I believe 100% that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the PHB ranger class and beast master subclass. I also believe that they’re not what people think they are. They’re not bad in the slightest. The majority of people don’t play the game the designers thought people would play. That’s it. In an exciting, combat focused, “skip to the good part” kind of game, which is most games, rangers don’t bring to the table the same stuff other classes do.
Having their abilities “on” all the time would completely negate exploration and survival.
I believe 100% that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the PHB ranger class and beast master subclass. I also believe that they’re not what people think they are. They’re not bad in the slightest. The majority of people don’t play the game the designers thought people would play. That’s it. In an exciting, combat focused, “skip to the good part” kind of game, which is most games, rangers don’t bring to the table the same stuff other classes do.
Having their abilities “on” all the time would completely negate exploration and survival.
I don't know how you can hold the idea that the Ranger is good as is as long as you have a DM that will work with you, but if the exploration abilities are always on a DM would not be able to account for such a scenario. Furthermore, exploration and survival are not currently negated in favored terrain, so why would they be negated in ALL terrains?
In no way have I ever said that campaigns need to "skip to the good part" nor that the good part is combat.
Folks talk about “needing a DM to work with you” or “rangers are only good if you meta game”. I’ve never had or been a DM that didn’t work with ALL the players to build a character that is not only fun to play but fits within the campaign and group. Waterborne campaign? Players tend to choose races with swim speeds, can hold their breath, or breath underwater. Undead campaign? Players with choose classes that deal radiant damage, and clerics, and paladins. Already a healer in the party? Pick something else. I don’t remember seeing anyone play a campaign that was a complete and utter mystery to the players. Playing Storm King’s Thunder? People will design with giants in mind. All of this happens all of the time. For a ranger it’s just two little things to start off.
"This is a heavy water-themed campaign" is not equivalent to "hey make sure my core, identity-defining class features won't be useless in your campaign."
Seeing as "always-on" exploration features are broken, why isn't a Ranger in a campaign that is set primarily in one terrain broken? By this logic, Rangers are OP in any single terrain setting. But if you're not against that, you shouldn't be against always on exploration for all terrains.
The cool thing about any themed campaign is that I don't HAVE to pick a class or abilities good against undead to be useful in an undead campaign. I don't HAVE to account for giants to be effective in Storm King's Thunder. (I played a Kenku Mastermind and had a blast, accomplishing exactly what I wanted to do with an inexperienced DM, taking ZERO account for giants and ZERO collaboration beforehand).
Sometimes the fun of the game is figuring how to apply your strengths in a less than ideal environment. Unless strengths are specifically tied to said environment.
You can also play with multiple healers in a group to great effect. I don't care if there is already a Cleric or Druid. All that means is we can both prepare a little less healing and explore the other exciting options of the classes a little more freely.
I have both been in and DM'd campaigns that were a mystery to the players. Foreknowledge is not a requirement for any campaign.
But a Ranger, unless you get lucky, REQUIRES that your DM knows what you picked for your features, or else you risk them not being used.
You said, “Sometimes the fun of the game is figuring how to apply your strengths in a less than ideal environment. Unless strengths are specifically tied to said environment.” That really is on point for me for this whole argument.
I don’t know why your ranger isn’t blasting through the travel and exploration. Are you making those part of the game? Rangers are as good as anyone when they aren’t in their favored terrain and better than anyone when they are. They are in their favored terrain more and more as time goes on. If for some reason they happen to pick a favored terrain that doesn’t exist in the campaign, ever, then there is still skills that can make use of their favored terrain. Nature checks about plants and animals that dwell in the terrain. History about their terrain. They get another on at 6 and 10. Even if they TOTALLY GET HOSED by their first choice, they’ll get two more and are an awesome fighter, control/healing/stealth/exploration caster, and linguist in the mean time.
Yes, I did say that. And it is not a point in favor of the Ranger's design.
When travel and exploration occurs, it doesn't take much IRL time to get through it.
In the most basic scenario, the party travels from point A to point B:
Without a Ranger, it takes four days to get to your destination.
With a Ranger, it takes two days to get to your destination.
Then I roll for encounters to see if anything happens along the way.
It doesn't take up a lot of real-life time to say you travel for X amount of time and Y happens.
Damn, I picked the wrong terrain and enemy. Guess I'll just ignore my two biggest features until level 6 before I can actually use them.
Jinkies, here is a plant I recognize from the mountains, my favored terrain. What is it doing here in the desert? Sure glad I picked this terrain now or I would have only had a +6 to my nature check instead of a +8 to realize this plant probably shouldn't be here.
Alright, I'm finally level 6. Seeing as we've been fighting a whole bunch of goblins, and we still have to fight the Bugbear chieftain, I better choose goblins as my next favored enemy.
(The party defeats the goblin clan including the bugbear chieftain)
"Hail, adventures, there is an orc army at our doorstep. You were so fierce in fighting those goblins, might you aid us in fending off this horde? It should only take you to about level 10 to do so."
Damnit.
You still keep resorting to "if things happen exactly this way" arguments to justify your position.
I hear what you are saying. But. A wizard doesn’t cast every spell they’ve prepared every game. Or ever. A rogue may never pick a lock. People don’t like the ranger’s abilities because they aren’t used as much or come up as often as rage, smite, sneak attack, or action surge. Just a different value system I guess.
If you play the game where any situation other than combat is resolved by a single die roll by a character you are sure to find the ranger underwhelming. It’s not anyone’s fault. Half of the player’s handbook is rules basically just for combat.
I’m telling you that rangers will never feel useless. Their kit is just too broad. Other more “powerful” classes feel like a demigod when they are doing their thing, and sit on their thumbs when they aren’t. A ranger is never like that.
I still have a problem with the idea that you have to chose a Favored enemy or a favored terrain from the setting. You set your self up for success with your options not relying on the module or the dm to throw them at you. Whenever I make a wisdom or intelligence check that I'm proficient in I ask the dm "is it related to (insert creature types for FE)?" and then "ask would my knowledge of (insert terrain) Help me?" a dm might say yes or no but eventually they will realize if they are short changing a ranger.
I usually choose FE Beasts because when tracking 75% of the time there is a beast involved. Animal handling checks almost always use beasts. Buy a mount or a pet for poison harvesting and you will find a way to use beast checks. look at the utility spells you take to see if there is a way to arrange the situation so you get those skill benefits.
As for favored terrain some of the features require you to be in the terrain but the double prof doesn't just "related" most fauna doesn't just grow in one terrain. Striges are from almost every terrain So any int or wis check related to stirges should give you double Prof. flying snakes are from Half the terrain types. Same with trees and bushes. town apothecaries have plants from almost every environment inside. Parks in the center of towns plant bushes that come from some terrain even though there is no urban option. Most adventurers would say you cant read footprints on stone path ways but a ranger from the mountains would understand reading scuffmarks or dust movement better than others.
Would a ranger from the swamp be better able to recognize the signs of a disease from Chult. even if they don't know the disease they would be better prepared for treating symptoms from the knowledge they have. Clerics get to assume the broad interpretation of their skills all the time with their medicine checks. If a ranger gets the same treatment its suddenly breaking the rules and its your fault for picking a useless ability. (insert sarcastic tone).
dnd 5e is designed to simplify things to a point where venom and poison isn't distinguished. So if a ranger says "I think my knowledge of .... should help me" in a specific situation he gets the benefit unless the dm can say "I have a reason that isn't true". Because at the end of the day, Its a non damage skill and there is still a roll involved and a chance of failure or success.
My ranger once walked up to a building with the smell of burning meat. I asked if i could try and identify the smell to see if it was human or food. the dm said sure. I then asked if it was related to beasts. every one laughed but in the end the argument was made that if it was a favored enemy was being cooked the ranger should be better at identifying it.
I hear what you are saying. But. A wizard doesn’t cast every spell they’ve prepared every game. Or ever. A rogue may never pick a lock. People don’t like the ranger’s abilities because they aren’t used as much or come up as often as rage, smite, sneak attack, or action surge. Just a different value system I guess.
But a Wizard will cast a spell. And a rogue's lock picking is just one skill and the rogue will use some other skill or sneak attack virtually every session. Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are the only two abilities the Ranger gets at level 1 and may not even be useful in the situations they should because the wrong choices were made. You could go a whole campaign without using two defining features. I would also argue metagaming to pick the right terrain and foe to fit the module is not a solution I would ever go with. It's also not an argument in it's favor. Just because people do doesn't mean they should.
I really like the Ranger but I cannot overlook the areas that it missed the mark. The things it does right it does very well. However, saying that a ranger "will never feel useless" doesn't mean it's not without flaws.
All this said... Tasha's went a long way to fixing some of the issues many if us have with the ranger with the optional features presented. Those players that liked the old features are happy to play the OG ranger and those of us that found it frustrating have a lot to be excited about. I'd call it a win.
I hear what you are saying. But. A wizard doesn’t cast every spell they’ve prepared every game. Or ever. A rogue may never pick a lock. People don’t like the ranger’s abilities because they aren’t used as much or come up as often as rage, smite, sneak attack, or action surge. Just a different value system I guess.
But a Wizard will cast a spell. And a rogue's lock picking is just one skill and the rogue will use some other skill or sneak attack virtually every session. Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are the only two abilities the Ranger gets at level 1 and may not even be useful in the situations they should because the wrong choices were made. You could go a whole campaign without using two defining features. I would also argue metagaming to pick the right terrain and foe to fit the module is not a solution I would ever go with. It's also not an argument in it's favor. Just because people do doesn't mean they should.
I really like the Ranger but I cannot overlook the areas that it missed the mark. The things it does right it does very well. However, saying that a ranger "will never feel useless" doesn't mean it's not without flaws.
I completely agree with this.
That a Wizard still has other uses for their spell slots is very important. That a Rogue has something to do with their other features is important. And a Rogue is no longer required for lockpicking. Their defining features are Sneak Attack and Expertise, not lockpicking.
In regards to all tools and many other class features that are situational, you still don't have to talk to the DM to make it happen. In most of those cases, you can even choose to force the scenario which requires those features.
If I want to use my lockpicking skills, all I have to do is say "I wanna try to get into that building."
If I want to use my Alchemy or Herbalism Kit, I say "I'm going to take X amount of down-time working on potions."
No tool is as identity-defining for a class as its core features. Not even the artificer, who just needs ANY artisan's tool, thieve's tools are simply given more emphasis due to their more common usage in a typical dnd campaign than the other tools.
The only way to force a Ranger's core features is to travel to said terrain, or hunt said foe. You can't tell me your party and DM are going to be satisfied that my character never wants to leave the forest or derails every plot point cause I can smell when an orc farted two days ago.
I'm never upset that I can't use a Cleric's domain feature or a Wizard's specialization feature cause I can do so much more at any time, and I don't have to be in a specific place to do it. And when they are not combat-related features, most of the time I can still use any of those features in my character's downtime, or it is a passive effect, or I gained a new proficiency or spells known/prepared, or it takes up an insignificant amount of time compared to "I want to travel 5 days in-game to go back to the mountains and see if I can pick up on the trail of any dragons."
Every class's level one and/or two features essentially boil down to one of the following:
Incredibly good combat bonuses.
Good combat bonuses with unique, varied, and interesting non-combat bonuses or utility features, lots of spells, and/or proficiencies. In the vast majority of cases, they can be used anytime/anywhere.
Ranger: 2 highly situational features that cannot be forced anytime/anywhere.
It's also weird to keep bringing up that Ranger's always have something to do. Everyone ALWAYS has something to do. But no one has their core, identity-defining class features negated because you weren't in the right terrain or interacting with the right enemy. They can't do anything outside of their terrain or foe that is unique to them. Any class can help any other class in anything.
The idea that any class "sits on their thumbs" when not doing their thing is ridiculous. They have so many other things available to them, just like the Ranger.
Earlier someone made a very brash assumption that I seem to have never played a Ranger or did it wrong. I still had fun with my 5e Rangers, because I and my fellow players and DM made it fun. I have an overall good experience with my Rangers, but that isn't because of the Ranger, that is because of me and the people I play with. It is DESPITE the Ranger's poor design that I had a good time. I was never useless. My core abilities were useless, and I could do nothing to change that without derailing the campaign or getting the DM to cater at least a portion of their campaign to me.
Every other class either has no concerns over whether or not their class features are going to be put to use (combat features), can force a scenario or utilize downtime to make use of their features, or their niche, highly situational features (turn undead) are accompanied by other very good, more versatile, less situational features. The vast majority of other features don't have to be catered to the extent of a Ranger's core abilities if at all.
There will always be combat.
A DM never has to cater to a Rogue for a stealth encounter. My Rogue can just decide "I want to try and sneak past the guard."
A DM never has to cater to a Bard for a song and dance routine. My Bard can just pick up his loot and provide inspiration or a song of rest on the spot.
A DM never has to cater to a Druid to turn into a dog. My Druid can use Wild Shape at any time.
If there is an early class feature that is as highly situational as the Ranger's and has nothing to make up for it then that is also a problem. I must also emphasize that the majority of these arguments are primarily in relation to levels 1 and 2, but we're getting to that.
But then maybe, MAYBE, the Ranger could make up for this at later levels. But we've already been through this. Foe Slayer and Feral Senses are among the worst features for their level. Both would be more acceptable at much, MUCH lower levels. The complaints should never be taken in a vacuum, which you frequently do when saying the Ranger is fine. The class AS A WHOLE has too many shortcomings compared to other classes.
The Ranger can maintain decent damage, even some of the highest damage with very specific builds, but they always fall short with many outright bad features, and the idea of them having "the versatility to fit any role the party is missing" doesn't hold weight when they are still significantly underpowered (not just a little underpowered) in all of those roles with all of their higher level unique features being trash.
Foe Slayer competes with a low-level Rogue's Sneak Attack and is surpassed by Sneak Attack at the first improvement.
Now Feral Senses is surpassed by Blind Fighting at level 2 within its own class, let alone any other class with a fighting style or who takes a feat for it. Granted, I still try to avoid including Tasha's, this is just such a glaring example of how bad Feral Senses was for its level, and even without Blind Fighting, this level 18 feature is not worth the time and investment when See Invisibilty is a second level spell.
Vanish at level 14? When Rogues get Cunning Action at 2. When Druids, Trickery Clerics, and Rangers get Pass Without A Trace at levels 3 or 5. When invisibility EXISTS.
Hide in Plain Sight at level 10. The idea is great. It seems like with this one ability they were really going for the realism and immersion aspect of such a mundane yet possibly powerful, nonmagical ability. But it just doesn't work for pretty much the same reasons as Vanish except for ALSO taking 10 minutes. Do you remember that the 3rd edition Hide in Plain sight was being able to take the hide action in natural environments even while being observed? What was wrong with that? (I'm not saying this makes 3rd edition Ranger particularly good, WotC has had a Ranger problem for a long time and it is telling that they keep making much of the same mistakes).
Land's Stride is good as is and at that level. An always-on effect comparable to Freedom of Movement which costs a spell slot for full casters of the same level, and it was paired with an ASI which rarely happens. If this was at any higher level and was not paired with another good feature, it wouldn't be so good. It would not be game-breaking for it to be one or two levels lower.
Primeval Awareness. Costs a spell slot. Gives you effectively useless information. Someone tried to make an argument in favor of PA because a mile is twenty minutes in a straight line. That means absolutely nothing in this context. PA doesn't give the location, distance, or number. It just says "yep, there's a dragon somewhere within a 20-minute walk." Assuming no obstruction like in a city. Of course, if there were no obstructions, then you could see a dragon if it was just sitting a mile away. No accounting for it being in disguise. Primeval Awareness could be an always-on ability for all the good its information does, but it is as simple as giving uses per day equal to your WIS mod or proficiency bonus, and saying something like 1 minute gives you presence, 5 minutes gives you a number, 10 minutes gives you general direction though you don't maintain that knowledge when not focusing on this feature unless it is your favored enemy.
And in that instance, it is just BARELY good enough because you got it at a level where you also gain your archetype.
Also, locate creature exists. Scry exists. So many low level spells used on their own or in conjunction with each other easily surpass spending a spell slot on PA and provide so much better information. In many cases, a skill challenge and a bit of roleplay provides more useful information, and maybe even the exact information like "yeah there's a dryad living in a grove in the woods. Yeah go about a mile outside the city, follow the creek until reach the monolith then head North. Can't miss it."
But I get another favored terrain. Another favored enemy. HOPEFULLY, you pick the right ones. HOPEFULLY, the campaign doesn't go in a direction that takes you away from your new and old terrains, and that your new and old favored enemies aren't replaced by a different common foe. and EVEN IF this all lines up, that still doesn't make up for EVERY OTHER BAD DESIGN of the Ranger.
The Ranger has nothing at level 1 or 2 that makes up for the highly situational nature of their core, identity-defining features. Made EVEN WORSE in that the rest of their class's features fail to make up for these poorly designed features as well.
You cannot keep saying the Ranger is good for the reasons you do. It doesn't hold up. Your arguments in support of the Ranger don't exist in a vacuum.
"The Ranger can do other stuff" yeah so can everybody.
"The Ranger can fill any missing role" only if you build them a certain way and aside from damage they don't fill any other role to a satisfactory degree while also having lackluster unique features.
"No other class can fill the Ranger's unique roles" I highly disagree. First and foremost for the reasons already pointed out, but because the incredibly rare situations where it would be really nice to have a Ranger are so easily worked around or it isn't such a big detriment to wait. The bad guy got away? Ok, we have a better chance of tracking him with a Ranger, but it is rarely such a big deal that the Ranger is rarely missed. And talking about a DM that prepares an adventure with the Ranger in mind, the same goes true for preparing a campaign WITHOUT a Ranger in mind. A good DM is going to account for their being no Ranger to track the bad guy that got away. This doesn't change the fact that the Ranger is poorly designed.
"The Ranger just needs to do a little more preparation ahead of time." What's stopping any party from doing more preparation without a Ranger? Going on a trip? Pack enough food just in case. I've lost track of how many times a DM ignores food for travel because it just wastes time unless the DM prepares a special plot point for it. And the thing is, I often do make such scenarios. It is just so simple of a workaround whether it means just general preparation, or you happen to have someone with the Outlander feature and/or high survival check. The Ranger's foraging and traveling benefits are not such an incredible boon over alternatives to make it such a spectacular ability to be excited about.
And then the core features just become more and more ineffectual as more convenient magical means become available. At low levels, you might speed up our traveling pace. That's nice, but wait till we can teleport.
I still don't talk as much about subclasses, but the reasons here can be made in a more general sense.
The base Rogue is good. The base Druid, Wizard, Warlock, Paladin are good. I do have some issues with the base Fighter, but overall it is satisfactory. All of the base classes are satisfactory or good aside from the Ranger.
When you introduce a subclass, you then primarily take it on its own merits, with a little consideration for how it fits with the main class. The Gloom Stalker and Horizon Walker are good, but you put it on a bad class, so it doesn't compare when the Diviner is good and you put it on the also good base Wizard. You can reasonably equate the ok Champion, putting it on the ok Fighter, and you're still left at least a little more satisfied than the bad Beastmaster put on the bad Ranger.
You can't count on subclasses making up for the faults in a poorly designed base class. The subclasses themselves may be good or bad, it is not universally true that the subclass will make up for the Ranger's faults. If all of the Ranger subclasses were amazing, flawless, that still doesn't excuse bad design for the main class.
The only way to force a Ranger's core features is to travel to said terrain, or hunt said foe. You can't tell me your party and DM are going to be satisfied that my character never wants to leave the forest or derails every plot point cause I can smell when an orc farted two days ago.
This is a false statement. You are only taking a small portion of the abilities text into account and ignoring others. This is borderline Gaslighting.
The only way to force a Ranger's core features is to travel to said terrain, or hunt said foe. You can't tell me your party and DM are going to be satisfied that my character never wants to leave the forest or derails every plot point cause I can smell when an orc farted two days ago.
This is a false statement. You are only taking a small portion of the abilities text into account and ignoring others. This is borderline Gaslighting.
Don't do that. Don't take the smallest, not very well written statement out of that ENTIRE post to jump on and act as if the statement itself holds no merit.
It is not a small portion. The ENTIRETY of each ability can only be used in relation to a terrain type or creature type.
I have acknowledged and expressed elsewhere scenarios where being outside of your terrain doesn't negate every possible use of NE.
Do I have to make an addendum to say "The only way to force a majority Ranger's core features" out of that entire post and do say every time I talk about it?
How about asking for a simple clarification, what do I mean by this?
Natural Explorer
You are particularly familiar with one type of natural environment and are adept at traveling and surviving in such regions. Choose one type of favored terrain: arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in.
While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:
Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
The part in bold can be used anywhere. the part in italics, the entirety of the more substantial features of NE, can ONLY be used while within your favored terrain. This is not a small part. Otherwise, you have between an extra +2 to +6 on specific skill checks. So, alright, you can force a knowledge check when you want to figure out some information relating to your terrain or enemy. You get an extra language (if they speak one).
These incredibly niche, highly situational utilities are not enough on their own. I cannot recall any time a class gets the equivalent of proficiency or expertise by itself, and I have already explained why the rest of NE or FE doesn't compare to the more substantial features given to other classes.
Then what do I mean by "forcing" tracking. That was a poor word choice in relation to tracking a favored enemy. But wherever I am in a game, if I say "I want to find out if there are any illithid nearby" and there aren't any, my core ability is useless at that moment.
Well, if you want to break into a building with your expertise in thieve's tools and there are no buildings around, that ability is useless, too. /sarcasm (because that would be a false equivalency)
EDIT: A new realization. You learn a language IF your favored enemy speaks one.
1 beast knows Aquan, a talking shark from Waterdeep
3 beasts (including Traxigor) know Common, a language you already know, all three are unique monsters from modules.
1 beast knows Druidic, an Awakened Moose from Icewind Dale.
You can learn Giant Eagle, Elk or Owl (only one though) and speak to that creature and that creature only. (which I think is cool thematically, but falls way short of the mark)
Traxigor is a beast from Baldur's Gate that knows Common, Draconic, Dwarvish, Gnomish, Halfling, and Troglodyte.
Cranium Rats, Swarm of Cranium Rats and a beast from Acquisition's Incorporated know Telepathy. That's a good one.
Pretty sure RAI applies to only the giant avians being viable options.
Korbin_Orion, you are presenting extreme situations in response to my extreme situations. There is no way a ranger will go an entire campaign without using their NE and FE abilities. Most other class abilities exist or escalate upward. The ranger’s core abilities broaden. You are making it very clear to me that you aren’t playing games that use these types of situations to begin with. This is the “problem” with rangers. The expectation that WotC had regarding the types of games people did and/or would play. That is what missed the mark. WotC’s building the ranger for a game. Paladins are very powerful because of the types of game most people play.
Foe slayer is mathematically very sound. The to-hit option is huge, and the ability to apply it to what you need when you need it is very nice
Feral senses is good and made better by blind fighting. If you don’t like feral senses why would you choose blind fighting?
Vanish is very nice. The paladin and fighter don’t have anything mike this.
Hide in plain sight is very powerful. This is a two part ability that works like the wood elf and halfling trait but with a huge bonus.
Land’s stride is great but made even better by one or two of their spells.
Primeval awareness is very useful but always on would be a pain to adjudicate. As it is right now it gives you very valuable information with a level one spell slot. Nothing gives this much information for so little.
You are again saying how “the rogue can do this, the fighter can do this, the wizard can do this, and the druid can do this.” That is what makes the ranger powerful.
The ranger has little bits from lots of different classes and subclasses. The glass half empty approach is saying something like “The rogue gets that earlier.” The glass half full approach is “The fighter gets nothing like that.” And that applies to several classes. You’re arguing the ranger has no defining feature(s) that work on command, all the time, or all their own. I’m arguing that this is what makes them effective and fun to play. If you took away FE and NE the ranger would still be played by players. Apparently most players don’t need or use those anyway.
Nothing extreme about anything I have said. But yes, you have to resort to extreme scenarios for your perspective to work, because otherwise, you don't have an argument. Once again, you are taking everything in a vacuum, and you did even worse this time cause you took no consideration for the level at which you gain the later abilities.
Foe Slayer at level 1? Great ability. At level 20? Absolutely not. Compromise? Maybe put it around level 4-7 but it applies to any creature, not just your favored enemy. Not the only option to fix it, just one thought.
This applies to all of your counter-arguments. You just ignored all of the careful nuances I presented as if it doesn't even matter.
When I counter your arguments, I tell you WHY it refutes yours, I am very careful not to just make a statement that boils down to "nuh-uh, this is better" as you are prone to do.
I've explained many times why the "play it my way and it works" argument doesn't hold up. I do not know how to explain to you why that is the case if you don't get it already.
I’m sorry my retorts aren’t as well constructed as yours. It was awfully long. Foe slayer is a fine level 20 ability. Barbarians get a physical boost. Bards hey one use of their signature ability. The cleric gets the king of all DM reliant abilities (The DM chooses the nature of the intervention...”. Paladins get a one minute per long rest flashy ability. Fighters get an additional attack at level 20. And rogues get a nice little “make sure it works” ability. How is the ranger’s not on par with this, thematically and mechanically?
When you lay out what the ranger has over an given level range next to some other classes they hold up well. Rogue, paladin, fighter, and druid. The whole kit is solid. Each ability works well with many other abilities and spells, spells being something that is forgotten about with rangers. Fighters and rogues don’t have spells. Paladins use their spells for smites and healing. Druids have spells but not other abilities. Ranger’s spells are their abilities. Their spells make their FE and NE abilities great, their combat abilities great, their exploration and knowledge abilities great.
Foe Slayer is terrible for a capstone. If you are a Ranger you should absolutely multiclass for 1 level minimum, and Foe Slayer is the number 1 reason. Nearly 1 level of every other class is superior to having level 20 of Ranger, and many of them more than make up for delaying an ASI by a single level.
What you are absolutely correct about is that the Ranger's 5th level spells are their best gained abilities at high level. Just great spells, so why do people keep saying that the Ranger's higher levels are weak? My hypothesis is that a large portion of Ranger fans really don't want high level spells at all. They want a Hunter's Mark Style ability. They want some lower level stuff, but it seems that when valuing the class they don't value some absurdly good 5th level spells. How else do you explain the large contingent who values the Scout a thief subclass with no spells as "the best Ranger in the game"? Perhaps long term the best route on Ranger is to make them a 1/3 caster and boost the combat options.
When choosing to play a Ranger I never even looked at the details of their spells above 1st level, and didn't recognize most of the 5th level the first time I saw their names. I didn't choose to play a Ranger for those things. Finding out later that any Rogue who expertised survival was without ribbon abilities better at part of the Ranger's core identity is angering. Thankfully Tasha's fixes that problem and even gives you the choice to take something else. Realizing that Paladins get to choose from their whole spell list while you are starving for a variety of spells was equally as angering. The original hide in plain sight skill looked great until you read the fine print meaning that your 10th level ability took 1 minute to prep for. Tasha's again fixes that problem.
When you look at what Tasha's revision of the Ranger addresses you can clearly see responses to the complaints seen on this thread. The only thing they didn't address was levels 10 and up and if I had to guess their thought was that linking Favored Foe to Foe Slayer helped address the capstone and that the 4th and 5th level Ranger spells made up for any other weakness that was perceived.
If you are calculating damage output factoring in to-hit chance, especially with sharp shooter, foe slayer is great!
The scout rogue is terrible as a ranger. It is a subclass that dabbles in outdoors travel. Expertise in two skills doesn’t compare to the ranger’s abilities and spells. Plus, what little the rogue has in this department only helps them. The ranger helps the entire party. It’s not even close to a replacement.
Much of the ranger’s spells are concentration. This is a good thing, contrary to popular belief. A ranger keeps up concentration on one spell to step in time with paladins, fighters, barbarians, and rogues in combat. They don’t need as many spells known or prepared casting. It would be too much.
Hide in plain sight requires a minute of work beforehand. But then you can walk around with it ready to go when you need it. You lay flat against a surface and can hide with a +10! That’s amazing! By this level rangers aren’t slowed by difficult terrain and they remain alert while traveling so they can take this one minute of prep and easily keep up with the group. Any time a spellcaster casts a ritual spell or the party takes a short rest the ranger can do the prep for hide in plain sight.
The point on the Scout subclass is not that they ARE a better Ranger, but to a sizable contingent they are perceived to be. Also its not just expertise in two skills, a good Scout probably has expertise in Stealth, Survival, and Nature and one other Rogue skill from first level. A Scout tracking any enemy is better at it than the PHB Ranger tracking their favored enemy. That is a design problem. The Ranger's perceived weakness comes from multiple arenas. Some complain about the concentration and the limited spells, others complain about the situational ribbon abilities, others complain about the high level abilities being weak. But a sizable contingent would point to the Scout subclass. That tells me that most players want expertise in nature/survival/stealth related activities in their Ranger. They want the Ranger to be the best at that. That defines the Ranger to that group of players. So Tasha's gives them the chance to have that in one of those three skills.
You can argue that these perceived problems with the Ranger are wrong, but to me it just means that the PHB Ranger missed the expectations of a lot of fans. The complete rewrite of level 10 down in Tasha's (and the multiple attempts in UA to fix the Ranger) are a sign that WOTC to some extent agree.
If you asked me if the Ranger in the PHB was terrible I would say it was surprisingly good based on actually playing one, but that the abilities were problematic and aspects of the play were extremely frustrating. Post Tasha's I have found the play to be a little smoother and a little easier to manage. I prefer rolling Survival with expertise but with the chance of failure over ribbon abilities that mean I always succeed but only in a limited terrain. From 1-10 the Ranger is fixed well enough for my tastes. I prefer the Primal Awareness spells to Primeval Awareness abilities because they allow me to use some of the fun Ranger spells that I would never be able to take with limited spells known. That adds back what I want from Ranger spell casting while still keeping the spells known mechanic. I am still jealous of the Scout's expertise, but I think that gap has been mostly closed and I was given the option to put that expertise in what I wanted my Ranger to be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I believe 100% that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the PHB ranger class and beast master subclass. I also believe that they’re not what people think they are. They’re not bad in the slightest. The majority of people don’t play the game the designers thought people would play. That’s it. In an exciting, combat focused, “skip to the good part” kind of game, which is most games, rangers don’t bring to the table the same stuff other classes do.
Having their abilities “on” all the time would completely negate exploration and survival.
I don't know how you can hold the idea that the Ranger is good as is as long as you have a DM that will work with you, but if the exploration abilities are always on a DM would not be able to account for such a scenario. Furthermore, exploration and survival are not currently negated in favored terrain, so why would they be negated in ALL terrains?
In no way have I ever said that campaigns need to "skip to the good part" nor that the good part is combat.
Folks talk about “needing a DM to work with you” or “rangers are only good if you meta game”. I’ve never had or been a DM that didn’t work with ALL the players to build a character that is not only fun to play but fits within the campaign and group. Waterborne campaign? Players tend to choose races with swim speeds, can hold their breath, or breath underwater. Undead campaign? Players with choose classes that deal radiant damage, and clerics, and paladins. Already a healer in the party? Pick something else. I don’t remember seeing anyone play a campaign that was a complete and utter mystery to the players. Playing Storm King’s Thunder? People will design with giants in mind. All of this happens all of the time. For a ranger it’s just two little things to start off.
"This is a heavy water-themed campaign" is not equivalent to "hey make sure my core, identity-defining class features won't be useless in your campaign."
Seeing as "always-on" exploration features are broken, why isn't a Ranger in a campaign that is set primarily in one terrain broken? By this logic, Rangers are OP in any single terrain setting. But if you're not against that, you shouldn't be against always on exploration for all terrains.
The cool thing about any themed campaign is that I don't HAVE to pick a class or abilities good against undead to be useful in an undead campaign. I don't HAVE to account for giants to be effective in Storm King's Thunder. (I played a Kenku Mastermind and had a blast, accomplishing exactly what I wanted to do with an inexperienced DM, taking ZERO account for giants and ZERO collaboration beforehand).
Sometimes the fun of the game is figuring how to apply your strengths in a less than ideal environment. Unless strengths are specifically tied to said environment.
You can also play with multiple healers in a group to great effect. I don't care if there is already a Cleric or Druid. All that means is we can both prepare a little less healing and explore the other exciting options of the classes a little more freely.
I have both been in and DM'd campaigns that were a mystery to the players. Foreknowledge is not a requirement for any campaign.
But a Ranger, unless you get lucky, REQUIRES that your DM knows what you picked for your features, or else you risk them not being used.
You said, “Sometimes the fun of the game is figuring how to apply your strengths in a less than ideal environment. Unless strengths are specifically tied to said environment.” That really is on point for me for this whole argument.
I don’t know why your ranger isn’t blasting through the travel and exploration. Are you making those part of the game? Rangers are as good as anyone when they aren’t in their favored terrain and better than anyone when they are. They are in their favored terrain more and more as time goes on. If for some reason they happen to pick a favored terrain that doesn’t exist in the campaign, ever, then there is still skills that can make use of their favored terrain. Nature checks about plants and animals that dwell in the terrain. History about their terrain. They get another on at 6 and 10. Even if they TOTALLY GET HOSED by their first choice, they’ll get two more and are an awesome fighter, control/healing/stealth/exploration caster, and linguist in the mean time.
Yes, I did say that. And it is not a point in favor of the Ranger's design.
When travel and exploration occurs, it doesn't take much IRL time to get through it.
In the most basic scenario, the party travels from point A to point B:
It doesn't take up a lot of real-life time to say you travel for X amount of time and Y happens.
You still keep resorting to "if things happen exactly this way" arguments to justify your position.
I hear what you are saying. But. A wizard doesn’t cast every spell they’ve prepared every game. Or ever. A rogue may never pick a lock. People don’t like the ranger’s abilities because they aren’t used as much or come up as often as rage, smite, sneak attack, or action surge. Just a different value system I guess.
If you play the game where any situation other than combat is resolved by a single die roll by a character you are sure to find the ranger underwhelming. It’s not anyone’s fault. Half of the player’s handbook is rules basically just for combat.
I’m telling you that rangers will never feel useless. Their kit is just too broad. Other more “powerful” classes feel like a demigod when they are doing their thing, and sit on their thumbs when they aren’t. A ranger is never like that.
I still have a problem with the idea that you have to chose a Favored enemy or a favored terrain from the setting. You set your self up for success with your options not relying on the module or the dm to throw them at you. Whenever I make a wisdom or intelligence check that I'm proficient in I ask the dm "is it related to (insert creature types for FE)?" and then "ask would my knowledge of (insert terrain) Help me?" a dm might say yes or no but eventually they will realize if they are short changing a ranger.
I usually choose FE Beasts because when tracking 75% of the time there is a beast involved. Animal handling checks almost always use beasts. Buy a mount or a pet for poison harvesting and you will find a way to use beast checks. look at the utility spells you take to see if there is a way to arrange the situation so you get those skill benefits.
As for favored terrain some of the features require you to be in the terrain but the double prof doesn't just "related" most fauna doesn't just grow in one terrain. Striges are from almost every terrain So any int or wis check related to stirges should give you double Prof. flying snakes are from Half the terrain types. Same with trees and bushes. town apothecaries have plants from almost every environment inside. Parks in the center of towns plant bushes that come from some terrain even though there is no urban option. Most adventurers would say you cant read footprints on stone path ways but a ranger from the mountains would understand reading scuffmarks or dust movement better than others.
Would a ranger from the swamp be better able to recognize the signs of a disease from Chult. even if they don't know the disease they would be better prepared for treating symptoms from the knowledge they have. Clerics get to assume the broad interpretation of their skills all the time with their medicine checks. If a ranger gets the same treatment its suddenly breaking the rules and its your fault for picking a useless ability. (insert sarcastic tone).
dnd 5e is designed to simplify things to a point where venom and poison isn't distinguished. So if a ranger says "I think my knowledge of .... should help me" in a specific situation he gets the benefit unless the dm can say "I have a reason that isn't true". Because at the end of the day, Its a non damage skill and there is still a roll involved and a chance of failure or success.
My ranger once walked up to a building with the smell of burning meat. I asked if i could try and identify the smell to see if it was human or food. the dm said sure. I then asked if it was related to beasts. every one laughed but in the end the argument was made that if it was a favored enemy was being cooked the ranger should be better at identifying it.
But a Wizard will cast a spell. And a rogue's lock picking is just one skill and the rogue will use some other skill or sneak attack virtually every session. Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are the only two abilities the Ranger gets at level 1 and may not even be useful in the situations they should because the wrong choices were made. You could go a whole campaign without using two defining features. I would also argue metagaming to pick the right terrain and foe to fit the module is not a solution I would ever go with. It's also not an argument in it's favor. Just because people do doesn't mean they should.
I really like the Ranger but I cannot overlook the areas that it missed the mark. The things it does right it does very well. However, saying that a ranger "will never feel useless" doesn't mean it's not without flaws.
All this said... Tasha's went a long way to fixing some of the issues many if us have with the ranger with the optional features presented. Those players that liked the old features are happy to play the OG ranger and those of us that found it frustrating have a lot to be excited about. I'd call it a win.
I completely agree with this.
That a Wizard still has other uses for their spell slots is very important. That a Rogue has something to do with their other features is important. And a Rogue is no longer required for lockpicking. Their defining features are Sneak Attack and Expertise, not lockpicking.
In regards to all tools and many other class features that are situational, you still don't have to talk to the DM to make it happen. In most of those cases, you can even choose to force the scenario which requires those features.
If I want to use my lockpicking skills, all I have to do is say "I wanna try to get into that building."
If I want to use my Alchemy or Herbalism Kit, I say "I'm going to take X amount of down-time working on potions."
No tool is as identity-defining for a class as its core features. Not even the artificer, who just needs ANY artisan's tool, thieve's tools are simply given more emphasis due to their more common usage in a typical dnd campaign than the other tools.
The only way to force a Ranger's core features is to travel to said terrain, or hunt said foe. You can't tell me your party and DM are going to be satisfied that my character never wants to leave the forest or derails every plot point cause I can smell when an orc farted two days ago.
I'm never upset that I can't use a Cleric's domain feature or a Wizard's specialization feature cause I can do so much more at any time, and I don't have to be in a specific place to do it. And when they are not combat-related features, most of the time I can still use any of those features in my character's downtime, or it is a passive effect, or I gained a new proficiency or spells known/prepared, or it takes up an insignificant amount of time compared to "I want to travel 5 days in-game to go back to the mountains and see if I can pick up on the trail of any dragons."
Every class's level one and/or two features essentially boil down to one of the following:
It's also weird to keep bringing up that Ranger's always have something to do. Everyone ALWAYS has something to do. But no one has their core, identity-defining class features negated because you weren't in the right terrain or interacting with the right enemy. They can't do anything outside of their terrain or foe that is unique to them. Any class can help any other class in anything.
The idea that any class "sits on their thumbs" when not doing their thing is ridiculous. They have so many other things available to them, just like the Ranger.
Earlier someone made a very brash assumption that I seem to have never played a Ranger or did it wrong. I still had fun with my 5e Rangers, because I and my fellow players and DM made it fun. I have an overall good experience with my Rangers, but that isn't because of the Ranger, that is because of me and the people I play with. It is DESPITE the Ranger's poor design that I had a good time. I was never useless. My core abilities were useless, and I could do nothing to change that without derailing the campaign or getting the DM to cater at least a portion of their campaign to me.
Every other class either has no concerns over whether or not their class features are going to be put to use (combat features), can force a scenario or utilize downtime to make use of their features, or their niche, highly situational features (turn undead) are accompanied by other very good, more versatile, less situational features. The vast majority of other features don't have to be catered to the extent of a Ranger's core abilities if at all.
There will always be combat.
A DM never has to cater to a Rogue for a stealth encounter. My Rogue can just decide "I want to try and sneak past the guard."
A DM never has to cater to a Bard for a song and dance routine. My Bard can just pick up his loot and provide inspiration or a song of rest on the spot.
A DM never has to cater to a Druid to turn into a dog. My Druid can use Wild Shape at any time.
If there is an early class feature that is as highly situational as the Ranger's and has nothing to make up for it then that is also a problem. I must also emphasize that the majority of these arguments are primarily in relation to levels 1 and 2, but we're getting to that.
But then maybe, MAYBE, the Ranger could make up for this at later levels. But we've already been through this. Foe Slayer and Feral Senses are among the worst features for their level. Both would be more acceptable at much, MUCH lower levels. The complaints should never be taken in a vacuum, which you frequently do when saying the Ranger is fine. The class AS A WHOLE has too many shortcomings compared to other classes.
The Ranger can maintain decent damage, even some of the highest damage with very specific builds, but they always fall short with many outright bad features, and the idea of them having "the versatility to fit any role the party is missing" doesn't hold weight when they are still significantly underpowered (not just a little underpowered) in all of those roles with all of their higher level unique features being trash.
Foe Slayer competes with a low-level Rogue's Sneak Attack and is surpassed by Sneak Attack at the first improvement.
Now Feral Senses is surpassed by Blind Fighting at level 2 within its own class, let alone any other class with a fighting style or who takes a feat for it. Granted, I still try to avoid including Tasha's, this is just such a glaring example of how bad Feral Senses was for its level, and even without Blind Fighting, this level 18 feature is not worth the time and investment when See Invisibilty is a second level spell.
Vanish at level 14? When Rogues get Cunning Action at 2. When Druids, Trickery Clerics, and Rangers get Pass Without A Trace at levels 3 or 5. When invisibility EXISTS.
Hide in Plain Sight at level 10. The idea is great. It seems like with this one ability they were really going for the realism and immersion aspect of such a mundane yet possibly powerful, nonmagical ability. But it just doesn't work for pretty much the same reasons as Vanish except for ALSO taking 10 minutes. Do you remember that the 3rd edition Hide in Plain sight was being able to take the hide action in natural environments even while being observed? What was wrong with that? (I'm not saying this makes 3rd edition Ranger particularly good, WotC has had a Ranger problem for a long time and it is telling that they keep making much of the same mistakes).
Land's Stride is good as is and at that level. An always-on effect comparable to Freedom of Movement which costs a spell slot for full casters of the same level, and it was paired with an ASI which rarely happens. If this was at any higher level and was not paired with another good feature, it wouldn't be so good. It would not be game-breaking for it to be one or two levels lower.
Primeval Awareness. Costs a spell slot. Gives you effectively useless information. Someone tried to make an argument in favor of PA because a mile is twenty minutes in a straight line. That means absolutely nothing in this context. PA doesn't give the location, distance, or number. It just says "yep, there's a dragon somewhere within a 20-minute walk." Assuming no obstruction like in a city. Of course, if there were no obstructions, then you could see a dragon if it was just sitting a mile away. No accounting for it being in disguise.
Primeval Awareness could be an always-on ability for all the good its information does, but it is as simple as giving uses per day equal to your WIS mod or proficiency bonus, and saying something like 1 minute gives you presence, 5 minutes gives you a number, 10 minutes gives you general direction though you don't maintain that knowledge when not focusing on this feature unless it is your favored enemy.
And in that instance, it is just BARELY good enough because you got it at a level where you also gain your archetype.
Also, locate creature exists. Scry exists. So many low level spells used on their own or in conjunction with each other easily surpass spending a spell slot on PA and provide so much better information. In many cases, a skill challenge and a bit of roleplay provides more useful information, and maybe even the exact information like "yeah there's a dryad living in a grove in the woods. Yeah go about a mile outside the city, follow the creek until reach the monolith then head North. Can't miss it."
But I get another favored terrain. Another favored enemy. HOPEFULLY, you pick the right ones. HOPEFULLY, the campaign doesn't go in a direction that takes you away from your new and old terrains, and that your new and old favored enemies aren't replaced by a different common foe. and EVEN IF this all lines up, that still doesn't make up for EVERY OTHER BAD DESIGN of the Ranger.
The Ranger has nothing at level 1 or 2 that makes up for the highly situational nature of their core, identity-defining features. Made EVEN WORSE in that the rest of their class's features fail to make up for these poorly designed features as well.
You cannot keep saying the Ranger is good for the reasons you do. It doesn't hold up. Your arguments in support of the Ranger don't exist in a vacuum.
"The Ranger can do other stuff" yeah so can everybody.
"The Ranger can fill any missing role" only if you build them a certain way and aside from damage they don't fill any other role to a satisfactory degree while also having lackluster unique features.
"No other class can fill the Ranger's unique roles" I highly disagree. First and foremost for the reasons already pointed out, but because the incredibly rare situations where it would be really nice to have a Ranger are so easily worked around or it isn't such a big detriment to wait. The bad guy got away? Ok, we have a better chance of tracking him with a Ranger, but it is rarely such a big deal that the Ranger is rarely missed. And talking about a DM that prepares an adventure with the Ranger in mind, the same goes true for preparing a campaign WITHOUT a Ranger in mind. A good DM is going to account for their being no Ranger to track the bad guy that got away. This doesn't change the fact that the Ranger is poorly designed.
"The Ranger just needs to do a little more preparation ahead of time." What's stopping any party from doing more preparation without a Ranger? Going on a trip? Pack enough food just in case. I've lost track of how many times a DM ignores food for travel because it just wastes time unless the DM prepares a special plot point for it. And the thing is, I often do make such scenarios. It is just so simple of a workaround whether it means just general preparation, or you happen to have someone with the Outlander feature and/or high survival check. The Ranger's foraging and traveling benefits are not such an incredible boon over alternatives to make it such a spectacular ability to be excited about.
And then the core features just become more and more ineffectual as more convenient magical means become available. At low levels, you might speed up our traveling pace. That's nice, but wait till we can teleport.
I still don't talk as much about subclasses, but the reasons here can be made in a more general sense.
The base Rogue is good. The base Druid, Wizard, Warlock, Paladin are good. I do have some issues with the base Fighter, but overall it is satisfactory. All of the base classes are satisfactory or good aside from the Ranger.
When you introduce a subclass, you then primarily take it on its own merits, with a little consideration for how it fits with the main class. The Gloom Stalker and Horizon Walker are good, but you put it on a bad class, so it doesn't compare when the Diviner is good and you put it on the also good base Wizard. You can reasonably equate the ok Champion, putting it on the ok Fighter, and you're still left at least a little more satisfied than the bad Beastmaster put on the bad Ranger.
You can't count on subclasses making up for the faults in a poorly designed base class. The subclasses themselves may be good or bad, it is not universally true that the subclass will make up for the Ranger's faults. If all of the Ranger subclasses were amazing, flawless, that still doesn't excuse bad design for the main class.
This is a false statement. You are only taking a small portion of the abilities text into account and ignoring others. This is borderline Gaslighting.
Don't do that. Don't take the smallest, not very well written statement out of that ENTIRE post to jump on and act as if the statement itself holds no merit.
It is not a small portion. The ENTIRETY of each ability can only be used in relation to a terrain type or creature type.
I have acknowledged and expressed elsewhere scenarios where being outside of your terrain doesn't negate every possible use of NE.
Do I have to make an addendum to say "The only way to force a majority Ranger's core features" out of that entire post and do say every time I talk about it?
How about asking for a simple clarification, what do I mean by this?
The part in bold can be used anywhere. the part in italics, the entirety of the more substantial features of NE, can ONLY be used while within your favored terrain. This is not a small part. Otherwise, you have between an extra +2 to +6 on specific skill checks. So, alright, you can force a knowledge check when you want to figure out some information relating to your terrain or enemy. You get an extra language (if they speak one).
These incredibly niche, highly situational utilities are not enough on their own. I cannot recall any time a class gets the equivalent of proficiency or expertise by itself, and I have already explained why the rest of NE or FE doesn't compare to the more substantial features given to other classes.
Then what do I mean by "forcing" tracking. That was a poor word choice in relation to tracking a favored enemy. But wherever I am in a game, if I say "I want to find out if there are any illithid nearby" and there aren't any, my core ability is useless at that moment.
Well, if you want to break into a building with your expertise in thieve's tools and there are no buildings around, that ability is useless, too. /sarcasm (because that would be a false equivalency)
EDIT: A new realization. You learn a language IF your favored enemy speaks one.
Pretty sure RAI applies to only the giant avians being viable options.
Korbin_Orion, you are presenting extreme situations in response to my extreme situations. There is no way a ranger will go an entire campaign without using their NE and FE abilities. Most other class abilities exist or escalate upward. The ranger’s core abilities broaden. You are making it very clear to me that you aren’t playing games that use these types of situations to begin with. This is the “problem” with rangers. The expectation that WotC had regarding the types of games people did and/or would play. That is what missed the mark. WotC’s building the ranger for a game. Paladins are very powerful because of the types of game most people play.
Foe slayer is mathematically very sound. The to-hit option is huge, and the ability to apply it to what you need when you need it is very nice
Feral senses is good and made better by blind fighting. If you don’t like feral senses why would you choose blind fighting?
Vanish is very nice. The paladin and fighter don’t have anything mike this.
Hide in plain sight is very powerful. This is a two part ability that works like the wood elf and halfling trait but with a huge bonus.
Land’s stride is great but made even better by one or two of their spells.
Primeval awareness is very useful but always on would be a pain to adjudicate. As it is right now it gives you very valuable information with a level one spell slot. Nothing gives this much information for so little.
You are again saying how “the rogue can do this, the fighter can do this, the wizard can do this, and the druid can do this.” That is what makes the ranger powerful.
The ranger has little bits from lots of different classes and subclasses. The glass half empty approach is saying something like “The rogue gets that earlier.” The glass half full approach is “The fighter gets nothing like that.” And that applies to several classes. You’re arguing the ranger has no defining feature(s) that work on command, all the time, or all their own. I’m arguing that this is what makes them effective and fun to play. If you took away FE and NE the ranger would still be played by players. Apparently most players don’t need or use those anyway.
Nothing extreme about anything I have said. But yes, you have to resort to extreme scenarios for your perspective to work, because otherwise, you don't have an argument. Once again, you are taking everything in a vacuum, and you did even worse this time cause you took no consideration for the level at which you gain the later abilities.
Foe Slayer at level 1? Great ability. At level 20? Absolutely not. Compromise? Maybe put it around level 4-7 but it applies to any creature, not just your favored enemy. Not the only option to fix it, just one thought.
This applies to all of your counter-arguments. You just ignored all of the careful nuances I presented as if it doesn't even matter.
When I counter your arguments, I tell you WHY it refutes yours, I am very careful not to just make a statement that boils down to "nuh-uh, this is better" as you are prone to do.
I've explained many times why the "play it my way and it works" argument doesn't hold up. I do not know how to explain to you why that is the case if you don't get it already.
I’m sorry my retorts aren’t as well constructed as yours. It was awfully long. Foe slayer is a fine level 20 ability. Barbarians get a physical boost. Bards hey one use of their signature ability. The cleric gets the king of all DM reliant abilities (The DM chooses the nature of the intervention...”. Paladins get a one minute per long rest flashy ability. Fighters get an additional attack at level 20. And rogues get a nice little “make sure it works” ability. How is the ranger’s not on par with this, thematically and mechanically?
When you lay out what the ranger has over an given level range next to some other classes they hold up well. Rogue, paladin, fighter, and druid. The whole kit is solid. Each ability works well with many other abilities and spells, spells being something that is forgotten about with rangers. Fighters and rogues don’t have spells. Paladins use their spells for smites and healing. Druids have spells but not other abilities. Ranger’s spells are their abilities. Their spells make their FE and NE abilities great, their combat abilities great, their exploration and knowledge abilities great.
A ranger can do whatever needs to be done.
Foe Slayer is terrible for a capstone. If you are a Ranger you should absolutely multiclass for 1 level minimum, and Foe Slayer is the number 1 reason. Nearly 1 level of every other class is superior to having level 20 of Ranger, and many of them more than make up for delaying an ASI by a single level.
What you are absolutely correct about is that the Ranger's 5th level spells are their best gained abilities at high level. Just great spells, so why do people keep saying that the Ranger's higher levels are weak? My hypothesis is that a large portion of Ranger fans really don't want high level spells at all. They want a Hunter's Mark Style ability. They want some lower level stuff, but it seems that when valuing the class they don't value some absurdly good 5th level spells. How else do you explain the large contingent who values the Scout a thief subclass with no spells as "the best Ranger in the game"? Perhaps long term the best route on Ranger is to make them a 1/3 caster and boost the combat options.
When choosing to play a Ranger I never even looked at the details of their spells above 1st level, and didn't recognize most of the 5th level the first time I saw their names. I didn't choose to play a Ranger for those things. Finding out later that any Rogue who expertised survival was without ribbon abilities better at part of the Ranger's core identity is angering. Thankfully Tasha's fixes that problem and even gives you the choice to take something else. Realizing that Paladins get to choose from their whole spell list while you are starving for a variety of spells was equally as angering. The original hide in plain sight skill looked great until you read the fine print meaning that your 10th level ability took 1 minute to prep for. Tasha's again fixes that problem.
When you look at what Tasha's revision of the Ranger addresses you can clearly see responses to the complaints seen on this thread. The only thing they didn't address was levels 10 and up and if I had to guess their thought was that linking Favored Foe to Foe Slayer helped address the capstone and that the 4th and 5th level Ranger spells made up for any other weakness that was perceived.
If you are calculating damage output factoring in to-hit chance, especially with sharp shooter, foe slayer is great!
The scout rogue is terrible as a ranger. It is a subclass that dabbles in outdoors travel. Expertise in two skills doesn’t compare to the ranger’s abilities and spells. Plus, what little the rogue has in this department only helps them. The ranger helps the entire party. It’s not even close to a replacement.
Much of the ranger’s spells are concentration. This is a good thing, contrary to popular belief. A ranger keeps up concentration on one spell to step in time with paladins, fighters, barbarians, and rogues in combat. They don’t need as many spells known or prepared casting. It would be too much.
Hide in plain sight requires a minute of work beforehand. But then you can walk around with it ready to go when you need it. You lay flat against a surface and can hide with a +10! That’s amazing! By this level rangers aren’t slowed by difficult terrain and they remain alert while traveling so they can take this one minute of prep and easily keep up with the group. Any time a spellcaster casts a ritual spell or the party takes a short rest the ranger can do the prep for hide in plain sight.
The point on the Scout subclass is not that they ARE a better Ranger, but to a sizable contingent they are perceived to be. Also its not just expertise in two skills, a good Scout probably has expertise in Stealth, Survival, and Nature and one other Rogue skill from first level. A Scout tracking any enemy is better at it than the PHB Ranger tracking their favored enemy. That is a design problem. The Ranger's perceived weakness comes from multiple arenas. Some complain about the concentration and the limited spells, others complain about the situational ribbon abilities, others complain about the high level abilities being weak. But a sizable contingent would point to the Scout subclass. That tells me that most players want expertise in nature/survival/stealth related activities in their Ranger. They want the Ranger to be the best at that. That defines the Ranger to that group of players. So Tasha's gives them the chance to have that in one of those three skills.
You can argue that these perceived problems with the Ranger are wrong, but to me it just means that the PHB Ranger missed the expectations of a lot of fans. The complete rewrite of level 10 down in Tasha's (and the multiple attempts in UA to fix the Ranger) are a sign that WOTC to some extent agree.
If you asked me if the Ranger in the PHB was terrible I would say it was surprisingly good based on actually playing one, but that the abilities were problematic and aspects of the play were extremely frustrating. Post Tasha's I have found the play to be a little smoother and a little easier to manage. I prefer rolling Survival with expertise but with the chance of failure over ribbon abilities that mean I always succeed but only in a limited terrain. From 1-10 the Ranger is fixed well enough for my tastes. I prefer the Primal Awareness spells to Primeval Awareness abilities because they allow me to use some of the fun Ranger spells that I would never be able to take with limited spells known. That adds back what I want from Ranger spell casting while still keeping the spells known mechanic. I am still jealous of the Scout's expertise, but I think that gap has been mostly closed and I was given the option to put that expertise in what I wanted my Ranger to be.