what does define the class for you then? It's a weak fighter with some druid spells welded on mostly.
Customizability is the name of the game for rangers. Do a little of everything. And that’s why it gets lost in the mix when compared singly to ANY other class.
So let’s flip it up:
With Pass Without Trace and Vanish, it’s a better sneaker than every class except maybe Rogues and Bards.
With Cure Wounds, Goodberry and Healing Spirit, it’s a better healer than every class except maybe Druids, Clerics, and few other specializations.
With Hunters Mark or Swift Quiver and ranged attacks and Archery it does more consistent damage than any ranged class other than maybe Fighters and Rogues.
With Spike Growth, Plant Growth, Ensnaring Strike, it has better battlefield control than every class except maybe Wizard and Druid.
Tree Stride, Freedom of Movement, nondetection, Water Walk, Zephyr Strike... all potent traveling spells and escape that outdo every class except Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Sorc, and Warlock.
Stoneskin, Prot Energy, Darkvision, Barkskin are more protection spells than all non-spellcasters.
Primeval Awareness - simple first level spell to detect nearby enemies. If that doesn’t detect anything, it saves your Locate Creature spell entirely.
Fighting your favored enemy? Now you’re easily out-damaging the Fighter in your party as well as all the other things you can do.
Do I have to go on?
But yeah - it doesn’t do Archery better than a dedicated Fighter Archer, so people like to act as if *that* defines the class as terrible.
And this is without adding a single subclass archetype.
Hunter
Throw in a shield-wielding Hunter and get better AC on average than ANY Fighter or Paladin with Multiattack Defense. Add Uncanny Dodge to become a front line tank that’s more resilient than every class except a Barbarian.
Monster Slayer - all of the above but now you can essentially Counterspell with an attack roll.
Horizon Walker, damage and mobility buffs on par with the best archers in the game.
Etc etc
But that’s the problem. It hits 50% in every category so it doesn’t shine in one specific area and therefore people love whiteroom comparisons. Take it out of the whiteroom and suddenly most players always have something to contribute to almost ANY scenario and THAT is what defines this class.
It is never sitting on the sidelines.
So go ahead, argue about how Rangers need a re-write, but don’t make your argument a comparison about how “they’re not equivalent to X class so therefore ____”... it just sounds fallacious when looking at the overall design concept
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
If the ranger surprises the enemy and rolls a higher initiative
ranger turn 1 (enemy doesn’t have a reaction)
enemy turn 1 - enemy can’t take an action but regains its reaction
ranger turn 2 - (enemy can use its reaction)
enemy turn 2
the ranger won’t win initiative every time but with high dex they should win more often than they lose.
"Primeval Awareness - simple first level spell to detect nearby enemies. If that doesn’t detect anything, it saves your Locate Creature spell entirely."
Not a spell, a feature. Doesnt save anything, because it takes a spell-slot. Not to mention that since it only tells you presence, not even direction, it doesnt even hint where to go. Plus, it doesnt even include favored enemies, and is worse in favored terrain.
"Fighting your favored enemy? Now you’re easily out-damaging the Fighter in your party as well as all the other things you can do."
WHAT?! There is NOTHING in Favored Enemy that affects attack or damage rolls. You only get one or the other when you get Foe Slayer, at 20th level.
Are you sure you are looking at the PHB Ranger, not UA or homebrew?
The simple fact is that the ranger from the phb is half baked at best. Everyone including the game designers know it. The revised ranger in 2016 solved some issues and introduced others by overpowering some abilities. They should have done a second round of revision and reintroduced the class, but they got cold feet and wimped out because they didn't want to "fracture" the player base. This was a huge mistake. They should have had a new phb out with a better ranger by fall 2016/spring 2017 with an errata that you can get for free for the printed books and this wouldn't still be a topic that comes up every 3 weeks on these forums, but they didn't and it is.
The flavor of a ranger in theory is cool, but mechanically the way the features work, there is a 85% chance you just never actually use them and the dm ends up just hand waving that you can do things other classes can't. I am hoping that most of the class variant features are actually published later this year as they solve 90% of the problems in the ranger build.
It removes concentration from hunter's mark allowing you to actually use your other spells like ensnaring strike, it gives you a free use of spells that feel super rangery but no one ever takes because the amount of spells/spell slots you have is pathetic, looking at you animal messenger, speak with animals, it replaces the favored terrain features that you never use in favor of three actually cool options, etc etc etc.
Yes, I know my comments do not apply to everyone, but they apply to a majority I am certain. Yes, I have heard the argument that the variant feature makes the ranger an incredible 2 level dip and I dismiss them. So what? There are two player types out there, those who mc and those who don't. Not having a shitty ranger isn't going to suddenly make people who don't mc start and those already doing it, great, now they have another option. The fighter 2 level dip is great, it gets you access to all weapons/armor/shield a fighting style, a bonus action d10+2 self heal and action surge, so lets not pretend that what you get from a ranger 2 level dip is any more "broken" than that.
I feel the base class ribbon has some exploration features, but these don’t define the class.
It boggles my mind that people feel this way. Wilderness survivalists and hunters stalking prey are literally the two defining features of the Ranger according to the PHB (specifically, under the Deadly Hunter and Independent Adventurer headings).
"Primeval Awareness - simple first level spell to detect nearby enemies. If that doesn’t detect anything, it saves your Locate Creature spell entirely."
Not a spell, a feature. Doesnt save anything, because it takes a spell-slot. Not to mention that since it only tells you presence, not even direction, it doesnt even hint where to go. Plus, it doesnt even include favored enemies, and is worse in favored terrain.
"Fighting your favored enemy? Now you’re easily out-damaging the Fighter in your party as well as all the other things you can do."
WHAT?! There is NOTHING in Favored Enemy that affects attack or damage rolls. You only get one or the other when you get Foe Slayer, at 20th level.
Are you sure you are looking at the PHB Ranger, not UA or homebrew?
You can use Primeval Awareness to save you the need to even use Locate Creature - that was what I meant. A 1st level slot to detect a certain presence can be useful. But then again, it’s a small ribbon feature, that’s all.
And yes I was referring to Foe Slayer, which increases your damage approximately 50% or more, making your attacks more potent than most other Martial classes.
But yeah - pick apart Primeval Awareness and ignore the entire argument entirely that I was making.
I feel the base class ribbon has some exploration features, but these don’t define the class.
It boggles my mind that people feel this way. Wilderness survivalists and hunters stalking prey are literally the two defining features of the Ranger according to the PHB (specifically, under the Deadly Hunter and Independent Adventurer headings).
That’s great - but the class design indicates that it is a Jack-of-all-trades that is effective in all situations - exploration, combat, stealth, tracking, healing, controlling...
The simple fact is that the ranger from the phb is half baked at best. Everyone including the game designers know it. The revised ranger in 2016 solved some issues and introduced others by overpowering some abilities. They should have done a second round of revision and reintroduced the class, but they got cold feet and wimped out because they didn't want to "fracture" the player base. This was a huge mistake. They should have had a new phb out with a better ranger by fall 2016/spring 2017 with an errata that you can get for free for the printed books and this wouldn't still be a topic that comes up every 3 weeks on these forums, but they didn't and it is.
The flavor of a ranger in theory is cool, but mechanically the way the features work, there is a 85% chance you just never actually use them and the dm ends up just hand waving that you can do things other classes can't. I am hoping that most of the class variant features are actually published later this year as they solve 90% of the problems in the ranger build.
It removes concentration from hunter's mark allowing you to actually use your other spells like ensnaring strike, it gives you a free use of spells that feel super rangery but no one ever takes because the amount of spells/spell slots you have is pathetic, looking at you animal messenger, speak with animals, it replaces the favored terrain features that you never use in favor of three actually cool options, etc etc etc.
Yes, I know my comments do not apply to everyone, but they apply to a majority I am certain. Yes, I have heard the argument that the variant feature makes the ranger an incredible 2 level dip and I dismiss them. So what? There are two player types out there, those who mc and those who don't. Not having a shitty ranger isn't going to suddenly make people who don't mc start and those already doing it, great, now they have another option. The fighter 2 level dip is great, it gets you access to all weapons/armor/shield a fighting style, a bonus action d10+2 self heal and action surge, so lets not pretend that what you get from a ranger 2 level dip is any more "broken" than that.
“Should have”. Yeah, I think the game designers know better, tbh. UA proved that Rangers only needed a small tweak here and there to improve them (which they did with auto-dodging Beast Master animals), and that most of the additions they added were ridiculously overpowered. (ie. yay, you can triangulate exactly where the BBEG is by using Primeval Awareness twice!)
If your DM is hand waving things out of the game, the issue is the DM, not class design. And if you’re not using Ensnaring Strike, Speak with Animals, Animal Messenger... then what ARE you doing in your games? If you have a campaign that focuses only on combat and DPS and linearity, you might as well just play Barbarians and Sorcerors.
Customizability is the name of the game for rangers. Do a little of everything.
After doing a little of one thing you're out of spell slots. Also, cure wounds, goodberry, and healing spirit make up half of your known spells before level 11. If you want versatility and customizability, start by giving Rangers access to ritual casting for utility spells and let them switch spells out during short rests. Let Rangers switch up their toolkit and adapt to the situation like wilderness wanderers should be able to (and more often than on each levelup, come on).
Right now the Ranger isn't an effective jack of all trades. Their spells are just too limited for that. Besides, that theme works a lot better on a chassis which can change its strengths rather quickly -- the Ranger has to wait for a long rest to change their loadout of spells, and it's not like they've got that many preparation/casting slots either. A lot of mediocrity doesn't automatically make you a jack of all trades, you need to actually be good at switching up your role depending on the situation.
That’s great - but the class design indicates that it is a Jack-of-all-trades that is effective in all situations - exploration, combat, stealth, tracking, healing, controlling...
I wasn’t arguing flavour text.
How is it effective in all those situations? I mean, beyond what anyone with a decent DEX and WIS score with the right skills are? Because frankly, I'm not seeing it. Might as well call the dex-based Battlemaster Fighter a jack of all trades then - they can explore, fight, sneak, heal, control... Which is just silly, because Battlemasters are very clearly not meant to be JoaT. They're primarily front line warriors with a heavy focus on combat. Bards are jacks of all trades - its literally in the description of the class. Same with druids. And cleric was the original jack. Look at those classes. That's how D&D 5e does Jack of all Trades as a character class. Ranger is nowhere near as jack-like as those.
And you should look at flavor text, because it directly describes how the writers envision the very first two skills that Rangers get. Favored Enemy (the Deadly Hunter headline) and Natural Explorer (Independent Adventurer), which in turn informs Primeval Awareness, Hide In Plain Sight, Vanish, Feral Senses, Land's Stride and Foe Slayer. Notice how all these features revolve around either being a hunter tracking prey, or being good at dealing with the land around you? There's a very clear theme going on here. Mechanics and flavor are intertwined, not separate.
Customizability is the name of the game for rangers. Do a little of everything.
After doing a little of one thing you're out of spell slots. Also, cure wounds, goodberry, and healing spirit make up half of your known spells before level 11. If you want versatility and customizability, start by giving Rangers access to ritual casting for utility spells and let them switch spells out during short rests. Let Rangers switch up their toolkit and adapt to the situation like wilderness wanderers should be able to (and more often than on each levelup, come on).
Right now the Ranger isn't an effective jack of all trades. Their spells are just too limited for that. Besides, that theme works a lot better on a chassis which can change its strengths rather quickly -- the Ranger has to wait for a long rest to change their loadout of spells, and it's not like they've got that many preparation/casting slots either. A lot of mediocrity doesn't automatically make you a jack of all trades, you need to actually be good at switching up your role depending on the situation.
So they get 9 Spell slots at level 10, on top of their considerable non-combat options. So let’s go through your points:
“After doing a little of one thing you’re out of spell slots”
At level 5 Rangers have 6 slots. At level 11, 10 slots. At level 15, 12 slots. At level 20, 15 slots. This is just an absolutely false statement - even at level 5 you could use Healing Spirit to heal 1d6+3 up to 4 times (avg 26 HP). Cure Wounds in a pinch for 7.5 HP. Better healing than any Martial class. Good berry is another 10h HP. So 43.5 HP in healing and it’s only half of your spell slots at level 5.
So why would you take all 3 healing spells for your Ranger? You wouldn’t. No one would. But it does makes a great straw man for your argument. Instead, a Ranger would pick one that fits their play style the best and find other spells for the other 5 available spells.
So at level 10, what would I take?
1 healing spell - Healing Spirit or Goodberry
1 damage spell - Hunters Mark, Zephyr or Ensnaring (depending on if I’m melee or ranged)
So what does this mean? You’re doing decent damage with your attacks combined with damage spell, you can cure some basic maladies, offer some decent between-fight healing to supplement the other healers, and control the battlefield with terrain or clog it up with creatures.
And when you don’t have any spells left? You’re still an above average attacker (Archery + 2 attacks per action+archetype ability).
Not a single other class at level 10 can do all of that. Obviously each class does each of those things better when compared ability-vs-ability, but that again just means you’re ignoring all of the other things a Ranger does *beyond* that single ability.
Show me a class that can qualify for all of those roles at Level 10 and it’ll be a close comparison. The best example I can think of is a Valor or Swords Bard (which will have 5 more spell slots but lack a LOT in attacking firepower once those slots are gone).
This is why the Ranger niche is variability - not Exploration (which is still crazy good if your DM plays along).
Valor Bard is actually what I would pick as the gold standard of a jack of all trades class, yeah. (Knowledge) Cleric. Any sort of Druid, especially Moon early on and Land from 1-20, with a special mention for Shepherd. They're more versatile (especially on the non-combat skill side) and Bards/Clerics/Druids don't really run out of spell slots because of how pacing tends to work in 5e. I don't mean to use strawman arguments, but you are being incredibly generous to the Ranger's spells. Calling Goodberry 10hp worth of healing is about as dishonest as it gets, and Spike Growth isn't actual battlefield control -- you're not casting it anyway, since it's a handful of d4's worth of damage at level 5 in return for canceling your Hunter's Mark, which at that point just received additional value from Extra Attack. Battlefield control requires good spells and a good spell save DC, neither of which you get, and melee rangers need to find some way to maintain concentration without anything in their kit helping them out there (in addition to having their battlefield effects used against them).
You're calling people out on partaking in white room discussions in one post, and casually calling Goodberry a 10hp heal in the next. At this point I've made my points regarding the Ranger's niche and how the class fills it, so I think I'll leave it at that. I think the Ranger is a decent class for a switch-hitter or a specific dex-based ranged build, but that it drops off severely past 5-7 depending on subclass, and that the class could use some love by letting it switch out spells on a short rest, giving it Ritual Caster like Druid, or by receiving advantage to Con saves due to being a combat focused class with access to a glut of concentration spells.
Goodberry heals 10hp with 10 actions - that’s not disputable. I’d rather take Healing Spirit to be honest, but that’s personal preference, because Goodberry isn’t combat-helpful.
If your Spellcasters in your games never run out of spells, then I can’t argue. The game is built around resource management and one of the balancing factors is precisely “what happens when spells run out”. In such a game where resources are never a challenge, Barbarians and Fighter and Rogues would occupy the lowest possible rung because their damage output can never compare to the output of the Spellcasters.
As for concentration - Wizards have issues with it and take Warcaster or Res Con. So do Druids, Warlocks, Arcane Tricksters... what is stopping a Ranger from taking any of these if they have lots of concentration spells?
Also, one edit:
Horizon Walker/Gloomstalker/Monster Slayer all have 9 spells available at 10th level, and 9 spell slots. I was referring to non-archetype Rangers. Bards by comparison, have 14 spells and 15 Slots per long rest.
At 20th level, these archetypes have 16 spells available and 15 spell slots. Bards have 22 spells available and 22 spell slots.
Hunter has less spells but is by far a more potent melee combatant (Highest non-magical AC possible, most attacks per round, potentially Uncanny Dodge, and so on), so it’s understandable.
I won’t mention Beast Masters here, only because I find them quite capable and that’s another ball of wax.
The spell-less Ranger (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/modifying-classes) is a far better feeling of Ranger, & is mechanically much more sound (beastmaster looks viable to play with maneuvers). It also gives you something to gain out of short resting rather than just hit points, it gives you a reason to have a higher wisdom score, a far better reason than spellcasting usually motivates you (most spells Rangers use don't require high wisdom).
A lot of the whiteroom testing we are talking about how Ranger falls off at level 5 omits the Ranger subclasses from the discussion, which as said in the above UA WotC recognizes that most of the Ranger's power derives from their subclasses.
Addressing the argument that if you don't run Wilderness Exploration Ranger is useless & if you do run it and the party doesn't have a Ranger and struggles, it works that with every pillar of the game. The Fighter class is pretty underpowered if you never go into combat, and similarly, Rp-based characters fall behind if you never make a charisma check. Conversely, if you don't have any combat-focused characters fighting is going to be a slog, and if you are running an intrigue campaign & nobody has any of the charisma based skills, the party is going to have a slog with it. -There is the fair point that a lot of people in modern D&D don't view Wilderness Exploration as a pillar of the game on par with the rest of the pillars, which is a fair statement, but it makes sense that if Wilderness Exploration isn't a substantial pillar of the game, the class that is most succinctly defined as a Wilderness Explorer, & that has a fair amount of abilities dedicated to that now lesser pillar of the game is going to struggle a whole lot more.
On the topic of favored terrain it's understandable why a lot of people see it as a weak feature since a majority of games don't have a session 0 to discuss what type of game that you're about to play, and integrate your character into the setting. Reasonably though, from an in setting perspective, your character usually lives near the events of the campaign, therefore their favored terrain would be one of the terrains tied to the surrounding area. Lastly, with favored terrain, a use of it in most campaigns that don't care about wilderness exploration is that so long as you are travelling through your favored terrain, it doesn't slow down your travel pace, so you could take a detour to reach locations so you could reach your destination in a shorter timeframe.
I am kind of curious of what the ranger class would look like if they had just waited to released it post-Player's Handbook. I am curious how different the class would be if it had more time in the design process.
Interesting point, but it definitely would be different. I'm not sure if it'd be different because it "needed more time", but the staff at WotC now doesn't really resemble the staff that created 5th edition, & there are different playstyles prevalent among them. It would definitely still be based on the Paladin, but a lot more combat-oriented than the current version & in general a lot more powerful, as seen with the powercreep in the newer books. Favored Enemy would probably give a combat bonus before Level 20, Hide In Plain Sight wouldn't be a feature, the class would have some short rest feature, it would be based on preparing spells & not spells known, & in general a change in the rp-oriented features, so that they still have a generic benefit that likely would happen in combat.
Personally I don't think the Ranger class is all that underpowered; you can still build a perfectly good character with it and have a good time, and for certain builds it can actually be really good.
For example, for a melee build a Two Handed Fighting Hunter with Horde Breaker can potentially be putting out three full attacks per turn at level 3, if you can add the Dual Wielder feat then that's some pretty good damage on its own. They're good for ranged combat as well, though again I'm thinking primarily Hunter. The real star feature of the class is access to Hunter's Mark for the extra damage, plus for a ranged character you have access to some fun ranged weapon boosting spells that other classes can't take.
IMO it's really just certain abilities that are a bit on the weak side; I wouldn't say anything about the class is straight up bad, just could use minor tweaks. Beast Master is definitely the worst offender as while the pet is fun at earlier levels, it does not scale well at all.
The 2019 Unearthed Arcana class variants does make quite a few improvements to the Ranger class, though personally I'm a bit mixed on some of them; built in Hunter's Mark is of course very nice, but I like the flavour of the current Favored Enemy, I'd rather see it repurposed somehow. While Hunter is mostly good, I feel like some options could do with small tweaks (Horde Breaker to 10 feet, Giant Slayer on any attack not just against you, Steel Will maybe also applying to Charmed?).
But yeah, overall I don't think it's a bad class, it really depends what kind of group you play with; for most general groups that have a good mix of combat and non-combat, and aren't in danger of being TPK'd in every fight, I think there's nothing that makes a Ranger bad, and a good DM should make allowances for characters that manage to lag behind on overall strength.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Personally I don't think the Ranger class is all that underpowered; you can still build a perfectly good character with it and have a good time, and for certain builds it can actually be really good.
For example, for a melee build a Two Handed Fighting Hunter with Horde Breaker can potentially be putting out three full attacks per turn at level 3, if you can add the Dual Wielder feat then that's some pretty good damage on its own. They're good for ranged combat as well, though again I'm thinking primarily Hunter. The real star feature of the class is access to Hunter's Mark for the extra damage, plus for a ranged character you have access to some fun ranged weapon boosting spells that other classes can't take.
IMO it's really just certain abilities that are a bit on the weak side; I wouldn't say anything about the class is straight up bad, just could use minor tweaks. Beast Master is definitely the worst offender as while the pet is fun at earlier levels, it does not scale well at all.
The 2019 Unearthed Arcana class variants does make quite a few improvements to the Ranger class, though personally I'm a bit mixed on some of them; built in Hunter's Mark is of course very nice, but I like the flavour of the current Favored Enemy, I'd rather see it repurposed somehow. While Hunter is mostly good, I feel like some options could do with small tweaks (Horde Breaker to 10 feet, Giant Slayer on any attack not just against you, Steel Will maybe also applying to Charmed?).
But yeah, overall I don't think it's a bad class, it really depends what kind of group you play with; for most general groups that have a good mix of combat and non-combat, and aren't in danger of being TPK'd in every fight, I think there's nothing that makes a Ranger bad, and a good DM should make allowances for characters that manage to lag behind on overall strength.
I don't think the argument most have is that it is a bad class, just that it has a lot of problems, even in your example, "for a melee build a Two Handed Fighting Hunter with Horde Breaker can potentially be putting out three full attacks per turn at level 3" you are using a feature that requires you and the enemies to be positioned correctly to function, so like all ranger stuff, rather than just working, it becomes situational. Tasha's should have the variant features, and I suspect the ranger alt options will be in there and I would wager spell list for the phb rangers too, given that they are "fixing" the beast master via Primal beast, why not add a spell list while you're at it.
I don't think the argument most have is that it is a bad class, just that it has a lot of problems, even in your example, "for a melee build a Two Handed Fighting Hunter with Horde Breaker can potentially be putting out three full attacks per turn at level 3" you are using a feature that requires you and the enemies to be positioned correctly to function, so like all ranger stuff, rather than just working, it becomes situational. Tasha's should have the variant features, and I suspect the ranger alt options will be in there and I would wager spell list for the phb rangers too, given that they are "fixing" the beast master via Primal beast, why not add a spell list while you're at it.
While I would prefer if the range of Horde Breaker were 10 feet rather than 5 (though I think most DMs would let you get away with it for enemies on either side of you), I wouldn't expect to get a free extra attack without some kind of condition. A Battle Master for example can make a third attack by level 3 as well using the Riposte manoeuvre, but that requires a finite resource (superiority die) plus their reaction, which requires an enemy to miss to activate it, so it's not like they're getting that third attack without any difficulty involved, whereas a Horde Breaker can potentially get theirs just by getting stuck into an enemy mob, or you can setup the condition you need by forcing enemies to funnel through somewhere to get to you.
Of course I'm looking forward to seeing how much of the UA variants and other stuff finally make it into a book; spell lists would be great, but I've never felt particularly inconvenienced by not having them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I don't think the argument most have is that it is a bad class, just that it has a lot of problems, even in your example, "for a melee build a Two Handed Fighting Hunter with Horde Breaker can potentially be putting out three full attacks per turn at level 3" you are using a feature that requires you and the enemies to be positioned correctly to function, so like all ranger stuff, rather than just working, it becomes situational. Tasha's should have the variant features, and I suspect the ranger alt options will be in there and I would wager spell list for the phb rangers too, given that they are "fixing" the beast master via Primal beast, why not add a spell list while you're at it.
While I would prefer if the range of Horde Breaker were 10 feet rather than 5 (though I think most DMs would let you get away with it for enemies on either side of you), I wouldn't expect to get a free extra attack without some kind of condition. A Battle Master for example can make a third attack by level 3 as well using the Riposte manoeuvre, but that requires a finite resource (superiority die) plus their reaction, which requires an enemy to miss to activate it, so it's not like they're getting that third attack without any difficulty involved, whereas a Horde Breaker can potentially get theirs just by getting stuck into an enemy mob, or you can setup the condition you need by forcing enemies to funnel through somewhere to get to you.
Of course I'm looking forward to seeing how much of the UA variants and other stuff finally make it into a book; spell lists would be great, but I've never felt particularly inconvenienced by not having them.
Sure, but if you had them, they would help put you on par with the newer subclasses
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Customizability is the name of the game for rangers. Do a little of everything. And that’s why it gets lost in the mix when compared singly to ANY other class.
So let’s flip it up:
With Pass Without Trace and Vanish, it’s a better sneaker than every class except maybe Rogues and Bards.
With Cure Wounds, Goodberry and Healing Spirit, it’s a better healer than every class except maybe Druids, Clerics, and few other specializations.
With Hunters Mark or Swift Quiver and ranged attacks and Archery it does more consistent damage than any ranged class other than maybe Fighters and Rogues.
With Spike Growth, Plant Growth, Ensnaring Strike, it has better battlefield control than every class except maybe Wizard and Druid.
Tree Stride, Freedom of Movement, nondetection, Water Walk, Zephyr Strike... all potent traveling spells and escape that outdo every class except Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Sorc, and Warlock.
Stoneskin, Prot Energy, Darkvision, Barkskin are more protection spells than all non-spellcasters.
Primeval Awareness - simple first level spell to detect nearby enemies. If that doesn’t detect anything, it saves your Locate Creature spell entirely.
Fighting your favored enemy? Now you’re easily out-damaging the Fighter in your party as well as all the other things you can do.
Do I have to go on?
But yeah - it doesn’t do Archery better than a dedicated Fighter Archer, so people like to act as if *that* defines the class as terrible.
And this is without adding a single subclass archetype.
Hunter
Throw in a shield-wielding Hunter and get better AC on average than ANY Fighter or Paladin with Multiattack Defense. Add Uncanny Dodge to become a front line tank that’s more resilient than every class except a Barbarian.
Monster Slayer - all of the above but now you can essentially Counterspell with an attack roll.
Horizon Walker, damage and mobility buffs on par with the best archers in the game.
Etc etc
But that’s the problem. It hits 50% in every category so it doesn’t shine in one specific area and therefore people love whiteroom comparisons. Take it out of the whiteroom and suddenly most players always have something to contribute to almost ANY scenario and THAT is what defines this class.
It is never sitting on the sidelines.
So go ahead, argue about how Rangers need a re-write, but don’t make your argument a comparison about how “they’re not equivalent to X class so therefore ____”... it just sounds fallacious when looking at the overall design concept
If the ranger surprises the enemy and rolls a higher initiative
ranger turn 1 (enemy doesn’t have a reaction)
enemy turn 1 - enemy can’t take an action but regains its reaction
ranger turn 2 - (enemy can use its reaction)
enemy turn 2
the ranger won’t win initiative every time but with high dex they should win more often than they lose.
@Brewsky
"Primeval Awareness - simple first level spell to detect nearby enemies. If that doesn’t detect anything, it saves your Locate Creature spell entirely."
Not a spell, a feature. Doesnt save anything, because it takes a spell-slot. Not to mention that since it only tells you presence, not even direction, it doesnt even hint where to go. Plus, it doesnt even include favored enemies, and is worse in favored terrain.
"Fighting your favored enemy? Now you’re easily out-damaging the Fighter in your party as well as all the other things you can do."
WHAT?! There is NOTHING in Favored Enemy that affects attack or damage rolls. You only get one or the other when you get Foe Slayer, at 20th level.
Are you sure you are looking at the PHB Ranger, not UA or homebrew?
The simple fact is that the ranger from the phb is half baked at best. Everyone including the game designers know it. The revised ranger in 2016 solved some issues and introduced others by overpowering some abilities. They should have done a second round of revision and reintroduced the class, but they got cold feet and wimped out because they didn't want to "fracture" the player base. This was a huge mistake. They should have had a new phb out with a better ranger by fall 2016/spring 2017 with an errata that you can get for free for the printed books and this wouldn't still be a topic that comes up every 3 weeks on these forums, but they didn't and it is.
The flavor of a ranger in theory is cool, but mechanically the way the features work, there is a 85% chance you just never actually use them and the dm ends up just hand waving that you can do things other classes can't. I am hoping that most of the class variant features are actually published later this year as they solve 90% of the problems in the ranger build.
It removes concentration from hunter's mark allowing you to actually use your other spells like ensnaring strike, it gives you a free use of spells that feel super rangery but no one ever takes because the amount of spells/spell slots you have is pathetic, looking at you animal messenger, speak with animals, it replaces the favored terrain features that you never use in favor of three actually cool options, etc etc etc.
Yes, I know my comments do not apply to everyone, but they apply to a majority I am certain. Yes, I have heard the argument that the variant feature makes the ranger an incredible 2 level dip and I dismiss them. So what? There are two player types out there, those who mc and those who don't. Not having a shitty ranger isn't going to suddenly make people who don't mc start and those already doing it, great, now they have another option. The fighter 2 level dip is great, it gets you access to all weapons/armor/shield a fighting style, a bonus action d10+2 self heal and action surge, so lets not pretend that what you get from a ranger 2 level dip is any more "broken" than that.
It boggles my mind that people feel this way. Wilderness survivalists and hunters stalking prey are literally the two defining features of the Ranger according to the PHB (specifically, under the Deadly Hunter and Independent Adventurer headings).
You can use Primeval Awareness to save you the need to even use Locate Creature - that was what I meant. A 1st level slot to detect a certain presence can be useful. But then again, it’s a small ribbon feature, that’s all.
And yes I was referring to Foe Slayer, which increases your damage approximately 50% or more, making your attacks more potent than most other Martial classes.
But yeah - pick apart Primeval Awareness and ignore the entire argument entirely that I was making.
That’s great - but the class design indicates that it is a Jack-of-all-trades that is effective in all situations - exploration, combat, stealth, tracking, healing, controlling...
I wasn’t arguing flavour text.
“Should have”. Yeah, I think the game designers know better, tbh. UA proved that Rangers only needed a small tweak here and there to improve them (which they did with auto-dodging Beast Master animals), and that most of the additions they added were ridiculously overpowered. (ie. yay, you can triangulate exactly where the BBEG is by using Primeval Awareness twice!)
If your DM is hand waving things out of the game, the issue is the DM, not class design. And if you’re not using Ensnaring Strike, Speak with Animals, Animal Messenger... then what ARE you doing in your games? If you have a campaign that focuses only on combat and DPS and linearity, you might as well just play Barbarians and Sorcerors.
After doing a little of one thing you're out of spell slots. Also, cure wounds, goodberry, and healing spirit make up half of your known spells before level 11. If you want versatility and customizability, start by giving Rangers access to ritual casting for utility spells and let them switch spells out during short rests. Let Rangers switch up their toolkit and adapt to the situation like wilderness wanderers should be able to (and more often than on each levelup, come on).
Right now the Ranger isn't an effective jack of all trades. Their spells are just too limited for that. Besides, that theme works a lot better on a chassis which can change its strengths rather quickly -- the Ranger has to wait for a long rest to change their loadout of spells, and it's not like they've got that many preparation/casting slots either. A lot of mediocrity doesn't automatically make you a jack of all trades, you need to actually be good at switching up your role depending on the situation.
How is it effective in all those situations? I mean, beyond what anyone with a decent DEX and WIS score with the right skills are? Because frankly, I'm not seeing it. Might as well call the dex-based Battlemaster Fighter a jack of all trades then - they can explore, fight, sneak, heal, control... Which is just silly, because Battlemasters are very clearly not meant to be JoaT. They're primarily front line warriors with a heavy focus on combat. Bards are jacks of all trades - its literally in the description of the class. Same with druids. And cleric was the original jack. Look at those classes. That's how D&D 5e does Jack of all Trades as a character class. Ranger is nowhere near as jack-like as those.
And you should look at flavor text, because it directly describes how the writers envision the very first two skills that Rangers get. Favored Enemy (the Deadly Hunter headline) and Natural Explorer (Independent Adventurer), which in turn informs Primeval Awareness, Hide In Plain Sight, Vanish, Feral Senses, Land's Stride and Foe Slayer. Notice how all these features revolve around either being a hunter tracking prey, or being good at dealing with the land around you? There's a very clear theme going on here. Mechanics and flavor are intertwined, not separate.
So they get 9 Spell slots at level 10, on top of their considerable non-combat options. So let’s go through your points:
“After doing a little of one thing you’re out of spell slots”
At level 5 Rangers have 6 slots. At level 11, 10 slots. At level 15, 12 slots. At level 20, 15 slots. This is just an absolutely false statement - even at level 5 you could use Healing Spirit to heal 1d6+3 up to 4 times (avg 26 HP). Cure Wounds in a pinch for 7.5 HP. Better healing than any Martial class. Good berry is another 10h HP. So 43.5 HP in healing and it’s only half of your spell slots at level 5.
So why would you take all 3 healing spells for your Ranger? You wouldn’t. No one would. But it does makes a great straw man for your argument. Instead, a Ranger would pick one that fits their play style the best and find other spells for the other 5 available spells.
So at level 10, what would I take?
1 healing spell - Healing Spirit or Goodberry
1 damage spell - Hunters Mark, Zephyr or Ensnaring (depending on if I’m melee or ranged)
3 utility spells - Lesser Restoration, Conjure Animals, Pass Without Trace
1 control spell - Plant Growth or Spike Growth
So what does this mean? You’re doing decent damage with your attacks combined with damage spell, you can cure some basic maladies, offer some decent between-fight healing to supplement the other healers, and control the battlefield with terrain or clog it up with creatures.
And when you don’t have any spells left? You’re still an above average attacker (Archery + 2 attacks per action+archetype ability).
Not a single other class at level 10 can do all of that. Obviously each class does each of those things better when compared ability-vs-ability, but that again just means you’re ignoring all of the other things a Ranger does *beyond* that single ability.
Show me a class that can qualify for all of those roles at Level 10 and it’ll be a close comparison. The best example I can think of is a Valor or Swords Bard (which will have 5 more spell slots but lack a LOT in attacking firepower once those slots are gone).
This is why the Ranger niche is variability - not Exploration (which is still crazy good if your DM plays along).
Valor Bard is actually what I would pick as the gold standard of a jack of all trades class, yeah. (Knowledge) Cleric. Any sort of Druid, especially Moon early on and Land from 1-20, with a special mention for Shepherd. They're more versatile (especially on the non-combat skill side) and Bards/Clerics/Druids don't really run out of spell slots because of how pacing tends to work in 5e. I don't mean to use strawman arguments, but you are being incredibly generous to the Ranger's spells. Calling Goodberry 10hp worth of healing is about as dishonest as it gets, and Spike Growth isn't actual battlefield control -- you're not casting it anyway, since it's a handful of d4's worth of damage at level 5 in return for canceling your Hunter's Mark, which at that point just received additional value from Extra Attack. Battlefield control requires good spells and a good spell save DC, neither of which you get, and melee rangers need to find some way to maintain concentration without anything in their kit helping them out there (in addition to having their battlefield effects used against them).
You're calling people out on partaking in white room discussions in one post, and casually calling Goodberry a 10hp heal in the next. At this point I've made my points regarding the Ranger's niche and how the class fills it, so I think I'll leave it at that. I think the Ranger is a decent class for a switch-hitter or a specific dex-based ranged build, but that it drops off severely past 5-7 depending on subclass, and that the class could use some love by letting it switch out spells on a short rest, giving it Ritual Caster like Druid, or by receiving advantage to Con saves due to being a combat focused class with access to a glut of concentration spells.
Goodberry heals 10hp with 10 actions - that’s not disputable. I’d rather take Healing Spirit to be honest, but that’s personal preference, because Goodberry isn’t combat-helpful.
If your Spellcasters in your games never run out of spells, then I can’t argue. The game is built around resource management and one of the balancing factors is precisely “what happens when spells run out”. In such a game where resources are never a challenge, Barbarians and Fighter and Rogues would occupy the lowest possible rung because their damage output can never compare to the output of the Spellcasters.
As for concentration - Wizards have issues with it and take Warcaster or Res Con. So do Druids, Warlocks, Arcane Tricksters... what is stopping a Ranger from taking any of these if they have lots of concentration spells?
Also, one edit:
Horizon Walker/Gloomstalker/Monster Slayer all have 9 spells available at 10th level, and 9 spell slots. I was referring to non-archetype Rangers. Bards by comparison, have 14 spells and 15 Slots per long rest.
At 20th level, these archetypes have 16 spells available and 15 spell slots. Bards have 22 spells available and 22 spell slots.
Hunter has less spells but is by far a more potent melee combatant (Highest non-magical AC possible, most attacks per round, potentially Uncanny Dodge, and so on), so it’s understandable.
I won’t mention Beast Masters here, only because I find them quite capable and that’s another ball of wax.
The spell-less Ranger (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/modifying-classes) is a far better feeling of Ranger, & is mechanically much more sound (beastmaster looks viable to play with maneuvers). It also gives you something to gain out of short resting rather than just hit points, it gives you a reason to have a higher wisdom score, a far better reason than spellcasting usually motivates you (most spells Rangers use don't require high wisdom).
A lot of the whiteroom testing we are talking about how Ranger falls off at level 5 omits the Ranger subclasses from the discussion, which as said in the above UA WotC recognizes that most of the Ranger's power derives from their subclasses.
Addressing the argument that if you don't run Wilderness Exploration Ranger is useless & if you do run it and the party doesn't have a Ranger and struggles, it works that with every pillar of the game. The Fighter class is pretty underpowered if you never go into combat, and similarly, Rp-based characters fall behind if you never make a charisma check. Conversely, if you don't have any combat-focused characters fighting is going to be a slog, and if you are running an intrigue campaign & nobody has any of the charisma based skills, the party is going to have a slog with it.
-There is the fair point that a lot of people in modern D&D don't view Wilderness Exploration as a pillar of the game on par with the rest of the pillars, which is a fair statement, but it makes sense that if Wilderness Exploration isn't a substantial pillar of the game, the class that is most succinctly defined as a Wilderness Explorer, & that has a fair amount of abilities dedicated to that now lesser pillar of the game is going to struggle a whole lot more.
On the topic of favored terrain it's understandable why a lot of people see it as a weak feature since a majority of games don't have a session 0 to discuss what type of game that you're about to play, and integrate your character into the setting. Reasonably though, from an in setting perspective, your character usually lives near the events of the campaign, therefore their favored terrain would be one of the terrains tied to the surrounding area. Lastly, with favored terrain, a use of it in most campaigns that don't care about wilderness exploration is that so long as you are travelling through your favored terrain, it doesn't slow down your travel pace, so you could take a detour to reach locations so you could reach your destination in a shorter timeframe.
I am kind of curious of what the ranger class would look like if they had just waited to released it post-Player's Handbook. I am curious how different the class would be if it had more time in the design process.
Interesting point, but it definitely would be different.
I'm not sure if it'd be different because it "needed more time", but the staff at WotC now doesn't really resemble the staff that created 5th edition, & there are different playstyles prevalent among them. It would definitely still be based on the Paladin, but a lot more combat-oriented than the current version & in general a lot more powerful, as seen with the powercreep in the newer books. Favored Enemy would probably give a combat bonus before Level 20, Hide In Plain Sight wouldn't be a feature, the class would have some short rest feature, it would be based on preparing spells & not spells known, & in general a change in the rp-oriented features, so that they still have a generic benefit that likely would happen in combat.
Personally I don't think the Ranger class is all that underpowered; you can still build a perfectly good character with it and have a good time, and for certain builds it can actually be really good.
For example, for a melee build a Two Handed Fighting Hunter with Horde Breaker can potentially be putting out three full attacks per turn at level 3, if you can add the Dual Wielder feat then that's some pretty good damage on its own. They're good for ranged combat as well, though again I'm thinking primarily Hunter. The real star feature of the class is access to Hunter's Mark for the extra damage, plus for a ranged character you have access to some fun ranged weapon boosting spells that other classes can't take.
IMO it's really just certain abilities that are a bit on the weak side; I wouldn't say anything about the class is straight up bad, just could use minor tweaks. Beast Master is definitely the worst offender as while the pet is fun at earlier levels, it does not scale well at all.
The 2019 Unearthed Arcana class variants does make quite a few improvements to the Ranger class, though personally I'm a bit mixed on some of them; built in Hunter's Mark is of course very nice, but I like the flavour of the current Favored Enemy, I'd rather see it repurposed somehow. While Hunter is mostly good, I feel like some options could do with small tweaks (Horde Breaker to 10 feet, Giant Slayer on any attack not just against you, Steel Will maybe also applying to Charmed?).
But yeah, overall I don't think it's a bad class, it really depends what kind of group you play with; for most general groups that have a good mix of combat and non-combat, and aren't in danger of being TPK'd in every fight, I think there's nothing that makes a Ranger bad, and a good DM should make allowances for characters that manage to lag behind on overall strength.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I don't think the argument most have is that it is a bad class, just that it has a lot of problems, even in your example, "for a melee build a Two Handed Fighting Hunter with Horde Breaker can potentially be putting out three full attacks per turn at level 3" you are using a feature that requires you and the enemies to be positioned correctly to function, so like all ranger stuff, rather than just working, it becomes situational. Tasha's should have the variant features, and I suspect the ranger alt options will be in there and I would wager spell list for the phb rangers too, given that they are "fixing" the beast master via Primal beast, why not add a spell list while you're at it.
While I would prefer if the range of Horde Breaker were 10 feet rather than 5 (though I think most DMs would let you get away with it for enemies on either side of you), I wouldn't expect to get a free extra attack without some kind of condition. A Battle Master for example can make a third attack by level 3 as well using the Riposte manoeuvre, but that requires a finite resource (superiority die) plus their reaction, which requires an enemy to miss to activate it, so it's not like they're getting that third attack without any difficulty involved, whereas a Horde Breaker can potentially get theirs just by getting stuck into an enemy mob, or you can setup the condition you need by forcing enemies to funnel through somewhere to get to you.
Of course I'm looking forward to seeing how much of the UA variants and other stuff finally make it into a book; spell lists would be great, but I've never felt particularly inconvenienced by not having them.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Sure, but if you had them, they would help put you on par with the newer subclasses