Hunters mark is very important to ranged rangers at low level (1-3/4) as it adds significant damage to the single strike available. For a melee ranger using light two weapon fighting it is significantly less essential as you have 2 attacks already and if using short sword and scimitar you can have about a 65% chance to hit on the first (SS) attack which then gives you about an 85% chance on the second (sc) strike with a 65% chance hitting even if you miss the first.attack. At level 4 the melee ranger can have about a 3rd attack via dual wielding feat and at 5th the get extra attack for 4 attacks vs the ranged rangers 2 leaving the ranged still needing hunters mark for the extra damage.
1. I disagree that there's too much focus on Hunter's Mark. I think there shouldn't be any focus on Hunter's Mark. But then, you would need a different feature to center the class around. Not sure what it is, but it seems like they could put their heads together and come up with something.
2. ALL classes have one bad and one good stat. It's a balance issue, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Same as my point in 3, the meta is the meta. If you want to fuss with the meta, it should be a class feature, much like how the Monk eventually gets proficiency in ALL saving throws. That said, there's nothing wrong with identifying Rangers as Druid-fighters, and giving them Strength and Dex saves. Keeps them from getting pushed around too much and gives them Dex as their save. I'll be honest, I would've preferred if their saves were Wisdom and Strength, as this feels more Rangery than Strength and Dex.
4. Honestly? Roving isn't a terrible idea for a central class feature. Build the ranger around movement and adaptability. I never understood why Monks get to functionally double their move speed, and Rangers (RANGErs!) barely get anything. That said, you'd have to sell it to the people who think the whole purpose of a character class is to deal as much damage as possible.
6. Re-read Umbral Sight. The ability (in both 2024 and 2014) specifically says that, while you are in total darkness, you are invisible to enemies who rely on darkvision to see you. Since, while in total darkness, you are already invisible to enemies who rely on regular vision to see you, and you are not invisible to enemies who rely on blindsight, tremorsense, or other senses to detect you, it's a marginal ability that is specifically useful largely for either ranged attackers or for scouting, and largely only in deep caves and the like, where you can find an area of total darkness to hide. The 2014 Gloom Stalker, after the first round, was largely just a guy. The choice to buff the ability was necessary to keep up with other classes that were getting HUGE power increases and, IMO, it only barely keeps up in 2024.
I think there's a couple oldheads in the design team that are afraid they're going to anger the other oldheads in the community if they change the characters too much. And, as a result, they piss off everyone else.
1. I agree Hunter's Mark should not be a core class feature. Even the Warlock is getting decoupled from Eldritch Blast. What it should be replaced with is tool proficiency. I think survival-oriented tools would be the Ranger's bread and butter, so they can craft everything they need out in the wild/on the road. Leatherworker's tool, Woodcarver's Tools, Smithing Tools, Herbalism Kit, Poisoner's Kit, etc. would be good core proficiency options for the Ranger to serve as the party's wilderness crafter. I know that sounds like it's stepping on the toes of the Artificer, but it's non-magical stuff that can be crafted mostly with materials that can be gathered in the wild. I think the Poisoner's Kit could be particularly useful to add damage to the Ranger's attacks, if the kit was expanded to do more than just poison. In addition to poison, the kit could be used to add other damage types to a coated weapon/ammunition (e.g. Acid, Cold, Fire, Necrotic, etc) as an elemental "poison". Maybe the Alchemist Supplies would be a better candidate? That's another discussion entirely.
4. I also agree that mobility should be a Ranger's definitive feature. To that, I think the Ranger should get it earlier, or a lesser version of it (e.g. +5 ft now, +10 ft later?). I also think Deft Explorer is a very weak feature. How is having an extra language and a skill expertise going to translate to being deft at exploring? How about proficiency in Cartographer or Navigator tools? For instance, a Ranger should know where all of the hunting trails, civilizations, and animal migrations are, as if they're a walking nature's almanac. They roam, they should know how to find things others can't. They could have a collection of maps from their travels and/or aptitude for navigating difficult terrain. They also should have some knowledge of beasts and monsters they would typically encounter on the road.
I think the ranger is under cooked. In previous editions, ranger was my favored class. Those days are long gone. When you compare the 5.5 ranger to the 5.5 fighter, the biggest thing that separates them mechanically is spellcasting; you're giving up a lot of martial combat prowess to cast spells. A look at the spell list that's open to the ranger is uninspiring. There's simply not much there that helps rangers operate in combat better. And let me be clear here, operations in combat are the most important aspect of the class design. For every group that really gets into the RP and exploration, there are 5 that want to slice their way through enemies. RP and exploration really don't need class features to operate well, they need a DM who actually makes that fun.
A look at the new mystic monk subclass, frankly, makes the old ranger in me jealous. They get sorcerer spells, and low level sorc spells work so much better for rangering than low level druid spells. Not that rangers actually get to CAST most of their spells, because they are forced to concentrate on hunter's mark for the damage mathematics. Keeping it going eats up my bonus actions which is equally bad feeling. Look at me, oh yeah, I got my two swords, oh wait, I killed that guy gotta use my bonus action to move my hunters mark elsewhere so I can't actually swing the second one unless I am specialized in a nick weapon, which really means scimitar, because it's mechanically better than the others.
What the ranger needs, is an improved spell list and to have hunter's mark kicked to the curb. It's a stupid spell that they ported in from world of warcraft and it should die. And unfortunately for 2024, that ship sailed, hit a rock and sank. They completely blew their chance to fix the ranger, because they don't know what they want the ranger to be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Some thoughts from the peanut gallery: 1) the big problem with hunters mark is that it’s a concentration spell, take that away and it is far more useful. Of course that holds true for most of the ranger’s concentration spells. 2) real wilderness travel/exploration is generally a joke unless your willing to do the “boring and time consuming “ bit of using encumbrance and ration/arrow counting as well as actually playing out each day’s activities. That also calls for a DM that has some sort of real experience with extended wilderness activity. Given that most of us are nerds of one sort or another that is a rare quality. 3) I think the skill/tool use route might actually be a good redesign for a future ranger. I’ve long argued that the best nonfiction analog for the ranger is the American Mountainman. For them to be successful they needed lots of skills as well as languages. 4) an improved spell list would be really nice - especially if it actually granted access to a reasonable number of evocation spells. Many of my 2014 rangers grabbed magic initiate- warlock to get Eldritch blast as it allowed them to dump the bow altogether and get more than 2 attacks at tier 3+. With 2024 pulling that option I often start with TWF style then add archery style as soon as possible for the increased hit chance with a bow and dual wielding after that for a third melee attack. Having some L1-3 spells that would replace or enhance both melee and missile abilities would be sweet.
Some thoughts from the peanut gallery: 1) the big problem with hunters mark is that it’s a concentration spell, take that away and it is far more useful. Of course that holds true for most of the ranger’s concentration spells. 2) real wilderness travel/exploration is generally a joke unless your willing to do the “boring and time consuming “ bit of using encumbrance and ration/arrow counting as well as actually playing out each day’s activities. That also calls for a DM that has some sort of real experience with extended wilderness activity. Given that most of us are nerds of one sort or another that is a rare quality. 3) I think the skill/tool use route might actually be a good redesign for a future ranger. I’ve long argued that the best nonfiction analog for the ranger is the American Mountainman. For them to be successful they needed lots of skills as well as languages. 4) an improved spell list would be really nice - especially if it actually granted access to a reasonable number of evocation spells. Many of my 2014 rangers grabbed magic initiate- warlock to get Eldritch blast as it allowed them to dump the bow altogether and get more than 2 attacks at tier 3+. With 2024 pulling that option I often start with TWF style then add archery style as soon as possible for the increased hit chance with a bow and dual wielding after that for a third melee attack. Having some L1-3 spells that would replace or enhance both melee and missile abilities would be sweet.
your point 4 hearkens back to the 1e days when rangers got magic user (arcane) spells too, so it's not like that's never been a ranger thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
In my played experience with Ranger, the class works very well. It has a lot of answers to many problems, though each solution tends to be the only one of it's sort in their kit. Even Hunter's Mark is fine, as long as you don't think you're supposed to be using it for every situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
There needs to be more Ranger specific spells and the few that currently exist need to be improved/changed so that they do not conflict as much with Favored Enemy.
I noticed that the Ranger has no exclusive spells for level 4. I have an idea. I'm just pulling this out of my backside.
Choking Gas
Casting time: Bonus Action on a hit with a ranged attack.
Range/Area: 60ft/10 ft radius sphere
Attack/Save: Dexterity
Duration: 1 minute.
When you hit a creature with a ranged attack roll, you conjure a cloud of choking gas. For one minute, creatures within a 10 ft radius sphere centered on the target must succeed a Dexterity saving throw a the start of their turn or be unable to use their action until their next turn. Any creatures entering the cloud must also succeed on the same Dexterity saving throw or be unable to use their action until their next turn. While the spell is active, any creatures inside the cloud are heavily obscured. All creatures within the cloud have their movement reduced by half.
Savage Shot
Casting Time: 1 Reaction
Range: 60 ft.
Ranged Attack
Duration: Instantaneous
When a creature you can see within range casts a spell, use a reaction to make a ranged attack. On a hit, the creature takes the weapon's normal damage and the spell fails.
I don't mind hunters mark in theory. I get the idea they are going to be limited to 2 attacks to differentiate them from fighters but they want those 2 attacks to do a bit more damage so they aren't to far behind. The implementation sucks. As a warlock fan I see some correlation to it and hex.
The things I think they need to do is. 1 remove concentration maybe through upcasting maybe through a class feature. 2. allow you to change targets with an attack not a bonus action, not only after they are dead, but limit it to once per turn. 3. add riders that fit the ranger think eldritch blast invocations but ranger themed.
The problem there becomes just what is the “ranger theme”. My “ mountainman” view is pretty far from the “Aragorn” view. Then how would these “invocations” fit with the subclasses? Rangers are actually a very functional class but they suffer from the fact that game today is far about “dungeon crawl” than wilderness exploration and extended travel which stifles a lot of potential ranger extras. I mean if your not going to count rations than pretty much anything to do with finding food or water is gone. If you’re not going to do daily wandering ( or preplanned) monsters then most tracking or avoidance skills are useless. If you’re not keeping track of missiles or allowing for broken bows etc then woodworking skills fade out. Heck if your going to “viniette” the travel any sort of navigating/cartographic abilities/riders etc drop of the class map. I like the ranger, I can make it work but as the wilderness aspects of it fade from the game I’m starting to look at it more as a Gish base for most campaigns. That means more focus on casting and more offensive spell casting. Not so much the 1e Druid and mage combo but more of a Druid and sorceror combo with access to ritual spells or ritual spell like abilities. Things like merge into stone or Mord’s p. Sanctum- why aren’t they ( originally) ranger abilities that Mord. Et all worked into spells later. Even mistystep really ought to be a standard ranger spell/ability.
There needs to be more Ranger specific spells and the few that currently exist need to be improved/changed so that they do not conflict as much with Favored Enemy.
A better spell list would go a long way to making the Ranger better. Magic is supposed to be the Ranger's main advantage over Rogue in terms of the exploration pillar, since nobody can match a Rogue for skill checks.
Personally, I think giving rangers more ritual spells would be most thematic. That way, they have a variety of tricks they can use that won't eat into their spell slots when supporting the party during overland travel or general exploration. A ritual to build a magical campfire that maintains a comfortable temperature and protection from the weather in the range of its light and purifies food and drink cooked over it would be a neat addition. Or a ritual to replay events that transpired at a location, reminiscent of the scene of Aragorn interpreting the struggle between the orcs and their captive Hobbits from tracks in the mud. Flavor it as reading the memories of the land.
For combat, more spells like Cordon of Arrows and Snare could enforce the fantasy of a trapmaster, which is a common Ranger fantasy. If a Ranger has prep time, they could riddle the field with magical traps and snares to turn the tide of battle to the party's favor. Make them rituals, and the Ranger becomes the ultimate battle prep class. A ritual where you bury a few spears into the ground so they shoot up and impale the enemy who steps over them, for example.
I would just be happy if someone on the development team just looked at the capstone and realize "yeah no, that's something that should have come from an upcast, not a capstone." Because that capstone is an absolute joke.
Either make hunters mark a class ability that doesn't eat your concentration or make the class features that 'enhance' it do so when it's upcast and give them better class features. Stop trying to teeter the line with it being both and it suffering all the negatives of being as such.
It might be the worst capstone though there are a couple of other contenders. But while I'd like good capstones all around if your problem only kicked in at level 20 the class would be fine. Their issues start far lower level than that.
How about this for a worthy capstone - modified from the 2014 ranger
Foe Slayer
At 20th level, you become an unparalleled hunter of your enemies. you can add your Wisdom modifier to the attack roll and damage roll of the attacks you make against your hunters marked foe. I’ve left it linked to hunters mark because that is what 2024 does but it would be easy enough to delete that part. This also provides a reason to boost wisdom scores later in the game along with the increased DCs & saves.
One real problem with the ranger, or at least our perceptions of it, is ranged fire. Yes, you can take the ranged fighting style adding 10% to your to hit but you only get 1 shot. Dual (light) wielding you get 2 attacks and the fighting style adds your Dex bonus to each hit. At level 4 you the melee ranger can take dual wielding getting a third attack while the archer takes either CBE or sharpshooter. Both give you shootings in melee, CBE lets you ignore loading while SS lets you ignore cover and distance. Both are helpful but neither ads to the rangers attacks/dpr. At level 5 rangers get extra attack but that means archers finally get a second attack while melee rangers are getting their third or fourth attack. I suspect much of the hate rangers get comes because lots of folks like playing archer rangers and they just don’t keep up with pretty much any martial . Melee rangers, especially at L1-5 are possibly the best at dpr and reasonably well armored for most combats.
One real problem with the ranger, or at least our perceptions of it, is ranged fire. Yes, you can take the ranged fighting style adding 10% to your to hit but you only get 1 shot. Dual (light) wielding you get 2 attacks and the fighting style adds your Dex bonus to each hit. At level 4 you the melee ranger can take dual wielding getting a third attack while the archer takes either CBE or sharpshooter. Both give you shootings in melee, CBE lets you ignore loading while SS lets you ignore cover and distance. Both are helpful but neither ads to the rangers attacks/dpr. At level 5 rangers get extra attack but that means archers finally get a second attack while melee rangers are getting their third or fourth attack. I suspect much of the hate rangers get comes because lots of folks like playing archer rangers and they just don’t keep up with pretty much any martial . Melee rangers, especially at L1-5 are possibly the best at dpr and reasonably well armored for most combats.
I wonder how allowing a ranger using a shortbow to take a shot with a bonus action would feel? That would make it mathematically equal to DW with twin shortswords, fighting styles not withstanding.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I don't think it should hit the point where it matches attacks as well its ranged, having range is an advantage. One that is fairly easily exploited. But maybe the gap for the ranger is a bit too large between two weapon ranger and bow ranger. But heavy weapon master long bow guy might be close enough, i don't know that is more mathy than I usually get.
Yes ranged fire has advantages. But for a dpr class the lack of attacks vs the melee ranger is problematic. Assuming a 16 Dex and the ( fairly standard) .65 base hit chance you have the archer at L1 with ( .65 x 4.5) +3=5.925 dpr vs the melee ranger with a short sword and scimitar has (((.65 x 3.5)+3) + ((.85 x 3.5))=8.25. This is a significantly higher dpr for the melee ranger. I don’t think any archer’s advantages really overcome this sort of difference. I’m not really sure what can be done about this but I think it’s a big part of why many folks think the ranger is a bad class - because the archer ranger arguably is not as good and if that’s your version of ranger your ( rightly) disappointed.
Yes ranged fire has advantages. But for a dpr class the lack of attacks vs the melee ranger is problematic. Assuming a 16 Dex and the ( fairly standard) .65 base hit chance you have the archer at L1 with ( .65 x 4.5) +3=5.925 dpr vs the melee ranger with a short sword and scimitar has (((.65 x 3.5)+3) + ((.85 x 3.5))=8.25. This is a significantly higher dpr for the melee ranger. I don’t think any archer’s advantages really overcome this sort of difference. I’m not really sure what can be done about this but I think it’s a big part of why many folks think the ranger is a bad class - because the archer ranger arguably is not as good and if that’s your version of ranger your ( rightly) disappointed.
I think the problem is you give up too much of being martial to be not very good at casting spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hunters mark is very important to ranged rangers at low level (1-3/4) as it adds significant damage to the single strike available. For a melee ranger using light two weapon fighting it is significantly less essential as you have 2 attacks already and if using short sword and scimitar you can have about a 65% chance to hit on the first (SS) attack which then gives you about an 85% chance on the second (sc) strike with a 65% chance hitting even if you miss the first.attack. At level 4 the melee ranger can have about a 3rd attack via dual wielding feat and at 5th the get extra attack for 4 attacks vs the ranged rangers 2 leaving the ranged still needing hunters mark for the extra damage.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
1. I agree Hunter's Mark should not be a core class feature. Even the Warlock is getting decoupled from Eldritch Blast. What it should be replaced with is tool proficiency. I think survival-oriented tools would be the Ranger's bread and butter, so they can craft everything they need out in the wild/on the road. Leatherworker's tool, Woodcarver's Tools, Smithing Tools, Herbalism Kit, Poisoner's Kit, etc. would be good core proficiency options for the Ranger to serve as the party's wilderness crafter. I know that sounds like it's stepping on the toes of the Artificer, but it's non-magical stuff that can be crafted mostly with materials that can be gathered in the wild. I think the Poisoner's Kit could be particularly useful to add damage to the Ranger's attacks, if the kit was expanded to do more than just poison. In addition to poison, the kit could be used to add other damage types to a coated weapon/ammunition (e.g. Acid, Cold, Fire, Necrotic, etc) as an elemental "poison". Maybe the Alchemist Supplies would be a better candidate? That's another discussion entirely.
4. I also agree that mobility should be a Ranger's definitive feature. To that, I think the Ranger should get it earlier, or a lesser version of it (e.g. +5 ft now, +10 ft later?). I also think Deft Explorer is a very weak feature. How is having an extra language and a skill expertise going to translate to being deft at exploring? How about proficiency in Cartographer or Navigator tools? For instance, a Ranger should know where all of the hunting trails, civilizations, and animal migrations are, as if they're a walking nature's almanac. They roam, they should know how to find things others can't. They could have a collection of maps from their travels and/or aptitude for navigating difficult terrain. They also should have some knowledge of beasts and monsters they would typically encounter on the road.
I think the ranger is under cooked. In previous editions, ranger was my favored class. Those days are long gone. When you compare the 5.5 ranger to the 5.5 fighter, the biggest thing that separates them mechanically is spellcasting; you're giving up a lot of martial combat prowess to cast spells. A look at the spell list that's open to the ranger is uninspiring. There's simply not much there that helps rangers operate in combat better. And let me be clear here, operations in combat are the most important aspect of the class design. For every group that really gets into the RP and exploration, there are 5 that want to slice their way through enemies. RP and exploration really don't need class features to operate well, they need a DM who actually makes that fun.
A look at the new mystic monk subclass, frankly, makes the old ranger in me jealous. They get sorcerer spells, and low level sorc spells work so much better for rangering than low level druid spells. Not that rangers actually get to CAST most of their spells, because they are forced to concentrate on hunter's mark for the damage mathematics. Keeping it going eats up my bonus actions which is equally bad feeling. Look at me, oh yeah, I got my two swords, oh wait, I killed that guy gotta use my bonus action to move my hunters mark elsewhere so I can't actually swing the second one unless I am specialized in a nick weapon, which really means scimitar, because it's mechanically better than the others.
What the ranger needs, is an improved spell list and to have hunter's mark kicked to the curb. It's a stupid spell that they ported in from world of warcraft and it should die. And unfortunately for 2024, that ship sailed, hit a rock and sank. They completely blew their chance to fix the ranger, because they don't know what they want the ranger to be.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Some thoughts from the peanut gallery:
1) the big problem with hunters mark is that it’s a concentration spell, take that away and it is far more useful. Of course that holds true for most of the ranger’s concentration spells.
2) real wilderness travel/exploration is generally a joke unless your willing to do the “boring and time consuming “ bit of using encumbrance and ration/arrow counting as well as actually playing out each day’s activities. That also calls for a DM that has some sort of real experience with extended wilderness activity. Given that most of us are nerds of one sort or another that is a rare quality.
3) I think the skill/tool use route might actually be a good redesign for a future ranger. I’ve long argued that the best nonfiction analog for the ranger is the American Mountainman. For them to be successful they needed lots of skills as well as languages.
4) an improved spell list would be really nice - especially if it actually granted access to a reasonable number of evocation spells. Many of my 2014 rangers grabbed magic initiate- warlock to get Eldritch blast as it allowed them to dump the bow altogether and get more than 2 attacks at tier 3+. With 2024 pulling that option I often start with TWF style then add archery style as soon as possible for the increased hit chance with a bow and dual wielding after that for a third melee attack. Having some L1-3 spells that would replace or enhance both melee and missile abilities would be sweet.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
your point 4 hearkens back to the 1e days when rangers got magic user (arcane) spells too, so it's not like that's never been a ranger thing.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
In my played experience with Ranger, the class works very well. It has a lot of answers to many problems, though each solution tends to be the only one of it's sort in their kit. Even Hunter's Mark is fine, as long as you don't think you're supposed to be using it for every situation.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
There needs to be more Ranger specific spells and the few that currently exist need to be improved/changed so that they do not conflict as much with Favored Enemy.
I noticed that the Ranger has no exclusive spells for level 4. I have an idea. I'm just pulling this out of my backside.
Choking Gas
Casting time: Bonus Action on a hit with a ranged attack.
Range/Area: 60ft/10 ft radius sphere
Attack/Save: Dexterity
Duration: 1 minute.
When you hit a creature with a ranged attack roll, you conjure a cloud of choking gas. For one minute, creatures within a 10 ft radius sphere centered on the target must succeed a Dexterity saving throw a the start of their turn or be unable to use their action until their next turn. Any creatures entering the cloud must also succeed on the same Dexterity saving throw or be unable to use their action until their next turn. While the spell is active, any creatures inside the cloud are heavily obscured. All creatures within the cloud have their movement reduced by half.
Savage Shot
Casting Time: 1 Reaction
Range: 60 ft.
Ranged Attack
Duration: Instantaneous
When a creature you can see within range casts a spell, use a reaction to make a ranged attack. On a hit, the creature takes the weapon's normal damage and the spell fails.
I don't mind hunters mark in theory. I get the idea they are going to be limited to 2 attacks to differentiate them from fighters but they want those 2 attacks to do a bit more damage so they aren't to far behind. The implementation sucks. As a warlock fan I see some correlation to it and hex.
The things I think they need to do is. 1 remove concentration maybe through upcasting maybe through a class feature. 2. allow you to change targets with an attack not a bonus action, not only after they are dead, but limit it to once per turn. 3. add riders that fit the ranger think eldritch blast invocations but ranger themed.
The problem there becomes just what is the “ranger theme”. My “ mountainman” view is pretty far from the “Aragorn” view. Then how would these “invocations” fit with the subclasses? Rangers are actually a very functional class but they suffer from the fact that game today is far about “dungeon crawl” than wilderness exploration and extended travel which stifles a lot of potential ranger extras. I mean if your not going to count rations than pretty much anything to do with finding food or water is gone. If you’re not going to do daily wandering ( or preplanned) monsters then most tracking or avoidance skills are useless. If you’re not keeping track of missiles or allowing for broken bows etc then woodworking skills fade out. Heck if your going to “viniette” the travel any sort of navigating/cartographic abilities/riders etc drop of the class map. I like the ranger, I can make it work but as the wilderness aspects of it fade from the game I’m starting to look at it more as a Gish base for most campaigns. That means more focus on casting and more offensive spell casting. Not so much the 1e Druid and mage combo but more of a Druid and sorceror combo with access to ritual spells or ritual spell like abilities. Things like merge into stone or Mord’s p. Sanctum- why aren’t they ( originally) ranger abilities that Mord. Et all worked into spells later. Even mistystep really ought to be a standard ranger spell/ability.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
That is why i suggest something like invocations, they can make 20 but you might only get 4, so you pick the ones that fit your ranger theme.
A better spell list would go a long way to making the Ranger better. Magic is supposed to be the Ranger's main advantage over Rogue in terms of the exploration pillar, since nobody can match a Rogue for skill checks.
Personally, I think giving rangers more ritual spells would be most thematic. That way, they have a variety of tricks they can use that won't eat into their spell slots when supporting the party during overland travel or general exploration. A ritual to build a magical campfire that maintains a comfortable temperature and protection from the weather in the range of its light and purifies food and drink cooked over it would be a neat addition. Or a ritual to replay events that transpired at a location, reminiscent of the scene of Aragorn interpreting the struggle between the orcs and their captive Hobbits from tracks in the mud. Flavor it as reading the memories of the land.
For combat, more spells like Cordon of Arrows and Snare could enforce the fantasy of a trapmaster, which is a common Ranger fantasy. If a Ranger has prep time, they could riddle the field with magical traps and snares to turn the tide of battle to the party's favor. Make them rituals, and the Ranger becomes the ultimate battle prep class. A ritual where you bury a few spears into the ground so they shoot up and impale the enemy who steps over them, for example.
I would just be happy if someone on the development team just looked at the capstone and realize "yeah no, that's something that should have come from an upcast, not a capstone." Because that capstone is an absolute joke.
Either make hunters mark a class ability that doesn't eat your concentration or make the class features that 'enhance' it do so when it's upcast and give them better class features. Stop trying to teeter the line with it being both and it suffering all the negatives of being as such.
It might be the worst capstone though there are a couple of other contenders. But while I'd like good capstones all around if your problem only kicked in at level 20 the class would be fine. Their issues start far lower level than that.
How about this for a worthy capstone - modified from the 2014 ranger
Foe Slayer
At 20th level, you become an unparalleled hunter of your enemies. you can add your Wisdom modifier to the attack roll and damage roll of the attacks you make against your hunters marked foe.
I’ve left it linked to hunters mark because that is what 2024 does but it would be easy enough to delete that part. This also provides a reason to boost wisdom scores later in the game along with the increased DCs & saves.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
One real problem with the ranger, or at least our perceptions of it, is ranged fire. Yes, you can take the ranged fighting style adding 10% to your to hit but you only get 1 shot. Dual (light) wielding you get 2 attacks and the fighting style adds your Dex bonus to each hit. At level 4 you the melee ranger can take dual wielding getting a third attack while the archer takes either CBE or sharpshooter. Both give you shootings in melee, CBE lets you ignore loading while SS lets you ignore cover and distance. Both are helpful but neither ads to the rangers attacks/dpr. At level 5 rangers get extra attack but that means archers finally get a second attack while melee rangers are getting their third or fourth attack. I suspect much of the hate rangers get comes because lots of folks like playing archer rangers and they just don’t keep up with pretty much any martial . Melee rangers, especially at L1-5 are possibly the best at dpr and reasonably well armored for most combats.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I wonder how allowing a ranger using a shortbow to take a shot with a bonus action would feel? That would make it mathematically equal to DW with twin shortswords, fighting styles not withstanding.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I don't think it should hit the point where it matches attacks as well its ranged, having range is an advantage. One that is fairly easily exploited. But maybe the gap for the ranger is a bit too large between two weapon ranger and bow ranger. But heavy weapon master long bow guy might be close enough, i don't know that is more mathy than I usually get.
Yes ranged fire has advantages. But for a dpr class the lack of attacks vs the melee ranger is problematic. Assuming a 16 Dex and the ( fairly standard) .65 base hit chance you have the archer at L1 with ( .65 x 4.5) +3=5.925 dpr vs the melee ranger with a short sword and scimitar has (((.65 x 3.5)+3) + ((.85 x 3.5))=8.25. This is a significantly higher dpr for the melee ranger. I don’t think any archer’s advantages really overcome this sort of difference. I’m not really sure what can be done about this but I think it’s a big part of why many folks think the ranger is a bad class - because the archer ranger arguably is not as good and if that’s your version of ranger your ( rightly) disappointed.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I think the problem is you give up too much of being martial to be not very good at casting spells.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha