What do you all think about the 2024 Ranger so far?

Someone above wrote correctly that it can all be explained by “they don't know where they want to go.”

Despite the figure of Aragorn, the ranger has always been an iconic archer, and while I agree with the removal of the Talent that allowed +10 damage while suffering a -5 penalty to the attack roll, they should at least have replaced it with something less powerful, rather than eliminating it entirely, going from one extreme to the other.

Today I play a 19th-level ranger, and I can certainly find my niche, but with difficulty. I'm not the one with the best mobility, I'm not the one with the best damage, my spells work because we don't have a pure caster in the group, otherwise not even that. In the last session, the barbarian had a better tracking ability than me. Despite my high dexterity, I remain one of those with the lowest initiative. In short, the ranger lacks a real direction.

Every fight requires a broad strategy to navigate between concentration and bonus actions, which nip any possible tactics in the bud.

I think its worse than "They don't know where to go" because its also "The fans aren't agreed on where to go and are in nearly violent disagreement".

That doesn't save the fact that 10th to 20th level they just fall behind in power on almost every metric to other comparable classes.

My annoyance for today is the 14th and 17th level features and how they meld with Hunter's Mark.

Nature's Veil burning a bonus action creates more negative synergy with the bonus action heavy requirements of Hunter's Mark and other spells and features.  Its already limited in times per day just make it not require a bonus action.  

And look then 3 levels later we give you advantage on all attacks against things marked by your HM which now make Nature's Veil less powerful since you can get advantage from a secondary source.  So any real benefit to DPR is limited.  It just keeps happening with the Ranger.  For other classes 1+1 = 3 or at least 2.  Powers fully add with each other.  With the Ranger it constantly feels like 1+1 = 1.5 as the new feature isn't fully additive or takes from something else.

For example lets take a GWM using Hunter's Mark and Nature's Veil at 14th level with a 16 Wisdom.  In a 16 turn day (4 combats with 4 turns).  You cast Hunter's Mark or place it every turn 1 (4 bonus actions used), and shift it at least once every combat (4 more bonus actions).  You take Nature's Veil 3 times (3 more bonus actions).  That is 11 out of 16 turns fully accounting for your bonus action giving you just 5 more bonus actions in a day to take advantage of GWM's bonus action attack.   

Can’t argue with you on that Elfdope. One possibility for improving the dpr for archers would be to bring back a revised version of the -5/+10 gimmick- reduce it to -2 to hit grants +5 damage. Then your +2 to hit from archer cancels the -2, your back to the base .65 hit chance but you do ((.65 x 4.5) +3+5)=10.925 damage with your one shot at L1 -4 twice that from L5 on. That is actually better than the L1 melee ranger and pretty much matches them L2 - 3 melee ranger ((.65 x 3.5)+3)+((.85 x 3.5)+3)=11.25 . The melee ranger pulls ahead at L4 with dual wielding giving them a third attack ((.65 x 3.5)+3)+((.85 x 3.5)+3)+((.65 x 3.5)+3)=16.525 and the extra attacks at L5  ((.65 x 3.5)+3)+((.85 x 3.5)+3)+((.65 x3.5)+3)+((.85 x 3.5)+3)=22.5 vs 21.8 for the archer would keep them in pretty close alignment and let the archer ranger do decent dpr thru tiers 1&2. Having better spells, especially AOE spells would definitely help in tiers 3 & 4.

you're certainly correct about the fans not all wanting the same thing.  Part of the problem is that people get far too hung up on the class name of "ranger".  Before the rework, there was a push for a magic-less ranger.  That's called a "fighter" in my book.  Magic is what defines the ranger.  Over-reliance on a single concentration spell though pretty much deletes that, particularly when most of the spells you HAVE are concentration based.  So you can concentrate on hunters mark so you mechanically 'work' OR you can concentrate on something else, and not have your class features work.  That's absolutely unforgivable class design.

That's on top of the fact that hunter's mark is dumb in and of itself.  It's 100% a port of something from a video game (world of warcraft) that really just doesn't make sense.  The concept makes more sense on an assassin.  Rangers are survivalists.  They're not out there hunting their white whale so to speak, they're hunting food to survive with.  Picking out a specific "mark" is just stupid.  Rangers HAVE to have a better spell list, with non concentration spells, and it would be NICE if they didn't mathematically rely on a single spell.

Hunter's Mark would be more palatable to me if they leaned more into its use as a tracking tool. There was an idea during the UA period that Hunter's Mark could be used to target tracks instead of a creature you can see. This would make the creature that left those tracks the target. Doing this could remove the distance restriction on Hunter's Mark, granting the ranger all the bonuses to tracking and searching for the target. Then, when you find them, Hunter's Mark is already active, rewarding you for tracking your prey like a proper ranger by not costing you a bonus action at the start of combat.

I'd even take that a step further. At some point, maybe 13th level, when it gets the concentration boost, the ranger also gains the ability to sense if the target of their Hunter's Mark is on the same plane, and if not, they know what plane their target is on.

Suddenly, Ranger is the premier tracker in the game. Someone you can't escape the eye of, even by retreating to Hell itself.

I also think it'd be huge if Ranger were a prepared caster class. They were in the UA briefly, but went back on it for some reason. Imagine how much better the ranger would be at the Exploration pillar if they could tailor their entire spell list to suit the challenges they expect for the day. This also both reinforces their survivalist prep-master flavor while contrasting them with the more combat-oriented but less magically flexible paladin.

Bonus points if the Ranger can also change some spells out on a short rest. Basically, make it so the ranger always has something up their sleeve for the situation they're in.

Quote from SaurianDruid >>

Hunter's Mark would be more palatable to me if they leaned more into its use as a tracking tool. There was an idea during the UA period that Hunter's Mark could be used to target tracks instead of a creature you can see. This would make the creature that left those tracks the target. Doing this could remove the distance restriction on Hunter's Mark, granting the ranger all the bonuses to tracking and searching for the target. Then, when you find them, Hunter's Mark is already active, rewarding you for tracking your prey like a proper ranger by not costing you a bonus action at the start of combat.

I'd even take that a step further. At some point, maybe 13th level, when it gets the concentration boost, the ranger also gains the ability to sense if the target of their Hunter's Mark is on the same plane, and if not, they know what plane their target is on.

Suddenly, Ranger is the premier tracker in the game. Someone you can't escape the eye of, even by retreating to Hell itself.

I also think it'd be huge if Ranger were a prepared caster class. They were in the UA briefly, but went back on it for some reason. Imagine how much better the ranger would be at the Exploration pillar if they could tailor their entire spell list to suit the challenges they expect for the day. This also both reinforces their survivalist prep-master flavor while contrasting them with the more combat-oriented but less magically flexible paladin.

Bonus points if the Ranger can also change some spells out on a short rest. Basically, make it so the ranger always has something up their sleeve for the situation they're in.

Agreed, if you could look at tracks and cast the spell on them that would be a boon for the exploration phase. 

This would all be great - IF - there were really much of an “exploration” leg. But travel is glossed over, tracking is negligible in most campaigns and “exploration “ now seems to mean searching all the rooms in the dungeon not trying to find the 500+year old dungeon in the midst of a barren dessert or a 500+ year old virgin Forest filled with monsters and wild beasts without a map.

not every class fits every campaign, if exploration is not something you do at your table taking the exploration focused class isn't the best option and maybe the fighter is probably the better choice. 

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

This would all be great - IF - there were really much of an “exploration” leg. But travel is glossed over, tracking is negligible in most campaigns and “exploration “ now seems to mean searching all the rooms in the dungeon not trying to find the 500+year old dungeon in the midst of a barren dessert or a 500+ year old virgin Forest filled with monsters and wild beasts without a map.

Overland travel is definitely mostly an afterthought, but exploration also involves scouting enemy bases, searching for traps and ambushes, and locating hidden rooms and treasure. Heck, a big part of the Martial/Caster divide everyone is always complaining about is that magic is incredibly good at solving exploration pillar problems like scaling the side of a mountain, finding a safe place to sleep for the night, opening a locked door, or navigating a room full of magic traps. It's still a big part of the game, I'd say. Depending on the table, it may even be bigger than Social. I've certainly been at tables where they just do dungeon dives that last months at a time and rarely ever speak to an NPC.

And if exploration really is that insignificant, then there's no reason not to give rangers a bunch of bonuses for doing exploration things without it cutting into their power budget for combat. Call them ribbon features. If nothing else, they make the class more flavorful.

Well, I suppose that scouting an enemy base might be ranger type “ exploration” but the rest is, to me at least, rogue stuff not ranger stuff. Separating out “primal” magic from both clerical and arcane would be a good start at giving rangers ( and Druids) their own magic capabilities. I run a modified FR world and I’ve done this in my world. The original magic was primal and developed by rangers, Druids and sorcerors. As folks developed Deities clerical magic developed as the deities reworked the primal forces. At the same time some folks developed formulas to create the same effects (Arcane Magic) while others learned to mix magic and music (Bardic music). A number of spells like Melf’s acid arrow, mirror image, Mord’s private satcom and others were originally ranger spells ( and are in my game) while the names we use are the based on the arcanists that (supposedly) developed the formulas that arcanists use.  Opening up the spell lists this way allows rangers a much larger range of actions. This allows full casters their full power ( including the arcanist’s versatility) while still allowing the ranger a place in the casting hierarchy. Spells like fireball and lightning bolt don’t make sense for rangers - indiscriminate mass damage doesn’t really fit at least my vision of them. But, spells like Melf’s minute meteors and Snilloc’s snowballs certainly would fit in a ranger’s quiver of spells.

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

not every class fits every campaign, if exploration is not something you do at your table taking the exploration focused class isn't the best option and maybe the fighter is probably the better choice. 

 Building an entire class around a single leg of gameplay that's often hand waved, is poor design.  A class should be viable for nearly any game with some reflavoring.

Quote from crzyhawk >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

not every class fits every campaign, if exploration is not something you do at your table taking the exploration focused class isn't the best option and maybe the fighter is probably the better choice. 

 Building an entire class around a single leg of gameplay that's often hand waved, is poor design.  A class should be viable for nearly any game with some reflavoring.

They are not just exploration, they are competent but don't excel in combat, and sure as i've said elsewhere here they need improvements. But if your class has one of the legs of gameplay as one of its focusses and your table ignores that leg its probably not the best choice. 

Quote from crzyhawk >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

not every class fits every campaign, if exploration is not something you do at your table taking the exploration focused class isn't the best option and maybe the fighter is probably the better choice. 

 Building an entire class around a single leg of gameplay that's often hand waved, is poor design.  A class should be viable for nearly any game with some reflavoring.

 But, it doesn’t have to be hand-waved. If your table does, that’s a choice they are making (standard disclaimer that is a perfectly acceptable play style). In my game, we play it out. There are survival rolls to find the place we’re looking for, and to find a safe place to camp. We track rations and encumbrance (and we don’t have anyone around to cast goodberry 🙁) so it’s very, very good to have someone who can reliably find us food. Our last party I was playing a drakewarden ranger. There were numerous times when I was the star of the show because of my ranger abilities.

A lot of the problem comes down to, my group ignores all the problems the ranger is designed to solve, so the ranger feels like it has nothing to do. 

The ranger is pretty incredible, IMO. I have one playing in my campaign right now. At level 5 it has three free uses of Hunter's Mark and one use of it is reliably able to get through a single fight unless the ranger wants to do other things with their concentration. They have at times done exactly that. Dropping the HM to use another concentration spell and then using another HM again when it suits them works really well in play. 

I also love that the new ranger has a focus on what they can do, rather than what they can avoid doing. Instead of no-selling the DM on foraging or terrain obstacles, the ranger places a big bold underline under smashing their way through those obstacles. As a DM, I appreciate that there is still a point to creating those scenarios for the party. I honestly feel that if people didn't have a love for the 2014 ranger forged through a decade of struggling with the less than impressive features, loving the 2014 ranger despite (or perhaps because of) all the hate, if this were the first iteration of the ranger, people would be shouting their love for it from the mountaintops. 

I know I'm having a ton of fun on my Ranger. I have answers to so many situations.

"This class is way too dependent on one spell!"  -  "You're right. Warlocks are way too dependent on Eldritch Blast."

"No, I mean this class that's only good at one leg of gameplay!"  -  "Oh, you mean barbarians in melee combat. Got it."

"No! The class that always gets stuck doing the one thing that no one really enjoys!"  -  "Oh, like how clerics get stuck being healbots for their reckless teammates?"

"No! The class that tries so hard to do everything that it ends up doing nothing well!"  -  "Well, the bard is literally described as a 'Jack of all trades, master of none'." 

"No! The outdoorsy one that's only good at combat in one specific set of circumstances!"  -  "Moon druid?"

"No! The ranger! I don't like it!"  -  "Then don't play one."

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

Well, I suppose that scouting an enemy base might be ranger type “ exploration” but the rest is, to me at least, rogue stuff not ranger stuff. 

Rogues are another class that excels in the Exploration Pillar. It's why they get so much expertise and bonuses to skill checks. But just because Rogue is designed to be good at dealing with these problems doesn't mean Ranger shouldn't. Not every party has a rogue, but every party needs to open a locked door eventually. In 3.5e, the Ranger's class skills included Climb, Jump, Spot, Search, Listen, Move Silently, Use Rope, and Knowledge: Dungeoneering. Favored Foe gave them bonuses to things like Bluff, Listen, and Sense Motive against their chosen creature types. Rangers were absolutely meant to be good at charting dungeons as well as forests, as well as gathering information from their environment and enemy NPCs.

This is why Roving is my favorite of the new Ranger features. Giving them a Climb and Swim speed does a lot to give back some of that old explorer flavor to the class. It's just missing their iconic ability to ignore difficult terrain for some reason.

5e's skill system is what really crippled the Ranger. They just don't get enough proficiencies to really cover everything people expect a ranger to do, and expertise is almost necessary to actually be considered good at those skill checks. But the Ranger is a half-caster, and their magic could pick up the slack if their spell list were a little more expansive.

I still haven't played 5r Ranger, so feel free to take everything I say with a grain of salt.

I don't really think the faults lie with the ranger, per se, but rather (as some people have already touched upon) that the fault lies with 5e/5r itself. The game itself is very much focused on the combat pillar, and the other pillars, whilst not afterthoughts, really don't get the same sort of attention, not just from players but from the rules. Combat, being far more dynamic, is where the rules really shine, and it is very structured. Social and exploration are very much less gamified, and I think this is probably a bad thing.

Let's consider a combat situation with multiple unique mobs, each turn offers choices, where do I position, do I go for the backline or frontline, how can I change the battlefield. There are rules in place to make this more interesting, and to tell you what you can do and how you can contribute, and everyone can contribute.

Now let's consider a social interaction, where you want to get someone to do you a favour, what do you do? A good amount of parties will look at the rules, shove the person with the best deception/intimidation/persuasion into the fray, get them to roll, job's done. I know that there is more people can do, but looking at the rules to support social interactions this is the maximum effort some parties will go to.

And then an exploration interaction, where (and yes, this will be an oversimplification, again, but I think you'll get my point) the mighty ranger is tracking some foes, so he makes a survival roll, and voila, problem solved. Then we have to travel for a day, and could everyone mark off one day of rations, but let's not because that's bookkeeping and isn't fun, and then we'll have to set some watches, and make some perception checks, so at least everyone is involved, which is a leg up on social I guess, and now we've hit a gorge and the wizard will cast fly, and it doesn't matter that they're using a precious spell slot because the game is designed around 6-8 encounters a day, but most parties will do 2-3 tops, and now we've reached the enemies we're tracking and the barbarian and fighter really just want to throw down so I guess we're into combat.

So we look at the three pillars, and we really need to understand that combat is the most inclusive (every class is combat capable) and most interesting to most people. It also has the most rules, so people more clearly understand what it is they can, or cannot, do, so it's really like a puzzle you're trying to solve, and it can be very engaging (don't get me wrong, there are some dull combats, too). So the rules are designed with combat in mind, because people find combat the most engaging because the rules are designed with combat in mind.

If WotC designed the other pillars with the same amount of attention as combat, maybe more people would be interested, and maybe classes would be better balanced, and wouldn't all have to be proficient in combat to be playable.

Once you look at it through the lens of the game itself being flawed, it really highlights why the ranger design is flawed, because the things that make Ranger great, the reason that people gravitate towards it as a class, are just not well supported by the base game rules. This is why a good DM is needed to enjoy the ranger, because they can go through and add in all the interesting things that the rules don't clearly define that make the classes fun, and flesh these things out.

TL;DR: The base game rules care most about combat, so design is focused through combat, and it makes for hamstrung ranger design.

Quote from Dravaal28 >>

 

TL;DR: The base game rules care most about combat, so design is focused through combat, and it makes for hamstrung ranger design.

This is true, but I'd also say another mark against Exploration is that being good at it is more complicated than being good at its sister pillar, Social.

In a lot of ways, Social is just as bad off as Exploration. Not a lot of rule support, kept vague, very DM dependent. But people loooove making their meme bards or their politicking warlock or sorcerer. Social isn't usually considered a weak point of the game, and in a lot of ways, its freeform nature is to its benefit for storytelling. Where it has a leg up is in its ease of access.

To be good at the Social Pillar, you really just need high CHA and proficiency in Persuasion and maybe Deception. Expertise in either can make you great at the pillar. Social spells or taking Insight can make you even better at it. Warlocks, Sorcerers, Paladins, and especially Bards can all easily max out these skills and get spells to augment their social mastery.

Exploration, though? First, you absolutely need Perception. You need to see the environment to interact with it. Then you need Survival for tracking, mapping, and foraging. Then, you need Stealth for scouting and Sleight of Hand for getting past locked obstacles like doors, chests, and desk drawers. You're also going to want to grab Athletics for dealing with physical obstacles and for Climbing and Jumping checks. And that's just the basics. You'll also want Investigation for solving problems and specialized Knowledge skills to recall information about environmental hazards, creatures, or arcana.

And to compound this, the premier explorers are Rogue and Ranger, who are not full casters and so just aren't as good as a magic user that didn't even specialize in the pillar in the first place. Rangers have some magic, but their limited slots and inability to modify their prepared list make them just worse than Wizards at their own niche. 

Rangers can swap one spell per long rest.