Even the developers recognize that the ranger in its current from isn't well balanced, thats why they made the revised ranger in 2016(!)
The class feature variants will solve a lot of issues (I think we have to thank Larian Studios and Baldur's Gate 3 for that). If only dndbeyond would finally manage to implement them.
Thematically they're awesome, mechanically...not so much. I think the main reason behind the dislike is that most of their abilities are situational and people want them to do more things in combat. Rangers are the definition of a glass cannon, though not in the combat sense. In their Favored Terrain, tracking their Favored Enemy a ranger is awesome. But if not, they fall far behind other classes, which can do what they do but better. You want a tracker? Go Scout Rogue, for auto Survival expertise and extra movement, not to mention high stealth and auto Nature expertise, coupled with possible Investigation expertise, Sneak Attack, and the ability to use all these abilities everywhere. Heck, even a druid can be a better tracker than a ranger, since they'll most likely have a higher Wisdom, since that is the only stat a druid needs desperately, and a druid gets more casting ability than a ranger. As for in combat, why go ranger when you can be a Battle Master Fighter, a Totem Barbarian or literally any other martial class? Rangers are made for utility, but their unique usefulness is only in specific situations, and in combat there is nothing that makes them stand up to other classes in power. This is all white-room comparison however, so in other situations or at other tables this may all be for moot.
Level 2 Fighting Style not too bad. Spellcasting a bit meh (especial the whole spells known just to be less like the Paladin)....
Ranger I have played with have felt very bad with the exception of V. Human Sharpshooter and the say more about that feat (and how many DM's run ranged combat) than about the class in general. From base design too much of the work load is in the archetypes trying to support an inferior chaise.
The 5e Ranger is trying to be a druidic or shamanic warrior, but falls almost entirely flat on that front due to the strange decision to give them extremely limited spell slots (and no cantrips!) while also making their spells either underpowered (every damage spell), overly specific (Darkvision, Find Traps, Locate Animals or Plants), or actually good and useful but requiring concentration. The Ranger doesn't receive a buff to concentration checks, which makes using those good spells in combat situations even less useful.
There are some plain good subclasses, however. Gloom Stalker is excellent if you can leverage the invisibility and extra attack well. Horizon Walker gets mobility other classes simply don't, and their force damage is hardly ever resisted. Hunter brings the damage (and before someone says 'but Fighters deal more damage!' -- having spells does matter, even if the chassis doesn't accommodate using them very well).
I think it's mainly just that you have to tell your DM you're rolling a Ranger in advance. It's not like the Fighter where you can literally play one in every kind of campaign and be fine. If your DM doesn't know you're playing a Ranger, you might end up being unable to use lots of the abilities which make your class stand out.
TL;DR: Rangers at baseline are a poor divine mirror of the arcane Eldritch Knight, and a few good subclasses are their only saving grace. They should have easier access to cantrips, a boost to concentration saves, and Beast Master should be rebuilt from scratch by someone who understands what 'the action economy' means.
I think it's mainly just that you have to tell your DM you're rolling a Ranger in advance. It's not like the Fighter where you can literally play one in every kind of campaign and be fine. If your DM doesn't know you're playing a Ranger, you might end up being unable to use lots of the abilities which make your class stand out.
I agree with this part, but the rest isn’t very imaginative - the class holds its own very well outside of white room discussions for the strategic player. To each his own though.
If the DM doesn't actively (or accidentally) put in things which Rangers are suited to, the class is just a mechanically worse Fighter with an incredibly small spellcasting niche (which is way more useful for ranged Rangers than melee ones as well). If the DM does actively put in things to make the Ranger feel useful, the class can hold its own. This is poor design, and the Ranger either needs a text block telling the player to talk to their DM before creating one, or some baseline Ranger-y effects which are useful outside of very specific conditions.
On exploration and tracking: GMs want to keep the story moving forward, which means the party will always find some clue or method to keep the story going. This could be the Ranger's tracking expertise, it could be something else, but no GM worth their salt is going to think 'well, the party didn't recruit a Ranger or Druid, so they will be stuck inside these woods for 3 more sessions wandering about'. As a GM and fervent Ranger player I think it's absurd how much mechanical power the Ranger supposedly trades for this ability.
I guess we just disagree then. I feel the base class ribbon has some exploration features, but these don’t define the class. And if the DMs only imagination around exploration is “roll to find the cave or fail”, then yeah this specific feature is irrelevant.
But the spells have multiple uses specifically for the type of character that wants to mix ranged and melee and also have lots of utility to the mix as well. Something that no other class really does as well as the ranger. Trying to compare in a white room doesn’t do the class justice at all.
Can you name some of the things you find particularly useful for switch hitters? I've played multiple rangers and I would definitely place dex-based switch hitters at the top of the list. Strength melee rangers, not so much (very limited synergies). Despite all that, Fighters get the Archery fighting style, Action Surge, and access to the -5/+10 feats as well as anyone else. It's very difficult to compete with that package.
I guess we just disagree then. I feel the base class ribbon has some exploration features, but these don’t define the class. And if the DMs only imagination around exploration is “roll to find the cave or fail”, then yeah this specific feature is irrelevant.
But the spells have multiple uses specifically for the type of character that wants to mix ranged and melee and also have lots of utility to the mix as well. Something that no other class really does as well as the ranger. Trying to compare in a white room doesn’t do the class justice at all.
what does define the class for you then? It's a weak fighter with some druid spells welded on mostly.
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.
Personally, I don't even think the early game ranger is that bad. Hunter's Mark and Zephyr's Strike along with the fact most subclasses give you extra damage dice help you be competitive with the rest of the party for combat contribution. At level 5 you are a sort of more martial rogue in playstyle where you get to add some damage to your hits but you actually have extra attack.
This falls apart though further into tier 2 play and beyond. Ignoring the sharpshooter feat since the fighter can use it better anyway, you are basically worse than other classes at whatever you are meant to do. You can't out survival or stealth or mobility a Rogue since they get things to make them better at that stuff within the first three levels of the class. Fighters with action surge and their variety of archtypes will enable them to outdo you in both melee or ranged. You certainly aren't a tank even with medium armor + shield + a class focus on dex, since you have no tools past that basic proficiency. Spell casting wise, the only major contribution rangers can make to a party as a whole in tier 2 is access to pass without trace, tier 3 conjure animals for basic transportation or combat utility and those are things a druid could do way before you ever got access to them.
You want to just find a break point you are comfortable with and get out into something that can help you be more competent at whichever sphere you want to be good in. Level 3 if you just want the first archetype feature. Level 5 to get extra attack and your first feat. Level 7 for the second archetype feature it it's pretty good. Level 11 if that one is probably a bit busted.
The one thing I rarely see in discussions of the ranger is surprise. With proficiency in Stealth and Perception , high initiative and Pass without Trace spell, the ranger has the ability to gain surprise in many encounters and to make two turns of attacks before the enemy even has an action.
A rogue can gain surprise too but lacks Pass without Trace so they must be scouting ahead to do it. They can do a lot of damage to a single target but will have trouble making a dent in a large group of monsters.
Fighters can attack many targets if needed but will have a problem being proficient in Stealth and Perception and they won’t have Pass without Trace.
Druids have Pass without Trace but will only make multiple attacks in animal form. To me that’s a totally different character. I might want to play it sometimes but not every time I want to play a ranger type character.
A Shadow Monk can have the same abilities but again that feels like a totally different character to me.
Fighter/Druid multiclass might be able to achieve the same package of abilities but either Pass without Trace or Extra Attack will be delayed.
All of these characters might be interesting to play. All of them can outshine the ranger at times but none of them can even come close to the ranger at everything.
All of these characters might be interesting to play. All of them can outshine the ranger at times but none of them can even come close to the ranger at everything.
My point was mainly that, after that fifth level power jump of pass without trace + extra attack, Rangers have VERY little to offer, as their spell list past that point is meager in usage for most campaigns that I've seen and your class features basically give you nothing compared to just multiclassing. Before that power spike when in the level ranges of 1-4, rangers only have hunters mark and a basic set of martial capabilities. After level 8 I'd say a fighter 5 druid 3 would actually be superior to the ranger in practically every way with access to 2nd level druid spells, druid wildshape goodies, and a fighter archetype with extra attack. It'd be a similar case for rogue/druid mix as well (Which is actually something I'm using right now).
Horizon walker actually looks to be worth going farther with.
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 honestly don't see that as problematic. it competes for hunter's mark to an extent, but once I get haste, HM will rarely be cast. Additionally, it lets me hurt creatures I'd usually not be able to injure without magical weapons. At lower levels, this could be so key.
I'm certainly not going to be dual wielding with a HW, regardless of the short range on Planar Warrior, I'm using this as an archer. Past level 5 where I'd normally stop a ranger, I like Ethereal Step at 7, I like Distant Strike at 11, and I like Spectral Defense at level 15. The spells are also good. Haste at 9th so I can move more and shoot an extra arrow? Yes please. Banishment? Solid if you're not running haste at the time. Teleportation circle? great spell to have. I pretty much like everything that HW gets. it's the only ranger I'd likely consider playing from 1 to 20. The other archetypes are dip material only.
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.
Honestly, this is about the best question about the ranger, but I think misdirected. Instead, how about "How does the PHB define the ranger?"
Basically, how is it defined thematically, how do its features define it, and how similar are these 2 things? Here is how they read to me (not how they should be, but how WOTC wrote them)
1st, thematically: They are described as warriors that live around and protect the edges of civilization, with techniques that are particularly effective against certain prey. Using magic that focuses upon aspects to benefit that.
2nd, mechanically: They are specialized in where they can do things, and who they can fight, with limited effected stealth, and generally expensive utility & combat.
Now, mechanically, they do seem close to their thematic form, though lacking where Favored Enemy at least comes in.
The big problem, is that they are portrayed thematically as warriors who work near civilization, not as survivalists who thrive in the wilderness. Mechanically, their features are either deficits (higher cost than benefit), over specialized (not likely being available very often), or gameplay killers (ignoring rather than powering through parts of the game); and, they lack both a combat niche (what they do best), and a mechanically sound out-of-combat niche.
Sadly, every "attempt" to correct the ranger coming from WOTC has generally failed to address the problems with it mechanically & thematically, tending either to just add power to certain features, replace them with more combat focused features, or replace them with spells.
I am still working on ideas for how to correct the ranger myself, but I may post in this thread (sometime in the next few days) the basic ideas I have.
Have you looked at the UA they have for class options? What they presented for ranger changes look pretty solid.
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.
The one thing I rarely see in discussions of the ranger is surprise. With proficiency in Stealth and Perception , high initiative and Pass without Trace spell, the ranger has the ability to gain surprise in many encounters and to make two turns of attacks before the enemy even has an action.
This isn't how surprise works in 5e. From nov's Sage Advice (see also the PHB): "If anyone is surprised, no actions are taken yet. First, initiative is rolled as normal. Then, the first round of combat starts, and the unsurprised combatants act in initiative order. A surprised creature can’t move or take an action or a reaction until its first first turn ends (remember that being unable to take an action also means you can’t take a bonus action). In effect, a surprised creature skips its first turn in a fight. Once that turn ends, the creature is no longer surprised."
A ranger will at most be able to get in one attack before the surprise effect is gone. If they roll low on initiative, the enemy just skips their action and movement while still getting a reaction. RAW there's just very little support
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is it just me or are rangers getting the short end of the stick this edition?
In what way? What level have you played to? What’s your reasoning?
Even the developers recognize that the ranger in its current from isn't well balanced, thats why they made the revised ranger in 2016(!)
The class feature variants will solve a lot of issues (I think we have to thank Larian Studios and Baldur's Gate 3 for that). If only dndbeyond would finally manage to implement them.
Thematically they're awesome, mechanically...not so much. I think the main reason behind the dislike is that most of their abilities are situational and people want them to do more things in combat. Rangers are the definition of a glass cannon, though not in the combat sense. In their Favored Terrain, tracking their Favored Enemy a ranger is awesome. But if not, they fall far behind other classes, which can do what they do but better. You want a tracker? Go Scout Rogue, for auto Survival expertise and extra movement, not to mention high stealth and auto Nature expertise, coupled with possible Investigation expertise, Sneak Attack, and the ability to use all these abilities everywhere. Heck, even a druid can be a better tracker than a ranger, since they'll most likely have a higher Wisdom, since that is the only stat a druid needs desperately, and a druid gets more casting ability than a ranger. As for in combat, why go ranger when you can be a Battle Master Fighter, a Totem Barbarian or literally any other martial class? Rangers are made for utility, but their unique usefulness is only in specific situations, and in combat there is nothing that makes them stand up to other classes in power. This is all white-room comparison however, so in other situations or at other tables this may all be for moot.
Level 1 two ribbons (one, two, ah, ah, ah)
Level 2 Fighting Style not too bad. Spellcasting a bit meh (especial the whole spells known just to be less like the Paladin)....
Ranger I have played with have felt very bad with the exception of V. Human Sharpshooter and the say more about that feat (and how many DM's run ranged combat) than about the class in general. From base design too much of the work load is in the archetypes trying to support an inferior chaise.
The 5e Ranger is trying to be a druidic or shamanic warrior, but falls almost entirely flat on that front due to the strange decision to give them extremely limited spell slots (and no cantrips!) while also making their spells either underpowered (every damage spell), overly specific (Darkvision, Find Traps, Locate Animals or Plants), or actually good and useful but requiring concentration. The Ranger doesn't receive a buff to concentration checks, which makes using those good spells in combat situations even less useful.
There are some plain good subclasses, however. Gloom Stalker is excellent if you can leverage the invisibility and extra attack well. Horizon Walker gets mobility other classes simply don't, and their force damage is hardly ever resisted. Hunter brings the damage (and before someone says 'but Fighters deal more damage!' -- having spells does matter, even if the chassis doesn't accommodate using them very well).
I think it's mainly just that you have to tell your DM you're rolling a Ranger in advance. It's not like the Fighter where you can literally play one in every kind of campaign and be fine. If your DM doesn't know you're playing a Ranger, you might end up being unable to use lots of the abilities which make your class stand out.
TL;DR: Rangers at baseline are a poor divine mirror of the arcane Eldritch Knight, and a few good subclasses are their only saving grace. They should have easier access to cantrips, a boost to concentration saves, and Beast Master should be rebuilt from scratch by someone who understands what 'the action economy' means.
I agree with this part, but the rest isn’t very imaginative - the class holds its own very well outside of white room discussions for the strategic player. To each his own though.
If the DM doesn't actively (or accidentally) put in things which Rangers are suited to, the class is just a mechanically worse Fighter with an incredibly small spellcasting niche (which is way more useful for ranged Rangers than melee ones as well). If the DM does actively put in things to make the Ranger feel useful, the class can hold its own. This is poor design, and the Ranger either needs a text block telling the player to talk to their DM before creating one, or some baseline Ranger-y effects which are useful outside of very specific conditions.
On exploration and tracking: GMs want to keep the story moving forward, which means the party will always find some clue or method to keep the story going. This could be the Ranger's tracking expertise, it could be something else, but no GM worth their salt is going to think 'well, the party didn't recruit a Ranger or Druid, so they will be stuck inside these woods for 3 more sessions wandering about'. As a GM and fervent Ranger player I think it's absurd how much mechanical power the Ranger supposedly trades for this ability.
I guess we just disagree then. I feel the base class ribbon has some exploration features, but these don’t define the class. And if the DMs only imagination around exploration is “roll to find the cave or fail”, then yeah this specific feature is irrelevant.
But the spells have multiple uses specifically for the type of character that wants to mix ranged and melee and also have lots of utility to the mix as well. Something that no other class really does as well as the ranger. Trying to compare in a white room doesn’t do the class justice at all.
Can you name some of the things you find particularly useful for switch hitters? I've played multiple rangers and I would definitely place dex-based switch hitters at the top of the list. Strength melee rangers, not so much (very limited synergies). Despite all that, Fighters get the Archery fighting style, Action Surge, and access to the -5/+10 feats as well as anyone else. It's very difficult to compete with that package.
what does define the class for you then? It's a weak fighter with some druid spells welded on mostly.
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
Personally, I don't even think the early game ranger is that bad. Hunter's Mark and Zephyr's Strike along with the fact most subclasses give you extra damage dice help you be competitive with the rest of the party for combat contribution. At level 5 you are a sort of more martial rogue in playstyle where you get to add some damage to your hits but you actually have extra attack.
This falls apart though further into tier 2 play and beyond. Ignoring the sharpshooter feat since the fighter can use it better anyway, you are basically worse than other classes at whatever you are meant to do. You can't out survival or stealth or mobility a Rogue since they get things to make them better at that stuff within the first three levels of the class. Fighters with action surge and their variety of archtypes will enable them to outdo you in both melee or ranged. You certainly aren't a tank even with medium armor + shield + a class focus on dex, since you have no tools past that basic proficiency. Spell casting wise, the only major contribution rangers can make to a party as a whole in tier 2 is access to pass without trace, tier 3 conjure animals for basic transportation or combat utility and those are things a druid could do way before you ever got access to them.
You want to just find a break point you are comfortable with and get out into something that can help you be more competent at whichever sphere you want to be good in. Level 3 if you just want the first archetype feature. Level 5 to get extra attack and your first feat. Level 7 for the second archetype feature it it's pretty good. Level 11 if that one is probably a bit busted.
The one thing I rarely see in discussions of the ranger is surprise. With proficiency in Stealth and Perception , high initiative and Pass without Trace spell, the ranger has the ability to gain surprise in many encounters and to make two turns of attacks before the enemy even has an action.
A rogue can gain surprise too but lacks Pass without Trace so they must be scouting ahead to do it. They can do a lot of damage to a single target but will have trouble making a dent in a large group of monsters.
Fighters can attack many targets if needed but will have a problem being proficient in Stealth and Perception and they won’t have Pass without Trace.
Druids have Pass without Trace but will only make multiple attacks in animal form. To me that’s a totally different character. I might want to play it sometimes but not every time I want to play a ranger type character.
A Shadow Monk can have the same abilities but again that feels like a totally different character to me.
Fighter/Druid multiclass might be able to achieve the same package of abilities but either Pass without Trace or Extra Attack will be delayed.
All of these characters might be interesting to play. All of them can outshine the ranger at times but none of them can even come close to the ranger at everything.
My point was mainly that, after that fifth level power jump of pass without trace + extra attack, Rangers have VERY little to offer, as their spell list past that point is meager in usage for most campaigns that I've seen and your class features basically give you nothing compared to just multiclassing. Before that power spike when in the level ranges of 1-4, rangers only have hunters mark and a basic set of martial capabilities. After level 8 I'd say a fighter 5 druid 3 would actually be superior to the ranger in practically every way with access to 2nd level druid spells, druid wildshape goodies, and a fighter archetype with extra attack. It'd be a similar case for rogue/druid mix as well (Which is actually something I'm using right now).
Horizon walker actually looks to be worth going farther with.
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
The problem with horizon walker is that it hogs your bonus action
I honestly don't see that as problematic. it competes for hunter's mark to an extent, but once I get haste, HM will rarely be cast. Additionally, it lets me hurt creatures I'd usually not be able to injure without magical weapons. At lower levels, this could be so key.
I'm certainly not going to be dual wielding with a HW, regardless of the short range on Planar Warrior, I'm using this as an archer. Past level 5 where I'd normally stop a ranger, I like Ethereal Step at 7, I like Distant Strike at 11, and I like Spectral Defense at level 15. The spells are also good. Haste at 9th so I can move more and shoot an extra arrow? Yes please. Banishment? Solid if you're not running haste at the time. Teleportation circle? great spell to have. I pretty much like everything that HW gets. it's the only ranger I'd likely consider playing from 1 to 20. The other archetypes are dip material only.
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
@crzyhawk
Honestly, this is about the best question about the ranger, but I think misdirected. Instead, how about "How does the PHB define the ranger?"
Basically, how is it defined thematically, how do its features define it, and how similar are these 2 things? Here is how they read to me (not how they should be, but how WOTC wrote them)
1st, thematically: They are described as warriors that live around and protect the edges of civilization, with techniques that are particularly effective against certain prey. Using magic that focuses upon aspects to benefit that.
2nd, mechanically: They are specialized in where they can do things, and who they can fight, with limited effected stealth, and generally expensive utility & combat.
Now, mechanically, they do seem close to their thematic form, though lacking where Favored Enemy at least comes in.
The big problem, is that they are portrayed thematically as warriors who work near civilization, not as survivalists who thrive in the wilderness. Mechanically, their features are either deficits (higher cost than benefit), over specialized (not likely being available very often), or gameplay killers (ignoring rather than powering through parts of the game); and, they lack both a combat niche (what they do best), and a mechanically sound out-of-combat niche.
Sadly, every "attempt" to correct the ranger coming from WOTC has generally failed to address the problems with it mechanically & thematically, tending either to just add power to certain features, replace them with more combat focused features, or replace them with spells.
I am still working on ideas for how to correct the ranger myself, but I may post in this thread (sometime in the next few days) the basic ideas I have.
Have you looked at the UA they have for class options? What they presented for ranger changes look pretty solid.
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
This isn't how surprise works in 5e. From nov's Sage Advice (see also the PHB): "If anyone is surprised, no actions are taken yet. First, initiative is rolled as normal. Then, the first round of combat starts, and the unsurprised combatants act in initiative order. A surprised creature can’t move or take an action or a reaction until its first first turn ends (remember that being unable to take an action also means you can’t take a bonus action). In effect, a surprised creature skips its first turn in a fight. Once that turn ends, the creature is no longer surprised."
A ranger will at most be able to get in one attack before the surprise effect is gone. If they roll low on initiative, the enemy just skips their action and movement while still getting a reaction. RAW there's just very little support