The problem with favoured enemy is that for a signature ability it is quite niche, and if you're not facing your enemies it doesn't do anything. It does require a DM who is conscious of the threats they're throwing at you to make it worthwhile. If you're playing a premade campaign mileage will vary, playing a campaign with a curious number of giants and you didn't take giant? Cheer up, there's always level 6. But if you did take giant, well now we're cooking with magic!
Favoured enemy has a lot of downsides in my opinion, the first being that you need to find enemies whom are the options you picked. It has 0 usage otherwise. Another major downside would be the fact that, sure you can pick a new one at level 6, but at that point the campaign has likely shifted focus from the enemies from previous levels to new ones? Now you got to wait for level 14. Even if you do run into your favoured enemies, you only gain 'advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your favoured enemies, as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about them.' The tracking part is decent, but it makes no sense that you have no bonuses or anything against your 'favoured enemy'
Natural explorer does unfortunately suffer at being niche again, so it does need your DM to be aware of where you are. Just like favoured enemy if the campaign is in desert and you chose underdark, well you always have level 6. But if you already have it, you'll be indispensable to the party (you already are because you're a Ranger, but you'll be more indispensable).
Again, suffers if campaign changes through multiple terrains. Most of the benefits to natural explorer are pretty decent, except the 'If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.' This part does not see usage.
This ability definitely reads underwhelmingly at first, but the more you use it and familiarise yourself with its intricacies (e.g., it lasts for a minute per spell slot used, so movement in this time changes the centre of the radius, which can narrow down the location of any stationary creatures) the better use you will get out of it.
Primeval Awareness sucks big time. Sure it lasts a minute per spell slot used, but just how many of the few ranger spell slots are you willing to drop for this? Also, why is this feature WORSE in your favoured terrain? The main problem with this is that 'This feature doesn't reveal the creatures' location or number.' The number part also means if there are say two fey, with one on each side of you, it would take a lot of spell slots to realise this.
I'm okay with land's stride cause it comes at level 8 with the asi boost. It is mainly flavour with some application with the ignore difficult terrain. 'In addition, you have advantage on saving throws against plants that are magically created or manipulated to impede movement, such those created by the entangle spell.' This part is too niche to see usage, never seen this ever occur.
Hide in plain sight suffers from party members. It doesn't do anything if there are good hiding spots already, and if there are none, your party will cause it not to matter, since it is unlikely you would stay hidden while the party is fighting. Lack of movement is also an issue, since what happens when if the enemy decides to search? You end up caught between multiple enemies.
Lastly I will talk about the spellcasting. Rangers have so few spells known and cannot cast ritual spells. It doesn't make sense to me that a ranger can't ritually cast stuff. Spells like alarm, which are pretty thematic become useless.
Not going to talk about higher levels cause I personally have not played a campaign which reached those levels as a ranger. From what I can see though, it scales badly and multiclassing into rogue is just as thematic, especially scout rogue.
Hi Jeff, thanks for your comments.
I agree that Favoured Enemy is flawed (I wouldn't go so far as to say I hate this ability game design wise, but it is a close run thing. It has strong theme, you can load backstory into it and build a really strong character from it, but it is really a flawed ability), and in many campaigns it will indeed not be helpful. It requires a good DM to make sure that you have an opportunity to use it, this is a recurring theme with the Ranger.
Spot on with Natural Explorer, especially the travelling alone part! In what is generally a party game it is exceedingly rare you'll travel long distances alone. Once again DM needs to be good enough to allow opportunities to use this ability to its fullest.
Primaeval Awareness, I wouldn't say it sucks big time, maybe it just sucks most of the time, but I do agree that this can be much worse in your natural terrain. You're absolutely correct that if there are fey on both sides then it doesn't necessarily help, and it is painful to lose a spell slot. The biggest problem it has is it requires creative use, and once again the DM has to be on the ball. However, I will argue that this can be very useful in some situations: Say you've arrived at a tower/dungeon without any prior knowledge and are yet to enter, say you've scouted your 1.6km in each direction, you can then use this and get an idea of what is and isn't inside. This gives you some knowledge of the threats you will encounter and can help the party immensely. This isn't always going to be usable this way, but it isn't entirely pointless either (which I will admit was my reaction upon reading it initially).
Land's stride once again relies on your DM to use difficult terrain, or for you at least to create some, and requires enemies to use those spells. DM dependent again, but it can be ever so useful in the right situation.
Upon first read I did not like Hide in Plain Sight, even now after seeing some creative uses I'd not thought of I still don't love it. This is definitely a better solo skill, it does have some interesting once off combat applications depending on your interpretation, and it can be good for ambushes/escapes, but hard to find scenarios where this will be used a hell of a lot.
Spellcasting and lack of rituals is a big point, which I'd not even considered (I don't find the spell casting classes in D&D interesting so I very rarely play them, my spell mechanics are weak), thank you for pointing this out.
Overall I think a lot of classes (especially the more martial ones) are frontloaded so multiclassing is more desirable in many instances, the Ranger especially, as you note, benefits a lot from multiclassing at later levels, and scout Rogue is very appealing
As an extra side note, Primeval Awareness does not determine any difference between different CR ratings. Sure it could tell you there are elementals within a dungeon, but that has a wide range between chwingas (harmless), to xorn's (for low level parties) to phoenix's (high level parties)
Albeit I think most of the problems are fixed with the addition of tasha's and xge. Subclass spells help to increase spell choices. The TCE variant features also help, Primal awareness fits the flavour, giving niche spells as a 1/longrest cast and Roving gives a nice mechanical advantage that fits with a wilderness expert.
As an extra side note, Primeval Awareness does not determine any difference between different CR ratings. Sure it could tell you there are elementals within a dungeon, but that has a wide range between chwingas (harmless), to xorn's (for low level parties) to phoenix's (high level parties)
Albeit I think most of the problems are fixed with the addition of tasha's and xge. Subclass spells help to increase spell choices. The TCE variant features also help, Primal awareness fits the flavour, giving niche spells as a 1/longrest cast and Roving gives a nice mechanical advantage that fits with a wilderness expert.
Good call on the not determining CR rating, which is a pretty important factor that I also had not considered.
Overall I prefer the optional features, so I might do a write up on those and tack them onto the post.
I don't know what your complaints are in regards to my comments on the OP that I haven't already acknowledged and addressed.
I didn't ask for his version of common ground. Demanding honesty is not equivalent to "you say a good thing and I'll say a bad thing." If I say "torture is bad" you don't get to counter with "ok, say one good thing about sleep deprivation and I'll say one bad thing about waterboarding."
How can you not see attacks on me but then misconstrue my pointing out dishonest tactics as an attack?
You cannot seriously claim to want an honest conversation and then bring torture into this discussion.
We've moved well beyond your initial comments. You and Frank got into another spat, so you decided to ask for an "honest conversation." (In my experience, Frank isn't dishonest, merely overzealous, but YMMV.) A chance was then presented before you to reset the conversation, find some common ground, and build from there. It might not have been the kind of "honest conversation" that you wanted, but no one side in a two-sided discussion gets to set the terms. It would have been honest, and that's what counts.
And you rejected it.
To reiterate, anyone who shouts something equivalent of, "debate me," isn't actually entitled to one. The other party is well within their rights to walk away. But you're also a hypocrite for turning down the very opportunity you asked for.
People can love trash and hate a good thing. We're allowed to have opinions on things. Your calling the ranger bad is nothing more than your opinion, and Frank was correct in identifying it as such. But, as I said, Frank gets overzealous. He didn't treat the OP as an opinion. And, for what it's worth, I don't think Frank improved the discourse. Even though he was correct on a number of points, Frank's presentation wasn't constructive.
Still, if you're interested in an honest discussion and feel you won't get it from Frank, I'll volunteer as tribute.
Eh, people have differing experiences, differing dm's (therefore different rulings). Personally I'm inclined to just use the TCoE features.
At the end of the day, the ranger class is like, wild magic sorcerer or enchantment/illusion spells. One dm's rulings can make them worthless, while another can make them broken. People gave their takes on the features and that's about it.
Eh, people have differing experiences, differing dm's (therefore different rulings). Personally I'm inclined to just use the TCoE features.
At the end of the day, the ranger class is like, wild magic sorcerer or enchantment/illusion spells. One dm's rulings can make them worthless, while another can make them broken. People gave their takes on the features and that's about it.
I don't know what your complaints are in regards to my comments on the OP that I haven't already acknowledged and addressed.
I didn't ask for his version of common ground. Demanding honesty is not equivalent to "you say a good thing and I'll say a bad thing." If I say "torture is bad" you don't get to counter with "ok, say one good thing about sleep deprivation and I'll say one bad thing about waterboarding."
How can you not see attacks on me but then misconstrue my pointing out dishonest tactics as an attack?
You cannot seriously claim to want an honest conversation and then bring torture into this discussion.
We've moved well beyond your initial comments. You and Frank got into another spat, so you decided to ask for an "honest conversation." (In my experience, Frank isn't dishonest, merely overzealous, but YMMV.) A chance was then presented before you to reset the conversation, find some common ground, and build from there. It might not have been the kind of "honest conversation" that you wanted, but no one side in a two-sided discussion gets to set the terms. It would have been honest, and that's what counts.
And you rejected it.
To reiterate, anyone who shouts something equivalent of, "debate me," isn't actually entitled to one. The other party is well within their rights to walk away. But you're also a hypocrite for turning down the very opportunity you asked for.
People can love trash and hate a good thing. We're allowed to have opinions on things. Your calling the ranger bad is nothing more than your opinion, and Frank was correct in identifying it as such. But, as I said, Frank gets overzealous. He didn't treat the OP as an opinion. And, for what it's worth, I don't think Frank improved the discourse. Even though he was correct on a number of points, Frank's presentation wasn't constructive.
Still, if you're interested in an honest discussion and feel you won't get it from Frank, I'll volunteer as tribute.
It is not "bringing torture into the conversation" it is giving an example of why the argument doesn't work. It was the first one I thought of, and I went to an extreme example to get my point across to make it plain as day. But, once again, you don't recognize actual dishonesty. You want to win an argument, so you ignore the substance of my example and harp on me using torture.
If I say "drinking sour milk is bad" you don't get to counter with "ok, say one good thing about goat milk and I'll say one bad thing about almond milk."
If I say "the war on drugs is bad" you don't get to counter with "ok, say one good thing about putting people in prison and I'll say one bad thing about D.A.R.E."
If I say "pollution is bad" you don't get to counter with "ok, say one good thing about greenhouse gasses and I'll say one bad thing about fracking."
This a dishonest tactic, and you apparently support it. You cannot build an honest conversation on the foundation of a dishonest tactic.
So, if you are volunteering for an honest discussion, you have already shown you may not be capable of having one if you support the above tactic in debate.
I honestly think the ranger and it’s abilities are all very good. They are fun, thematically great, effective, work well, and fit the class. I honestly wish the ranger and it’s abilities were written in a way that is more universally in line with how the other class’s abilities were written. Not changed, altered, or replaced. Just with clearer language.
I mean, the concept of a ranger, is thought differently by most people. With say a wizard, or a barbarian, people's visions of what they should be like are a lot closer to what other people think.
Some people think rangers should be specific, some people think they should be more general.
(In my opinion) Most survival skills are transferable across different terrains. Feels strange, that you can be a master explorer in a terrain but if it changes you have no features. Rangers are people who prepare for stuff in downtime, whether to hunt, track, guide etc. It feels odd that they cannot do ritual spells.
A cleric can use create food and water, and other spells while the party is in the wilderness. It's also not great that spells such as goodberry exist which make foraging less beneficial. The exploration pillar is not very established compared to the other two. Although if you do find good rules for exploration please reply with them cause I'd be interested to see them.
Frank, people don't have a hard time understanding the Ranger abilities any more than other classes. The language is quite clear. I'm not sure if you meant to do this, but by saying it needs to be written more clearly you're inferring people don't understand the abilities. WE DO.
Your use of the word haters needs to stop. It is so incredibly rude and dismissive. No one that disagrees with you has resorted to name calling the way that you have. Not to mention you're clearly putting your blinders on and ignoring the fact that most people that have negative things to say also have things that they like about the Ranger. You consistently make dishonest claims about your opposition.
To use Jounichi's parlance, you're overzealous. To the point where you accused the OP of being overly negative towards the Ranger. They basically wrote a persuasive essay trying to get people to play the Ranger. Look at the title of the thread! I mean come on.
Jounichi you cannot actively deny Frank's use of attacking language and then expect someone to trust you to engage in honest discourse.
As for OP, Dravaal, I thoroughly enjoyed the read. You have nice syntax and the content was well thought out. I commend your cool headedness to try and keep this thread going through some truly destructive behavior.
I do have a criticism though. I don't think players that are unexperienced with the Ranger are well served by a persuasion piece. Frankly, I think this mostly serves to make you feel good. There's nothing wrong with that, but when you target this at people without experience I think it is a bit misleading.
At the very least I think there should be a more prominent disclaimer at the beginning of the post about DM dependency and Niche class abilities. After reading through the OP and your responses it's clear you do recognize these flaws, but I think your OP has a tendency to gloss over them a bit which I don't think is constructive.
I think it's quite possible to convince people to play the Ranger while being brutally honest about their flaws. I believe you will have a stronger persuasive argument for it.
Frank, people don't have a hard time understanding the Ranger abilities any more than other classes. The language is quite clear. I'm not sure if you meant to do this, but by saying it needs to be written more clearly you're inferring people don't understand the abilities. WE DO.
Your use of the word haters needs to stop. It is so incredibly rude and dismissive. No one that disagrees with you has resorted to name calling the way that you have. Not to mention you're clearly putting your blinders on and ignoring the fact that most people that have negative things to say also have things that they like about the Ranger. You consistently make dishonest claims about your opposition.
To use Jounichi's parlance, you're overzealous. To the point where you accused the OP of being overly negative towards the Ranger. They basically wrote a persuasive essay trying to get people to play the Ranger. Look at the title of the thread! I mean come on.
Jounichi you cannot actively deny Frank's use of attacking language and then expect someone to trust you to engage in honest discourse.
As for OP, Dravaal, I thoroughly enjoyed the read. You have nice syntax and the content was well thought out. I commend your cool headedness to try and keep this thread going through some truly destructive behavior.
I do have a criticism though. I don't think players that are unexperienced with the Ranger are well served by a persuasion piece. Frankly, I think this mostly serves to make you feel good. There's nothing wrong with that, but when you target this at people without experience I think it is a bit misleading.
At the very least I think there should be a more prominent disclaimer at the beginning of the post about DM dependency and Niche class abilities. After reading through the OP and your responses it's clear you do recognize these flaws, but I think your OP has a tendency to gloss over them a bit which I don't think is constructive.
I think it's quite possible to convince people to play the Ranger while being brutally honest about their flaws. I believe you will have a stronger persuasive argument for it.
I'm very sorry and apologize for my words and overzealousness. Please know my referring to the internet being full of haters was meant with as about as much severity as the chorus from Taylor Swift's Shake It Off song.
I don't know what your complaints are in regards to my comments on the OP that I haven't already acknowledged and addressed.
I didn't ask for his version of common ground. Demanding honesty is not equivalent to "you say a good thing and I'll say a bad thing." If I say "torture is bad" you don't get to counter with "ok, say one good thing about sleep deprivation and I'll say one bad thing about waterboarding."
How can you not see attacks on me but then misconstrue my pointing out dishonest tactics as an attack?
You cannot seriously claim to want an honest conversation and then bring torture into this discussion.
We've moved well beyond your initial comments. You and Frank got into another spat, so you decided to ask for an "honest conversation." (In my experience, Frank isn't dishonest, merely overzealous, but YMMV.) A chance was then presented before you to reset the conversation, find some common ground, and build from there. It might not have been the kind of "honest conversation" that you wanted, but no one side in a two-sided discussion gets to set the terms. It would have been honest, and that's what counts.
And you rejected it.
To reiterate, anyone who shouts something equivalent of, "debate me," isn't actually entitled to one. The other party is well within their rights to walk away. But you're also a hypocrite for turning down the very opportunity you asked for.
People can love trash and hate a good thing. We're allowed to have opinions on things. Your calling the ranger bad is nothing more than your opinion, and Frank was correct in identifying it as such. But, as I said, Frank gets overzealous. He didn't treat the OP as an opinion. And, for what it's worth, I don't think Frank improved the discourse. Even though he was correct on a number of points, Frank's presentation wasn't constructive.
Still, if you're interested in an honest discussion and feel you won't get it from Frank, I'll volunteer as tribute.
It is not "bringing torture into the conversation" it is giving an example of why the argument doesn't work. It was the first one I thought of, and I went to an extreme example to get my point across to make it plain as day. But, once again, you don't recognize actual dishonesty. You want to win an argument, so you ignore the substance of my example and harp on me using torture.
If I say "drinking sour milk is bad" you don't get to counter with "ok, say one good thing about goat milk and I'll say one bad thing about almond milk."
If I say "the war on drugs is bad" you don't get to counter with "ok, say one good thing about putting people in prison and I'll say one bad thing about D.A.R.E."
If I say "pollution is bad" you don't get to counter with "ok, say one good thing about greenhouse gasses and I'll say one bad thing about fracking."
This a dishonest tactic, and you apparently support it. You cannot build an honest conversation on the foundation of a dishonest tactic.
So, if you are volunteering for an honest discussion, you have already shown you may not be capable of having one if you support the above tactic in debate.
Those examples you gave are what we like to call "straw men". A much better example would be...oh, boy, I'm going there, aren't I?.
Person 1: "I don't like The Last Jedi. I think it's the worst Star Wars film ever." Person 2: "It's not perfect, no film is, but I liked it a lot. Can still talk about it? Is there anything you liked? I can talk about the stuff I didn't." Person 1: "No, I'd rather just stew."
It was nice talking to you. Happy New Year and enjoy the rest of the weekend.
Okay, just finished reading the thread. This devolved quickly.
@Dravaal29, I appreciate that you do manage to point out some of the ranger's flaws and criticize parts of it, unlike some people in the thread, but I do disagree with quite a lot of the things you mentioned. I think with Tasha's new changes, anyone that is even slightly interested in the ranger class should go play it if/when they get the opportunity. However, I wouldn't encourage everyone to play one, as it just isn't the sort of thing everyone would like.
@FrankReynoldsGaryGygax, you are an advocate for the Ranger, a complete, devoted zealot to its cause. I do not mean any offense by saying this, but you even admitted that you're "overzealous". In all the threads I have debated with you in, I have not seen you say one bad thing about the Ranger, and automatically dismiss every negative part about it that anyone points out. Even your first post on this site was on a thread discussing the Beast Master Ranger, which you are an ardent supporter of. You like the class and its subclasses, which I understand, but you're being hot-headed on this topic. I like the theme of the class, too, but I like a lot of other classes as well, and I'm more than willing to admit the faults of those classes. You have even gone so far to state:
I honestly think the ranger and it’s abilities are all very good. They are fun, thematically great, effective, work well, and fit the class. I honestly wish the ranger and it’s abilities were written in a way that is more universally in line with how the other class’s abilities were written. Not changed, altered, or replaced. Just with clearer language.
You refuse to admit any fault in the ranger's design, and you even seem confused or angry at the suggestion that someone could have a bad experience with the class, even calling anyone who has disliked their experience with the class a "hater".
No one else in this thread or others of the same topic has gone that far. It is one thing to like a class and support it, but it's a whole other thing to be a white knight, undying advocate for that class/feature and giving no ground to anyone else who merely wants to point out a flaw in the class. To do this with such fervor and zest that you're blinded to any other opinion, refusing to put yourself in anyone else's shoes while demanding that everyone puts themselves in your shoes. This is unfair and myopic, and infuriatingly difficult to argue against.
I love the Paladin, Wizard, and Artificer classes and would readily encourage anyone to play them, but I am more than willing to point out flaws with the classes. The paladin's smite spells are normally never used, as they take concentration and spell slots while doing less damage than a Divine Smite would. Divine Health is a very situational ability that barely ever (if ever) sees play. All wizards should be able to use their spellbook as a spellcasting focus, there's no mechanical reason for them to not be able to. Wizards overshadow most other classes, especially Sorcerers and Fighters. Artificers have a hard time separating spells from infusions and are kind of strangely designed (while still being very good). I am more than willing to point out issues that these classes have, as large or small as they may be.
Being able to point out these design flaws do not make me a "hater". It just makes me observant and aware of how the game is designed and balanced. My eyes are open. Yes, they are occasionally clouded by my inherent biases, which everyone has, but I don't let my biases blind me. You have allowed your extreme bias towards the Ranger class to blind you from any viewpoint other than yours, which is a huge disadvantage to yourself if you want to be taken seriously and not seen as an overenthusiastic fanboy who can't admit that the Wizard-Gods of the Coast could do anything wrong when designing the miraculous class that is the ranger.
I am not a hater. Korbin_Orion is not a hater. HeironymusZot is not a hater, and neither is Dravaal nor JeffJ02 for pointing out flaws and mechanical weaknesses in the Ranger class. I like the theme and idea of the Ranger class and most of its subclasses. We are merely open to the possible suggestion that the Ranger class isn't the spotless One True Way of playing D&D 5e that you make it out to be.
It's a good thing to like a class and support the class if you like it. Don't ever let anyone tell you that you are wrong for liking the Ranger class and having fun playing it. However, you have to show the same human decency to us and everyone else online that has not personally attacked you. We are just as entitled to our experiences and opinions as you are. You are correct that there are haters out there, but they are much less common on this site than you may suspect (see this post for groups of people on this site). Your pride and manhood is not tied to the Ranger class. It's okay to unlock that closed door to other opinions and be openminded.
I do not mean any offense, but will accept any fault if I caused you any. I wish you a good new year and will see you around.
Frank, people don't have a hard time understanding the Ranger abilities any more than other classes. The language is quite clear. I'm not sure if you meant to do this, but by saying it needs to be written more clearly you're inferring people don't understand the abilities. WE DO.
The term "related" Alone is the most unclear Phrase in the all the class sections. Depending on how it's interpreted it can make ranger abilities OP or Underwhelming.(Note: underwhelming is not useless) Does my skill at tracking goats give me better tracking on satyrs? It might it might not. Does my skill at reading boot scuff marks in the mountain give me better ability to read scuff marks in a castle? would my ability to prepare for long winter nights in the mountains help me know how best to retain heat when the desert sun drops? will my tracking abilities on beasts allow me to track human riders better? what about the reverse would my knowledge of humans allow me to track them on horse back.
People seem so hesitant to give out the bonus but in reality it still is just a skill check. Just like I said in another post, If you gave it to every wisdom or int check its still not over powered compared to reliable talent.(I don't think either need to be changed.) This makes me think that is the original intent. Instead of a "out cry" to fix it, just loosen up your interpretation for the class that feels underwhelming. You don't even have to go that far to make it viable.
Several ranger abilities have vague wording or benefits that aren't immediately apparent (other spells and abilities do as well but they aren't quite as frequent as the ranger). That is the potential misunderstanding/Difference of opinion in my mind. That is the issue wizards should address or clarify. Wizards has had a dm fiat rule because they don't want the dm to be undermined but some dms hold things so tightly the ranger can't grab on to the bits they need to for one part of the class to function. That is wrong and it tends to lead to other problems with other classes or feats or encounter designs as well.
Those examples you gave are what we like to call "straw men". A much better example would be...oh, boy, I'm going there, aren't I?.
Person 1: "I don't like The Last Jedi. I think it's the worst Star Wars film ever." Person 2: "It's not perfect, no film is, but I liked it a lot. Can still talk about it? Is there anything you liked? I can talk about the stuff I didn't." Person 1: "No, I'd rather just stew."
It was nice talking to you. Happy New Year and enjoy the rest of the weekend.
You.. just strawmanned my argument while claiming I was the one doing so.
My argument here is that when I ask for someone to be honest, responding with "you say a good thing and I'll say a bad thing" is not an appropriate response and does not make that person honest. If you're going to say a good thing, if you're going to be honest, do so without conditions. Do so without "I will if you do this first." Honesty is a requirement for having a good-faith discussion. You don't get to set conditions for when you will be honest, you just have to be honest or else you won't be taken seriously.
Your straw man is painting me as the person who "just wants to stew" and attacking me for that position when I have never expressed such an attitude. It is easy to attack me if you say "Korbin just doesn't want to say good things about the Ranger" if you characterize me that way. If I had actually done that, you would be right. Except I have said good things about the Ranger, plenty of times including in this thread. The Ranger is among my favorite archetypes, the 5e Ranger does a portion of that correctly. I don't have an issue with people liking the Ranger as you paint me out to be, I have an issue with the blind support of mechanics that are objectively flawed, and I have an issue with dishonesty.
My examples are for identifying the fallacious argumentative tactic. I did not repaint an argument and attack it. I did not mischaracterize anyone's argument. I did not quote anything out of context. I gave examples of Frank's tactic being used in other arguments of different topics to show the absurdity of the tactic.
No one is saying you can't talk about the things you like. We are saying that there is a genuine flaw, we give objective reasons as to why it is a flaw, and people just say "nuh-uh it is good" or characterize us as haters, or go even further to paint us as people who have a problem with differing opinions. Someone likes the Ranger as is, no one else cares. Someone says Primeval Awareness is a strong ability that is worth using one of the Ranger's incredibly precious spell slots for the information it provides for the limited amount of time it does so, that is not an objective determination that is blind support.
Furthermore, even if I had conceded to "I'll say a good thing you say a bad thing" that does absolutely nothing with the previous issue of dishonesty, nor does it mean every argument discussing the flaws of the Ranger beforehand are invalidated.
"I like Land's Stride, it comes in at a good level and provides an always active ability that is fairly comparable to a spell gained by full-casters of the same level."
"Taking ten minutes to prepare for Hide in Plain Sight can have its downsides, and is not useful in all situations, especially outside of a natural environment."
There is a "say a thing you like and I'll say a thing I don't like" example that could have occurred. Doing this does not address my issue of dishonesty. Frank was still dishonest and has not admitted it, has done nothing to rectify the situation. The same problem still exists, which is why I ignored the "find common ground" tactic because it does nothing to solve the issue that was at hand.
This part of the discussion all begins with a direct response to another incredibly blatant dishonest tactic. Frank literally denied saying a thing within four posts of saying it ("That is not what I said at all." - Frank) implying that he said nothing even remotely close to what I argued against. That is why I demanded honesty. Even if a portion of my arguments since is wrong or at least poorly worded, that still stands and has not been addressed. You don't get to lie and then say "I have been honest, but let's play this unrelated 'find common ground' game and start over." I still have no reason to believe that you are going to be honest from here on out.
Stop praising the Ranger like it's God's gift to Nerd-kind. Realize that campaigns can be fine (and even great) without any "exploration" aspect or any other traditional ranger jazz.
The Ranger class has a great theme, and it's great that you like it, but that doesn't warrant being a designer's advocate. Don't dismiss people's experiences based on your enjoyment of the class and stop telling people that have had a bad time playing the ranger than they're playing the class wrong. It's okay to admit that a class/subclass/feature was poorly designed or not "all that", and you need to realize that. You're entitled to liking the Ranger class, and like I said above, don't let anyone tell you that your fun is wrong, but you have to stop telling other people that theirs is wrong or that they're playing the game/class wrong. Be willing to accept that other people's views and opinions are okay and that them not liking something you like/as much as you like it is not an attack on you.
It's one thing to like and support a class and it's another to act like it is 5e's golden child and the class that can do no wrong.
Just . . .stop being so unrelenting and become a bit more open and accepting of other people. It's totally fine to disagree with someone, but you have to at least hear out the other side before you decide that they're wrong. Take criticism seriously, and don't just dismiss it by calling the designated "other side" stupid or a hater. Learn from your mistakes and grow as a person.
That would be enough.
You have fury and zeal. Those are useful tools when applied correctly. Instead of using them to attack people who disagree with you on the effectiveness of the Ranger class, use them to fight the people who want to actively harm the hobby.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As for OP, Dravaal, I thoroughly enjoyed the read. You have nice syntax and the content was well thought out. I commend your cool headedness to try and keep this thread going through some truly destructive behavior.
I do have a criticism though. I don't think players that are unexperienced with the Ranger are well served by a persuasion piece. Frankly, I think this mostly serves to make you feel good. There's nothing wrong with that, but when you target this at people without experience I think it is a bit misleading.
At the very least I think there should be a more prominent disclaimer at the beginning of the post about DM dependency and Niche class abilities. After reading through the OP and your responses it's clear you do recognize these flaws, but I think your OP has a tendency to gloss over them a bit which I don't think is constructive.
I think it's quite possible to convince people to play the Ranger while being brutally honest about their flaws. I believe you will have a stronger persuasive argument for it.
I'm glad you enjoyed it, it did take me quite a while to write it (a few days of writing here and there). I still believe that this thread can be constructive.
You know, I'm probably guilty as charged here, I did enjoy this and it felt good to post it, and in many ways this was just as much for my benefit as others. The initial impetus to write this was mostly due to arguments in other threads which were mostly negative (rightly or wrongly) about the Ranger, which is a class I have always loved. I also wrote it to convince myself and force myself to actually look at the positives. When I first read the PHB Ranger I was initially very negative, I didn't like many of the abilities, and neither of the archetypes (Hunter especially) were particularly alluring.
Yes, I did try to promote the good, and not ignore the bad, but definitely not focus on it, and I didn't really consider it from the perspective of newer players. I definitely like the idea of a better disclaimer, I'll see if I can throw something together.
@Dravaal28, I appreciate that you do manage to point out some of the ranger's flaws and criticize parts of it, unlike some people in the thread, but I do disagree with quite a lot of the things you mentioned. I think with Tasha's new changes, anyone that is even slightly interested in the ranger class should go play it if/when they get the opportunity. However, I wouldn't encourage everyone to play one, as it just isn't the sort of thing everyone would like.
I'd be interested in hearing what you disagreed with if you have the time, always looking for constructive feedback. I did think about including Tasha's options initially, however I wanted something that was just basic at the start and included only the PHB content. I do plan on eventually adding them in either as an edit or a new post, and maybe if I'm feeling up to it a bit of a dive into the archetypes too.
At 10 level you gain the ability to hide in plain sight by pressing yourself up against a solid surface, such as a tree or a wall, provided prior to this you have spent a single minute camouflaging yourself. This gives you a significant bonus to stealth checks provided you do not move or take actions, once you do in order to hide this way again you need to spend another minute preparing again. After ambushing the orc patrol, you race through the tunnels to what you know is a dead end, but you quickly apply soot and dirt and press hard against the wall, as the last straggler passes, oblivious to your presence, you reach out and silence it for good before racing back down the other direction.
The boost here is significant, which means it will need some bad luck on your behalf and good luck on the enemy’s in order for you to fail. The interesting thing about this ability is it doesn’t specify how long after the camouflage is applied that you need to attempt to hide. I have seen some interpretations be very liberal with the timeframe, which means that in the right circumstances you can easily use this once in most combats provided you have spent a minute preparing sometime prior, however it will most likely be something you need to discuss with your DM (if there is an official ruling somewhere could you please point me to it).
one important distinction is that it is not magical. True sight and detect magic are big giveaways to most hiding options beyond regular stealth. There is an argument for it working on tremor sense and blind sight as well.
Also The wording makes the camouflage an object with a creation time. (its unclear if its like a ghillie suit or makeup ) But then switches to an adjective and then a verb. At no time is the objects destruction specified.
So even if you(dm perpective) think adding +10 twice in combat is OP you can consider if it would grant you situational advantage if the ranger moves and hides again. The depending on the situation dm might say no or yes but its within the advantage rules to at least consider if it feels underutilized.
Frank, people don't have a hard time understanding the Ranger abilities any more than other classes. The language is quite clear. I'm not sure if you meant to do this, but by saying it needs to be written more clearly you're inferring people don't understand the abilities. WE DO.
The term "related" Alone is the most unclear Phrase in the all the class sections. Depending on how it's interpreted it can make ranger abilities OP or Underwhelming.(Note: underwhelming is not useless) Does my skill at tracking goats give me better tracking on satyrs? It might it might not. Does my skill at reading boot scuff marks in the mountain give me better ability to read scuff marks in a castle? would my ability to prepare for long winter nights in the mountains help me know how best to retain heat when the desert sun drops? will my tracking abilities on beasts allow me to track human riders better? what about the reverse would my knowledge of humans allow me to track them on horse back.
People seem so hesitant to give out the bonus but in reality it still is just a skill check. Just like I said in another post, If you gave it to every wisdom or int check its still not over powered compared to reliable talent.(I don't think either need to be changed.) This makes me think that is the original intent. Instead of a "out cry" to fix it, just loosen up your interpretation for the class that feels underwhelming. You don't even have to go that far to make it viable.
Several ranger abilities have vague wording or benefits that aren't immediately apparent (other spells and abilities do as well but they aren't quite as frequent as the ranger). That is the potential misunderstanding/Difference of opinion in my mind. That is the issue wizards should address or clarify. Wizards has had a dm fiat rule because they don't want the dm to be undermined but some dms hold things so tightly the ranger can't grab on to the bits they need to for one part of the class to function. That is wrong and it tends to lead to other problems with other classes or feats or encounter designs as well.
I think you're misconstruing a few things here. Tracking a goat and tracking a satyr are two different types of creatures and that's where Favored Enemy comes in. They might have similar, if not identical, hoofprints, but their gait would be different simply by virtue of being bipedal. Heck, variant tieflings (SCAG) can also have cloven feet, so there are at least three options. Having advantage is independent from doubling one's proficiency bonus.
What Natural Explorer does is...okay, here's an example. If you choose "forest" and are proficient in Religion, then you functionally have expertise in general forest deities and possibly those of the forest's denizens. If elves or goblins live there, then you're familiar with those as well. If you were proficient in History, then you'd stand a better chance of recalling lore about heraldry, battlefields, lost cities, or ancient beasties who nested there but terrorized the surrounding region hundreds of years ago. And you don't have to actually be in the chosen terrain for those benefits to kick in. You just get a host of other benefits if you also happen to be there.
If the chosen terrain was instead "the underdark" then you would be especially knowledgeable of drow and duergar religion and history, mind flayers, etc.
I don't consider the word "related" to be vague, at all. If anything, it's incredibly generous and easily applicable. So long as the ranger is proficient in a breadth of Intelligence or Wisdom skills, they reap ridiculously strong benefits. The more, the better.
That said, I could go down your questions, one-by-one, and answer them as I would at my table. But I also feel like they're, rather deliberately, geared towards not being helpful discussion.
Thematically the ranger is meant to be a master of the wilderness, fighting evil on the frontiers of civilization, in tune with nature and all its marvels, able to commune with beasts and plants alike, a master of stealth and a survivor par excellence. This sounds pretty awesome, actually, this is exactly why you should play the Ranger, because thematically the Ranger (in my incredibly biased opinion) is the absolute best class, the bee’s knees of D&D.
Not the best class objectively, but if it is for you, that's great. My personal favorite class thematically is either the Warlock, Sorcerer, or Artificer (currently leaning towards artificer).
But, the Ranger's theme can be a problem as well, because quite often the Ranger evokes a feeling of being a tough loner. Someone who is off by themselves because the Ranger is so awesome, so good at what they do, that they don’t actually need anyone else. Why is this problematic? Because D&D at its core, in my opinion, is designed to be a social game. You always have at the back of your mind that classic party of four archetypes - Fighter (Ranger), Rogue (another Ranger), Cleric (Ranger with healing spells), and a Wizard (Ranger who has splashed out into 19 levels of Wizard). The classes don’t matter so much as the number four. This means that a lot of what the Ranger is thematically good at doesn't necessarily always translate into a party. I'm not by any means saying that they don't mechanically fit in, but they're often playing the role of forward scout and that silent brooding character in the corner who is wondering why they're caught up in this fiendish (if I have favoured enemy fiend can I destroy this faster?) hovel of a tavern and could the Paladin please stop waffling on about whatever righteous cause they're on about now, the bar staff really have better things to do like advance the damned plot. Sometimes you just might feel constrained by the boundaries of the party and the game. Yes, you can play solo or duo campaigns with a willing DM, but often you want your friends involved because you're human, and that's ok, you can't help that.
This is an issue that a couple other classes have, too. They cover such a large spectrum of the classic "class roles" that it makes it difficult to find characters equally as interesting and helpful to the party. Paladins fill the role of the Fighter (Smite! Smite! Smite! It's a paladin smite!), Cleric (they have more support/healing spells/features than rangers), and can fill part of the role of the Rogue if they focus on Dexterity (and of course can fill the role of the Wizards with a homebrew Arcane subclass or by multiclassing into wizard for some reason). Druids can fill the role of a Fighter (with either minions or through wild shape), cleric (with healing/resurrection spells), wizard (with summoning/transportation/evocation/control spells like Summon Beast/Fey, Transport Via Plants, Call Lightning, and Plant Growth). Artificers can fill the role of Fighter (as an Armorer or Battle Smith), Cleric (with healing and support spells/infusions, especially as an Alchemist/Battle Smith), Rogue (with thieves' tools, normally good dexterity, illusion spells, and homunculi), and wizards (through arcane magic, especially as an Artillerist).
Rangers aren't unique in the fact that they can/do cover a broad range of archetypes of play at the same time, but there aren't that many classes that can do this.
Favoured Enemy
Favoured enemy allows one choice of favoured enemy (two specific choices if you're hating on humanoids {you probably should, they're terrible people}) at levels 1, 6, & 14. You get bonuses to tracking these enemies, bonuses to recalling information about them, and you learn a language. Thematically this is great, you grew up as a young bugbear where humans repeatedly attacked your home, murdering your loved ones, just because some unimaginative deity of the rules branded you Chaotic Evil. This lead your tribe deeper into the caves and tunnels in the mountains where you had to contest with the equally maligned orcs, so your formative years were spent studying humans and orcs, defending your peaceful tribe from their predations. As a result, you chose them as your favoured enemy, and you learnt to speak the orc language to better understand your enemies (you already knew common, the language of the prejudiced humans). At level 6 and 14 this doesn't stack up as well, but consider what you've been encountering in your adventures and you can easily justify new favoured enemies.
The problem with favoured enemy is that for a signature ability it is quite niche, and if you're not facing your enemies it doesn't do anything. It does require a DM who is conscious of the threats they're throwing at you to make it worthwhile. If you're playing a premade campaign mileage will vary, playing a campaign with a curious number of giants and you didn't take giant? Cheer up, there's always level 6. But if you did take giant, well now we're cooking with magic!
Probably one of the most overlooked aspects of this is the ability to eventually learn three languages, which can put you to the forefront of social aspects if no-one else is able to communicate, and can be excellent for listening to enemy plans or deciphering their maps/puzzles/traps.
Okay, let's break this down a bit:
YES! It is very, very thematic and cool, and make you 100% want to play a ranger as soon as you read the feature . . . 's title and fluff text. Once you read the mechanics, you're going to immediately think "that's it?!?!?!"
Again, that is correct, but I don't think you went into the feature's faults enough. Even if you are lucky enough to play in a campaign where you are regularly facing off against your favored enemies (which is extremely rare, IME), this feature grants you no benefit for fighting your favored enemies until level 20 (and even then it is only once a turn). Also, a DM should not have to spoil the enemies of the campaign or allow the ranger to choose the enemies of the campaign in order for one of its core class features to function. This is one of the core reasons why Favored Enemy is a problem and why it is one of the most poorly thought out and designed features in all of 5e.
In my experience with playing a ranger and playing alongside a ranger is that this is the most effective mechanical bonus that this whole feature gives you, and that's not saying much. Wizards have the ability to cast comprehend languages as a ritual at level 1, which would help with the deciphering aspect of this feature.
Overall, is this feature thematic and cool as hell? YES! Is it a good feature? No. Not even close. In most cases that I have seen, this feature has been effectively slightly more useful than Thieves' Cant/Druidic in a campaign.
Natural Explorer
Natural explorer allows you one choice of natural environment at levels 1, 6, & 10. You get bonuses when travelling within this environment to tracking other creatures, moving through difficult terrain, you can't get lost, you're always alert, you can find more food, and best of all when you're travelling alone you are able to be stealthy and not move at a crawl. Plus, when you're making certain checks related to your chosen environment your proficiency bonus is doubled. Once again this is thematically spot on for the Ranger because all that time you spent tracking and foraging in the underdark for your tribe as the humans laid waste to your ancestral home above ground actually has some real payoff. Even better is that the Ranger grows into other environments as they level, and it is a very natural flow on effect. You've left the underdark to claim back the mountains and now you get benefits when within them. Very neat.
Natural explorer does unfortunately suffer at being niche again, so it does need your DM to be aware of where you are. Just like favoured enemy if the campaign is in desert and you chose underdark, well you always have level 6. But if you already have it, you'll be indispensable to the party (you already are because you're a Ranger, but you'll be more indispensable).
Yes, like Favored Enemy, it's very thematic for the ranger. However, just like Favored Enemy, the niche parts of the feature will make the whole of it (and the Ranger class) much less appealing.
Again, like Favored Enemy, there is the big problem of the DM having to either tell the ranger where the campaign is taking place or basing the setting off of the character's choice of favored terrain. This a bit more acceptable, as it's much more likely and acceptable for the DM to tell the environment of the campaign before the game begins than to tell the main enemies of the campaign, but is still an issue for campaigns where you don't determine the setting until after the characters are made or if the campaign spans multiple different environments.
Overall, this feature is generally more useful than Favored Enemy in my experience, but still has the flaw of being way more campaign dependent than almost any other feature in the game. Divine Sense and Lay on Hands are way less campaign dependent than level one for a ranger. The same applies to the first level features of the Rogue, Fighter, Druid, and Monk classes, which are all similar in ways to this class.
Spellcasting
As if a fighting style wasn't enough you also manage to learn some spells at level 2, which is an amazing boon. I’m not going to go into spellcasting in depth but suffice to say a lot of your spells are nature related, which stands to reason, and there are some very cool picks in there. Your spellcasting ability is based on your wisdom score, so it is useful to keep in the back of the mind whilst creating the character.
Two things which are important to remember here though are the aforementioned dreaded 5e action economy (a lot of spells have a cast time of a bonus action, which prevents you from using other bonus action features you may have), and concentration (much like your bonus action spells, a lot of the “cooler” combat spells require concentration, and as we all know you can only concentrate on one spell/feature at a time). Your spell slots are limited, however, and you’re already a beast in combat, so take something fun and creative, don’t be constrained by the need to do that extra damage in combat. Play with utility in mind, and don’t be afraid to burn spell slots, often it is better to cast a spell than to hold onto it and at end of day still have spells remaining. Every spell slot uncast is a wasted opportunity.
Yes, this is a good feature (spellcasting rarely isn't), but has major flaws. The main one is that practically every cool ranger combat spell is concentration, and most often you're going to be ignoring the more cool ones in exchange for Hunter's Mark. (Favored ******* Foe makes this even more of a problem.) The other main issue with this is that many of the spells are bonus action dependent, which interferes with a major archetypal fighting style of rangers, which is Two-Weapon Fighting.
Primaeval Awareness
This ability is once again a niche ability which doesn’t see a huge amount of opportunity for use, and even when it is used it isn’t necessarily going to give you the answer you seek. However, it can be incredibly handy if used in the right situation, and may give you important information that you wouldn’t have garnered otherwise. The humans you’ve been stalking recently have been talking about a new threat, even greater than them, and you sensed something amiss but couldn’t quite put your finger on it. Using your connection with nature you sense something very unnatural, an aberration, in your domain. You know it is time to prepare for this newer, greater threat, time to track it, discover why it is here, and put an end to it.
This ability definitely reads underwhelmingly at first, but the more you use it and familiarise yourself with its intricacies (e.g., it lasts for a minute per spell slot used, so movement in this time changes the centre of the radius, which can narrow down the location of any stationary creatures) the better use you will get out of it.
It can be useful in certain circumstances, but in most campaigns that I've played in, it is never used (and when it is, it doesn't help at all and ends up just being a waste of spell slots). The huge range of it (which gets even larger in your difficult terrain to the disadvantage of the player) and it not letting you know where the enemies are or how many there are makes it infuriatingly useless. This is like a huge ranged Divine Sense, but it requires spell slots, gets worse in the places that it should be better for you, and tells you absolutely nothing useful about the creatures, other than that they are there. If this ability had a range of 60 or 120 feet, it would be way more useful than it currently is. At least that would let you know whether or not you could be in danger. As currently written, it's like a Fire Fighter asking a supercomputer if there were dangerous fires within 6 miles of them, where they are, and how many there are, and the computer replying "THERE IS FIRE WITHIN 6 MILES OF YOU". . . . That's just not useful in most circumstances. Like I said, it's "infuriatingly useless". (TCoE's replacement feature for this is way better, btw.)
My suggestion for the best use of this feature is to not use this feature and to replace it with Primal Awareness. It's way, way, way better, and actually lets you do ranger-y things without having to give up other less-vaguely ranger-y things.
It's infuriatingly useless, and I would not try to pretend otherwise. There are already spells like this that take spell slots and tell you basically the exact same thing, but this takes up the slot of a class feature. Just use Primal Awareness. It clears up any headaches for the DM and any disappointment/frustration from the player's side.
Land’s Stride
Land’s Stride, which you gain at level 8, allows you to ignore non-magical difficult terrain, move through plants, and avoid taking damage from plants. On top of that (if it needed more) you gain advantage on saves against magical plants created to impede movement. This is very in tune with the Ranger’s overall theme, you can move through the wilderness almost as if it wasn’t there, and you can easily escape the clutches of enemies in combat by using this terrain to your advantage. You quickly strike against the raider’s archers before dashing off into the undergrowth, the heavily armoured foes unable to catch you with their clumsy swings.
This feature is useful. I'm not saying it's not useful. However, if you compare it to any feature of a similar class of a similar level, it quickly becomes abundantly clear how underwhelming it is. Monks and Rogues get Evasion at level 7, which fits the theme of this class amazingly well and is instead put into an option inside of an option at a much later level (Hunter subclass level 15 ability). I mean, look at how amazingly useful Aura of Protection, Evasion, Indomitable, and Expertise are. Druids get to freaking turn into an CR 1 beast of their choice, including ones that have wings at this level, TWICE A SHORT REST! In comparison, this just isn't "all that". It's a nice boost that could have easily been moved to a subclass or feat and been just as useful (like Land Druids have an identical feature that they get at level 6).
Hide in Plain Sight
At 10 level you gain the ability to hide in plain sight by pressing yourself up against a solid surface, such as a tree or a wall, provided prior to this you have spent a single minute camouflaging yourself. This gives you a significant bonus to stealth checks provided you do not move or take actions, once you do in order to hide this way again you need to spend another minute preparing again. After ambushing the orc patrol, you race through the tunnels to what you know is a dead end, but you quickly apply soot and dirt and press hard against the wall, as the last straggler passes, oblivious to your presence, you reach out and silence it for good before racing back down the other direction.
The boost here is significant, which means it will need some bad luck on your behalf and good luck on the enemy’s in order for you to fail. The interesting thing about this ability is it doesn’t specify how long after the camouflage is applied that you need to attempt to hide. I have seen some interpretations be very liberal with the timeframe, which means that in the right circumstances you can easily use this once in most combats provided you have spent a minute preparing sometime prior, however it will most likely be something you need to discuss with your DM (if there is an official ruling somewhere could you please point me to it).
This is another very thematic ability! Yay! Unfortunately, it's just as mechanically lacking as Favored Enemy, Favored Foe, Natural Explorer, and Primeval Awareness. BOO!
First, this ability encourages you to be a loner. This feature cannot be applied to your allies, only to you. Second, it holds just as much logic as this scene from the Hunger Games. How are you freaking camouflaging yourself when you can't see yourself to merge with your environment?!?! Third, you must hide, as the bonus to Stealth only applies if you take the Hide action to actually roll Stealth in the first place. Fourth, you must have access to materials to disguise yourself in the first place! Why can't it just be an illusion, goddammit?!?! That would fit the magical theme much better and actually make some bit of sense. Fifth, it grants you a bonus to Stealth that is probably going to be useless. Rangers are already highly encouraged to have high Dexterity and Stealth, so at this level if you designed your character competently, you should have at least a +9 bonus to Stealth (or +13 if you have Expertise).
Just take Nature's Veil. It at least can be used in combat and can get you out of hairy situations. It sucks that it doesn't allow you to at least attack before the invisibility wears off, but otherwise it's a very, very good replacement for this feature.
Vanish
At 14 level you gain the ability to take the hide action as a bonus action, and you cannot be tracked by non-magical means (unless you choose to be able to). This is excellent for Rangers who choose to play a hit and run game from range in the right environments, or even fast-moving melee Rangers. You quickly throw some javelins at the raiders from the rubble, then with a burst of speed run to the nearby trees and disappear from view, the skilled trackers employed by the raiders are unable to find any trace of your passage, you’re simply gone.
Yes, Rogue’s do get an arguably better ability at level 2, but Rogues need something to make them appealing. This has far more roleplay possibility because you can’t be tracked by mundane means, not even another Ranger can track you now. The biggest issue this really faces is if you’re already heavily invested in bonus action economy you will not get the use out of this that deserves in combat.
Again, a very thematic feature for the ranger. It is also mechanically better than many of their other features. However, it is not without its faults. First, it competes with every other bonus action option that the ranger gets (which is a buttload of them. They seriously get more bonus action options than basically any other class). Second, it is slightly more than just 1/3rd of a level 2 feature that rogues get. That doesn't make it useless, but its very disappointing when compared to similar level features from other classes. Third, I do not recommend using javelins as a ranger.
Not arguably, it's objectively better. Also, rogues have a lot of things that make them appealing at those levels without Cunning Action (such as Sneak Attack and Expertise).
It's not a bad or useless feature, but again, compared to Blindsense, Reliable Talent, or Slippery Mind, Cleansing Touch, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Diamond Soul, or Tireless Body, or even more uses of Indomitable, this feature just pales in comparison.
In my opinion, this level 14 feature should matter for this class a bit more than "YOU CAN HIDE QUIK AND CAN'T BE TRAKKED".
Feral Senses
At 18 level you gain Feral Senses, the ability to ignore disadvantage on attacks against enemies you’re unable to see, additionally you’re aware of any invisible creature within 30ft of you that isn’t hidden from you. Any foe that relies on invisibility, beware! This is great for the Ranger as it really hits home the theme that you’re a master hunter, even invisible enemies are no match for your skills or detection. The Alhoon tries to slip away from you by casting invisibility, but with your enhanced senses you track its movements and strike, there can be no escape from you.
This isn’t just a combat boon, but can be great for avoiding ambushes or even intrigue in a social setting, the ability to be aware of essentially most things within 30ft is amazing.
Yep, great feature, but Rogues get it earlier, it negates your Fighting Style if you chose Blind Fighting, and is a bit late and a bit too little to be giving rangers "the good stuff". At this level, a Paladin gets the range of all of their auras multiplied by 3 (unless they're the dumb Glory Paladin), Rogues are literally immune to attacks having advantage against them while they're incapacitated, Monks can use Astral Projection twice a short rest with no material components and can go invisible for 1 minute using only 4 ki points (Which gives them advantage on EVERYTHING and enemies disadvantage on EVERYTHING, as well as giving resistance to ALL DAMGE except for force), and Druids gain 10 times the life span that they had before and can cast spells while in the form of a ******* brown bear.
Again, like Vanish, this feature is certainly not useless and is not horrible, but it's just annoyingly and disappointingly underwhelming when compared to other class features from similar classes at the same level. The moon druid gets to be a Giant Crocodile that shoots lasers out of its mouth, while you're just left with 30 feet of "I SEE INVISIBLE PEOPLES!!"
Foe Slayer
This is it, the crowning achievement, the pinnacle of Rangerness, the final ability you earn on your 20-level path, Foe Slayer! You can add, once per turn, your wisdom modifier to an attack or damage roll against a favoured enemy before or after the roll is made, but before effects are applied. You’ve tracked the orcs through thick and thin, and despite their heavy armour and numerical superiority your intense training, your dedication to hunting them down, your fanatic devotion to studying them, has allowed you to through force of will alone land blows that would otherwise have missed, and deal more damage than would normally be possible.
This is, once again a niche ability, and it does, if you want the most out of it, push you towards using those ASIs on wisdom, which in itself is not a bad thing, but it won’t always be relevant. Unfortunately, purely combat focused which is a little disappointing as the Ranger has so much going for it in non-combat situations and it would have been nice to see further utility, but it is hardly the worst ability, just uninspired.
The game has some great capstone abilities (Druid, Artificer, Rogue, Barbarian, Fighter, Cleric, most Paladin capstones), and the game has some underwhelming capstone abilities (Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard). This unfortunately fits into the crowd of the underwhelming ones.
Pre-Tasha's, this depended on fighting your Favored Enemies, which is ridiculously campaign dependent. With Tasha's, it requires you to give up your concentration in order to get a +5 bonus to an attack or damage roll once a turn (if you're lucky enough to have a 20 for Wisdom), +1d8 damage once a turn. This. . . sucks. More often than not, you're going to be better off using Hunter's Mark (A FIRST LEVEL SPELL!!!) than your freaking capstone ability.
I mean, imagine if Fighters got a capstone feature that let them make one attack as an action that dealt 4dweapon-damage-dice+STR/DEX-modifier instead of Extra Attack (3). It would be mechanically worse in most circumstances than using the action for Extra Attack (2). That's basically what this capstone ability does now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As an extra side note, Primeval Awareness does not determine any difference between different CR ratings. Sure it could tell you there are elementals within a dungeon, but that has a wide range between chwingas (harmless), to xorn's (for low level parties) to phoenix's (high level parties)
Albeit I think most of the problems are fixed with the addition of tasha's and xge. Subclass spells help to increase spell choices. The TCE variant features also help, Primal awareness fits the flavour, giving niche spells as a 1/longrest cast and Roving gives a nice mechanical advantage that fits with a wilderness expert.
Good call on the not determining CR rating, which is a pretty important factor that I also had not considered.
Overall I prefer the optional features, so I might do a write up on those and tack them onto the post.
You cannot seriously claim to want an honest conversation and then bring torture into this discussion.
We've moved well beyond your initial comments. You and Frank got into another spat, so you decided to ask for an "honest conversation." (In my experience, Frank isn't dishonest, merely overzealous, but YMMV.) A chance was then presented before you to reset the conversation, find some common ground, and build from there. It might not have been the kind of "honest conversation" that you wanted, but no one side in a two-sided discussion gets to set the terms. It would have been honest, and that's what counts.
And you rejected it.
To reiterate, anyone who shouts something equivalent of, "debate me," isn't actually entitled to one. The other party is well within their rights to walk away. But you're also a hypocrite for turning down the very opportunity you asked for.
People can love trash and hate a good thing. We're allowed to have opinions on things. Your calling the ranger bad is nothing more than your opinion, and Frank was correct in identifying it as such. But, as I said, Frank gets overzealous. He didn't treat the OP as an opinion. And, for what it's worth, I don't think Frank improved the discourse. Even though he was correct on a number of points, Frank's presentation wasn't constructive.
Still, if you're interested in an honest discussion and feel you won't get it from Frank, I'll volunteer as tribute.
Eh, people have differing experiences, differing dm's (therefore different rulings). Personally I'm inclined to just use the TCoE features.
At the end of the day, the ranger class is like, wild magic sorcerer or enchantment/illusion spells. One dm's rulings can make them worthless, while another can make them broken. People gave their takes on the features and that's about it.
I like this.
It is not "bringing torture into the conversation" it is giving an example of why the argument doesn't work. It was the first one I thought of, and I went to an extreme example to get my point across to make it plain as day. But, once again, you don't recognize actual dishonesty. You want to win an argument, so you ignore the substance of my example and harp on me using torture.
If I say "drinking sour milk is bad" you don't get to counter with "ok, say one good thing about goat milk and I'll say one bad thing about almond milk."
If I say "the war on drugs is bad" you don't get to counter with "ok, say one good thing about putting people in prison and I'll say one bad thing about D.A.R.E."
If I say "pollution is bad" you don't get to counter with "ok, say one good thing about greenhouse gasses and I'll say one bad thing about fracking."
This a dishonest tactic, and you apparently support it. You cannot build an honest conversation on the foundation of a dishonest tactic.
So, if you are volunteering for an honest discussion, you have already shown you may not be capable of having one if you support the above tactic in debate.
I honestly think the ranger and it’s abilities are all very good. They are fun, thematically great, effective, work well, and fit the class. I honestly wish the ranger and it’s abilities were written in a way that is more universally in line with how the other class’s abilities were written. Not changed, altered, or replaced. Just with clearer language.
I mean, the concept of a ranger, is thought differently by most people. With say a wizard, or a barbarian, people's visions of what they should be like are a lot closer to what other people think.
Some people think rangers should be specific, some people think they should be more general.
(In my opinion) Most survival skills are transferable across different terrains. Feels strange, that you can be a master explorer in a terrain but if it changes you have no features. Rangers are people who prepare for stuff in downtime, whether to hunt, track, guide etc. It feels odd that they cannot do ritual spells.
A cleric can use create food and water, and other spells while the party is in the wilderness. It's also not great that spells such as goodberry exist which make foraging less beneficial. The exploration pillar is not very established compared to the other two. Although if you do find good rules for exploration please reply with them cause I'd be interested to see them.
Frank, people don't have a hard time understanding the Ranger abilities any more than other classes. The language is quite clear. I'm not sure if you meant to do this, but by saying it needs to be written more clearly you're inferring people don't understand the abilities. WE DO.
Your use of the word haters needs to stop. It is so incredibly rude and dismissive. No one that disagrees with you has resorted to name calling the way that you have. Not to mention you're clearly putting your blinders on and ignoring the fact that most people that have negative things to say also have things that they like about the Ranger. You consistently make dishonest claims about your opposition.
To use Jounichi's parlance, you're overzealous. To the point where you accused the OP of being overly negative towards the Ranger. They basically wrote a persuasive essay trying to get people to play the Ranger. Look at the title of the thread! I mean come on.
Jounichi you cannot actively deny Frank's use of attacking language and then expect someone to trust you to engage in honest discourse.
As for OP, Dravaal, I thoroughly enjoyed the read. You have nice syntax and the content was well thought out. I commend your cool headedness to try and keep this thread going through some truly destructive behavior.
I do have a criticism though. I don't think players that are unexperienced with the Ranger are well served by a persuasion piece. Frankly, I think this mostly serves to make you feel good. There's nothing wrong with that, but when you target this at people without experience I think it is a bit misleading.
At the very least I think there should be a more prominent disclaimer at the beginning of the post about DM dependency and Niche class abilities. After reading through the OP and your responses it's clear you do recognize these flaws, but I think your OP has a tendency to gloss over them a bit which I don't think is constructive.
I think it's quite possible to convince people to play the Ranger while being brutally honest about their flaws. I believe you will have a stronger persuasive argument for it.
I'm very sorry and apologize for my words and overzealousness. Please know my referring to the internet being full of haters was meant with as about as much severity as the chorus from Taylor Swift's Shake It Off song.
Those examples you gave are what we like to call "straw men". A much better example would be...oh, boy, I'm going there, aren't I?.
Person 1: "I don't like The Last Jedi. I think it's the worst Star Wars film ever."
Person 2: "It's not perfect, no film is, but I liked it a lot. Can still talk about it? Is there anything you liked? I can talk about the stuff I didn't."
Person 1: "No, I'd rather just stew."
It was nice talking to you. Happy New Year and enjoy the rest of the weekend.
Okay, just finished reading the thread. This devolved quickly.
@Dravaal29, I appreciate that you do manage to point out some of the ranger's flaws and criticize parts of it, unlike some people in the thread, but I do disagree with quite a lot of the things you mentioned. I think with Tasha's new changes, anyone that is even slightly interested in the ranger class should go play it if/when they get the opportunity. However, I wouldn't encourage everyone to play one, as it just isn't the sort of thing everyone would like.
@FrankReynoldsGaryGygax, you are an advocate for the Ranger, a complete, devoted zealot to its cause. I do not mean any offense by saying this, but you even admitted that you're "overzealous". In all the threads I have debated with you in, I have not seen you say one bad thing about the Ranger, and automatically dismiss every negative part about it that anyone points out. Even your first post on this site was on a thread discussing the Beast Master Ranger, which you are an ardent supporter of. You like the class and its subclasses, which I understand, but you're being hot-headed on this topic. I like the theme of the class, too, but I like a lot of other classes as well, and I'm more than willing to admit the faults of those classes. You have even gone so far to state:
You refuse to admit any fault in the ranger's design, and you even seem confused or angry at the suggestion that someone could have a bad experience with the class, even calling anyone who has disliked their experience with the class a "hater".
No one else in this thread or others of the same topic has gone that far. It is one thing to like a class and support it, but it's a whole other thing to be a white knight, undying advocate for that class/feature and giving no ground to anyone else who merely wants to point out a flaw in the class. To do this with such fervor and zest that you're blinded to any other opinion, refusing to put yourself in anyone else's shoes while demanding that everyone puts themselves in your shoes. This is unfair and myopic, and infuriatingly difficult to argue against.
I love the Paladin, Wizard, and Artificer classes and would readily encourage anyone to play them, but I am more than willing to point out flaws with the classes. The paladin's smite spells are normally never used, as they take concentration and spell slots while doing less damage than a Divine Smite would. Divine Health is a very situational ability that barely ever (if ever) sees play. All wizards should be able to use their spellbook as a spellcasting focus, there's no mechanical reason for them to not be able to. Wizards overshadow most other classes, especially Sorcerers and Fighters. Artificers have a hard time separating spells from infusions and are kind of strangely designed (while still being very good). I am more than willing to point out issues that these classes have, as large or small as they may be.
Being able to point out these design flaws do not make me a "hater". It just makes me observant and aware of how the game is designed and balanced. My eyes are open. Yes, they are occasionally clouded by my inherent biases, which everyone has, but I don't let my biases blind me. You have allowed your extreme bias towards the Ranger class to blind you from any viewpoint other than yours, which is a huge disadvantage to yourself if you want to be taken seriously and not seen as an overenthusiastic fanboy who can't admit that the Wizard-Gods of the Coast could do anything wrong when designing the miraculous class that is the ranger.
I am not a hater. Korbin_Orion is not a hater. HeironymusZot is not a hater, and neither is Dravaal nor JeffJ02 for pointing out flaws and mechanical weaknesses in the Ranger class. I like the theme and idea of the Ranger class and most of its subclasses. We are merely open to the possible suggestion that the Ranger class isn't the spotless One True Way of playing D&D 5e that you make it out to be.
It's a good thing to like a class and support the class if you like it. Don't ever let anyone tell you that you are wrong for liking the Ranger class and having fun playing it. However, you have to show the same human decency to us and everyone else online that has not personally attacked you. We are just as entitled to our experiences and opinions as you are. You are correct that there are haters out there, but they are much less common on this site than you may suspect (see this post for groups of people on this site). Your pride and manhood is not tied to the Ranger class. It's okay to unlock that closed door to other opinions and be openminded.
I do not mean any offense, but will accept any fault if I caused you any. I wish you a good new year and will see you around.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The term "related" Alone is the most unclear Phrase in the all the class sections. Depending on how it's interpreted it can make ranger abilities OP or Underwhelming.(Note: underwhelming is not useless) Does my skill at tracking goats give me better tracking on satyrs? It might it might not. Does my skill at reading boot scuff marks in the mountain give me better ability to read scuff marks in a castle? would my ability to prepare for long winter nights in the mountains help me know how best to retain heat when the desert sun drops? will my tracking abilities on beasts allow me to track human riders better? what about the reverse would my knowledge of humans allow me to track them on horse back.
People seem so hesitant to give out the bonus but in reality it still is just a skill check. Just like I said in another post, If you gave it to every wisdom or int check its still not over powered compared to reliable talent.(I don't think either need to be changed.) This makes me think that is the original intent. Instead of a "out cry" to fix it, just loosen up your interpretation for the class that feels underwhelming. You don't even have to go that far to make it viable.
Several ranger abilities have vague wording or benefits that aren't immediately apparent (other spells and abilities do as well but they aren't quite as frequent as the ranger). That is the potential misunderstanding/Difference of opinion in my mind. That is the issue wizards should address or clarify. Wizards has had a dm fiat rule because they don't want the dm to be undermined but some dms hold things so tightly the ranger can't grab on to the bits they need to for one part of the class to function. That is wrong and it tends to lead to other problems with other classes or feats or encounter designs as well.
You.. just strawmanned my argument while claiming I was the one doing so.
My argument here is that when I ask for someone to be honest, responding with "you say a good thing and I'll say a bad thing" is not an appropriate response and does not make that person honest. If you're going to say a good thing, if you're going to be honest, do so without conditions. Do so without "I will if you do this first." Honesty is a requirement for having a good-faith discussion. You don't get to set conditions for when you will be honest, you just have to be honest or else you won't be taken seriously.
Your straw man is painting me as the person who "just wants to stew" and attacking me for that position when I have never expressed such an attitude. It is easy to attack me if you say "Korbin just doesn't want to say good things about the Ranger" if you characterize me that way. If I had actually done that, you would be right. Except I have said good things about the Ranger, plenty of times including in this thread. The Ranger is among my favorite archetypes, the 5e Ranger does a portion of that correctly. I don't have an issue with people liking the Ranger as you paint me out to be, I have an issue with the blind support of mechanics that are objectively flawed, and I have an issue with dishonesty.
My examples are for identifying the fallacious argumentative tactic. I did not repaint an argument and attack it. I did not mischaracterize anyone's argument. I did not quote anything out of context. I gave examples of Frank's tactic being used in other arguments of different topics to show the absurdity of the tactic.
No one is saying you can't talk about the things you like. We are saying that there is a genuine flaw, we give objective reasons as to why it is a flaw, and people just say "nuh-uh it is good" or characterize us as haters, or go even further to paint us as people who have a problem with differing opinions. Someone likes the Ranger as is, no one else cares. Someone says Primeval Awareness is a strong ability that is worth using one of the Ranger's incredibly precious spell slots for the information it provides for the limited amount of time it does so, that is not an objective determination that is blind support.
Furthermore, even if I had conceded to "I'll say a good thing you say a bad thing" that does absolutely nothing with the previous issue of dishonesty, nor does it mean every argument discussing the flaws of the Ranger beforehand are invalidated.
There is a "say a thing you like and I'll say a thing I don't like" example that could have occurred. Doing this does not address my issue of dishonesty. Frank was still dishonest and has not admitted it, has done nothing to rectify the situation. The same problem still exists, which is why I ignored the "find common ground" tactic because it does nothing to solve the issue that was at hand.
This part of the discussion all begins with a direct response to another incredibly blatant dishonest tactic. Frank literally denied saying a thing within four posts of saying it ("That is not what I said at all." - Frank) implying that he said nothing even remotely close to what I argued against. That is why I demanded honesty. Even if a portion of my arguments since is wrong or at least poorly worded, that still stands and has not been addressed. You don't get to lie and then say "I have been honest, but let's play this unrelated 'find common ground' game and start over." I still have no reason to believe that you are going to be honest from here on out.
What can I do to mend the wounds I've caused?
Stop praising the Ranger like it's God's gift to Nerd-kind. Realize that campaigns can be fine (and even great) without any "exploration" aspect or any other traditional ranger jazz.
The Ranger class has a great theme, and it's great that you like it, but that doesn't warrant being a designer's advocate. Don't dismiss people's experiences based on your enjoyment of the class and stop telling people that have had a bad time playing the ranger than they're playing the class wrong. It's okay to admit that a class/subclass/feature was poorly designed or not "all that", and you need to realize that. You're entitled to liking the Ranger class, and like I said above, don't let anyone tell you that your fun is wrong, but you have to stop telling other people that theirs is wrong or that they're playing the game/class wrong. Be willing to accept that other people's views and opinions are okay and that them not liking something you like/as much as you like it is not an attack on you.
It's one thing to like and support a class and it's another to act like it is 5e's golden child and the class that can do no wrong.
Just . . .stop being so unrelenting and become a bit more open and accepting of other people. It's totally fine to disagree with someone, but you have to at least hear out the other side before you decide that they're wrong. Take criticism seriously, and don't just dismiss it by calling the designated "other side" stupid or a hater. Learn from your mistakes and grow as a person.
That would be enough.
You have fury and zeal. Those are useful tools when applied correctly. Instead of using them to attack people who disagree with you on the effectiveness of the Ranger class, use them to fight the people who want to actively harm the hobby.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'm glad you enjoyed it, it did take me quite a while to write it (a few days of writing here and there). I still believe that this thread can be constructive.
You know, I'm probably guilty as charged here, I did enjoy this and it felt good to post it, and in many ways this was just as much for my benefit as others. The initial impetus to write this was mostly due to arguments in other threads which were mostly negative (rightly or wrongly) about the Ranger, which is a class I have always loved. I also wrote it to convince myself and force myself to actually look at the positives. When I first read the PHB Ranger I was initially very negative, I didn't like many of the abilities, and neither of the archetypes (Hunter especially) were particularly alluring.
Yes, I did try to promote the good, and not ignore the bad, but definitely not focus on it, and I didn't really consider it from the perspective of newer players. I definitely like the idea of a better disclaimer, I'll see if I can throw something together.
I'd be interested in hearing what you disagreed with if you have the time, always looking for constructive feedback. I did think about including Tasha's options initially, however I wanted something that was just basic at the start and included only the PHB content. I do plan on eventually adding them in either as an edit or a new post, and maybe if I'm feeling up to it a bit of a dive into the archetypes too.
Cheers.
one important distinction is that it is not magical. True sight and detect magic are big giveaways to most hiding options beyond regular stealth. There is an argument for it working on tremor sense and blind sight as well.
Also The wording makes the camouflage an object with a creation time. (its unclear if its like a ghillie suit or makeup ) But then switches to an adjective and then a verb. At no time is the objects destruction specified.
So even if you(dm perpective) think adding +10 twice in combat is OP you can consider if it would grant you situational advantage if the ranger moves and hides again. The depending on the situation dm might say no or yes but its within the advantage rules to at least consider if it feels underutilized.
I think you're misconstruing a few things here. Tracking a goat and tracking a satyr are two different types of creatures and that's where Favored Enemy comes in. They might have similar, if not identical, hoofprints, but their gait would be different simply by virtue of being bipedal. Heck, variant tieflings (SCAG) can also have cloven feet, so there are at least three options. Having advantage is independent from doubling one's proficiency bonus.
What Natural Explorer does is...okay, here's an example. If you choose "forest" and are proficient in Religion, then you functionally have expertise in general forest deities and possibly those of the forest's denizens. If elves or goblins live there, then you're familiar with those as well. If you were proficient in History, then you'd stand a better chance of recalling lore about heraldry, battlefields, lost cities, or ancient beasties who nested there but terrorized the surrounding region hundreds of years ago. And you don't have to actually be in the chosen terrain for those benefits to kick in. You just get a host of other benefits if you also happen to be there.
If the chosen terrain was instead "the underdark" then you would be especially knowledgeable of drow and duergar religion and history, mind flayers, etc.
I don't consider the word "related" to be vague, at all. If anything, it's incredibly generous and easily applicable. So long as the ranger is proficient in a breadth of Intelligence or Wisdom skills, they reap ridiculously strong benefits. The more, the better.
That said, I could go down your questions, one-by-one, and answer them as I would at my table. But I also feel like they're, rather deliberately, geared towards not being helpful discussion.
Not the best class objectively, but if it is for you, that's great. My personal favorite class thematically is either the Warlock, Sorcerer, or Artificer (currently leaning towards artificer).
This is an issue that a couple other classes have, too. They cover such a large spectrum of the classic "class roles" that it makes it difficult to find characters equally as interesting and helpful to the party. Paladins fill the role of the Fighter (Smite! Smite! Smite! It's a paladin smite!), Cleric (they have more support/healing spells/features than rangers), and can fill part of the role of the Rogue if they focus on Dexterity (and of course can fill the role of the Wizards with a homebrew Arcane subclass or by multiclassing into wizard for some reason). Druids can fill the role of a Fighter (with either minions or through wild shape), cleric (with healing/resurrection spells), wizard (with summoning/transportation/evocation/control spells like Summon Beast/Fey, Transport Via Plants, Call Lightning, and Plant Growth). Artificers can fill the role of Fighter (as an Armorer or Battle Smith), Cleric (with healing and support spells/infusions, especially as an Alchemist/Battle Smith), Rogue (with thieves' tools, normally good dexterity, illusion spells, and homunculi), and wizards (through arcane magic, especially as an Artillerist).
Rangers aren't unique in the fact that they can/do cover a broad range of archetypes of play at the same time, but there aren't that many classes that can do this.
Okay, let's break this down a bit:
Overall, is this feature thematic and cool as hell? YES! Is it a good feature? No. Not even close. In most cases that I have seen, this feature has been effectively slightly more useful than Thieves' Cant/Druidic in a campaign.
Overall, this feature is generally more useful than Favored Enemy in my experience, but still has the flaw of being way more campaign dependent than almost any other feature in the game. Divine Sense and Lay on Hands are way less campaign dependent than level one for a ranger. The same applies to the first level features of the Rogue, Fighter, Druid, and Monk classes, which are all similar in ways to this class.
Yes, this is a good feature (spellcasting rarely isn't), but has major flaws. The main one is that practically every cool ranger combat spell is concentration, and most often you're going to be ignoring the more cool ones in exchange for Hunter's Mark. (Favored ******* Foe makes this even more of a problem.) The other main issue with this is that many of the spells are bonus action dependent, which interferes with a major archetypal fighting style of rangers, which is Two-Weapon Fighting.
It's infuriatingly useless, and I would not try to pretend otherwise. There are already spells like this that take spell slots and tell you basically the exact same thing, but this takes up the slot of a class feature. Just use Primal Awareness. It clears up any headaches for the DM and any disappointment/frustration from the player's side.
This feature is useful. I'm not saying it's not useful. However, if you compare it to any feature of a similar class of a similar level, it quickly becomes abundantly clear how underwhelming it is. Monks and Rogues get Evasion at level 7, which fits the theme of this class amazingly well and is instead put into an option inside of an option at a much later level (Hunter subclass level 15 ability). I mean, look at how amazingly useful Aura of Protection, Evasion, Indomitable, and Expertise are. Druids get to freaking turn into an CR 1 beast of their choice, including ones that have wings at this level, TWICE A SHORT REST! In comparison, this just isn't "all that". It's a nice boost that could have easily been moved to a subclass or feat and been just as useful (like Land Druids have an identical feature that they get at level 6).
Just take Nature's Veil. It at least can be used in combat and can get you out of hairy situations. It sucks that it doesn't allow you to at least attack before the invisibility wears off, but otherwise it's a very, very good replacement for this feature.
It's not a bad or useless feature, but again, compared to Blindsense, Reliable Talent, or Slippery Mind, Cleansing Touch, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Diamond Soul, or Tireless Body, or even more uses of Indomitable, this feature just pales in comparison.
In my opinion, this level 14 feature should matter for this class a bit more than "YOU CAN HIDE QUIK AND CAN'T BE TRAKKED".
Yep, great feature, but Rogues get it earlier, it negates your Fighting Style if you chose Blind Fighting, and is a bit late and a bit too little to be giving rangers "the good stuff". At this level, a Paladin gets the range of all of their auras multiplied by 3 (unless they're the dumb Glory Paladin), Rogues are literally immune to attacks having advantage against them while they're incapacitated, Monks can use Astral Projection twice a short rest with no material components and can go invisible for 1 minute using only 4 ki points (Which gives them advantage on EVERYTHING and enemies disadvantage on EVERYTHING, as well as giving resistance to ALL DAMGE except for force), and Druids gain 10 times the life span that they had before and can cast spells while in the form of a ******* brown bear.
Again, like Vanish, this feature is certainly not useless and is not horrible, but it's just annoyingly and disappointingly underwhelming when compared to other class features from similar classes at the same level. The moon druid gets to be a Giant Crocodile that shoots lasers out of its mouth, while you're just left with 30 feet of "I SEE INVISIBLE PEOPLES!!"
The game has some great capstone abilities (Druid, Artificer, Rogue, Barbarian, Fighter, Cleric, most Paladin capstones), and the game has some underwhelming capstone abilities (Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard). This unfortunately fits into the crowd of the underwhelming ones.
Pre-Tasha's, this depended on fighting your Favored Enemies, which is ridiculously campaign dependent. With Tasha's, it requires you to give up your concentration in order to get a +5 bonus to an attack or damage roll once a turn (if you're lucky enough to have a 20 for Wisdom), +1d8 damage once a turn. This. . . sucks. More often than not, you're going to be better off using Hunter's Mark (A FIRST LEVEL SPELL!!!) than your freaking capstone ability.
I mean, imagine if Fighters got a capstone feature that let them make one attack as an action that dealt 4dweapon-damage-dice+STR/DEX-modifier instead of Extra Attack (3). It would be mechanically worse in most circumstances than using the action for Extra Attack (2). That's basically what this capstone ability does now.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms