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.
Yes you are correct in that the double proficiency and the advantage are separate and should be applied independently but they can still both apply to the same skill. Its all dependent on your view of related which is used both in Favored enemy and favored terrain.
You pointed out that your knowledge of a forest society is beneficial but skipped some of the more frequently used skills. Investigation, Insight, perception and medicine. My knowledge of the satyr society would make me better at telling if its lying or read clues to anger, embarrassment, grief or excitement. How about medicine checks? A creature can be stabilized with a medicine check. No medicine kit needed. You could know common cures or treatments most likely to have the best affect on creatures in the area. In each medicine check both favored terrain and favored enemy need to be considered. A for Beasmaster ranger its extra important to be granted one or both FE and FT if you need to stabilize your pet.
This interaction makes the skilled feat more powerful for the ranger class than any other which many consider a feat to never take.
All This should be brought up in a discussion on ranger. A dm and a player need to be able to ask the right questions and process them. My questions were examples leading to a train of thought showing how easily its core abilities are dismissed by many. However there is both the overlap and separation of the two abilities. It also shows how some would just automatically not think one would apply when it should or when your first thought was Favored enemy when you should actually be considering the terrain bonus. Playing rangers change they way you think about skills. To me this is very poignant in a post about the definitive ranger Guide.
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.
Nature’s Veil
You draw on the powers of nature to hide yourself from view briefly. As a bonus action, you can magically become invisible, along with any equipment you are wearing or carrying, until the start of your next turn.
Nature's Veil does allow the ranger to attack after becoming invisible in the same turn since it uses the bonus action. On top of that, all attacks are made with an advantage since the invisibility does not break by the attack. It is a powerful feature.
While Tasha's optional feature is really optional for other classes, some of Tasha's ranger's optional feature is not optional at all. It is fixing the PHB mistake.
Dravaal this was turning into an incredibly long post about one specific feature so I made this separate thread for a more in depth example of my explanation here. Perhaps another thing in regards to not making sure players aren't blind-sided by your post is to bring up the comparisons with other classes after the initial guide.
You've brought up the flaws without going into detail about why, and for your guide, you don't really have to YET. Unfamiliar players can probably grasp the feeling of a mechanic being bad but not necessarily the why, putting that negative perspective into an objectionable demonstration.
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.
It isn't quite as simple as "Cunning Action is more powerful than Vanish" and dismissing Cunning Action as "[needing] something to make them appealing" does a disservice to level 2 Rogues. The strength of Cunning Action also comes from its versatility and synergy within not just the Rogue class but with how powerful a level two dip in Rogue is to any character that wants those functionalities.
Because of all of the reasons within the thread I linked, because it is not as simple as crunching numbers and the comparisons and contrasts are far more abstract, is why it can be very important to make sure you don't downplay the benefits of a good feature or overplay the benefits of a bad feature.
You attempt to do this by playing up the RP possibility of Vanish, but you can't equate roleplay potential with a hard and fast mechanic so easily. It also implies that Vanish provides a roleplaying option whereas bonus actions to hide, dash and disengage do not, and this is not true. Every single mechanic has roleplay potential, and they have varying limitations to said potential, but in this example, Cunning Action has three individual mechanics to apply roleplay to whereas Vanish only has two. The potential for roleplay beyond that rests almost entirely within the player's skill, not the mechanic.
So in this way, RP can't be used as a boon to Vanish when RP applies to all mechanics of both features, and an individual player's mileage may vary based on their skill at RP.
The downsides of Vanish are often not easily identifiable for some people, particularly new players. If a player reads your guide at face value and takes it to heart, then they are taking 14 levels in Ranger with false expectations. If they at least understand WHY Cunning Action is better than Vanish, they can make an informed decision and decide for themselves if that much commitment to ranger is acceptable to them for the sacrifices they make.
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 ****ing brown bear.
Rogues get Blind sense which is different. They just know the location of an invisible enemy. They would still have disadvantage on attacks negating sneak attacks one of their core abilities.
Not every ranger will want blind fighting style. Even then blind fighting style means you can see them for spellcasting targeting like HM. There is also increased range.
Its still an always on ability unlike most of the others that use resources.
you are also not taking into account the monsters at that level have many ways to counter the invisibility. The rangers ability is a lot harder to shutdown.
It may not be the best but you seem to be going out of your way to make it look as bad as possible.
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).
Firstly army rangers in the real world do this all the time it makes real world sense.
Second the fact that its not magical is a boon. true sight and detect magic could ruin a hiding spot. not this.
Thirdly your comment about it being a loner ability. It would allow you to scout when setting up an ambush but have your team just out of sight behind literal cover making it impossible to see probably avoiding having them make their own checks. You would give the warning signal then the party could come out. Also because of the ranger hit die and armor/shields they are decent at holding their own for a turn while the rest of the party gets set up.
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 ****ing 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.
One thing not mentioned is how almost none of the ranger spells require material component or somatic components. Even paladins require a holy symbol on their shields for most spells if I remember right.
Also, if your willing to not do two weapon fighting you have your bonus action free a lot. Huntersmark does not require a bonus action every round only when switching (since it can be used with range or a shield your less likely to loose concentration) Zypher strike is functionally equal when single wielding and allows movement across the battle field also making concentration loss less of an issue Plus you can still chose a shield or dual wielding basically trading dps for safety and accuracy. The bonus action requirement for spells are in my experience is 1 out of 3 rounds (or once per combat on a good day) still allowing some use out of your bonus action if you play tactically.
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 ****ing 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.
One thing not mentioned is how almost none of the ranger spells require material component or somatic components. Even paladins require a holy symbol on their shields for most spells if I remember right.
Also, if your willing to not do two weapon fighting you have your bonus action free a lot. Huntersmark does not require a bonus action every round only when switching (since it can be used with range or a shield your less likely to loose concentration) Zypher strike is functionally equal when single wielding and allows movement across the battle field also making concentration loss less of an issue Plus you can still chose a shield or dual wielding basically trading dps for safety and accuracy. The bonus action requirement for spells are in my experience is 1 out of 3 rounds (or once per combat on a good day) still allowing some use out of your bonus action if you play tactically.
Define almost none.
58 Ranger spells.
31 require material components. 53.44%
53 require somatic components. 91.37%
All 31 spells that require material components require somatic components. 58.49% (of the spells that require Somatic)
There are a grand total of 5 spells that require only Verbal components. 8.62%
Saying you can choose a fighting style other than two-weapon fighting to free up your bonus action is not an argument that supports the Ranger, it is a flaw. It means one option in inherently weaker due to a lack of versatility. No matter how badly I want to play TWF Ranger, my potential is inherently stunted considering how many features/spells are reliant upon bonus actions.
My faults, mistakes, and overzealousness admitted to, apologized for, and set aside for a moment, why do several of you spend so much time intensely, and I would argue aggressively, beating down the ranger’s abilities as a whole and individually? For a bunch of abilities, class design, and overall functionality that is, by several of your calculations and reasoning obviously and objectively bad, you sure do spend a lot of effort having to try to prove it.
How many of those are combat spells? How many require a bow-free hand or arrow or regular piece of equipment to allow for the somatic or material components?
Your right "almost none" was a bad term but the point still stands. Your 8.62% verbal only makes up 70% of the ranger combat spell casting. another large percent requires ranger equipment not a focus. The material and somatic components are designed not to interfere with combat equipment.
if you don't take Two Weapon Fighting Feat and only lose the +dex to damage(and the draw two weapons but you usually already have at leas what you want in hand anyway). Rangers are still versatile and can still chose to use it or not. In fact I think you should be constantly making judgment calls to not use TWF. The designers have indicated two weapon fighting is flawed across all martial classes not just rangers. but if you study the turn sequence (Pre_lvl 5)you will see the complaint about spells interfering with the bonus action happens on average once or twice a combat. And Hunters mark(Or zepher strike) + Attack is basically equal to TWF ATTACK+ BA Attack on your first round. Second round it gets Better for hunter's mark 2 hm die + 2 Weapon die because HM is already up. Zepher is one die short(2 weapon + 1d8) turn 2 but one of the other die is a d8 plus advantage for basically 2 die and movement abilities) After level 5 your better off using ranged for sharpshooter (preferably with crossbow expert for ranged melee) any way for damage builds.
My faults, mistakes, and overzealousness admitted to, apologized for, and set aside for a moment, why do several of you spend so much time intensely, and I would argue aggressively, beating down the ranger’s abilities as a whole and individually? For a bunch of abilities, class design, and overall functionality that is, by several of your calculations and reasoning obviously and objectively bad, you sure do spend a lot of effort having to try to prove it.
Because we're in the Ranger forums? Do you want to hear my 10,000 word rant on Grim Harvest? If so, meet me over in Wizard.
My faults, mistakes, and overzealousness admitted to, apologized for, and set aside for a moment, why do several of you spend so much time intensely, and I would argue aggressively, beating down the ranger’s abilities as a whole and individually? For a bunch of abilities, class design, and overall functionality that is, by several of your calculations and reasoning obviously and objectively bad, you sure do spend a lot of effort having to try to prove it.
Because we're in the Ranger forums? Do you want to hear my 10,000 word rant on Grim Harvest? If so, meet me over in Wizard.
I understand you have a lot of criticisms about many things in the game. I guess what I don’t understand is why you seem to want these features to fail in the eyes of others.
Okay, 17 level 1 spells. Combat spells (in my opinion) are, Absorb elements (S), Cure Wounds (V,S), Ensnaring Strike (V), Fog Cloud (V,S), Hail of Thorns (V), Hunter's Mark (V), Zephyr Strike (V).
There are 7 level 1 combat spells. A mix between Verbal and Somatic. 4/7 are verbal only. I did not include long strider and Jump cause they are always cast pre combat.
I include lesser restoration as it is useful sometimes to remove paralyzed condition, healing spirit is healing, Prot from poison and Barkskin are both usually done before combat starts, but still see usage if you can't cast them beforehand. Silence is used vs spell casters, and spike growth is obviously combat.
No Verbal only spells, however the majority are Verbal + Somatic. Out of 6, 4 are V+S.
Above Level 1 spells, the only spell which is Verbal only is Guardian of Nature.
With the amount of Somatic spells, only ranged rangers work.
My faults, mistakes, and overzealousness admitted to, apologized for, and set aside for a moment, why do several of you spend so much time intensely, and I would argue aggressively, beating down the ranger’s abilities as a whole and individually? For a bunch of abilities, class design, and overall functionality that is, by several of your calculations and reasoning obviously and objectively bad, you sure do spend a lot of effort having to try to prove it.
Because we're in the Ranger forums? Do you want to hear my 10,000 word rant on Grim Harvest? If so, meet me over in Wizard.
I understand you have a lot of criticisms about many things in the game. I guess what I don’t understand is why you seem to want these features to fail in the eyes of others.
This is an example of mischaracterizing my position or intent. In no way whatsoever have I expressed that I WANT anything to fail in the eyes of others, nor is that even an accurate representation of what anyone does when they give honest criticisms of a mechanic. So what you see/interpret when you read my posts is something you just completely made up in your own mind.
I'm going to give an example of the tactic you just used as an argument on another topic.
The braking system on the new Honda has a high propensity to fail. Looks like it is going to be recalled.
Person A: "The new Honda is flawed. It is objectively worse in these ways than any other vehicle."
Person B: "Why do you want the new Honda to fail in the eyes of others?"
Is this an honest question or argument for Person B to make? So many people like the new Honda, they have never had any issue with the Honda. Why are people saying so many bad things about Person B's car?
A ranger will almost always have a have a higher ac than bark skin. I did not count any healing/restoration/Protection from poison as combat because good berry does better (assuming the feeding rule) and a ranger is rarely the dedicated healer in my experience. (mostly Under level 10 games)
I agree ranged ranger is superior. I was leading toward the point rangers are better off with a single weapon or ranged attacks anyway. The Use of two weapon fighting should be situational at best and not a feat investment. With crossbow expert you have a lot more options. Then bonus action spells and somatic components weren't an issue. but if your going for the main BA damage spells (HM, ensnaring strike, Zephyr strike) you have what you need in hand and can use a shield or two swords or a bow. Fog cloud (or silence because Its hard to get both) and spike growth Being combat spells but they are also regular action spells for specialized situations so you cast them a lot less and usually will only need the free stow action at most to use it.
Barkskin is not for the ranger anyways, it's to raise the ac of especially npc's.
A ranged ranger is far superior to sword+shield, and two weapon fighters. Seeing as the strongest defensive spell a ranger has, absorb elements, cannot be used unless you drop a feat into war caster.
Seeing as below level 10 rangers get 2 asi's with sharpshooter, alert, and dex increases being far higher priority to war caster, the melee ranger is severely handicapped.
In a situation where the braking system of the new Honda has a high propensity to fail, you think it is not flawed?
Alright. Well, I don't think I can engage in conversations effectively on these forums because my thoughts and views are either seen as attacks or completely dismissed via other's own personal views. Several others here claim to fairly and critically asses the ranger class on it's merits alone, find them flawed, and choose to preach these flaws over and over again. Is this a chicken and egg situation? Are all of you who combat me on these points only here because I sing the praises of the all mighty ranger? Would you all not be here if I wasn't? I read posts by many of you that say this or that ability is bad, poorly designed, or inferior and I offer counterpoints, overzealous or not, that is then poopooed at best or crucified at worst.
You all have no math to back up your claims, just hearsay and situational belief based on your own personal experiences or assumptions.
We are talking about a board game. An imaginary make-believe story telling fantasy world with an all mighty arbiter that changes drastically from table to table. This is not a hard coded program or video game. The words objective should never be used.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes you are correct in that the double proficiency and the advantage are separate and should be applied independently but they can still both apply to the same skill. Its all dependent on your view of related which is used both in Favored enemy and favored terrain.
You pointed out that your knowledge of a forest society is beneficial but skipped some of the more frequently used skills. Investigation, Insight, perception and medicine. My knowledge of the satyr society would make me better at telling if its lying or read clues to anger, embarrassment, grief or excitement. How about medicine checks? A creature can be stabilized with a medicine check. No medicine kit needed. You could know common cures or treatments most likely to have the best affect on creatures in the area. In each medicine check both favored terrain and favored enemy need to be considered. A for Beasmaster ranger its extra important to be granted one or both FE and FT if you need to stabilize your pet.
This interaction makes the skilled feat more powerful for the ranger class than any other which many consider a feat to never take.
All This should be brought up in a discussion on ranger. A dm and a player need to be able to ask the right questions and process them. My questions were examples leading to a train of thought showing how easily its core abilities are dismissed by many. However there is both the overlap and separation of the two abilities. It also shows how some would just automatically not think one would apply when it should or when your first thought was Favored enemy when you should actually be considering the terrain bonus. Playing rangers change they way you think about skills. To me this is very poignant in a post about the definitive ranger Guide.
Dravaal this was turning into an incredibly long post about one specific feature so I made this separate thread for a more in depth example of my explanation here. Perhaps another thing in regards to not making sure players aren't blind-sided by your post is to bring up the comparisons with other classes after the initial guide.
You've brought up the flaws without going into detail about why, and for your guide, you don't really have to YET. Unfamiliar players can probably grasp the feeling of a mechanic being bad but not necessarily the why, putting that negative perspective into an objectionable demonstration.
It isn't quite as simple as "Cunning Action is more powerful than Vanish" and dismissing Cunning Action as "[needing] something to make them appealing" does a disservice to level 2 Rogues. The strength of Cunning Action also comes from its versatility and synergy within not just the Rogue class but with how powerful a level two dip in Rogue is to any character that wants those functionalities.
Because of all of the reasons within the thread I linked, because it is not as simple as crunching numbers and the comparisons and contrasts are far more abstract, is why it can be very important to make sure you don't downplay the benefits of a good feature or overplay the benefits of a bad feature.
You attempt to do this by playing up the RP possibility of Vanish, but you can't equate roleplay potential with a hard and fast mechanic so easily. It also implies that Vanish provides a roleplaying option whereas bonus actions to hide, dash and disengage do not, and this is not true. Every single mechanic has roleplay potential, and they have varying limitations to said potential, but in this example, Cunning Action has three individual mechanics to apply roleplay to whereas Vanish only has two. The potential for roleplay beyond that rests almost entirely within the player's skill, not the mechanic.
So in this way, RP can't be used as a boon to Vanish when RP applies to all mechanics of both features, and an individual player's mileage may vary based on their skill at RP.
The downsides of Vanish are often not easily identifiable for some people, particularly new players. If a player reads your guide at face value and takes it to heart, then they are taking 14 levels in Ranger with false expectations. If they at least understand WHY Cunning Action is better than Vanish, they can make an informed decision and decide for themselves if that much commitment to ranger is acceptable to them for the sacrifices they make.
Rogues get Blind sense which is different. They just know the location of an invisible enemy. They would still have disadvantage on attacks negating sneak attacks one of their core abilities.
Not every ranger will want blind fighting style. Even then blind fighting style means you can see them for spellcasting targeting like HM. There is also increased range.
Its still an always on ability unlike most of the others that use resources.
you are also not taking into account the monsters at that level have many ways to counter the invisibility. The rangers ability is a lot harder to shutdown.
It may not be the best but you seem to be going out of your way to make it look as bad as possible.
Firstly army rangers in the real world do this all the time it makes real world sense.
Second the fact that its not magical is a boon. true sight and detect magic could ruin a hiding spot. not this.
Thirdly your comment about it being a loner ability. It would allow you to scout when setting up an ambush but have your team just out of sight behind literal cover making it impossible to see probably avoiding having them make their own checks. You would give the warning signal then the party could come out. Also because of the ranger hit die and armor/shields they are decent at holding their own for a turn while the rest of the party gets set up.
One thing not mentioned is how almost none of the ranger spells require material component or somatic components. Even paladins require a holy symbol on their shields for most spells if I remember right.
Also, if your willing to not do two weapon fighting you have your bonus action free a lot. Huntersmark does not require a bonus action every round only when switching (since it can be used with range or a shield your less likely to loose concentration) Zypher strike is functionally equal when single wielding and allows movement across the battle field also making concentration loss less of an issue Plus you can still chose a shield or dual wielding basically trading dps for safety and accuracy. The bonus action requirement for spells are in my experience is 1 out of 3 rounds (or once per combat on a good day) still allowing some use out of your bonus action if you play tactically.
Define almost none.
58 Ranger spells.
31 require material components. 53.44%
53 require somatic components. 91.37%
All 31 spells that require material components require somatic components. 58.49% (of the spells that require Somatic)
There are a grand total of 5 spells that require only Verbal components. 8.62%
Saying you can choose a fighting style other than two-weapon fighting to free up your bonus action is not an argument that supports the Ranger, it is a flaw. It means one option in inherently weaker due to a lack of versatility. No matter how badly I want to play TWF Ranger, my potential is inherently stunted considering how many features/spells are reliant upon bonus actions.
My faults, mistakes, and overzealousness admitted to, apologized for, and set aside for a moment, why do several of you spend so much time intensely, and I would argue aggressively, beating down the ranger’s abilities as a whole and individually? For a bunch of abilities, class design, and overall functionality that is, by several of your calculations and reasoning obviously and objectively bad, you sure do spend a lot of effort having to try to prove it.
How many of those are combat spells? How many require a bow-free hand or arrow or regular piece of equipment to allow for the somatic or material components?
Your right "almost none" was a bad term but the point still stands. Your 8.62% verbal only makes up 70% of the ranger combat spell casting. another large percent requires ranger equipment not a focus. The material and somatic components are designed not to interfere with combat equipment.
if you don't take Two Weapon Fighting Feat and only lose the +dex to damage(and the draw two weapons but you usually already have at leas what you want in hand anyway). Rangers are still versatile and can still chose to use it or not. In fact I think you should be constantly making judgment calls to not use TWF. The designers have indicated two weapon fighting is flawed across all martial classes not just rangers. but if you study the turn sequence (Pre_lvl 5)you will see the complaint about spells interfering with the bonus action happens on average once or twice a combat. And Hunters mark(Or zepher strike) + Attack is basically equal to TWF ATTACK+ BA Attack on your first round. Second round it gets Better for hunter's mark 2 hm die + 2 Weapon die because HM is already up. Zepher is one die short(2 weapon + 1d8) turn 2 but one of the other die is a d8 plus advantage for basically 2 die and movement abilities) After level 5 your better off using ranged for sharpshooter (preferably with crossbow expert for ranged melee) any way for damage builds.
Because we're in the Ranger forums? Do you want to hear my 10,000 word rant on Grim Harvest? If so, meet me over in Wizard.
I understand you have a lot of criticisms about many things in the game. I guess what I don’t understand is why you seem to want these features to fail in the eyes of others.
Okay, 17 level 1 spells. Combat spells (in my opinion) are, Absorb elements (S), Cure Wounds (V,S), Ensnaring Strike (V), Fog Cloud (V,S), Hail of Thorns (V), Hunter's Mark (V), Zephyr Strike (V).
There are 7 level 1 combat spells. A mix between Verbal and Somatic. 4/7 are verbal only. I did not include long strider and Jump cause they are always cast pre combat.
14 level 2 spells. Combat spells are, Barkskin (V,S,M) Healing spirit (V,S), Lesser restoration (V,S), Prot from poison (V,S), Silence (V,S), Spike growth (V,S,M)
I include lesser restoration as it is useful sometimes to remove paralyzed condition, healing spirit is healing, Prot from poison and Barkskin are both usually done before combat starts, but still see usage if you can't cast them beforehand. Silence is used vs spell casters, and spike growth is obviously combat.
No Verbal only spells, however the majority are Verbal + Somatic. Out of 6, 4 are V+S.
Above Level 1 spells, the only spell which is Verbal only is Guardian of Nature.
With the amount of Somatic spells, only ranged rangers work.
This is an example of mischaracterizing my position or intent. In no way whatsoever have I expressed that I WANT anything to fail in the eyes of others, nor is that even an accurate representation of what anyone does when they give honest criticisms of a mechanic. So what you see/interpret when you read my posts is something you just completely made up in your own mind.
I'm going to give an example of the tactic you just used as an argument on another topic.
Is this an honest question or argument for Person B to make? So many people like the new Honda, they have never had any issue with the Honda. Why are people saying so many bad things about Person B's car?
Well if I am misinterpreted your posts I’m sorry and I’ll work to do better.
I’ll say it this way. I don’t think the new Honda is flawed at all. Objectively or otherwise. I think it is really great.
Would that be an acceptable way to respond?
In a situation where the braking system of the new Honda has a high propensity to fail, you think it is not flawed?
A ranger will almost always have a have a higher ac than bark skin. I did not count any healing/restoration/Protection from poison as combat because good berry does better (assuming the feeding rule) and a ranger is rarely the dedicated healer in my experience. (mostly Under level 10 games)
I agree ranged ranger is superior. I was leading toward the point rangers are better off with a single weapon or ranged attacks anyway. The Use of two weapon fighting should be situational at best and not a feat investment. With crossbow expert you have a lot more options. Then bonus action spells and somatic components weren't an issue. but if your going for the main BA damage spells (HM, ensnaring strike, Zephyr strike) you have what you need in hand and can use a shield or two swords or a bow. Fog cloud (or silence because Its hard to get both) and spike growth Being combat spells but they are also regular action spells for specialized situations so you cast them a lot less and usually will only need the free stow action at most to use it.
Feeding rules?
Barkskin is not for the ranger anyways, it's to raise the ac of especially npc's.
A ranged ranger is far superior to sword+shield, and two weapon fighters. Seeing as the strongest defensive spell a ranger has, absorb elements, cannot be used unless you drop a feat into war caster.
Seeing as below level 10 rangers get 2 asi's with sharpshooter, alert, and dex increases being far higher priority to war caster, the melee ranger is severely handicapped.
Technically a creature has to use its action to eat a goodberry but most dms allow feeding 1 berry per action.
Alright. Well, I don't think I can engage in conversations effectively on these forums because my thoughts and views are either seen as attacks or completely dismissed via other's own personal views. Several others here claim to fairly and critically asses the ranger class on it's merits alone, find them flawed, and choose to preach these flaws over and over again. Is this a chicken and egg situation? Are all of you who combat me on these points only here because I sing the praises of the all mighty ranger? Would you all not be here if I wasn't? I read posts by many of you that say this or that ability is bad, poorly designed, or inferior and I offer counterpoints, overzealous or not, that is then poopooed at best or crucified at worst.
You all have no math to back up your claims, just hearsay and situational belief based on your own personal experiences or assumptions.
We are talking about a board game. An imaginary make-believe story telling fantasy world with an all mighty arbiter that changes drastically from table to table. This is not a hard coded program or video game. The words objective should never be used.