/Fate speaks to none/Eternal shadows/Day is Done.
I think forums are an awful place to discuss things, oddly enough.
Why do you think rangers are less optimal than their fighter and paladin pals?
What is lackluster about the early abilities, if you don’t mind me asking?
Whether rangers are "less optimal as a damage-dealer than a Fighter or Paladin" depends entirely on how you define the word "optimal". Which, in my opinion, makes it a useless metric. They're not flashy or "bursty", but they're more than capable of keeping up over the long haul. With a 20 in their attack stats, a ranger with Two-Weapon Fighting and hunter's mark is in only 4 DPR behind a fighter armed with a greatsword and trained in the accompanying fighting style. (For those at home, 36 and 40 respectively.) And that's before factoring in other perks of their subclass, which is where most of the ranger's strength lies. And that's without magic items or feats. Hunters, just from their 3rd-level feature, can add anywhere from 1d8 to a whole other weapon attack. Beast Masters at 11th-level can deal 31 DPR with a longbow, a wolf, and without expending a spell slot.
Rangers, since the days of AD&D when they were just a fighter kit, have already straddled this weird intersection of lines between druid, fighter, and rogue. And over the decades, a lot of people have just never been happy with it. I think it's because they don't know what to do with it. And maybe the game designers haven't always known what to do with it, either.
And here's the crazy thing about fighters: they don't have to use Action Surge to attack. They can Activate a Magic Item, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, and more. Yes, it can yield high damage for a turn. But that's not the only thing it can do. And it's super weird to me that this is all some people seem to care about.
I believe that everyone is going to make comparisons of classes based on what they personally like or want out of any class. This lack of agreement on what definition(s) we’re trying to point and counterpoint about make it an impossible task.
And some of that is to be expected. Nobody should play a character that doesn't appeal to them. I have a half-orc hexblade warlock gladiator whose honor as a warrior is compromised because their power isn't their own. There's a big ol' asterisk next to their record in the arena, but I digress. Just looking at the races, classes, and backgrounds in the PHB there are 1,404 possible combinations. That's not even getting into the many subraces and archetypes a character can adopt, let alone any deeper granularity. There are 30 mountain dwarf champion fighters just from choosing their two fighting styles.
I think the big hangup here is that some of us are having trouble with the fact that certain classes have a stronger core than others. And those other classes get more features from their archetypes to help them grow in power. It's asymmetrical design. If a ranger was as good at dealing damage as a fighter then there would be no point in playing a fighter. At all. Zero. A fighter does one thing really well and that's it! The ranger is flexible and can contribute to other challenges in ways the fighter just can't. And to say the ranger is underpowered because it lags a little behind in one area is to miss the point. If the ranger's damage output was higher, then the script would be flipped and this thread would be about how fighters are underpowered in their forum.
Yep. 100% agree. The ranger isn’t as good a spellcaster as the wizard, either. LOL!
I’d also like to say that thanks to Adventurers League players (because DDAL is basically just some strict house rules with a very large pool of players), KISS RAW players (I find them to be video game people, new players, or players who played a lot of 4E), and a couple (now old) (very unofficial) Tweets by JC (taken as the final word/gospel) the PHB baseline ranger and both PHB ranger subclasses are misinterpreted in a way to “weaken them”, especially how many (previously mentioned) players play the game. If you like the ranger, interpreting the rules in a kinder way will improve your ranger game. If you dislike the ranger, interpret the rules in a kinder or quit smack talking.
That’s mean. I’m sorry. I’ll change that to, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all.” -Thumper
The internet is always a less than desirable location to have any discussion, for the most part (this is due to a lot of psychological effects that being in front of a screen instead of a person has on our actions and words).
Because rangers are less optimal in melee combat, are always having to give up concentration and bonus actions in combat for spells, dual-wielding attacks, and subclass features, are more MAD than fighters, and often more MAD than Paladins.
As for the early level abilities, just compare them to what the other classes get.
Level 1 Features
Fighter: Fighting Style and Second Wind. This lets them be good at their style of fighting early on (which fits the class) and regain a decent amount of hit points once a short rest.
Paladin: Divine Sense and Lay on Hands. This gives them a good utility ability to sense otherworldly creatures as well as being able to heal themselves or others and get rid of poisons/diseases once a long rest.
Ranger: Favored Enemy and Natural Terrain. Both of which are utility features, and are completely campaign and DM dependent.
Lets analyze these features, then. The fighter gets two features that help them in combat, healing and fighting improvements, while paladins get 1.25 features that help in combat, and .75 utility features, including healing and sensing if any celestials, undead, or fiends are within 60 feet of you and where they are. Divine Sense is mostly not a combat oriented feature, but it can be used to help fight invisible creatures, so it counts a 25% of a combat feature. However, the ranger gets no combat oriented features, which is strange because they're a martial half-caster, meaning they probably should get at least one feature that helps them in combat. Unfortunately, no. They get none. Nada. Not only do they fail to get any combat features, but the utility features they do get are practically useless unless the DM specifically lets you know beforehand who you will be fighting and where you will be doing it.
Level 2 Features
Fighter: Action Surge. This feature is combat oriented (again, fitting the class), normally used to increase damage by taking two Attack actions, but it has other uses.
Paladin: Fighting Style, Spellcasting, Divine Smite. They get melee fighting styles (not Two-Weapon Fighting, though), melee damage increases from expending spell slots, and divine charisma-based spellcasting.
Ranger: Fighting Style and Spellcasting. They get the same fighting styles as Paladin, but Great Weapon Fighting and Protection are traded for Two-Weapon Fighting and Archery, as well as primal wisdom-based spellcasting.
Now, Fighters do get only one feature at this level, but its because they got their Fighting Style earlier and got an extremely potent combat ability. Paladins get a combat feature (fighting style), a combat/utility feature (spellcasting), and a combat ability (divine smite). Rangers get a combat feature (fighting style) and a combat/utility feature (spellcasting). Though all 3 of these classes are supposed to focus on martial combat, the ranger class already has less combat features than the paladin and fighter, and the ones they do get are more restrictive (hunter's mark requires concentration to long-term improve damage, while divine smite is momentary instantaneous damage).
Level 3 Features
Fighter: Martial Archetype. This is their subclass, mostly improving their combat and damage potency.
Paladin: Divine Health and Sacred Oath. They get a small benefit of ignoring disease (so now the person who cures diseases cannot be diseased even momentarily) and their subclass. Their subclasses are very diverse, but most of them increase combat abilities in some way and give damaging/controlling spells.
Ranger: Ranger Archetype and Primeval Awareness. This is their subclass, all of which can increase damage in some way, and a weird ranger divine sense-y feature.
This is where things get a bit more complicated. All of the classes get their subclasses here, all of the subclasses increasing their combat abilities, but some do more than others. Still, all of them give them a combat ability. Then, paladins get a survival feature (divine health), and rangers get an annoying ability that is a headache for every DM, and bad for every ranger due to expending a spell slot. Honestly, that Primeval Awareness could have just been a 1st level ranger spell to keep it available to the tables and rangers that want the headache, but not automatically given. Still, up to this point, Fighters and Paladins get more satisfying abilities and more combat abilities than the Ranger.
So, to conclude, Favored Enemy is mostly useless, Natural Terrain is DM and campaign dependent, Land Stride is mostly useful, but not great compared to some later level paladin or fighter features, and Hide in Plain Sight is an awful ability.
Can you see why people find the lower levels of ranger to be lackluster?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Okay, a question for those in this thread who are adamantly opinionated that Rangers are not underpowered:
If the class isn't underpowered and indeed does not suck compared to every other class in the game, why has Wizards of the Coast created and released the "Ranger, Revised" Unearthed Arcana and the "Class Feature Variants" Unearthed Arcana that gave the most "replacements/enhancements" to the Ranger class? If the class is not underpowered and objectively bad, why have the creators of D&D 5e and the RANGER CLASS (all caps for emphasis) tried multiple times to fix it?
Answer that, will ya, before you continue to scream at me and calling me stupid.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
i thought it was weak for the longest time. its really not. it is weaker than paladin and wizard, but those are both the best classes in dnd. it also depends on the type/style of campaign. in fighting, they can be pretty good, but are still outmatched by quite a few others. where they shine is utility (espielsilly in wilderness), and versatility.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Whose feelings am I going to hurt by saying that Rangers are underpowered? Am I going to hurt the feelings of the class? Am I going to hurt the feelings of the game designers of WotC? Was it wrong of the community to dis on D&D 4e because the majority of them didn't like it?
It hurts no one to point out a problem. That's like saying a doctor is being rude when they tell someone that they have Stage 4 cancer. Diagnosing an issue with a class option for a tabletop roleplaying game does not harm anyone, even emotionally. And even if doing so somehow hurt the feelings of someone, it is not the fault of the person sounding the alarm about the problem, it's the fault of the person who got emotionally attached to a class in a game.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Were people calling you stupid? That's not nice.
I can defend ranger though. Possibly because they were mistaken, did not think outside of the box, played games with less of an exploration pillar, or thought that multi classing is bad. Also, at high levels can be pretty good. Hunter's multi attack can be extremely good in campaigns where you fight in wars. Also as proof, I have a level 6 arcane archer / gloom stalker multi class, and it can out damage the wizard, and had higher ac and health.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Wizards of the Coast has tried several times to "tweak" the Ranger, all in Unearthed Arcana, and almost all of them abandoned. Both the original attempt and the revised version were scrapped, and they have their reasons for doing so. Wizards also made it clear that they were never going to invalidate the PHB version of the class. And we still don't know how the class feature variants will play out. The UA is almost always tuned down from how it was playtested.
That said, people are going to complain. They're always going to complain. Some people, who are vocal and do not necessarily represent a majority of the players, think the ranger is underpowered. And this...isn't new. The ranger has been unpopular ever since it became its own class in 2nd edition AD&D. People didn't like it when WotC took their crack at it in 3 or 3.5, either. The version we got in Pathfinder was better, but still only Tier 4.
And when people, consumers, complain about a niche not being filled, any smart business is going to make something to fill that niche. Rangers got a lot of attention with the class feature variants because some people have been noisy. That doesn't mean they're right; this is an opinion and opinions are subjective, not objective. But they're making themselves heard and the squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say.
The ranger, as it exists in the PHB, is not built like other martial classes. But that doesn't mean it's bad at its job. And it doesn't mean the class is badly designed if DMs don't utilize more the pillars of play the ranger is designed to support. There is a, rather obvious in my opinion, disconnect between player/DM expectation and preference of playstyle. Because some people prefer to play a certain way, they eschew the things that truly make some classes shine. But just like how even a muscle-bound fighter or *gasp* barbarian can have a role in a campaign of courtly intrigue, the ranger can still work outside of its element.
The ranger is just so front-loaded with features for the Exploration and Social Interaction pillars that it turns off people hoping to play an Aragorn or Drizz't clone. It's a popular dip, though, for groups that allow multiclassing.
I have to say, nice job dodging the question. I was almost fooled for a moment. You addressed them trying to fix the ranger multiple times now, but failed to answer the question. Why does Wizards of the Coast feel the need to try and fix a class with multiple attempts to do so if the class is not in need of fixing? And, yes, UA is almost always tuned down before being officially published (there are notable exceptions, like the Genie warlock), but by the mere fact that they have made 4 Unearthed Arcana fixes for the Ranger class that I am aware of (Non-spellcasting ranger, and the 3 you listed), it is extremely unlikely that they will significantly nerf the fixes they made in the CFV UA.
Yes, people always complain. You, in fact, am complaining about people complaining. I think the vast majority of D&D players complain about some aspect of the game at some point. Whether or not the group that wants a ranger fix is in the minority, I don't know if we have accurate feedback from a large enough sample of the community to show whether one group is in the minority, but rangers are the most unpopular and un-played class in D&D 5e.
ANd the monk and rogue and warlock aren't built like any of the other classes who are meant to do similar things to them, but people don't tend to complain about them being bad at their job as much as they do about Rangers. It is bad class design to have your class's effectiveness be largely dependent on the DM. Sure, every class's effectiveness is up to the DM, as the DM can only have ranged flying monsters against a party consisting of paladins, monks, and barbarians, but a DM choosing to do that is purposeful. If the DM can easily accidentally screw a character by having the campaign take place in Outer Space, the Arctic, or the Underdark when the Ranger's Natural Terrain is the Grasslands.
It isn't the front-loaded nature of the class that turns me off of the Ranger, every class in this edition is front-loaded. The thing is, the other classes are front-loaded for combat. All of them. Every single class, from Artificers to Wizards, has the majority of its first features focusing on combat. However, most of the Ranger's first features are not. D&D 5e is a system balanced around combat. If you try to balance non-combat features against combat features, you will always end up with imbalance. You guys keep saying "apples and oranges." That actually applies to what I have been saying. It is impossible to compare apples and oranges, combat and non-combat features, and you cannot justify the combat imbalance between Rangers and Paladins/Fighters by saying "they get non-combat features to balance it out!"
Edit: Also, it being a popular class to multiclass into isn't a way to tell whether or not the class is underpowered.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Aragorn and Drizzt are pretty terrible archetypes for the Ranger class though, especially if we’re talking about spells (never mind concentration). Aragorn arguably couldn’t use magic, and if he did it’d be because of his ancestry. Drizzt only used his innate spells - which makes sense, since he was created when AD&D was current and Rangers couldn’t cast spells until mid-level. Drizzt is mostly a Fighter, whatever paltry Ranger levels he has in the mix are there pretty much only to justify being sneaky and not dying from starvation or exposure after leaving Menzoberranzan on his lonesome. In 5E I’d class Aragorn as a Paladin well before considering Ranger levels, and both are probably easiest characterized as Fighters with an appropriate background.
I think that actually illustrates the issue with the Ranger class as well, since the devs seem to have thought of these two and others a bit too much when creating the mechanics for Rangers and not enough when working on the Fighter class; probably because the class names needed to stay connected to well-known characters from before. For my money, a Ranger class that put a bit more emphasis on spellcasting and a Fighter archetype for skirmishers/ambushers/guerilla warriors would have been more sensible to keep the classes distinct enough while offering plenty of options for the players to build whatever martial character they envision.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].