While I agree with you that stacking of Hex and HM needs to be proscribed, there are many many other ways to achieve that or at least severely limit its likelihood. For example, the Hunter's Mark spell could state that 'if cast with a Ranger spell slot of 2nd level or higher, you can cast the spell so that Concentration is not required. If cast this way the duration becomes 1 minute.' This amendment could be added to the HM spell itself, or it could be part of an existing Ranger class feature.
This type of uncomplicated, simple to apply 'fix' is what I call 'cake and eat it'. It makes the ranger crowd happy and avoids or severely discourages 'dips' into Ranger simply to get HM.
thinking about it further, I am confident a feat could be designed that would allow certain spells to be cast this way, reducing duration whilst removing concentration requirements. This feat could have a level requirement.
I'm sure people who get paid to do this sort of thing could come up with even more elegant solutions that mine!
The Ranger is thematically weak but is mechanically good at dealing damage in tier 1 and early tier 2 but has little in tier 3. The Ranger spell list at later levels is lackluster and has no good features after the subclass features at Level 7, but Tireless is a neat ability for flavor.
I've never played a ranger before but I made a level 5 ranger for a 1-shot I'm playing in that I'm pretty excited about. I'm picturing him as a surly survivalist-type. Took Druidic warrior as the fighting style for a little druid flavor. Guide background for the ability score increase and more druid spells and the Fey-touched background. Hunter subclass for the Hunter's Lore and Hunter's Prey features. Per long rest that gives him 3 castings of Hunter's Mark, 1 misty step, 1 detect magic and 1 cure wounds (the last 2 selected mostly because I thought they might be useful with the theme of the specific campaign) So that's 6 spells without using any spell slots. In melee combat he'll get 3 attacks (2 regular attacks plus 2-weapon fighting B.A.) plus 1d6 for H.M. and once per turn potentially an extra 1d8 for Colossus slayer (so using hand axes as a primary melee weapons the potential each turn to deal 6d6 + 1d8 damage and have advantage on the next attack with vex) Ranged attacks he can use H.M. with the short bow and potentially add Hail of Thorns and again have advantage on the next attack thanks to vex. I think he came out a good mix of combat prowess, healing ability and utility.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
The 2024 ranger doesn’t have all the little ribbon features that showed the theme of ranger. However, it has the capacity to match any other nature/survivalist themed class or subclass with its 3 expertises. It’s true it’s summon and conjure spells got nerfed so you only get 1 creature now instead of the numbers you got with 2014, but the creature you get is generally more powerful so it’s a bit of a trade off there. No the ranger doesn’t get many big obvious damaging spells like fireball but they do get a few- mostly archery focused. Traditionally you transitioned from mostly martial focused to mostly spell focused in late tier 2/early tier 3 and that hasn’t really changed. However if your expecting the tier 3/4 ranger to be a blaster it’s not, it’s much more about controlling the battlefield and funneling foes into kill zones ( or forcing them to dead ends while the party escapes). Properly played they remain strong right through tier 4 - but properly isn’t just however you want to play them.
Now that I was able to read the whole book, watched some videos about ranger, and doing a bit more math myself. I think Ranger is amazing level 1~10 Character for any party composition! He does suffer after that, and because of that in my games the change I will do is to change the level 13 feature to remove Concentration on Hunter's Mark instead of not breaking it on damage. So Ranger can Summon/buffs/other damaging concentration spell + HM after level 13.
That way you have a reason to go all the way to Ranger and even the capstone/level 17 feature does not fell that bad anymore. And because it is a level 13 feature there is no quick dip to grab it.
I agree, the Ranger has a great tier 1 and tier 2. Like other martials it does fall apart at tier 3. I still don't know what to do with it, whether to multiclass at 6 or what... But most games don't last much past 11 in my experience.
A 20th level Ranger can pass the 630 test however.
The 630 test is something I made up to gauge the survivablity of most characters.
I create a generic CR30 Gargantuan Monster with 30 STR and 30 CON and 19 AC. The hit points are D20 so the average damage is 10.5. I round up to 11 plus 10 for CON and multiply by 30. Hence 630 hit points. The test is if a character can inflict at least 32 points of average damage for 20 turns which should kill the monster. 32*20 is actually 640 but it is better to do more damage than less and DnD 2024 has weird rounding rules. 630/20 is 31.5 but you can not use that number you have to use 31 which does not do enough damage to kill a beast with 630 hit points.
20th Level Ranger with 20 STR and dual wielding scimitars. Taking the Combat Prowess Epic Feat. and using NICK.
Hunters mark at high levels grants advantage on attacks and does 1d10 extra damage per attack.
13 * 3 swings = 39 I preserve the bonus action for other things but you could use it to make a fourth swing. I use it for Beast Master commands to my Beast. :-)
630 / 39 = 16.153 ~ 17 ( I round up here on purpose) 17<= 20 so it passes the test.
I tested long bows and short bows and dual hand held crossbows. The only Ranger Subclass to fail is the Gloom Stalker. It ends up around 22 <= 20 which is false so it fails but gets close. If you get a +1 weapon you might squeeze in.
Weirdly enough the only other class that fails this test is the Wizard class. Their damage is actually bad over the long term. Even Evockers fail. The test works out to be 30 or 35 <= 20 which is not even close to succeeding.
Again numbers are a part of the game but not the whole. Ranger Narratives require A certain level of satisfaction OUT SIDE of the Initiative portion of the game. its the gameplay style and theme that really makes a ranger successful or not. While there is a small amount of theme and style with ranger it seems to not really match enough of the class appeal. Almost every ranger archetypical feature of the game can be replicated and has a better feel. Artificers are unique because it provides a unique woldbuilding space (on the fly magic crafting){i know they aren't updated yet} and Paladins really give the holy knight feel. Even monks now really feel like martial artists. every class decently presents itself The ranger class doesn't feel like a cohesive "mechanical Narrative" but rather a Jerry-rigged class.
Good numbers do not necessarily mean satisfying play. IN particular the parts and playstyles I found satisfying Are no longer in Dnd 5.5. While I am just one anecdote, There still seems to be enough of an audience for more Ranger specific features.
Thank you Roscoeivan, that is what has annoyed me as well with the 5.24 ranger - mechanically it’s not bad, and, in terms of skills in nature it more or less matches up even the 2014 scout rougue. (Well, at higher levels after it gets its second and third expertises). But there is no longer anything except proficiency in nature and survival ( if you chose to take them) that really says “Ranger”. There really should be something both mechanical and roleplay that shouts RANGER. Like most of us that post about rangers regularly I can think of things that I think should be in the next rewrite of the ranger. I’m lucky in that regard as I can fill in “Ranger stuff” from personal experience AND have a group with several others knowledgeable about nature and survival skills so we generally understand what each other are trying to do and how it should work.
What do I think it should look like? Well, first off the rerevised ranger and the revised scout rogue should be in the same book as the scout rogue is a part of the ranger’s problem. As I see it the ranger should be the preeminent outdoorsman - no one should be better and few should be equals. So the ranger should get expertise in nature and survival at L1 along with 2 other skills of their choice. The scout rogue currently does this and it should be reduced to getting proficiency in nature and survival. If they want to they are free to take expertise in them when they get their second two expertises later. A ranger should be able to ignore most difficult terrain other than that magically created. The ranger should enhance their party’s overland travel either by a 25% speed increase or by moving what the party can do at a speed up one level (doubled for slow travel). Since most of the nature and survival “skills” are actually intelligence based not wisdom based the ranger should be allowed to add their wisdom bonus as well as their intelligence bonus to those rolls - you don’t just follow the tracks, you follow the known/deduced behavior patterns and that is wisdom at work. I would move relentless hunter (damage doesn’t break concentration) down to level 9 along with the last expertise. At L13 I would give them a version of the scout rogue’s ambush master ability - advantage on initiative and a 1 minute no concentration hunters mark on the first creature you hit. At L20 I would bring back an enhanced foe slayer: you get to add your wisdom bonus to both to hit and damage of each attack you make and your damage against hunter’s marked foes goes up to a D10. I would also give them a version of the Leomund’s hut spell that they could do as a ritual spell and give them their choice of herbalism or cartographer’s or navigator’s tools an free tool skill.
I see your point. Truthfully my low level Ranger hasn't spent much time in forests. We have been dungeon crawling, cleaned out a haunted castle and rescued a local lords son from the local thieves guild. We did not get paid for the last one as it turns out the thieves ran the local gambling and the lord owed them a ton of money and so they kidnapped his son. We rescued the son but he refused to pay us. We are currently debating what to do about it if anything.
my Ranger is doing o.k. and I am having fun with it. I normally summon a land beast in the shape of a tiger and call him Ruh. I have been using a long bow more and more so my original idea of dual scimitars is slowly moving to the back burner. I do use Stealth alot because I am the team's scout. I also use lock picks and find and disarm traps. We don't have a thief so I kind of fit there. I am not doing nearly as well as a rogue would but so far so good. Our DM let us all have a bonus Feat and I took Skilled to pick up some skills and tools I did not have.
Yes, skill on a ranger is often good. One thing for my spoiler above, many folks play an “urban” Ranger and WOtC has tried (and failed) to generate a viable subclass for this (I’ve played a couple of versions over the years. Going with something like my base ranger simply stating in the subclass L3 abilities that , for this subclass, the nature and survival skills now also apply to urban and “sub-urban” settings would make rangers like yours fit and probably feel better.
I agree "urban ranger" should be about personal choice and campaign other wise it would mechanicalally fail. Instead the ranger mechanics should feel ranger like no matter what environment or pillar of play you are currently engaged with.
And really I feel simple versions of 2014( reduce complexity and situational aspects) close to the original wouldn't be that hard to keep up with the new design. One day I might do that.
my Ranger is doing o.k. and I am having fun with it.
I truly am not trying to rain on anybodys fun. I just think wotc could have let the kids that wanted to just play in the rain rather than force everyone to play inside games. Options not majority rule.
Franky most players and dms that had a bad time with 2014 did because they were told that's how they should feel rather than soft adjudication.
my Ranger is doing o.k. and I am having fun with it.
I truly am not trying to rain on anybodys fun. I just think wotc could have let the kids that wanted to just play in the rain rather than force everyone to play inside games. Options not majority rule.
Franky most players and dms that had a bad time with 2014 did because they were told that's how they should feel rather than soft adjudication.
Using yours analogy, the 2024 Ranger is Wotc not allowing kids to play in the rain, but instead of forcing to play inside, they allowed the kids to play with the hose when the days are too hot at least. But at least less chance the kids get sick since rain water is more likelly to make the kid sick.
What I mean 2014 ranger 'flavour' features were crap, the new 2024 (and tasha's) features are less flavourful, but at least they don't make you sick.
I DMed a medium size campaign for my sister playing a ranger using only 2014, and it was really bad, we quickly move to the tasha's version and it was soo much better. And a couple months ago I DMed for a couple of friends using the 2024 rules (more precicelly the rules we have on the LAST UA playtest), and one of my friends played a Ranger, and he did awesome, in both exploration and combat and it felt really rangery to be honest, from the point of view of me as DM.
I do think that 2014 vs 2024 Ranger the 2014 Ranger have more flavour, but it is a bad flavour. I pick the a little less flavourful - but still some - 2024 version any day of the week. The only problem I see with 2024 Ranger is being clunky with Hunter's Mark.
Anecdotes show possibility not probability or causality.
I know several players that had a great time with 2014. In fact 3 years of helping run Adventures league and 4 years of home games and most rangers felt like mvp or decent support. So, both a bad experience and good are possible.
Why did the ranger have a bad or good time? From what I can tell, satisfied rangers generally come from players that really like creative interactions. Buying specific food over rations, players that ask does my tool proficiency help? Or players that interact with specific purchases for creative use. Players that say things like "in the desert(or other terrain) we treat x ailments this way would that info help here". There are so many ways to self-adjust the 2014 ranger play to match the group. And the only really bad time I saw was a dm that expressed rangers were bad and made it a self fulfilling prophecy and went super strict on the interpretation beyond what I would consider normal. (No that chicken you bought won't let you animal handle wolves to reduce combat threat, no your forest skills wont let you find the best store bought apples for the party etc.)
That being said 2014 was improved by tasha's as options (the mix and match was really common) and by then certain standards of play were changed. So Clearly 2014 NEEDED rewrites but they didn't even try to appeal to the original concept of 5e rangers. There's a huge breadth of play that the ranger class appeals to but they only focused on the half-empty crowd Instead of the neutral or satisfied crowds. Causality is important and they took out several causes of "fun play" without any replacement.
Anecdotes show possibility not probability or causality.
I know several players that had a great time with 2014. In fact 3 years of helping run Adventures league and 4 years of home games and most rangers felt like mvp or decent support. So, both a bad experience and good are possible.
Why did the ranger have a bad or good time? From what I can tell, satisfied rangers generally come from players that really like creative interactions. Buying specific food over rations, players that ask does my tool proficiency help? Or players that interact with specific purchases for creative use. Players that say things like "in the desert(or other terrain) we treat x ailments this way would that info help here". There are so many ways to self-adjust the 2014 ranger play to match the group. And the only really bad time I saw was a dm that expressed rangers were bad and made it a self fulfilling prophecy and went super strict on the interpretation beyond what I would consider normal. (No that chicken you bought won't let you animal handle wolves to reduce combat threat, no your forest skills wont let you find the best store bought apples for the party etc.)
That being said 2014 was improved by tasha's as options (the mix and match was really common) and by then certain standards of play were changed. So Clearly 2014 NEEDED rewrites but they didn't even try to appeal to the original concept of 5e rangers. There's a huge breadth of play that the ranger class appeals to but they only focused on the half-empty crowd Instead of the neutral or satisfied crowds. Causality is important and they took out several causes of "fun play" without any replacement.
Good points all, but I think the key thing to keep in mind about the 2014 Ranger- the experience of playing the class is inordinately linked to the mindset and talent of one’s DM. More so than any other class in the game. The features as written places a big burden on the player and the DM to find common ground and if this was not done then discord or disappointment would likely ensue. Contrast with other classes where features are far more cut and dried and less subject to interpretation or accommodation. They fixed a lot of this in 2024 but still some glaring issues. For the life of me I cannot work out how they deem it ok for paladins to get concentration-free Divine Favour but the best they can done for rangers is to give them extra casts of Hunter’s Mark and way up at 13th level allow them to not lose concentration from damage. Net effect here is that so many nice spells stay locked out of use because the 2024 class is built around HM. The capstone which offers d10 damage is hot garbage.
Anecdotes show possibility not probability or causality.
I know several players that had a great time with 2014. In fact 3 years of helping run Adventures league and 4 years of home games and most rangers felt like mvp or decent support. So, both a bad experience and good are possible.
Why did the ranger have a bad or good time? From what I can tell, satisfied rangers generally come from players that really like creative interactions. Buying specific food over rations, players that ask does my tool proficiency help? Or players that interact with specific purchases for creative use. Players that say things like "in the desert(or other terrain) we treat x ailments this way would that info help here". There are so many ways to self-adjust the 2014 ranger play to match the group. And the only really bad time I saw was a dm that expressed rangers were bad and made it a self fulfilling prophecy and went super strict on the interpretation beyond what I would consider normal. (No that chicken you bought won't let you animal handle wolves to reduce combat threat, no your forest skills wont let you find the best store bought apples for the party etc.)
That being said 2014 was improved by tasha's as options (the mix and match was really common) and by then certain standards of play were changed. So Clearly 2014 NEEDED rewrites but they didn't even try to appeal to the original concept of 5e rangers. There's a huge breadth of play that the ranger class appeals to but they only focused on the half-empty crowd Instead of the neutral or satisfied crowds. Causality is important and they took out several causes of "fun play" without any replacement.
Good points all, but I think the key thing to keep in mind about the 2014 Ranger- the experience of playing the class is inordinately linked to the mindset and talent of one’s DM. More so than any other class in the game. The features as written places a big burden on the player and the DM to find common ground and if this was not done then discord or disappointment would likely ensue. Contrast with other classes where features are far more cut and dried and less subject to interpretation or accommodation. They fixed a lot of this in 2024 but still some glaring issues. For the life of me I cannot work out how they deem it ok for paladins to get concentration-free Divine Favour but the best they can done for rangers is to give them extra casts of Hunter’s Mark and way up at 13th level allow them to not lose concentration from damage. Net effect here is that so many nice spells stay locked out of use because the 2024 class is built around HM. The capstone which offers d10 damage is hot garbage.
I think with ANY character, the main thing is that YOU have fun playing it - and a good DM will help you out and encourage creative role play that fits your character's personality. I probably put more thought into the backgrounds and personalities of my characters than I need to because that's what I enjoy playing - a character that's quirky and flawed. (And my regular DM enjoys having players that lean into that style of character rather than just trying to do max damage all the time). IMO focusing on getting the maximum number of attacks, squeezing out every last point of damage, making sure to avoid every enemy attack - also eliminates the fun part of RPGs. When I make a character, I try to think about their personality - what choices would THEY make and why? For example, my ranger is (as one might expect from the class) a survivalist. His weapon choices are handaxes, bows and quarterstaff - he avoids swords and other martial weapons because they're not useful tools in wilderness survival. He wears hide armor for the same reason. Could he get a higher AC or do more damage with other weapons? Sure, but it doesn't fit with his personality.
The 2024 Ranger does have some glaring issues. HM could've been the Ranger's one and only cantrip: lasting 1 minute. But of course, that raises the issue of everyone dipping into Ranger for a level just for HM. And yes, the capstone of having HM deal 1d10 is pretty weak - especially compared to Bard's "Words of Creation" which is damn near a god-like power - seriously: no save, instantly kill a creature with 100 HP or less or do 12d12 damage? Or cleric's Divine Intervention which allows them to cast Wish every 2-8 long rests. Although, looking through the capstones of other classes, Bard and Cleric seems insanely OP, Ranger is maybe the weakest but the rest fall somewhere in between (for examples, Rouge's Stroke of Luck can turn a failed d20 test into a 20 once per rest - which just seems a bit limited).
But there are other things to consider, like, the availability of higher-level spells, what powerful magic items you might have acquired by level 20 and more importantly, what are the chances that I end up playing this character (or any character for that matter) at that high a level? For me that answer is "slim to none." But in the middle levels, I still see plenty of ways to customize individual characters and create something that's unique, fun to play and useful to the makeup of a party.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
I think with ANY character, the main thing is that YOU have fun playing it - and a good DM will help you out and encourage creative role play that fits your character's personality........
.....The 2024 Ranger may have some glaring issues, but I still see plenty of ways to customize individual characters and create something that's unique, fun to play and useful to the makeup of a party.
And here's the real rub for me, wotc encouraged the elements myself (and a portion of the community) found fun to be labeled problems to be removed not fixed. Not just one area either but several different ones across a singleclass And then they tried gaslighting promotional videos. In the end they didn't even satisfy the people they were catering to. Meanwhile with tasha's mix and match we actually achieved the standards of satisfaction wotc was looking for because you could build to your style.
I see your point, but they did incorporate a lot of the optional features from Tasha's and Xanathar's. But again, going back to having a good DM - if your DM allows it - make the character you want to make drawing from as many sources as your DM allows.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
This pretty much states all that I think about ranger in a better way then I can explain.
They have stripped out all the flavour and made it just bad, another reason why I think in 2025 I will be moving my campaign from DnD to a different system.
While I agree with you that stacking of Hex and HM needs to be proscribed, there are many many other ways to achieve that or at least severely limit its likelihood. For example, the Hunter's Mark spell could state that 'if cast with a Ranger spell slot of 2nd level or higher, you can cast the spell so that Concentration is not required. If cast this way the duration becomes 1 minute.' This amendment could be added to the HM spell itself, or it could be part of an existing Ranger class feature.
This type of uncomplicated, simple to apply 'fix' is what I call 'cake and eat it'. It makes the ranger crowd happy and avoids or severely discourages 'dips' into Ranger simply to get HM.
thinking about it further, I am confident a feat could be designed that would allow certain spells to be cast this way, reducing duration whilst removing concentration requirements. This feat could have a level requirement.
I'm sure people who get paid to do this sort of thing could come up with even more elegant solutions that mine!
---
Don't be Lawful Evil
The Ranger is thematically weak but is mechanically good at dealing damage in tier 1 and early tier 2 but has little in tier 3. The Ranger spell list at later levels is lackluster and has no good features after the subclass features at Level 7, but Tireless is a neat ability for flavor.
I've never played a ranger before but I made a level 5 ranger for a 1-shot I'm playing in that I'm pretty excited about. I'm picturing him as a surly survivalist-type. Took Druidic warrior as the fighting style for a little druid flavor. Guide background for the ability score increase and more druid spells and the Fey-touched background. Hunter subclass for the Hunter's Lore and Hunter's Prey features. Per long rest that gives him 3 castings of Hunter's Mark, 1 misty step, 1 detect magic and 1 cure wounds (the last 2 selected mostly because I thought they might be useful with the theme of the specific campaign) So that's 6 spells without using any spell slots. In melee combat he'll get 3 attacks (2 regular attacks plus 2-weapon fighting B.A.) plus 1d6 for H.M. and once per turn potentially an extra 1d8 for Colossus slayer (so using hand axes as a primary melee weapons the potential each turn to deal 6d6 + 1d8 damage and have advantage on the next attack with vex) Ranged attacks he can use H.M. with the short bow and potentially add Hail of Thorns and again have advantage on the next attack thanks to vex. I think he came out a good mix of combat prowess, healing ability and utility.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
The 2024 ranger doesn’t have all the little ribbon features that showed the theme of ranger. However, it has the capacity to match any other nature/survivalist themed class or subclass with its 3 expertises. It’s true it’s summon and conjure spells got nerfed so you only get 1 creature now instead of the numbers you got with 2014, but the creature you get is generally more powerful so it’s a bit of a trade off there. No the ranger doesn’t get many big obvious damaging spells like fireball but they do get a few- mostly archery focused. Traditionally you transitioned from mostly martial focused to mostly spell focused in late tier 2/early tier 3 and that hasn’t really changed. However if your expecting the tier 3/4 ranger to be a blaster it’s not, it’s much more about controlling the battlefield and funneling foes into kill zones ( or forcing them to dead ends while the party escapes). Properly played they remain strong right through tier 4 - but properly isn’t just however you want to play them.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Now that I was able to read the whole book, watched some videos about ranger, and doing a bit more math myself. I think Ranger is amazing level 1~10 Character for any party composition! He does suffer after that, and because of that in my games the change I will do is to change the level 13 feature to remove Concentration on Hunter's Mark instead of not breaking it on damage. So Ranger can Summon/buffs/other damaging concentration spell + HM after level 13.
That way you have a reason to go all the way to Ranger and even the capstone/level 17 feature does not fell that bad anymore. And because it is a level 13 feature there is no quick dip to grab it.
I agree, the Ranger has a great tier 1 and tier 2. Like other martials it does fall apart at tier 3. I still don't know what to do with it, whether to multiclass at 6 or what... But most games don't last much past 11 in my experience.
A 20th level Ranger can pass the 630 test however.
The 630 test is something I made up to gauge the survivablity of most characters.
I create a generic CR30 Gargantuan Monster with 30 STR and 30 CON and 19 AC.
The hit points are D20 so the average damage is 10.5. I round up to 11 plus 10 for CON and multiply by 30. Hence 630 hit points. The test is if a character can inflict at least 32 points of average damage for 20 turns which should kill the monster. 32*20 is actually 640 but it is better to do more damage than less and DnD 2024 has weird rounding rules. 630/20 is 31.5 but you can not use that number you have to use 31 which does not do enough damage to kill a beast with 630 hit points.
20th Level Ranger with 20 STR and dual wielding scimitars. Taking the Combat Prowess Epic Feat. and using NICK.
Hunters mark at high levels grants advantage on attacks and does 1d10 extra damage per attack.
.0975*(2*3.5 + 5 + 2*5.5) + .78*(3.5 + 5 +5.5) = 13.1625 ~ 13
13 * 3 swings = 39 I preserve the bonus action for other things but you could use it to make a fourth swing. I use it for Beast Master commands to my Beast. :-)
630 / 39 = 16.153 ~ 17 ( I round up here on purpose) 17<= 20 so it passes the test.
I tested long bows and short bows and dual hand held crossbows. The only Ranger Subclass to fail is the Gloom Stalker. It ends up around 22 <= 20 which is false so it fails but gets close. If you get a +1 weapon you might squeeze in.
Weirdly enough the only other class that fails this test is the Wizard class. Their damage is actually bad over the long term. Even Evockers fail. The test works out to be 30 or 35 <= 20 which is not even close to succeeding.
Again numbers are a part of the game but not the whole. Ranger Narratives require A certain level of satisfaction OUT SIDE of the Initiative portion of the game. its the gameplay style and theme that really makes a ranger successful or not. While there is a small amount of theme and style with ranger it seems to not really match enough of the class appeal. Almost every ranger archetypical feature of the game can be replicated and has a better feel. Artificers are unique because it provides a unique woldbuilding space (on the fly magic crafting){i know they aren't updated yet} and Paladins really give the holy knight feel. Even monks now really feel like martial artists. every class decently presents itself The ranger class doesn't feel like a cohesive "mechanical Narrative" but rather a Jerry-rigged class.
Good numbers do not necessarily mean satisfying play. IN particular the parts and playstyles I found satisfying Are no longer in Dnd 5.5. While I am just one anecdote, There still seems to be enough of an audience for more Ranger specific features.
Thank you Roscoeivan, that is what has annoyed me as well with the 5.24 ranger - mechanically it’s not bad, and, in terms of skills in nature it more or less matches up even the 2014 scout rougue. (Well, at higher levels after it gets its second and third expertises). But there is no longer anything except proficiency in nature and survival ( if you chose to take them) that really says “Ranger”. There really should be something both mechanical and roleplay that shouts RANGER. Like most of us that post about rangers regularly I can think of things that I think should be in the next rewrite of the ranger. I’m lucky in that regard as I can fill in “Ranger stuff” from personal experience AND have a group with several others knowledgeable about nature and survival skills so we generally understand what each other are trying to do and how it should work.
What do I think it should look like?
Well, first off the rerevised ranger and the revised scout rogue should be in the same book as the scout rogue is a part of the ranger’s problem. As I see it the ranger should be the preeminent outdoorsman - no one should be better and few should be equals. So the ranger should get expertise in nature and survival at L1 along with 2 other skills of their choice. The scout rogue currently does this and it should be reduced to getting proficiency in nature and survival. If they want to they are free to take expertise in them when they get their second two expertises later. A ranger should be able to ignore most difficult terrain other than that magically created. The ranger should enhance their party’s overland travel either by a 25% speed increase or by moving what the party can do at a speed up one level (doubled for slow travel). Since most of the nature and survival “skills” are actually intelligence based not wisdom based the ranger should be allowed to add their wisdom bonus as well as their intelligence bonus to those rolls - you don’t just follow the tracks, you follow the known/deduced behavior patterns and that is wisdom at work. I would move relentless hunter (damage doesn’t break concentration) down to level 9 along with the last expertise. At L13 I would give them a version of the scout rogue’s ambush master ability - advantage on initiative and a 1 minute no concentration hunters mark on the first creature you hit. At L20 I would bring back an enhanced foe slayer: you get to add your wisdom bonus to both to hit and damage of each attack you make and your damage against hunter’s marked foes goes up to a D10. I would also give them a version of the Leomund’s hut spell that they could do as a ritual spell and give them their choice of herbalism or cartographer’s or navigator’s tools an free tool skill.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I see your point. Truthfully my low level Ranger hasn't spent much time in forests. We have been dungeon crawling, cleaned out a haunted castle and rescued a local lords son from the local thieves guild. We did not get paid for the last one as it turns out the thieves ran the local gambling and the lord owed them a ton of money and so they kidnapped his son. We rescued the son but he refused to pay us. We are currently debating what to do about it if anything.
my Ranger is doing o.k. and I am having fun with it. I normally summon a land beast in the shape of a tiger and call him Ruh. I have been using a long bow more and more so my original idea of dual scimitars is slowly moving to the back burner. I do use Stealth alot because I am the team's scout. I also use lock picks and find and disarm traps. We don't have a thief so I kind of fit there. I am not doing nearly as well as a rogue would but so far so good. Our DM let us all have a bonus Feat and I took Skilled to pick up some skills and tools I did not have.
Yes, skill on a ranger is often good. One thing for my spoiler above, many folks play an “urban” Ranger and WOtC has tried (and failed) to generate a viable subclass for this (I’ve played a couple of versions over the years. Going with something like my base ranger simply stating in the subclass L3 abilities that , for this subclass, the nature and survival skills now also apply to urban and “sub-urban” settings would make rangers like yours fit and probably feel better.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I agree "urban ranger" should be about personal choice and campaign other wise it would mechanicalally fail. Instead the ranger mechanics should feel ranger like no matter what environment or pillar of play you are currently engaged with.
And really I feel simple versions of 2014( reduce complexity and situational aspects) close to the original wouldn't be that hard to keep up with the new design. One day I might do that.
I truly am not trying to rain on anybodys fun. I just think wotc could have let the kids that wanted to just play in the rain rather than force everyone to play inside games. Options not majority rule.
Franky most players and dms that had a bad time with 2014 did because they were told that's how they should feel rather than soft adjudication.
Using yours analogy, the 2024 Ranger is Wotc not allowing kids to play in the rain, but instead of forcing to play inside, they allowed the kids to play with the hose when the days are too hot at least. But at least less chance the kids get sick since rain water is more likelly to make the kid sick.
What I mean 2014 ranger 'flavour' features were crap, the new 2024 (and tasha's) features are less flavourful, but at least they don't make you sick.
I DMed a medium size campaign for my sister playing a ranger using only 2014, and it was really bad, we quickly move to the tasha's version and it was soo much better. And a couple months ago I DMed for a couple of friends using the 2024 rules (more precicelly the rules we have on the LAST UA playtest), and one of my friends played a Ranger, and he did awesome, in both exploration and combat and it felt really rangery to be honest, from the point of view of me as DM.
I do think that 2014 vs 2024 Ranger the 2014 Ranger have more flavour, but it is a bad flavour. I pick the a little less flavourful - but still some - 2024 version any day of the week. The only problem I see with 2024 Ranger is being clunky with Hunter's Mark.
Anecdotes show possibility not probability or causality.
I know several players that had a great time with 2014. In fact 3 years of helping run Adventures league and 4 years of home games and most rangers felt like mvp or decent support. So, both a bad experience and good are possible.
Why did the ranger have a bad or good time? From what I can tell, satisfied rangers generally come from players that really like creative interactions. Buying specific food over rations, players that ask does my tool proficiency help? Or players that interact with specific purchases for creative use. Players that say things like "in the desert(or other terrain) we treat x ailments this way would that info help here". There are so many ways to self-adjust the 2014 ranger play to match the group. And the only really bad time I saw was a dm that expressed rangers were bad and made it a self fulfilling prophecy and went super strict on the interpretation beyond what I would consider normal. (No that chicken you bought won't let you animal handle wolves to reduce combat threat, no your forest skills wont let you find the best store bought apples for the party etc.)
That being said 2014 was improved by tasha's as options (the mix and match was really common) and by then certain standards of play were changed. So Clearly 2014 NEEDED rewrites but they didn't even try to appeal to the original concept of 5e rangers. There's a huge breadth of play that the ranger class appeals to but they only focused on the half-empty crowd Instead of the neutral or satisfied crowds. Causality is important and they took out several causes of "fun play" without any replacement.
Good points all, but I think the key thing to keep in mind about the 2014 Ranger- the experience of playing the class is inordinately linked to the mindset and talent of one’s DM. More so than any other class in the game. The features as written places a big burden on the player and the DM to find common ground and if this was not done then discord or disappointment would likely ensue. Contrast with other classes where features are far more cut and dried and less subject to interpretation or accommodation. They fixed a lot of this in 2024 but still some glaring issues. For the life of me I cannot work out how they deem it ok for paladins to get concentration-free Divine Favour but the best they can done for rangers is to give them extra casts of Hunter’s Mark and way up at 13th level allow them to not lose concentration from damage. Net effect here is that so many nice spells stay locked out of use because the 2024 class is built around HM. The capstone which offers d10 damage is hot garbage.
---
Don't be Lawful Evil
I think with ANY character, the main thing is that YOU have fun playing it - and a good DM will help you out and encourage creative role play that fits your character's personality. I probably put more thought into the backgrounds and personalities of my characters than I need to because that's what I enjoy playing - a character that's quirky and flawed. (And my regular DM enjoys having players that lean into that style of character rather than just trying to do max damage all the time). IMO focusing on getting the maximum number of attacks, squeezing out every last point of damage, making sure to avoid every enemy attack - also eliminates the fun part of RPGs. When I make a character, I try to think about their personality - what choices would THEY make and why? For example, my ranger is (as one might expect from the class) a survivalist. His weapon choices are handaxes, bows and quarterstaff - he avoids swords and other martial weapons because they're not useful tools in wilderness survival. He wears hide armor for the same reason. Could he get a higher AC or do more damage with other weapons? Sure, but it doesn't fit with his personality.
The 2024 Ranger does have some glaring issues. HM could've been the Ranger's one and only cantrip: lasting 1 minute. But of course, that raises the issue of everyone dipping into Ranger for a level just for HM. And yes, the capstone of having HM deal 1d10 is pretty weak - especially compared to Bard's "Words of Creation" which is damn near a god-like power - seriously: no save, instantly kill a creature with 100 HP or less or do 12d12 damage? Or cleric's Divine Intervention which allows them to cast Wish every 2-8 long rests. Although, looking through the capstones of other classes, Bard and Cleric seems insanely OP, Ranger is maybe the weakest but the rest fall somewhere in between (for examples, Rouge's Stroke of Luck can turn a failed d20 test into a 20 once per rest - which just seems a bit limited).
But there are other things to consider, like, the availability of higher-level spells, what powerful magic items you might have acquired by level 20 and more importantly, what are the chances that I end up playing this character (or any character for that matter) at that high a level? For me that answer is "slim to none." But in the middle levels, I still see plenty of ways to customize individual characters and create something that's unique, fun to play and useful to the makeup of a party.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
And here's the real rub for me, wotc encouraged the elements myself (and a portion of the community) found fun to be labeled problems to be removed not fixed. Not just one area either but several different ones across a singleclass And then they tried gaslighting promotional videos. In the end they didn't even satisfy the people they were catering to. Meanwhile with tasha's mix and match we actually achieved the standards of satisfaction wotc was looking for because you could build to your style.
I see your point, but they did incorporate a lot of the optional features from Tasha's and Xanathar's. But again, going back to having a good DM - if your DM allows it - make the character you want to make drawing from as many sources as your DM allows.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
https://youtu.be/MmkbQEwjFhc?si=cSSHksCQjbWp9eiI
This pretty much states all that I think about ranger in a better way then I can explain.
They have stripped out all the flavour and made it just bad, another reason why I think in 2025 I will be moving my campaign from DnD to a different system.