I’d rewrite the abilities to be more specific and less open to interpretation. D&D players don’t do well with nonspecific things. For the record, I’m PRO player’s handbook ranger, all the way.
The PHB ranger is filled with newb-trap options. The class abilities are poorly designed, and focus on parts of the game that are often ignored. There's often considered very little reason to go past level 7 for many rangers. Mathematically, rangers are fine, but they require informed decisions, perhaps more than any other class. for new players, making informed decisions is hard, and the "coolest" options often do not work the best.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Numbers-wise the class is perfectly fine if you make smart decisions. However, several of the base class features are very situational or DM-dependent, or simply just poorly designed. Favored enemy and natural explorer are situational, while primeval awareness and hide in plain sight are just garbage. I highly recommend using the optional class features released in TCoE. Favored foe and deft explorer are far less situational so they are suited to all types of campaigns, and primal awareness and nature's veil are vastly superior to their counterparts.
The classic image of a Ranger for many people involved dual wielding weapons, like a pair of scimitars for example.
That doesn't mechanically work so well, because the Ranger relies on using their bonus action for spells such as Hunter's Mark, preventing them using their secondary weapon.
This can be difficult to get to grips with for people and it's fairly easy to choose features/spells for your Ranger character that all require bonus actions are hard to use together.
Personally, I love rangers, but you have to be careful with them.
I have to say that the PHB ranger abilities are not garbage. Situational, yes. Just like many abilities that other classes have, especially non-combat abilities, which is what most of the baseline rangers abilities are. They are abilities that assume a certain few things from the game you are playing that many people, especially people that like to post on the internet, don’t like to do. If you are playing D&D with the full intent and design of the game rangers are great. Even in combat heavy, DDAL style, or “skip to the action” kind of games, rangers do really well. Mechanically sound, effective, and fun to play.
Mechanically, I think rangers are fine. Good, even, under the right circumstances. The PHB doesn't go into a lot of detail on this, but how the game is played can generally be broken down into what are referred to as 3 pillars: combat, exploration, and social interaction. Everyone is capable of combat, and the ranger performs admirably. It also performs differently than most others, which should come as no surprise, to the point where a lot of its features are viewed as being situational. The thing is, every class is packaged that way. The cleric and paladin have a Channel Divinity feature that won't always be useful, but when they do they're great tools to have.
The single biggest complaint with the PHB ranger is, in my experience, the "squishyness" of the beast master's animal companion. And this is somewhat true, as companions probably don't get enough hit points. They certainly don't get enough hit dice. I do think companions are a bit under-tuned, but mathematically they check out. Their bonuses typically elevate them from CR 1/8 or 1/4 to CR 1. And by the endgame, they float around CR 5 to CR 6. Even the seemingly lackluster pony can wear plate barding to become a mobile tank for a smaller character like a gnome or halfling. Any rider effects, like the ability of a wolf to knock an enemy prone, don't improve, and that is a glaring weakness.
The second big complaint is about how so many of the ranger's features explicitly tie into the non-combat pillars. Favored Enemy is a source of gathering information and negotiations. The ranger's lack any Charisma skills proficiencies, like Persuasion, but they tend to have strong Wisdom and have Insight on their list. They work well as silent observers, picking up any dialogue that others in the party might not understand, and reading intentions. This can then be communicated to the rest of the group. Natural Explorer is designed to aid the party in venturing off the beaten path. Roads might be patrolled and safer, but they might not be desirable. Speed may be of the essence, or maybe they just need to leave civilization. A monster terrorizing a village probably won't be hanging out near a roadside tavern. They may need to be tracked.
These are also pillars of the game that a lot of people, for whatever reason, don't like. I don't think they represent a majority of the player base, but they're certainly vocal about it.
Every class has a story to accompany their mechanics. Some lean more heavily into that story than others. I think rangers fall into this camp, and playing them well means thinking in those terms. It also requires a Dungeon Master who will design and run encounters that let the ranger's abilities shine. Ideally, there should be something for everyone.
Lots of underwhelming/bad features, and underwhelming for various reasons.
The argument that some of them, Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, and Primeval Awareness, are situational gets dismissed saying that all classes have situational features. This is a false equivalency.
Primeval Awareness is an exceptionally bad feature considering how useless the information gained is, even if you want to know that information, and you have to sacrifice the Ranger's already limited spell slots (compare with Paladin) that can be used for much more powerful/useful effects.
These are very poorly designed, incredibly niche, identity-defining features that are either the only features you gain for that level or are paired with other very underwhelming/bad features. You don't even get more spells or an increased proficiency bonus at any level in which you get improvements to these features.
Barbarians and Fighters have almost exclusively combat-based features. So, situationally, they are only good in combat. This is not a fair comparison considering how often you get into combat, and just how incredibly good those classes and features are in combat.
A Paladin and Cleric's Channel Divinity is situational. Except that the vast majority of them are good effects, sometimes they have much more power or much more versatility, and are always at levels where they are accompanied by other good features, whether it be a Divine Domain Feature, Divine Health, or more spell slots (which are always powerful/versatile). Channel Divinity also uses its own resources instead of requiring a spell slot, those uses are refreshed at every rest, and the Cleric gains more use between rests as they level.
I can continue but I hope you see my point.
An argument was also made that the Ranger's features make some assumptions about the game you are playing. No other core class features require that assumption. In every other class I can make a character as I envision and their core, identity-defining features will never be put to question as to whether or not they will be satisfying, useful, and effective.
I don't have to hope there will be a use for my Bardic Inspiration, or my Rage, or my Wild Shape. I don't have to have an equivalent conversation with the DM to ask something like "Hey, does your campaign have a lot of giants to kill, and will we be frequently traveling through the mountains?" with any other class.
Look at the class-defining features for every class at 1st and 2nd level. Every single one except for the Ranger's Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy is either very powerful, versatile (this includes the potential frequency of use), and/or paired with other, often unique abilities to make up for anything it is lacking. NE and FE are not powerful, the benefits they provide are not such a huge boon that they stand out above not having them. They are not versatile, cannot be used anywhere at any time. They are not paired with any other good abilities. They are niche, useful utility features. They are the kind of features you pair with other more powerful or versatile features.
Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy are good enough features if they were not core, identity-defining along with being the only features you get at their levels or paired with other bad features. A Clerics Turn Undead is similarly situational and is generally something you think of when you think Cleric, much like when you think ranger you think traversing the wilds and hunting enemies. However, Turn Undead is paired with other good features at the level you get it and when it gets more powerful it is still paired with increased spellcasting.
You get no extra spells at any level where you gain Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, or their improvements. At later levels, they are paired with Hide in Plain Sight and Vanish. Both features are too little too late and are individually surpassed by much lower-level spells or class features.
Multiclassing as a whole is very powerful for pretty much any combination of classes, that seems to be widely accepted. But when your level 14 class feature can be surpassed in 7 levels of multiclassing, on top of all of the dead levels of Ranger before level 14 and the other 1st level features of Rogue, it is an incredibly badly designed feature.
The Ranger is given less spellcasting versatility than the Paladin, the only other Half Caster. Rangers know between 2 and 11 spells that cannot change until they level. Paladins can prepare half their level plus their CHA mod every day, and they can change prepared spells every day. The original Ranger subclasses had no bonus spells, though they seem to have given every new subclass bonus spells so that for those specific instances this is not an issue. All Paladin subclasses have bonus spells.
EVEN THEN the Ranger subclasses only get 1 bonus spell at each spellcasting level whereas the Paladin gets 2.
The Paladin also has extra versatility; good, useful versatility in that they may sacrifice a spell slot for extra damage. You don't decide to use Divine Smite until AFTER you hit, so you ALWAYS get the extra damage if you decide to use it. The Ranger has Primeval Awareness, which I already discussed.
All of the Full Casters have quality, substantial features related to spellcasting to make up for the discrepancies in their spellcasting abilities. My Sorcerer never feels like he is falling behind Wizard, my Cleric is never falling behind the Druid, because they have their unique ways of utilizing their spellcasting, gaining spells, or similar features that hold up to each other. Even the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster were given exactly the same spells known aside from AT's getting Mage Hand for free, but that is made up for the EK's other features. This is not the case for the Ranger when compared to the Paladin.
Land's Stride is one of the few good features for its level. It is essentially like always having a weaker Freedom of Movement spell active which Full Casters gain at the same level. Not good enough to be the only ability you get which is why I am satisfied it is paired with an ASI, one of the very few instances where anything is paired with an ASI.
I used to think Feral Senses was an ok feature that could stand to go a few levels lower, but now we have the Blind fighting style available to Rangers at level 2. Even if a second level Ranger took a different fighting style, it is still a far better decision to take a level of Fighter at any point for Blind Fighting and Second Wind rather than go to 18 in Ranger if you want that ability.
Not all capstone abilities are great (I think they should all be great). Some capstones are a bit underwhelming to make up for overwhelming features throughout the rest of the class. But then you have the Druid, who is very powerful through their entire progression on top of having one of the most powerful capstones in the game. Compared with the Ranger who is significantly underwhelming throughout their entire progression and their capstone is Foe Slayer.
I have no problem making Foe Slayer as is a level 1 ability and changing nothing else about the class and the Ranger would be significantly improved even if still a bit underwhelming. If I were to fix all of the other problems I have mentioned I would probably put it at around level 4 as is, and level 6-9 if I took away the restriction that it only affects your favored enemy. Then try to come up with a new capstone.
I'm not even going to bother with the subclasses other than to say BM is horrible, Hunter needs only a little work and I am generally satisfied with the new ones though not exactly excited about them.
A lot of people will try to say that each individual point is not such a big deal, and in a vacuum, they usually are not. When you have so many features that are bad, underpowered, lacking in utility, easily surpassed by other common and easy to use abilities at lower levels and/or not paired with something more powerful, you have a bad class.
Well, Korbin_Orion pretty much summed up the internet’s complaints of the ranger class. You’ll find a small contingent of folks that have actually played the ranger and know how solid it is and fun it is to play. Mathematically the beast master is right on par with other martial classes. Please do the math for yourself. Not single turn nova stuff, but actually adventuring day, multiple rounds of multiple combats with actual time between short rests and long rests. The ranger’s abilities fit the game very well. All of it is a very far cry from “Me hit creature with sword. Creature die now. Me fight good!” If you only compare the ranger to pure fighting classes, they do great! If you only compare the ranger to pure knowledge classes, they do great! If you try to compare the ranger to exploration classes, well, nothing else comes close to rangers. They have a tool kit that is unique. But if you don’t use it, want to use it, or know how to use it, it won’t be something you’ll like.
The classic image of a Ranger for many people involved dual wielding weapons, like a pair of scimitars for example.
That doesn't mechanically work so well, because the Ranger relies on using their bonus action for spells such as Hunter's Mark, preventing them using their secondary weapon.
This can be difficult to get to grips with for people and it's fairly easy to choose features/spells for your Ranger character that all require bonus actions are hard to use together.
Personally, I love rangers, but you have to be careful with them.
But once you get to level 5 and pick up extra attack, you can still attack with both weapons as extra attack doesn't require you to make the attack with the same weapon so you can attempt attack 1 with main hand, attempt attack 2 with off hand and if you choose to you can again try off hand as a bonus action or use your bonus action to cast a spell etc.
I suppose I have to clarify that my entire post contains my own complaints and that I have played the Ranger myself.
"If you do this, it is good, if you compare it this way it is good."
This type of mental gymnastics is not necessary to determine that any other class is good, fun, and satisfying.
And not every class is for every person. If you go through all the races, classes, and backgrounds in the PHB, not including subraces, subclasses, and other variants, there are 1,404 different combinations. Baskin Robbins sells 31 flavors for a reason.
Heck, not every class is for every prewritten module. Some, inherently, get more out of it than others. A ranger's NE won't do jack in The Sunless Citadel, but their FE can. (If your DM isn't giving advantage on Charisma-based skills when you speak in the recipient's language, they're shortchanging you.) By the same token, if you want to get the most out of all the spell scrolls in that adventure, you need a light domain cleric and a wizard. That gets you everything but entangle, and there's a wand for that.
The class is front-loaded for exploration and social interaction, not for combat. That's okay. How often combat comes up depends on the game, so no one should hold their personal experience up as some kind of exemplar. We all have stories about how much certain things do or don't work. I had a player use Primeval Awareness while staying in Neverwinter and, according to the map, the entire city fit inside the radius. That said, a mile is only 20 minutes in a straight line. It's not that far. (I also have another player who put the Grappler feat to excellent use.) And the class still performs well enough in combat that it doesn't drag the fights down. It can even out-perform some other martial classes, like the paladin, under the right circumstances.
That said, I don't think "mental gymnastics" is helpful. DMs have a responsibility to run the game for everyone there. Sometimes that means tailoring encounters. Other times that might mean coaching players between sessions, cluing them on to things they can do or try. I'm a huge fan of keeping those lines of communication open, and I hope I'm not the only one.
1. The rest of the game caught up. Dual wielding isn't special anymore and everyone can do it. That makes the Ranger less special and doesn't get full dual wielding out of the box. In general the entire game is flattened to decrease the gap between the martial classes and everyone else in combat. That makes all the martial classes less special.
2. Being a half caster forces the game to flatten everything else they do. To make up for the spells they get their combat and tracker items squashed.
3. Their magic is significantly harder to manage than the Paladin. The get spells known instead of just preparing off their whole list. Their spells are great but you get so few of them. That is why in Xanathar's your subclass gives you free spells, and in Tasha's they gave you more free spells. On top of that a lot of their bread an butter spells require concentration which in a martial class is hard to maintain. So if you want to play a dual wielder you are going to lose concentration a lot. Favored Foe in Tasha's does a nice job of stretching those limited spell slots, but you are still tied up on concentration. So you end up burning your feats like a full caster on Warcaster, and Resilience instead of specializing more.
4. Too many disparate concepts of Ranger. Some will tell you that the Rogue/Scout is the best Ranger in the game, and from a woodsy outdoor fighter that is probably true. They get expertise and a ton of woodsy features, but they don't get spells. If you gave them spells you would have to turn those features down for balance. Then comes the Beastmaster. Having an entire creature to add to the party with abilities and hit points is extremely overpowering so its squashed and made less powerful. To try and package all of these concepts into one class means each one got weakened. Imagine a Beastmaster with no 5th level spells, you could really make that beast powerful at 20th level. The Scout shows us what A woodsman can be if the designers don't worry about having spells to balance.
5. The final class abilities just aren't that good. Level 20, once a turn you can add your wisdom modifier to hit? Really. Level 18, you can functionally see invisible which is a very, very niche application. Level 14, favored enemy a bonus to track a specific enemy but no attack bonuses (the entire original favored enemy is just too weak for words). Level 10, take one minute to hide in plain sight, and once you move you need to take another minute to hide. Functionally these abilities just aren't good and certainly not comparable to most of the classes.
Now hidden underneath that is a great class. The spells are great even with the limited uses, and Tasha's really bolster the class through level 10. Most of the new subclasses have some real power in their upper levels as well. Arguably a well designed Ranger is one of the more capable classes of milking every portion of the round (action, bonus, and reaction) and gaining value out of them. Additionally, if you really don't want the upper level abilities and spells you get most of the best Ranger features by 8-12th level, freeing you up to multiclass into a whole bunch of other things. But a well built Ranger Archer can do amazing things, and Gloom Stalkers are great, and tons of players can tell you tales of the Ranger just destroying a combat. Playing one can be frustrating when you burn up your bonus action and can't use an off hand attack or lose concentration on Hunter's Mark because a Kobold hit you.
I suppose I have to clarify that my entire post contains my own complaints and that I have played the Ranger myself.
"If you do this, it is good, if you compare it this way it is good."
This type of mental gymnastics is not necessary to determine that any other class is good, fun, and satisfying.
And not every class is for every person. If you go through all the races, classes, and backgrounds in the PHB, not including subraces, subclasses, and other variants, there are 1,404 different combinations. Baskin Robbins sells 31 flavors for a reason.
Heck, not every class is for every prewritten module. Some, inherently, get more out of it than others. A ranger's NE won't do jack in The Sunless Citadel, but their FE can. (If your DM isn't giving advantage on Charisma-based skills when you speak in the recipient's language, they're shortchanging you.) By the same token, if you want to get the most out of all the spell scrolls in that adventure, you need a light domain cleric and a wizard. That gets you everything but entangle, and there's a wand for that.
The class is front-loaded for exploration and social interaction, not for combat. That's okay. How often combat comes up depends on the game, so no one should hold their personal experience up as some kind of exemplar. We all have stories about how much certain things do or don't work. I had a player use Primeval Awareness while staying in Neverwinter and, according to the map, the entire city fit inside the radius. That said, a mile is only 20 minutes in a straight line. It's not that far. (I also have another player who put the Grappler feat to excellent use.) And the class still performs well enough in combat that it doesn't drag the fights down. It can even out-perform some other martial classes, like the paladin, under the right circumstances.
That said, I don't think "mental gymnastics" is helpful. DMs have a responsibility to run the game for everyone there. Sometimes that means tailoring encounters. Other times that might mean coaching players between sessions, cluing them on to things they can do or try. I'm a huge fan of keeping those lines of communication open, and I hope I'm not the only one.
Thank you for providing exactly the kind of argument I was talking about.
Here every point made goes to further show how much apologetics one has to do in order to dismiss legitimate problems with the Ranger.
They will take a few arguments against the Ranger in a vacuum, ignoring every other problem, and say something like "you have to do it this way," "under the right circumstances," or "well this other class has this which is useless here" and use that as the reason Ranger is fine as is.
I forgot about the argument of "not every class is for every character." This completely disregards that many people that actually WANT to play the Ranger and are still disappointed by it. This isn't a small number of people. Of course, everyone has stories about how something doesn't work. The Ranger has WAY more than any other class.
People seem to think you can't make objective criticisms of a class feature without playing every possible build in every possible scenario, you just didn't find the build that was right for you, or you weren't with the right DM. I have never played a 5e Artificer, Sorcerer, or Warlock, but I don't have to in order to recognize that there are a plethora of builds that would suit me and even with a bad DM I would still very much enjoy the character I made.
If someone likes the idea of the Ranger, makes a Ranger, and was generally satisfied with their experience that one time, they are the outlier. If someone likes the idea of a Cleric, makes a Cleric, and is generally dissatisfied with their experience, they are the outlier.
We're also talking about the Base Ranger and its subclasses here. "The Ranger is good if you multiclass" is an argument in favor of multiclassing and how powerful the other classes are, not an argument for the Ranger being fine as is.
Can someone explain why everyone says ranger is the worst or one of the worst classes? What could you do to make it better?
If you are going to go ranger, buy Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. It addresses most of the issues Korbin Orion raises (and he was correct on every point). Tasha's gave every class in the game some optional class features. It should tell you something that the Ranger got far and away the most optional features in the book. Use the optional class features and you'll have a much better time. Also, if you do go Beastmaster(BM) use the pets provided in Tasha's. It turns one of the worst subclasses in the game into a pretty good one.
TD;DR - Use Tasha's optional features if you want to play a Ranger. It fixes a lot of their issues.
Korbin mentions the weakness of the level 1 and 2 abilities. There are new optional features that replace them.
Deft Explorer replaces Natural Explorer
Level 1 - Canny. Basically you get expertise in one of your skills and you gain 2 languages.
Level 6 - Roving. Your speed increases by 5.
level 10 - Tiresless. You can give yourself temporary HP. It's not a lot of HP but you can do it out of combat and it lasts until you lose it. You can also remove a level of exhaustion with a short rest.
Not bad for a out of combat level 1 feature. It replaces something that is rarely useful in most campaigns. Your second level 1 ability replaces Favored Enemy. I hated this ability so much because you had to get so specific and be lucky enough to have one of your specific choices matter. Or just ask your DM what you should pick (which is just unfun).
Favored Foe
You can basically decide a specific target is your favored enemy and you can do a little extra damage every round to that enemy. It takes up your concentration which sucks but it's free damage. Rangers were already capable of doing good damage so they didn't need a huge bump here. Still... it's not a lot of damage past the first few levels.
You also get some new spells every level which is nice. It's free. You don't have to trade out any features for it.
The old feature Primeval Awareness was another one of those incredibly stupid features. You can spend a spell slot and find out if there are any of a list of creatures within 1 mile of you. It doesn't tell you where or how far or any other information other than, yep. This got replaced by some more spells that you can cast once per day without expending a slot.
Hide in Plain Sight was.. real weird. The situations where it's useful will rarely come up in a game and there are way better ways to hide yourself, like go invisible... Now you can as a bonus action thanks to that feature that replaces it; Nature's Veil . This is actually pretty cool.
Then there is the Beast Companion feature that replaces the Beast Master's Ranger Companion feature. That old feature was a mess and widely considered to be one of the worst if not the worst subclass in the game. It's amazing how a few small tweaks made it a really nice subclass. Before you had to use your action to have the pet attack (and you'd get an attack too if you had extra attack.) This was so bad. Most of the time the ranger would be doing more damage than the pet so the pet would just hang out in combat. It was such a stupid design. At level 11 the pet got a second attack so you'd attack once and it would attack twice using your action. The major problem is... the pet had the HP comparable to a wizard with 10 constitution... so yes. It dies real easy, especially by the time you get a second attack with it. Now.. how good was the change? First, you have 3 options for a companion instead of tons of crappy options from the DMG. Second, and most importantly, it now attacks using your bonus action. That means you're free to attack AND get some added damage from the pet. At level 11, you attack twice using your action, and your pet attacks twice using your bonus action. So much better. And that problem about low HP? Well the new pets have 25% more HP (Except for the Beast of the Air which has flight and flyby so hopefully it can stay out of the fray).
That is important. I have intentionally avoided talking about Tasha's because I have not studied it, and can't say any more than "it looks goods."
The exception being the Blind Fighting style. They took the Ranger's level 18 class feature, reduced the range, made it more powerful, and gave it to all classes with the Fighting Style feature. And yet there is no level 18 optional feature to make up for this. Feral Senses was never good enough to be the only feature for any class at level 18, and now you can get a more powerful version at level 1 or 2, or multiclass to Fighter at any time.
This goes to further highlight the shortcomings of the PHB Ranger.
To the person that started this thread, if you don’t understand why people don’t like the ranger then you are in the minority but the correct group. Hating the ranger is basically an internet meme at this point. The ranger plays well. Very well. Anyone who has played a ranger understands how much they offer to the game and how often they are involved in the game. People complain that a scout rogue has a better survival skill, a paladin can tank and heal better, a druid has better spell casting, wizards have a better “pet”, and a fighter can do more damage, but all of that should make it clear the kind of class the ranger is. Other than single target nova damage output, you never hear these other classes being compared to one another like that. The ranger touches each of these class’s concepts and does it respectfully as well as them. You will not ever play a ranger in an actual game at an actual table with other actual players and say to yourself “Man, I’ve got nothing to do in this situation.” It will never happen. A ranger is always useful to the game. No matter the environment, situation, or group. They can be built and played to highlight a particular set of skills if you like, but it’s neither here nor there. Rangers don’t have flashy abilities like smite, action surge, or sneak attack. Ranger don’t have a basic mechanic that you do all the time, every time, no matter what like fireball, rage, smite.
Dude, you and others really need to stop confusing subjective opinion with objective fact. No amount of apologetics went into that post. DMs have a responsibility to run the game for everyone there. If they don't, some people are going to be, and feel, left out. Not every scene is good for a barbarian, fighter, or rogue. Moments to shine may be fleeting, but everyone should have something to do. The ranger, as a hybrid class, is versatile and can plug in almost anywhere. Monks are similarly versatile.
The three pillars don't exist wholly independent from one another. They blend. You can kill a beastie, or you can negotiate with it. If you've been captured, you could organize an escape or negotiate a release all while listening in on their conversations when they don't think you can. If someone at the grocery store insults you in your non-native tongue, but you know their language anyway, then you know something they don't. Knowledge, information, as they say, is power.
Even the different backgrounds offer situational perks, but we don't ever talk about how they're bad.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think you think D&D should be some kind of Plug'n'Play experience. Sounds boring, to me.
Tasha's does a good job fixing the sub level 10 problems with the Ranger. The weak level 18 and 20 features are still there.
I have read before that with multiclassing a Ranger you go to level 5 and then take whatever your new class is to 15. That is a harsh indictment of the Ranger. After Tasha's and the subclasses from Xanathar's as well its probably good through 11 or 12. Maybe even 15.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can someone explain why everyone says ranger is the worst or one of the worst classes? What could you do to make it better?
A New DM up against the World
Also is the UA subclass drake warden good?
A New DM up against the World
I’d rewrite the abilities to be more specific and less open to interpretation. D&D players don’t do well with nonspecific things. For the record, I’m PRO player’s handbook ranger, all the way.
The PHB ranger is filled with newb-trap options. The class abilities are poorly designed, and focus on parts of the game that are often ignored. There's often considered very little reason to go past level 7 for many rangers. Mathematically, rangers are fine, but they require informed decisions, perhaps more than any other class. for new players, making informed decisions is hard, and the "coolest" options often do not work the best.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Numbers-wise the class is perfectly fine if you make smart decisions. However, several of the base class features are very situational or DM-dependent, or simply just poorly designed. Favored enemy and natural explorer are situational, while primeval awareness and hide in plain sight are just garbage. I highly recommend using the optional class features released in TCoE. Favored foe and deft explorer are far less situational so they are suited to all types of campaigns, and primal awareness and nature's veil are vastly superior to their counterparts.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersBonus actions.
The classic image of a Ranger for many people involved dual wielding weapons, like a pair of scimitars for example.
That doesn't mechanically work so well, because the Ranger relies on using their bonus action for spells such as Hunter's Mark, preventing them using their secondary weapon.
This can be difficult to get to grips with for people and it's fairly easy to choose features/spells for your Ranger character that all require bonus actions are hard to use together.
Personally, I love rangers, but you have to be careful with them.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I have to say that the PHB ranger abilities are not garbage. Situational, yes. Just like many abilities that other classes have, especially non-combat abilities, which is what most of the baseline rangers abilities are. They are abilities that assume a certain few things from the game you are playing that many people, especially people that like to post on the internet, don’t like to do. If you are playing D&D with the full intent and design of the game rangers are great. Even in combat heavy, DDAL style, or “skip to the action” kind of games, rangers do really well. Mechanically sound, effective, and fun to play.
Mechanically, I think rangers are fine. Good, even, under the right circumstances. The PHB doesn't go into a lot of detail on this, but how the game is played can generally be broken down into what are referred to as 3 pillars: combat, exploration, and social interaction. Everyone is capable of combat, and the ranger performs admirably. It also performs differently than most others, which should come as no surprise, to the point where a lot of its features are viewed as being situational. The thing is, every class is packaged that way. The cleric and paladin have a Channel Divinity feature that won't always be useful, but when they do they're great tools to have.
The single biggest complaint with the PHB ranger is, in my experience, the "squishyness" of the beast master's animal companion. And this is somewhat true, as companions probably don't get enough hit points. They certainly don't get enough hit dice. I do think companions are a bit under-tuned, but mathematically they check out. Their bonuses typically elevate them from CR 1/8 or 1/4 to CR 1. And by the endgame, they float around CR 5 to CR 6. Even the seemingly lackluster pony can wear plate barding to become a mobile tank for a smaller character like a gnome or halfling. Any rider effects, like the ability of a wolf to knock an enemy prone, don't improve, and that is a glaring weakness.
The second big complaint is about how so many of the ranger's features explicitly tie into the non-combat pillars. Favored Enemy is a source of gathering information and negotiations. The ranger's lack any Charisma skills proficiencies, like Persuasion, but they tend to have strong Wisdom and have Insight on their list. They work well as silent observers, picking up any dialogue that others in the party might not understand, and reading intentions. This can then be communicated to the rest of the group. Natural Explorer is designed to aid the party in venturing off the beaten path. Roads might be patrolled and safer, but they might not be desirable. Speed may be of the essence, or maybe they just need to leave civilization. A monster terrorizing a village probably won't be hanging out near a roadside tavern. They may need to be tracked.
These are also pillars of the game that a lot of people, for whatever reason, don't like. I don't think they represent a majority of the player base, but they're certainly vocal about it.
Every class has a story to accompany their mechanics. Some lean more heavily into that story than others. I think rangers fall into this camp, and playing them well means thinking in those terms. It also requires a Dungeon Master who will design and run encounters that let the ranger's abilities shine. Ideally, there should be something for everyone.
Lots of underwhelming/bad features, and underwhelming for various reasons.
The argument that some of them, Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, and Primeval Awareness, are situational gets dismissed saying that all classes have situational features. This is a false equivalency.
Primeval Awareness is an exceptionally bad feature considering how useless the information gained is, even if you want to know that information, and you have to sacrifice the Ranger's already limited spell slots (compare with Paladin) that can be used for much more powerful/useful effects.
These are very poorly designed, incredibly niche, identity-defining features that are either the only features you gain for that level or are paired with other very underwhelming/bad features. You don't even get more spells or an increased proficiency bonus at any level in which you get improvements to these features.
Barbarians and Fighters have almost exclusively combat-based features. So, situationally, they are only good in combat. This is not a fair comparison considering how often you get into combat, and just how incredibly good those classes and features are in combat.
A Paladin and Cleric's Channel Divinity is situational. Except that the vast majority of them are good effects, sometimes they have much more power or much more versatility, and are always at levels where they are accompanied by other good features, whether it be a Divine Domain Feature, Divine Health, or more spell slots (which are always powerful/versatile). Channel Divinity also uses its own resources instead of requiring a spell slot, those uses are refreshed at every rest, and the Cleric gains more use between rests as they level.
I can continue but I hope you see my point.
An argument was also made that the Ranger's features make some assumptions about the game you are playing. No other core class features require that assumption. In every other class I can make a character as I envision and their core, identity-defining features will never be put to question as to whether or not they will be satisfying, useful, and effective.
I don't have to hope there will be a use for my Bardic Inspiration, or my Rage, or my Wild Shape. I don't have to have an equivalent conversation with the DM to ask something like "Hey, does your campaign have a lot of giants to kill, and will we be frequently traveling through the mountains?" with any other class.
Look at the class-defining features for every class at 1st and 2nd level. Every single one except for the Ranger's Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy is either very powerful, versatile (this includes the potential frequency of use), and/or paired with other, often unique abilities to make up for anything it is lacking. NE and FE are not powerful, the benefits they provide are not such a huge boon that they stand out above not having them. They are not versatile, cannot be used anywhere at any time. They are not paired with any other good abilities. They are niche, useful utility features. They are the kind of features you pair with other more powerful or versatile features.
Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy are good enough features if they were not core, identity-defining along with being the only features you get at their levels or paired with other bad features. A Clerics Turn Undead is similarly situational and is generally something you think of when you think Cleric, much like when you think ranger you think traversing the wilds and hunting enemies. However, Turn Undead is paired with other good features at the level you get it and when it gets more powerful it is still paired with increased spellcasting.
You get no extra spells at any level where you gain Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, or their improvements. At later levels, they are paired with Hide in Plain Sight and Vanish. Both features are too little too late and are individually surpassed by much lower-level spells or class features.
Multiclassing as a whole is very powerful for pretty much any combination of classes, that seems to be widely accepted. But when your level 14 class feature can be surpassed in 7 levels of multiclassing, on top of all of the dead levels of Ranger before level 14 and the other 1st level features of Rogue, it is an incredibly badly designed feature.
The Ranger is given less spellcasting versatility than the Paladin, the only other Half Caster. Rangers know between 2 and 11 spells that cannot change until they level. Paladins can prepare half their level plus their CHA mod every day, and they can change prepared spells every day. The original Ranger subclasses had no bonus spells, though they seem to have given every new subclass bonus spells so that for those specific instances this is not an issue. All Paladin subclasses have bonus spells.
EVEN THEN the Ranger subclasses only get 1 bonus spell at each spellcasting level whereas the Paladin gets 2.
The Paladin also has extra versatility; good, useful versatility in that they may sacrifice a spell slot for extra damage. You don't decide to use Divine Smite until AFTER you hit, so you ALWAYS get the extra damage if you decide to use it. The Ranger has Primeval Awareness, which I already discussed.
All of the Full Casters have quality, substantial features related to spellcasting to make up for the discrepancies in their spellcasting abilities. My Sorcerer never feels like he is falling behind Wizard, my Cleric is never falling behind the Druid, because they have their unique ways of utilizing their spellcasting, gaining spells, or similar features that hold up to each other. Even the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster were given exactly the same spells known aside from AT's getting Mage Hand for free, but that is made up for the EK's other features. This is not the case for the Ranger when compared to the Paladin.
Land's Stride is one of the few good features for its level. It is essentially like always having a weaker Freedom of Movement spell active which Full Casters gain at the same level. Not good enough to be the only ability you get which is why I am satisfied it is paired with an ASI, one of the very few instances where anything is paired with an ASI.
I used to think Feral Senses was an ok feature that could stand to go a few levels lower, but now we have the Blind fighting style available to Rangers at level 2. Even if a second level Ranger took a different fighting style, it is still a far better decision to take a level of Fighter at any point for Blind Fighting and Second Wind rather than go to 18 in Ranger if you want that ability.
Not all capstone abilities are great (I think they should all be great). Some capstones are a bit underwhelming to make up for overwhelming features throughout the rest of the class. But then you have the Druid, who is very powerful through their entire progression on top of having one of the most powerful capstones in the game. Compared with the Ranger who is significantly underwhelming throughout their entire progression and their capstone is Foe Slayer.
I have no problem making Foe Slayer as is a level 1 ability and changing nothing else about the class and the Ranger would be significantly improved even if still a bit underwhelming. If I were to fix all of the other problems I have mentioned I would probably put it at around level 4 as is, and level 6-9 if I took away the restriction that it only affects your favored enemy. Then try to come up with a new capstone.
I'm not even going to bother with the subclasses other than to say BM is horrible, Hunter needs only a little work and I am generally satisfied with the new ones though not exactly excited about them.
A lot of people will try to say that each individual point is not such a big deal, and in a vacuum, they usually are not. When you have so many features that are bad, underpowered, lacking in utility, easily surpassed by other common and easy to use abilities at lower levels and/or not paired with something more powerful, you have a bad class.
Well, Korbin_Orion pretty much summed up the internet’s complaints of the ranger class. You’ll find a small contingent of folks that have actually played the ranger and know how solid it is and fun it is to play. Mathematically the beast master is right on par with other martial classes. Please do the math for yourself. Not single turn nova stuff, but actually adventuring day, multiple rounds of multiple combats with actual time between short rests and long rests. The ranger’s abilities fit the game very well. All of it is a very far cry from “Me hit creature with sword. Creature die now. Me fight good!” If you only compare the ranger to pure fighting classes, they do great! If you only compare the ranger to pure knowledge classes, they do great! If you try to compare the ranger to exploration classes, well, nothing else comes close to rangers. They have a tool kit that is unique. But if you don’t use it, want to use it, or know how to use it, it won’t be something you’ll like.
I suppose I have to clarify that my entire post contains my own complaints and that I have played the Ranger myself.
"If you do this, it is good, if you compare it this way it is good."
This type of mental gymnastics is not necessary to determine that any other class is good, fun, and satisfying.
But once you get to level 5 and pick up extra attack, you can still attack with both weapons as extra attack doesn't require you to make the attack with the same weapon so you can attempt attack 1 with main hand, attempt attack 2 with off hand and if you choose to you can again try off hand as a bonus action or use your bonus action to cast a spell etc.
And not every class is for every person. If you go through all the races, classes, and backgrounds in the PHB, not including subraces, subclasses, and other variants, there are 1,404 different combinations. Baskin Robbins sells 31 flavors for a reason.
Heck, not every class is for every prewritten module. Some, inherently, get more out of it than others. A ranger's NE won't do jack in The Sunless Citadel, but their FE can. (If your DM isn't giving advantage on Charisma-based skills when you speak in the recipient's language, they're shortchanging you.) By the same token, if you want to get the most out of all the spell scrolls in that adventure, you need a light domain cleric and a wizard. That gets you everything but entangle, and there's a wand for that.
The class is front-loaded for exploration and social interaction, not for combat. That's okay. How often combat comes up depends on the game, so no one should hold their personal experience up as some kind of exemplar. We all have stories about how much certain things do or don't work. I had a player use Primeval Awareness while staying in Neverwinter and, according to the map, the entire city fit inside the radius. That said, a mile is only 20 minutes in a straight line. It's not that far. (I also have another player who put the Grappler feat to excellent use.) And the class still performs well enough in combat that it doesn't drag the fights down. It can even out-perform some other martial classes, like the paladin, under the right circumstances.
That said, I don't think "mental gymnastics" is helpful. DMs have a responsibility to run the game for everyone there. Sometimes that means tailoring encounters. Other times that might mean coaching players between sessions, cluing them on to things they can do or try. I'm a huge fan of keeping those lines of communication open, and I hope I'm not the only one.
1. The rest of the game caught up. Dual wielding isn't special anymore and everyone can do it. That makes the Ranger less special and doesn't get full dual wielding out of the box. In general the entire game is flattened to decrease the gap between the martial classes and everyone else in combat. That makes all the martial classes less special.
2. Being a half caster forces the game to flatten everything else they do. To make up for the spells they get their combat and tracker items squashed.
3. Their magic is significantly harder to manage than the Paladin. The get spells known instead of just preparing off their whole list. Their spells are great but you get so few of them. That is why in Xanathar's your subclass gives you free spells, and in Tasha's they gave you more free spells. On top of that a lot of their bread an butter spells require concentration which in a martial class is hard to maintain. So if you want to play a dual wielder you are going to lose concentration a lot. Favored Foe in Tasha's does a nice job of stretching those limited spell slots, but you are still tied up on concentration. So you end up burning your feats like a full caster on Warcaster, and Resilience instead of specializing more.
4. Too many disparate concepts of Ranger. Some will tell you that the Rogue/Scout is the best Ranger in the game, and from a woodsy outdoor fighter that is probably true. They get expertise and a ton of woodsy features, but they don't get spells. If you gave them spells you would have to turn those features down for balance. Then comes the Beastmaster. Having an entire creature to add to the party with abilities and hit points is extremely overpowering so its squashed and made less powerful. To try and package all of these concepts into one class means each one got weakened. Imagine a Beastmaster with no 5th level spells, you could really make that beast powerful at 20th level. The Scout shows us what A woodsman can be if the designers don't worry about having spells to balance.
5. The final class abilities just aren't that good. Level 20, once a turn you can add your wisdom modifier to hit? Really. Level 18, you can functionally see invisible which is a very, very niche application. Level 14, favored enemy a bonus to track a specific enemy but no attack bonuses (the entire original favored enemy is just too weak for words). Level 10, take one minute to hide in plain sight, and once you move you need to take another minute to hide. Functionally these abilities just aren't good and certainly not comparable to most of the classes.
Now hidden underneath that is a great class. The spells are great even with the limited uses, and Tasha's really bolster the class through level 10. Most of the new subclasses have some real power in their upper levels as well. Arguably a well designed Ranger is one of the more capable classes of milking every portion of the round (action, bonus, and reaction) and gaining value out of them. Additionally, if you really don't want the upper level abilities and spells you get most of the best Ranger features by 8-12th level, freeing you up to multiclass into a whole bunch of other things. But a well built Ranger Archer can do amazing things, and Gloom Stalkers are great, and tons of players can tell you tales of the Ranger just destroying a combat. Playing one can be frustrating when you burn up your bonus action and can't use an off hand attack or lose concentration on Hunter's Mark because a Kobold hit you.
Thank you for providing exactly the kind of argument I was talking about.
Here every point made goes to further show how much apologetics one has to do in order to dismiss legitimate problems with the Ranger.
They will take a few arguments against the Ranger in a vacuum, ignoring every other problem, and say something like "you have to do it this way," "under the right circumstances," or "well this other class has this which is useless here" and use that as the reason Ranger is fine as is.
I forgot about the argument of "not every class is for every character." This completely disregards that many people that actually WANT to play the Ranger and are still disappointed by it. This isn't a small number of people. Of course, everyone has stories about how something doesn't work. The Ranger has WAY more than any other class.
People seem to think you can't make objective criticisms of a class feature without playing every possible build in every possible scenario, you just didn't find the build that was right for you, or you weren't with the right DM. I have never played a 5e Artificer, Sorcerer, or Warlock, but I don't have to in order to recognize that there are a plethora of builds that would suit me and even with a bad DM I would still very much enjoy the character I made.
If someone likes the idea of the Ranger, makes a Ranger, and was generally satisfied with their experience that one time, they are the outlier. If someone likes the idea of a Cleric, makes a Cleric, and is generally dissatisfied with their experience, they are the outlier.
We're also talking about the Base Ranger and its subclasses here. "The Ranger is good if you multiclass" is an argument in favor of multiclassing and how powerful the other classes are, not an argument for the Ranger being fine as is.
If you are going to go ranger, buy Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. It addresses most of the issues Korbin Orion raises (and he was correct on every point). Tasha's gave every class in the game some optional class features. It should tell you something that the Ranger got far and away the most optional features in the book. Use the optional class features and you'll have a much better time. Also, if you do go Beastmaster(BM) use the pets provided in Tasha's. It turns one of the worst subclasses in the game into a pretty good one.
TD;DR - Use Tasha's optional features if you want to play a Ranger. It fixes a lot of their issues.
Korbin mentions the weakness of the level 1 and 2 abilities. There are new optional features that replace them.
Not bad for a out of combat level 1 feature. It replaces something that is rarely useful in most campaigns. Your second level 1 ability replaces Favored Enemy. I hated this ability so much because you had to get so specific and be lucky enough to have one of your specific choices matter. Or just ask your DM what you should pick (which is just unfun).
You also get some new spells every level which is nice. It's free. You don't have to trade out any features for it.
The old feature Primeval Awareness was another one of those incredibly stupid features. You can spend a spell slot and find out if there are any of a list of creatures within 1 mile of you. It doesn't tell you where or how far or any other information other than, yep. This got replaced by some more spells that you can cast once per day without expending a slot.
Hide in Plain Sight was.. real weird. The situations where it's useful will rarely come up in a game and there are way better ways to hide yourself, like go invisible... Now you can as a bonus action thanks to that feature that replaces it; Nature's Veil . This is actually pretty cool.
Then there is the Beast Companion feature that replaces the Beast Master's Ranger Companion feature. That old feature was a mess and widely considered to be one of the worst if not the worst subclass in the game. It's amazing how a few small tweaks made it a really nice subclass. Before you had to use your action to have the pet attack (and you'd get an attack too if you had extra attack.) This was so bad. Most of the time the ranger would be doing more damage than the pet so the pet would just hang out in combat. It was such a stupid design. At level 11 the pet got a second attack so you'd attack once and it would attack twice using your action. The major problem is... the pet had the HP comparable to a wizard with 10 constitution... so yes. It dies real easy, especially by the time you get a second attack with it. Now.. how good was the change? First, you have 3 options for a companion instead of tons of crappy options from the DMG. Second, and most importantly, it now attacks using your bonus action. That means you're free to attack AND get some added damage from the pet. At level 11, you attack twice using your action, and your pet attacks twice using your bonus action. So much better. And that problem about low HP? Well the new pets have 25% more HP (Except for the Beast of the Air which has flight and flyby so hopefully it can stay out of the fray).
That is important. I have intentionally avoided talking about Tasha's because I have not studied it, and can't say any more than "it looks goods."
The exception being the Blind Fighting style. They took the Ranger's level 18 class feature, reduced the range, made it more powerful, and gave it to all classes with the Fighting Style feature. And yet there is no level 18 optional feature to make up for this. Feral Senses was never good enough to be the only feature for any class at level 18, and now you can get a more powerful version at level 1 or 2, or multiclass to Fighter at any time.
This goes to further highlight the shortcomings of the PHB Ranger.
To the person that started this thread, if you don’t understand why people don’t like the ranger then you are in the minority but the correct group. Hating the ranger is basically an internet meme at this point. The ranger plays well. Very well. Anyone who has played a ranger understands how much they offer to the game and how often they are involved in the game. People complain that a scout rogue has a better survival skill, a paladin can tank and heal better, a druid has better spell casting, wizards have a better “pet”, and a fighter can do more damage, but all of that should make it clear the kind of class the ranger is. Other than single target nova damage output, you never hear these other classes being compared to one another like that. The ranger touches each of these class’s concepts and does it respectfully as well as them. You will not ever play a ranger in an actual game at an actual table with other actual players and say to yourself “Man, I’ve got nothing to do in this situation.” It will never happen. A ranger is always useful to the game. No matter the environment, situation, or group. They can be built and played to highlight a particular set of skills if you like, but it’s neither here nor there. Rangers don’t have flashy abilities like smite, action surge, or sneak attack. Ranger don’t have a basic mechanic that you do all the time, every time, no matter what like fireball, rage, smite.
Dude, you and others really need to stop confusing subjective opinion with objective fact. No amount of apologetics went into that post. DMs have a responsibility to run the game for everyone there. If they don't, some people are going to be, and feel, left out. Not every scene is good for a barbarian, fighter, or rogue. Moments to shine may be fleeting, but everyone should have something to do. The ranger, as a hybrid class, is versatile and can plug in almost anywhere. Monks are similarly versatile.
The three pillars don't exist wholly independent from one another. They blend. You can kill a beastie, or you can negotiate with it. If you've been captured, you could organize an escape or negotiate a release all while listening in on their conversations when they don't think you can. If someone at the grocery store insults you in your non-native tongue, but you know their language anyway, then you know something they don't. Knowledge, information, as they say, is power.
Even the different backgrounds offer situational perks, but we don't ever talk about how they're bad.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think you think D&D should be some kind of Plug'n'Play experience. Sounds boring, to me.
Tasha's does a good job fixing the sub level 10 problems with the Ranger. The weak level 18 and 20 features are still there.
I have read before that with multiclassing a Ranger you go to level 5 and then take whatever your new class is to 15. That is a harsh indictment of the Ranger. After Tasha's and the subclasses from Xanathar's as well its probably good through 11 or 12. Maybe even 15.