Ranger 2024 is just a demonstration of how incompetent the people who wrote the rulebooks are. Playing the iconic bow-wielding ranger is only for those who enjoy roleplaying, which makes it pointless to spend money on work that hasn't been done. Granting spells that are practically worthless, acquiring a 20th-level ability that's practically inconsistent, and removing nice things like the ability to move through difficult terrain. If we were at a table with friends, I could understand it. Asking for money for this crap makes no sense.
Ranger 2024 is just a demonstration of how incompetent the people who wrote the rulebooks are. Playing the iconic bow-wielding ranger is only for those who enjoy roleplaying, which makes it pointless to spend money on work that hasn't been done. Granting spells that are practically worthless, acquiring a 20th-level ability that's practically inconsistent, and removing nice things like the ability to move through difficult terrain. If we were at a table with friends, I could understand it. Asking for money for this crap makes no sense.
I don't think its that far out of bounds to dislike the new ranger. I am a 14 ranger Main and will never touch 24 ranger. If i have to play 24 I will play something other than ranger but hopefully my tables would rather try something else.
It is there first post and some of the comments feel like hyperbole so it might be a troll.
However, the theory that the new design is inferior can at least be supported as an opinion. (so can the opposite). i am going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an angry post but not quite a troll one.
There is a grave misunderstanding of what a ranger is.
A ranger is not a longbow shooting PC from a distance. I mean they can do that but don't specialize in it. You won't do well.
What rangers actually are is skirmishers. Skirmishers excel in short range weapons. Their class features support this. Extra mobility. Ability to turn invisible which means enemies cannot make opportunity attacks against you.
Try weapons like dagger/dart throwing. Hand Xbows or duel weird. Shortbow with vex actually out damages longbow until you get to level 17 and get Auto advantage.
Also, the temp HP from tireless makes you one of the best scouts and trap disarmers. Cuz if you get hit by environmental hazards, you can just renew your temp HP.
You make some valid arguments here. The unfortuante problem many Ranger players face though is that many campaigns do not give a Ranger space to shine. Unfortunately exploration and survival is often ignored in campaigns because they require more work on the part of the GameMaster. I know this from experience on both ends.
That said, I did play one campaign decades ago where the GameMaster took these things into consideration and my 2nd Edition Pathfinder Kit Ranger was incredibly fun to play. Unfortunately, that kind of campaign takes work and imagination to develop.
You make some valid arguments here. The unfortuante problem many Ranger players face though is that many campaigns do not give a Ranger space to shine. Unfortunately exploration and survival is often ignored in campaigns because they require more work on the part of the GameMaster. I know this from experience on both ends.
That said, I did play one campaign decades ago where the GameMaster took these things into consideration and my 2nd Edition Pathfinder Kit Ranger was incredibly fun to play. Unfortunately, that kind of campaign takes work and imagination to develop.
I just had an epiphany, a warlock (not all subclasses) can communicate with the ranger, when it is out beyond LOS, via several mind reading type functions. A warlock can also use their familiar in combat which can also be a "companion" partner when the Ranger is out scouting.
This does not minimize the DMs workload, nor prevent the other PCs twiddling their thumbs, but it can allow a split of the party.
My personal opinion is that the Ranger works well with a well-developed sandbox type campaign. Where the GameMaster knows what is surrounding the base the players start at and can let the players explore at their discretion.
Of course there are ways for the GM to reduce his load. For example, he never gives out a "map" of the area, that way, no matter what direction the players go they are going towards something he's designed and planned.
A Ranger taking point in this type of campaign as they move overland and also ensuring that they stay well provisioned with his survival, animal handling, and nature skills can be be an enjoyable campaign.
I do think WotC is trying to set up this sort of experience somewhat with the new Heroes of the Borderland and from what I've heard they are setting up similar sandboxes in the new Forgotten Realms release next month.
Again it still comes back to the GM being able to balance this style of play with others to keep everyone engaged.
I don't think the ranger needs such a sandbox. Just as a bard doesn't need a tavern or a city to function. This is because the features of bard that are social can still function via tricks and creative dungeon delving.
Similarly a ranger can use their skills in any environment as long the dm and players are willing to think about practically and scope of features. In the right mindset and design it's not even really extra work for the dm. It doesn't even have to be all paths lead to x either.
That being said certain designs are more "stable" features/metrics than others.
The 24 features do seem to limit the idea of a ranger (as a class) in different ways than 2014. 24 ranger may be arguably be a "skirmisher". However, ranger archetypes ( narrative groups of ranger than the dnd class) want less playstyle restrictions than provided by 24 dnd.
The new 5.5e came out while my group was already mid-campaign, so we have been handling the switchover piece by piece. The ranger in my group uses a paper and pencil character sheet, and he was already comfortable with how his character worked, and didn't want to have to relearn too much stuff. So at each level we weigh the new and the old and we pick and choose what to keep and what to upgrade. The same goes for all of my players, though, because I care more about having fun playing a game than I do about religiously adhering to every rule written in a book. And I think that's the best way to go, though I do concede that it's a lot easier to do that with paper character sheets than it is with an online service that doesn't allow you to just cross something out and write in something else.
Mileage may vary, terms and conditions apply.
Oh, and I just read what Kithanias wrote - "The unfortuante problem many Ranger players face though is that many campaigns do not give a Ranger space to shine. Unfortunately exploration and survival is often ignored in campaigns because they require more work on the part of the GameMaster." That, I believe, sums it up nicely. So many of the perceived failures of the ranger class are, in fact, failures of the design of the campaign setting and play style.
The ‘24 ranger isn’t the ‘14 ranger - very true; but it’s also not a dysfunctional class. Whether your DM creates spaces for the wilderness exploration abilities or not the ranger has always been an effective class in the right hands. However, it is also easy to mistreat the ranger as one dimensional and then it can fail to satisfy. It is not just an archer, not just a two weapon fighter, not just scout or low rent Druid. Yes it no longer has those ribbon abilities of 2014 and earlier, but then most of those can be covered by reasonable interpretations of survival, nature and stealth skills. The archery or throwing fighting styles improve its ranged abilities while TWF and dual wielding improve its melee abilities. Getting spells at L1 and rounding up on spell levels improves its casting significantly at low levels or for multiclassing. Could it be improved? Sure, but if your disappointed in it it may be more about you and your play style or expectations than about the class itself.
You make some valid arguments here. The unfortuante problem many Ranger players face though is that many campaigns do not give a Ranger space to shine. Unfortunately exploration and survival is often ignored in campaigns because they require more work on the part of the GameMaster. I know this from experience on both ends.
That said, I did play one campaign decades ago where the GameMaster took these things into consideration and my 2nd Edition Pathfinder Kit Ranger was incredibly fun to play. Unfortunately, that kind of campaign takes work and imagination to develop.
While survival definitely can be ignored, Its rare I have ever played in a game where exploration completely is ignored.
Dungeons often have exploration elements. They aren't just combat rooms. There are full of things to problem solve.
Maybe there are rooms with water in which having a swim speed would certainly be helpful to reach the enemy. Maybe you're getting ambushed. And they all have higher ground on a ledge. Having a climb speed to get up there would be helpful. Perhaps you want to scout out the next room for the party. Using nature's veil and dash action will get you 150 move speed over 2 turns while invisible to do it.
Any creative player will find ways to use these abilities in almost any setting that isn't a colosseum death fight.
Because certain elements vary from group to group each class should function within the defined scope both uniquely but also on a similar scale.
There was a way to play 14 ranger within scope of the original 14 standards but it also filled some gaps no other classes could. Minor rules tweaks via errata zanathars etc actually made it easier for the class to fall out of scope by not playing to its features. But we also got realignment via Tasha's and some subclasses.
So wotc needs clear features that are independent of the pillars of play but instead treat ranger as a unique part of the game. The only fix forward for 24 would be unique feats, spells or other mechanics that have ranger prerequisite. This could reinforce the weak foundation that is the ranger playspace.
Now the problem with 24 is play scope was thrown out. Every class got new designs or toys but ranger kinda got the bare minimum. Its now out of scope and has almost no unique appeal. (It still has archetype appeal but that can also be built via rougues or fighters taking similar skills) every toy rangers got basically was universal. bastion toys weren't unique, every martial got masteries, clean up spells and feats didn't really help (and actually hurt in many ways)
The only way I see a path forward for 24 rangers is new content with restrictions to ranger. Bastions, circle spells, regular spells, equipment etc.
I do think one of the main problems with the ranger is that it just doesn't have a very strongly defined concept. A Paladin isn't just a Fighter/Cleric. It is a fairly specific and well-defined heroic role. A Ranger isn't. It's a whole mess of concepts that all could justifiably be very well-represented by a variety of mechanics that already exist for other classes. Fighters can fight. Rogues can do scouting. Druids are nature magic.
The one thing that appears to be the Ranger's own demesne is that they're supposed to be masters of their environment, and the two problems with that are that adventuring parties deal with a variety of environments, and making the Ranger's powers too potent often invalidates the environments DMs go to the bother of putting on the table. 2024 tries to make that more general by making Rangers good combat characters that are masters of movement, but it's a poor concept.
I think Hunter has many of the concepts that embody Rangers but the powers they give in 2024 are too weak to keep up or make a suitably amazing impact.
As an example, the 7th level Subclass feature makes you choose between Escape the Horde (Opportunity Attacks have Disadvantage against you) and Multiattack Defense (When a creature hits you with an attack roll, that creature has Disadvantage on all other attack rolls against you this turn). Individually, both of these features are quite weak. Monks, Rogues, and Barbarians have features that allow them to prevent Opportunity Attacks altogether, and Sorcerers, Wizards, and other spellcasters have features that also prevent multiattacks completely (e.g. Misty Escape). Hunter would be stronger if it just gave you all the features in the subclass without having to choose.
As another example, Colossus Slayer and Horde Breaker are individually weak. Horde Breaker is particularly bad because while the attack is free, it is also anti-focus fire. It spreads your attack. Allowing them both would make it more potent because the extra 1d8 from Colossus Breaker can allow you to dispatch of weenies much more easily with Horde Breaker, if they're already damaged.
Superior Hunter's Prey is also terrible. Straight up. It's not terrible because it depends on Hunter's Mark. Even if Hunter's Mark were any good, dealing 1d6 damage to a different creature at level 11 is a total joke of a class feature. Wizards at this level have been casting Wall of Force for 2 levels. And it makes zero sense. How does that even work on a conceptual level?
Granted, PCs at level 11 already have a power problem in that they're nuking down CR 15 creatures in a few turns already, so just adding damage here is not a good idea. "Scaling it up" to 1d8 would just be insulting, too, frankly. Note that at level 11, Paladins just get +1d8 Radiant Damage to melee hits straight up. No spell slot, no target, no action, no concentration. Bring it in line with that.
I suspect it’s not that the concept is weak but that our understanding of what that concept entails is weak and therefore our attempts at codifying it are weak. For me the 2 primary sources seem to be Tolkien’s rangers with Aragon as an exemplar which doesn’t really work as Aragorn is far more than a straight ranger and the other rangers are effectively glossed over. If memory serves they were the remaining “noble families” and warriors of Arnor after Arnor and Angband basically wiped each other out. Then they lived and patrolled those lands to keep the rest of civilization safe. Then they lived other are the mountain men of the 1700s and 1800s in the US “west” who left civilization for the (inhabited) wilderness and learned to fight and trade with the inhabitants and survive the wilderness with style. Both are capable warriors with a wide range of skills. In neither case did they really have access to magic although man of their advanced skills and abilities would seem like Magic to the uninitiated. To my mind (and it’s just my opinion) rangers should be the true skill monkeys not bards or rogues. Imagine for a moment if bards lost “ jack of all trades” and rangers got it instead and got 4/5 skills with expertise while rogues got the 3 that rangers currently get. At that point you could probably change the ranger from a half caster to a third caster focused more on utility and area control spells which make sense for a loner in wilds. Now imagine that as a fighter subclass getting the full suite of extra attacks but limited to light and medium armors ( yes much like the 1e ranger) it would also help the ranger if we would actually track things like rations and ammo and use skills like woodworking ( bow and arrow smithing, etc) but my suspicion is that many of us have little or no experience with real wilderness survival/traveling etc. or that experience was many years ago and half forgotten.
The UA Ranger subclasses, or more prominently the Hallow Warden just further reveals the Ranger's over reliance on hunters mark where your subclass features do not work if you are not using Hunters mark. Which begs the question as to why spike growth is on the subclass spell list if you're never going to be able to use it.
If Hunters Mark was meant to be a core feature of the ranger then it should have been a feature and not a level 1 spell that eats your concentration. It doesn't matter if they give you features to have advantage on concentration saves or removes the need for concentration saves, or add wisdom to your con save, or grant X amount of free Hunters Mark castings per Y, or that they think d10 damage from hunters mark is an appropriately scaled capstone and not something that should have come online at level 14 at thelatest (seriously, something like that should be meant for upcasting a spell, not a class feature.)At the end of the day it's still a level one spell that eats your concentration and a good chunk of your bonus actions to use/move it.
At least if they errata'd a bit onto Hunters Mark that says "Alternatively when you cast this spell it does not require concentration, however it's duration only lasts up to 1 minute". And while I would rather have said "up to 10 minutes" to have it on par a bit with Barbarian rage I'm sure they'd somehow think that's overpowered?
The UA Ranger subclasses, or more prominently the Hallow Warden just further reveals the Ranger's over reliance on hunters mark where your subclass features do not work if you are not using Hunters mark. Which begs the question as to why spike growth is on the subclass spell list if you're never going to be able to use it.
If Hunters Mark was meant to be a core feature of the ranger then it should have been a feature and not a level 1 spell that eats your concentration. It doesn't matter if they give you features to have advantage on con saves for concentration, or add wisdom to your con save, or grant X amount of free Hunters Mark castings per Y, or that they think d10 damage from hunters mark is an appropriately scaled capstone and not something that should have come online at level 14 at thelatest (seriously, something like that should be meant for upcasting a spell, not a class feature.)At the end of the day it's still a level one spell that eats your concentration and a good chunk of your bonus actions to use/move it.
At least if they errata'd a bit onto Hunters Mark that says "Alternatively when you cast this spell it does not require concentration, however it's duration only lasts up to 1 minute". And while I would rather have said "up to 10 minutes" to have it on par a bit with Barbarian rage I'm sure they'd somehow think that's overpowered?
At level 14, Hunter’s Mark Concentration can no longer be broken. This is far too late and much too weak.
Hunter’s Mark isn’t strong enough to merit Concentration when Spirit Shroud becomes available - at level 9, but arguably even when Spike Growth becomes available at level 5. I think Rangers should have a level 5 feature that removes needing to Concentrate on Hunter’s Mark so long as it is cast without spell slots (so class, feat, or species feature only). So at higher levels, you can choose between maintaining it over 8 hours to trigger the benefits of Hunter’s Mark class features even when out of combat, or to be able to Concentrate on other spells, but you’re restricted to using Favored Enemy or species or feat benefits which cannot be upcast. That’s a more interesting set of choices.
The entire concept of Hunter's Mark needs to be reworked from the ground up. But that's not likely to happen since the new ruleset just recently dropped, so the next chance for a major overhaul of the rules won't come for another 6 or 8 or 10 years. Hunter's Mark is basically just a little damage boost. But that little damage boost costs you a bonus action, and a spell slot, and concentration. That's WAY too much of a trade off for a little damage boost. I know, I know, the new rules let you cast it twice a day without using a spell slot. But it still burns a bonus action and requires concentration. It's not until Level 17 that you gain a fair trade off, when you gain advantage on attacks against the target of your Hunter's Mark. But that's too little too late because most campaigns never run to Tier 4 anyhow.
So here's what I do at my table. And you are free to ignore this if you're not sitting at my table. Rangers choose certain "Favored Enemies", right? But what benefit do they get from that choice? Previous editions gave them advantage on tracking or recalling info about those creatures, but the new ruleset has scrapped even that tiny situational benefit. So the way I run rangers is this: When you choose your Favored Enemies, you still get advantage on tracking them and recalling info about them. BUT, you ALSO get automatic Hunter's Mark when you target them with an attack. If you target a Favored Enemy, Hunter's Mark is automatically active on that target. You don't have to use a bonus action to activate it, you don't have to burn a spell slot to activate it, you don't have to maintain concentration to keep it going. Whenever you target one of your Favored Enemies, all the benefits of Hunter's mark automatically apply for free. Period. Now, if you target a creature that is NOT one of your favored enemies, and you want to use Hunter's Mark, you can, but you have to use a bonus action to burn a spell slot to activate it on that target.
So Favored Enemy and Hunter's Mark are really just packaged together into one thing. Favored Enemy means you have spent time studying that creature, and you have extensive experience fighting that creature. You know it moves, you know how it fights, and you know how to hurt it. So when you target it, you hurt it. If you want to gain magical access to those benefits on a creature you haven't studied, you can, by casting the Hunter's Mark spell. But as far as I'm concerned, Favored Enemy includes all the benefits of Hunter's Mark.
Agree. Disagree. Disregard. Doesn't matter. That's how it works at my table.
That's why I still do Favored Enemies at my table. Because Tasha was wrong. After all, she was originally chaotic evil, back when she went by the name Iggwilv.
The issue with the 2014 Ranger was that it didn't do anything better than any other class, depending on subclasses. The Scout Rogue was a better scout. The Barbarian had Danger Sense and Feral Instinct, two features that would have fit the typical Ranger better IMHO. Fighters gained more ASIs and thus more stats and Feats. Outside of a campaign where travel was heavily used, the Ranger didn't bring anything special to the table. The 2024 version isn't any better.
1) The over-reliance on Hunter's Mark is lazy game design. It locks ALL Rangers into a specific playstyle and we all know how much players just LOVE that (/sarcasm).
2) The Ranger's primary Abilities are listed as Dexterity and Wisdom, yet their Save Proficiencies are Strength and Dexterity. Why? If they're going to lean into the whole 'wilderness fighter' thing, why not make the Saves Dex and Wis? Wis makes much more sense based on the skills Rangers would need to use like Perception and Survival.
3) Spellcasting at Lvl 1 is actually nice but unnecessary. I'd rather have it go back to Lvl 2 and ditch the reliance on Hunter's Mark.
4) Roving should be a Lvl 3 feature IMHO. Moving, especially in the wilderness, is part of what Rangers are supposed to do.
5) I don't like that the Ranger is flavored to make it sound like everything they do is from a 'deep connection to the wilderness' or whatever. What's wrong with 'this person knows whether their target has Resistances or Vulnerabilities based on years of training'? Why does every ability have to have a magical source?
6) The Gloom Stalker subclass, arguably the most powerful Ranger sub in the game, was made BETTER with the increase in Dreadful Strike damage and the fact that you can use it more than just on the first turn. Why? It was fine before. If the Devs are worried about balance, stuff like this is something they need to stop doing. Do they think that the rest of the base class is so weak that they NEED to make the subs even more powerful? If so, then fix the class before messing with the subs!
I long for the days when each class brought something unique to the table and their subclasses supported this idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ranger 2024 is just a demonstration of how incompetent the people who wrote the rulebooks are. Playing the iconic bow-wielding ranger is only for those who enjoy roleplaying, which makes it pointless to spend money on work that hasn't been done. Granting spells that are practically worthless, acquiring a 20th-level ability that's practically inconsistent, and removing nice things like the ability to move through difficult terrain. If we were at a table with friends, I could understand it. Asking for money for this crap makes no sense.
Troll - Fail
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
There is a grave misunderstanding of what a ranger is.
A ranger is not a longbow shooting PC from a distance. I mean they can do that but don't specialize in it. You won't do well.
What rangers actually are is skirmishers. Skirmishers excel in short range weapons. Their class features support this. Extra mobility. Ability to turn invisible which means enemies cannot make opportunity attacks against you.
Try weapons like dagger/dart throwing. Hand Xbows or duel weird. Shortbow with vex actually out damages longbow until you get to level 17 and get Auto advantage.
Also, the temp HP from tireless makes you one of the best scouts and trap disarmers. Cuz if you get hit by environmental hazards, you can just renew your temp HP.
You make some valid arguments here. The unfortuante problem many Ranger players face though is that many campaigns do not give a Ranger space to shine. Unfortunately exploration and survival is often ignored in campaigns because they require more work on the part of the GameMaster. I know this from experience on both ends.
That said, I did play one campaign decades ago where the GameMaster took these things into consideration and my 2nd Edition Pathfinder Kit Ranger was incredibly fun to play. Unfortunately, that kind of campaign takes work and imagination to develop.
I just had an epiphany, a warlock (not all subclasses) can communicate with the ranger, when it is out beyond LOS, via several mind reading type functions. A warlock can also use their familiar in combat which can also be a "companion" partner when the Ranger is out scouting.
This does not minimize the DMs workload, nor prevent the other PCs twiddling their thumbs, but it can allow a split of the party.
My personal opinion is that the Ranger works well with a well-developed sandbox type campaign. Where the GameMaster knows what is surrounding the base the players start at and can let the players explore at their discretion.
Of course there are ways for the GM to reduce his load. For example, he never gives out a "map" of the area, that way, no matter what direction the players go they are going towards something he's designed and planned.
A Ranger taking point in this type of campaign as they move overland and also ensuring that they stay well provisioned with his survival, animal handling, and nature skills can be be an enjoyable campaign.
I do think WotC is trying to set up this sort of experience somewhat with the new Heroes of the Borderland and from what I've heard they are setting up similar sandboxes in the new Forgotten Realms release next month.
Again it still comes back to the GM being able to balance this style of play with others to keep everyone engaged.
I don't think the ranger needs such a sandbox. Just as a bard doesn't need a tavern or a city to function. This is because the features of bard that are social can still function via tricks and creative dungeon delving.
Similarly a ranger can use their skills in any environment as long the dm and players are willing to think about practically and scope of features. In the right mindset and design it's not even really extra work for the dm. It doesn't even have to be all paths lead to x either.
That being said certain designs are more "stable" features/metrics than others.
The 24 features do seem to limit the idea of a ranger (as a class) in different ways than 2014. 24 ranger may be arguably be a "skirmisher". However, ranger archetypes ( narrative groups of ranger than the dnd class) want less playstyle restrictions than provided by 24 dnd.
The new 5.5e came out while my group was already mid-campaign, so we have been handling the switchover piece by piece. The ranger in my group uses a paper and pencil character sheet, and he was already comfortable with how his character worked, and didn't want to have to relearn too much stuff. So at each level we weigh the new and the old and we pick and choose what to keep and what to upgrade. The same goes for all of my players, though, because I care more about having fun playing a game than I do about religiously adhering to every rule written in a book. And I think that's the best way to go, though I do concede that it's a lot easier to do that with paper character sheets than it is with an online service that doesn't allow you to just cross something out and write in something else.
Mileage may vary, terms and conditions apply.
Oh, and I just read what Kithanias wrote - "The unfortuante problem many Ranger players face though is that many campaigns do not give a Ranger space to shine. Unfortunately exploration and survival is often ignored in campaigns because they require more work on the part of the GameMaster." That, I believe, sums it up nicely. So many of the perceived failures of the ranger class are, in fact, failures of the design of the campaign setting and play style.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
The ‘24 ranger isn’t the ‘14 ranger - very true; but it’s also not a dysfunctional class. Whether your DM creates spaces for the wilderness exploration abilities or not the ranger has always been an effective class in the right hands. However, it is also easy to mistreat the ranger as one dimensional and then it can fail to satisfy. It is not just an archer, not just a two weapon fighter, not just scout or low rent Druid. Yes it no longer has those ribbon abilities of 2014 and earlier, but then most of those can be covered by reasonable interpretations of survival, nature and stealth skills. The archery or throwing fighting styles improve its ranged abilities while TWF and dual wielding improve its melee abilities. Getting spells at L1 and rounding up on spell levels improves its casting significantly at low levels or for multiclassing. Could it be improved? Sure, but if your disappointed in it it may be more about you and your play style or expectations than about the class itself.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
While survival definitely can be ignored, Its rare I have ever played in a game where exploration completely is ignored.
Dungeons often have exploration elements. They aren't just combat rooms. There are full of things to problem solve.
Maybe there are rooms with water in which having a swim speed would certainly be helpful to reach the enemy. Maybe you're getting ambushed. And they all have higher ground on a ledge. Having a climb speed to get up there would be helpful. Perhaps you want to scout out the next room for the party. Using nature's veil and dash action will get you 150 move speed over 2 turns while invisible to do it.
Any creative player will find ways to use these abilities in almost any setting that isn't a colosseum death fight.
Because certain elements vary from group to group each class should function within the defined scope both uniquely but also on a similar scale.
There was a way to play 14 ranger within scope of the original 14 standards but it also filled some gaps no other classes could. Minor rules tweaks via errata zanathars etc actually made it easier for the class to fall out of scope by not playing to its features. But we also got realignment via Tasha's and some subclasses.
So wotc needs clear features that are independent of the pillars of play but instead treat ranger as a unique part of the game. The only fix forward for 24 would be unique feats, spells or other mechanics that have ranger prerequisite. This could reinforce the weak foundation that is the ranger playspace.
Now the problem with 24 is play scope was thrown out. Every class got new designs or toys but ranger kinda got the bare minimum. Its now out of scope and has almost no unique appeal. (It still has archetype appeal but that can also be built via rougues or fighters taking similar skills) every toy rangers got basically was universal. bastion toys weren't unique, every martial got masteries, clean up spells and feats didn't really help (and actually hurt in many ways)
The only way I see a path forward for 24 rangers is new content with restrictions to ranger. Bastions, circle spells, regular spells, equipment etc.
I do think one of the main problems with the ranger is that it just doesn't have a very strongly defined concept. A Paladin isn't just a Fighter/Cleric. It is a fairly specific and well-defined heroic role. A Ranger isn't. It's a whole mess of concepts that all could justifiably be very well-represented by a variety of mechanics that already exist for other classes. Fighters can fight. Rogues can do scouting. Druids are nature magic.
The one thing that appears to be the Ranger's own demesne is that they're supposed to be masters of their environment, and the two problems with that are that adventuring parties deal with a variety of environments, and making the Ranger's powers too potent often invalidates the environments DMs go to the bother of putting on the table. 2024 tries to make that more general by making Rangers good combat characters that are masters of movement, but it's a poor concept.
I think Hunter has many of the concepts that embody Rangers but the powers they give in 2024 are too weak to keep up or make a suitably amazing impact.
As an example, the 7th level Subclass feature makes you choose between Escape the Horde (Opportunity Attacks have Disadvantage against you) and Multiattack Defense (When a creature hits you with an attack roll, that creature has Disadvantage on all other attack rolls against you this turn). Individually, both of these features are quite weak. Monks, Rogues, and Barbarians have features that allow them to prevent Opportunity Attacks altogether, and Sorcerers, Wizards, and other spellcasters have features that also prevent multiattacks completely (e.g. Misty Escape). Hunter would be stronger if it just gave you all the features in the subclass without having to choose.
As another example, Colossus Slayer and Horde Breaker are individually weak. Horde Breaker is particularly bad because while the attack is free, it is also anti-focus fire. It spreads your attack. Allowing them both would make it more potent because the extra 1d8 from Colossus Breaker can allow you to dispatch of weenies much more easily with Horde Breaker, if they're already damaged.
Superior Hunter's Prey is also terrible. Straight up. It's not terrible because it depends on Hunter's Mark. Even if Hunter's Mark were any good, dealing 1d6 damage to a different creature at level 11 is a total joke of a class feature. Wizards at this level have been casting Wall of Force for 2 levels. And it makes zero sense. How does that even work on a conceptual level?
Granted, PCs at level 11 already have a power problem in that they're nuking down CR 15 creatures in a few turns already, so just adding damage here is not a good idea. "Scaling it up" to 1d8 would just be insulting, too, frankly. Note that at level 11, Paladins just get +1d8 Radiant Damage to melee hits straight up. No spell slot, no target, no action, no concentration. Bring it in line with that.
I suspect it’s not that the concept is weak but that our understanding of what that concept entails is weak and therefore our attempts at codifying it are weak. For me the 2 primary sources seem to be Tolkien’s rangers with Aragon as an exemplar which doesn’t really work as Aragorn is far more than a straight ranger and the other rangers are effectively glossed over. If memory serves they were the remaining “noble families” and warriors of Arnor after Arnor and Angband basically wiped each other out. Then they lived and patrolled those lands to keep the rest of civilization safe. Then they lived other are the mountain men of the 1700s and 1800s in the US “west” who left civilization for the (inhabited) wilderness and learned to fight and trade with the inhabitants and survive the wilderness with style. Both are capable warriors with a wide range of skills. In neither case did they really have access to magic although man of their advanced skills and abilities would seem like Magic to the uninitiated. To my mind (and it’s just my opinion) rangers should be the true skill monkeys not bards or rogues. Imagine for a moment if bards lost “ jack of all trades” and rangers got it instead and got 4/5 skills with expertise while rogues got the 3 that rangers currently get. At that point you could probably change the ranger from a half caster to a third caster focused more on utility and area control spells which make sense for a loner in wilds. Now imagine that as a fighter subclass getting the full suite of extra attacks but limited to light and medium armors ( yes much like the 1e ranger) it would also help the ranger if we would actually track things like rations and ammo and use skills like woodworking ( bow and arrow smithing, etc) but my suspicion is that many of us have little or no experience with real wilderness survival/traveling etc. or that experience was many years ago and half forgotten.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The UA Ranger subclasses, or more prominently the Hallow Warden just further reveals the Ranger's over reliance on hunters mark where your subclass features do not work if you are not using Hunters mark. Which begs the question as to why spike growth is on the subclass spell list if you're never going to be able to use it.
If Hunters Mark was meant to be a core feature of the ranger then it should have been a feature and not a level 1 spell that eats your concentration. It doesn't matter if they give you features to have advantage on concentration saves or removes the need for concentration saves, or add wisdom to your con save, or grant X amount of free Hunters Mark castings per Y, or that they think d10 damage from hunters mark is an appropriately scaled capstone and not something that should have come online at level 14 at the latest (seriously, something like that should be meant for upcasting a spell, not a class feature.) At the end of the day it's still a level one spell that eats your concentration and a good chunk of your bonus actions to use/move it.
At least if they errata'd a bit onto Hunters Mark that says "Alternatively when you cast this spell it does not require concentration, however it's duration only lasts up to 1 minute". And while I would rather have said "up to 10 minutes" to have it on par a bit with Barbarian rage I'm sure they'd somehow think that's overpowered?
At level 14, Hunter’s Mark Concentration can no longer be broken. This is far too late and much too weak.
Hunter’s Mark isn’t strong enough to merit Concentration when Spirit Shroud becomes available - at level 9, but arguably even when Spike Growth becomes available at level 5. I think Rangers should have a level 5 feature that removes needing to Concentrate on Hunter’s Mark so long as it is cast without spell slots (so class, feat, or species feature only). So at higher levels, you can choose between maintaining it over 8 hours to trigger the benefits of Hunter’s Mark class features even when out of combat, or to be able to Concentrate on other spells, but you’re restricted to using Favored Enemy or species or feat benefits which cannot be upcast. That’s a more interesting set of choices.
The entire concept of Hunter's Mark needs to be reworked from the ground up. But that's not likely to happen since the new ruleset just recently dropped, so the next chance for a major overhaul of the rules won't come for another 6 or 8 or 10 years. Hunter's Mark is basically just a little damage boost. But that little damage boost costs you a bonus action, and a spell slot, and concentration. That's WAY too much of a trade off for a little damage boost. I know, I know, the new rules let you cast it twice a day without using a spell slot. But it still burns a bonus action and requires concentration. It's not until Level 17 that you gain a fair trade off, when you gain advantage on attacks against the target of your Hunter's Mark. But that's too little too late because most campaigns never run to Tier 4 anyhow.
So here's what I do at my table. And you are free to ignore this if you're not sitting at my table. Rangers choose certain "Favored Enemies", right? But what benefit do they get from that choice? Previous editions gave them advantage on tracking or recalling info about those creatures, but the new ruleset has scrapped even that tiny situational benefit. So the way I run rangers is this: When you choose your Favored Enemies, you still get advantage on tracking them and recalling info about them. BUT, you ALSO get automatic Hunter's Mark when you target them with an attack. If you target a Favored Enemy, Hunter's Mark is automatically active on that target. You don't have to use a bonus action to activate it, you don't have to burn a spell slot to activate it, you don't have to maintain concentration to keep it going. Whenever you target one of your Favored Enemies, all the benefits of Hunter's mark automatically apply for free. Period. Now, if you target a creature that is NOT one of your favored enemies, and you want to use Hunter's Mark, you can, but you have to use a bonus action to burn a spell slot to activate it on that target.
So Favored Enemy and Hunter's Mark are really just packaged together into one thing. Favored Enemy means you have spent time studying that creature, and you have extensive experience fighting that creature. You know it moves, you know how it fights, and you know how to hurt it. So when you target it, you hurt it. If you want to gain magical access to those benefits on a creature you haven't studied, you can, by casting the Hunter's Mark spell. But as far as I'm concerned, Favored Enemy includes all the benefits of Hunter's Mark.
Agree. Disagree. Disregard. Doesn't matter. That's how it works at my table.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
Problem with that is the Tasha’s and 2024 Ranger don’t get favored enemies so all of that is out the window.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
That's why I still do Favored Enemies at my table. Because Tasha was wrong. After all, she was originally chaotic evil, back when she went by the name Iggwilv.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
The issue with the 2014 Ranger was that it didn't do anything better than any other class, depending on subclasses. The Scout Rogue was a better scout. The Barbarian had Danger Sense and Feral Instinct, two features that would have fit the typical Ranger better IMHO. Fighters gained more ASIs and thus more stats and Feats. Outside of a campaign where travel was heavily used, the Ranger didn't bring anything special to the table. The 2024 version isn't any better.
1) The over-reliance on Hunter's Mark is lazy game design. It locks ALL Rangers into a specific playstyle and we all know how much players just LOVE that (/sarcasm).
2) The Ranger's primary Abilities are listed as Dexterity and Wisdom, yet their Save Proficiencies are Strength and Dexterity. Why? If they're going to lean into the whole 'wilderness fighter' thing, why not make the Saves Dex and Wis? Wis makes much more sense based on the skills Rangers would need to use like Perception and Survival.
3) Spellcasting at Lvl 1 is actually nice but unnecessary. I'd rather have it go back to Lvl 2 and ditch the reliance on Hunter's Mark.
4) Roving should be a Lvl 3 feature IMHO. Moving, especially in the wilderness, is part of what Rangers are supposed to do.
5) I don't like that the Ranger is flavored to make it sound like everything they do is from a 'deep connection to the wilderness' or whatever. What's wrong with 'this person knows whether their target has Resistances or Vulnerabilities based on years of training'? Why does every ability have to have a magical source?
6) The Gloom Stalker subclass, arguably the most powerful Ranger sub in the game, was made BETTER with the increase in Dreadful Strike damage and the fact that you can use it more than just on the first turn. Why? It was fine before. If the Devs are worried about balance, stuff like this is something they need to stop doing. Do they think that the rest of the base class is so weak that they NEED to make the subs even more powerful? If so, then fix the class before messing with the subs!
I long for the days when each class brought something unique to the table and their subclasses supported this idea.