Its always been this weird thing about 5e....half-casters tend to be lame ducks for me as they aren't generally as good as full martials for damage (Sans paladin where they can get LR in regularly) and aren't as good as casters as full casters so they come in this weird realm of being helpful but not the best in anything.
Considering that there's only two half-casters (well, three now, but the artificer is kinda new) and the paladin is generally considered one of the strongest classes... what a curious conclusion.
Are you including Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight and/or Elemental Monk, by any chance? Curious minds inquiring
Compared to most full casters, yes, rangers aren't crowd control experts. But compared to fighters, paladins, rogues, monks, and barbarians, rangers are king of the hill in crowd control.
How so? Barring Hail of Thorns/Conjure Barrage/Conjure Volley, which I've never seen taken, and the Hunter subclass, the ranger doesn't really seem to have any thing that really can be considered crowd control.
So, a melee ranger with, say, Fey Wanderer wouldn't have access to any crowd control abilities.
Hail of thorns is a great spell. Rangers should take it.
Other crowd control? Ensnaring strike, fog cloud, pass without trace, spike growth, conjure animals, and plant growth, just in levels 1-3.
Hunters have obvious options for combating groups of enemies. Beast masters have animals that have control effects, help actions, AoO, and provide cover.
For me the quarter casters like AT, EK are good as they get access to cantrips which are always fun to play around with and generally offer benefit....but I find myself feeling starting to feel envious of the full casters by like level 5 or 6. They get these cool higher level spells and can do more things that I will never be able too. It gets worse from there as by the time they get 5th level spells I am generally wondering how to max my damage so I can kill something before they end the fight with some spell.
Paladin is a weird one for me....I love it for the resources it gets outside of its spell slots (CD, Lay on Hands) which generally add to its toolkit without having to rely on spells. I feel the above as well by later levels but I feel better about the class as I know I can nova hard and kill something if I really want to. Otherwise the casters are doing my amount of damage or more with their conjures or summons.....or just ending the encounter by banishing the enemy while we all get ready to smoke it.
Ranger comes in and does not get any of the above...well at least until Tasha's. PHB Ranger got these nebulous benefits (Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer) that do nothing 90% of the time and feel like a place holder for a better feature no one could think of. The rogue is doing better at tracking the bad guy than me because he has expertise. The barbarian is outlander background so he found the food already. The warlock sent his imp to scan the area invisible so my scouting is not really needed. The druid has become a bear and is talking with the other bears about a possible berry trade. The wizard is doing some ritual stuff to make us all speak to each other telepathically. And here I am....the others have negated most of my potential with hardly trying. I can never do what these others can but they can easily replace me. My only goal is to hope that the druid runs out of spell slots so I can cast Spike Growth and feel like I am contributing.
Tasha's helps but gives us Favored Foe which is situationally OK at best. The rest of Tasha's is actually good though so I am actually liking ranger better now. But I still have this feeling from old ranger that it doesn't take much to make me feel out of place. If I do not pick damage spells I am falling behind in combat and out of combat I am falling behind to the rest of the group anyway.
I'm hoping not to get into a long drawn out conversation again, but rangers are used in the exploration part of the game, which most (according to all of them) people don't use at all, much, or thoroughly. A rogue, even the scout, is not better at exploration than the ranger base class. The scout is 10% better at doing a few things some of the time. And you just listed 5 classes doing a thing. 5. That the ranger does. Not one of those classes can do all what the others you listed can do.
For me the quarter casters like AT, EK are good as they get access to cantrips which are always fun to play around with and generally offer benefit....but I find myself feeling starting to feel envious of the full casters by like level 5 or 6. They get these cool higher level spells and can do more things that I will never be able too. It gets worse from there as by the time they get 5th level spells I am generally wondering how to max my damage so I can kill something before they end the fight with some spell.
Paladin is a weird one for me....I love it for the resources it gets outside of its spell slots (CD, Lay on Hands) which generally add to its toolkit without having to rely on spells. I feel the above as well by later levels but I feel better about the class as I know I can nova hard and kill something if I really want to. Otherwise the casters are doing my amount of damage or more with their conjures or summons.....or just ending the encounter by banishing the enemy while we all get ready to smoke it.
Ranger comes in and does not get any of the above...well at least until Tasha's. PHB Ranger got these nebulous benefits (Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer) that do nothing 90% of the time and feel like a place holder for a better feature no one could think of. The rogue is doing better at tracking the bad guy than me because he has expertise. The barbarian is outlander background so he found the food already. The warlock sent his imp to scan the area invisible so my scouting is not really needed. The druid has become a bear and is talking with the other bears about a possible berry trade. The wizard is doing some ritual stuff to make us all speak to each other telepathically. And here I am....the others have negated most of my potential with hardly trying. I can never do what these others can but they can easily replace me. My only goal is to hope that the druid runs out of spell slots so I can cast Spike Growth and feel like I am contributing.
Tasha's helps but gives us Favored Foe which is situationally OK at best. The rest of Tasha's is actually good though so I am actually liking ranger better now. But I still have this feeling from old ranger that it doesn't take much to make me feel out of place. If I do not pick damage spells I am falling behind in combat and out of combat I am falling behind to the rest of the group anyway.
I'm hoping not to get into a long drawn out conversation again, but rangers are used in the exploration part of the game, which most (according to all of them) people don't use at all, much, or thoroughly. A rogue, even the scout, is not better at exploration than the ranger base class. The scout is 10% better at doing a few things some of the time. And you just listed 5 classes doing a thing. 5. That the ranger does. Not one of those classes can do all what the others you listed can do.
Thats kinda the point...he can do it but the others do it better. Mostly the game is a party game so the collective make you not needed or even a liability if you are worse at it.
For me the quarter casters like AT, EK are good as they get access to cantrips which are always fun to play around with and generally offer benefit....but I find myself feeling starting to feel envious of the full casters by like level 5 or 6. They get these cool higher level spells and can do more things that I will never be able too. It gets worse from there as by the time they get 5th level spells I am generally wondering how to max my damage so I can kill something before they end the fight with some spell.
Paladin is a weird one for me....I love it for the resources it gets outside of its spell slots (CD, Lay on Hands) which generally add to its toolkit without having to rely on spells. I feel the above as well by later levels but I feel better about the class as I know I can nova hard and kill something if I really want to. Otherwise the casters are doing my amount of damage or more with their conjures or summons.....or just ending the encounter by banishing the enemy while we all get ready to smoke it.
Ranger comes in and does not get any of the above...well at least until Tasha's. PHB Ranger got these nebulous benefits (Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer) that do nothing 90% of the time and feel like a place holder for a better feature no one could think of. The rogue is doing better at tracking the bad guy than me because he has expertise. The barbarian is outlander background so he found the food already. The warlock sent his imp to scan the area invisible so my scouting is not really needed. The druid has become a bear and is talking with the other bears about a possible berry trade. The wizard is doing some ritual stuff to make us all speak to each other telepathically. And here I am....the others have negated most of my potential with hardly trying. I can never do what these others can but they can easily replace me. My only goal is to hope that the druid runs out of spell slots so I can cast Spike Growth and feel like I am contributing.
Tasha's helps but gives us Favored Foe which is situationally OK at best. The rest of Tasha's is actually good though so I am actually liking ranger better now. But I still have this feeling from old ranger that it doesn't take much to make me feel out of place. If I do not pick damage spells I am falling behind in combat and out of combat I am falling behind to the rest of the group anyway.
I'm hoping not to get into a long drawn out conversation again, but rangers are used in the exploration part of the game, which most (according to all of them) people don't use at all, much, or thoroughly. A rogue, even the scout, is not better at exploration than the ranger base class. The scout is 10% better at doing a few things some of the time. And you just listed 5 classes doing a thing. 5. That the ranger does. Not one of those classes can do all what the others you listed can do.
Thats kinda the point...he can do it but the others do it better. Mostly the game is a party game so the collective make you not needed or even a liability if you are worse at it.
Yikes. That interpretation is beyond my comprehension. But I'll bow out now, as we both know we don't agree on a lot about this game.
Other crowd control? Ensnaring strike, fog cloud, pass without trace, spike growth, conjure animals, and plant growth, just in levels 1-3.
Hunters have obvious options for combating groups of enemies. Beast masters have animals that have control effects, help actions, AoO, and provide cover.
Mrr.... I suppose messing with the terrain counts, but ....
You're including single target controls, which monks and some fighters far and away dominate far better than rangers do.
Other crowd control? Ensnaring strike, fog cloud, pass without trace, spike growth, conjure animals, and plant growth, just in levels 1-3.
Hunters have obvious options for combating groups of enemies. Beast masters have animals that have control effects, help actions, AoO, and provide cover.
Mrr.... I suppose messing with the terrain counts, but ....
You're including single target controls, which monks and some fighters far and away dominate far better than rangers do.
Ok. But again, folks say that “these classes can do it better”, but again, the ranger can do lots of things. Some fighters and all monks can do a single target control thing. All rangers can do that and more, like with multiple target.
Other crowd control? Ensnaring strike, fog cloud, pass without trace, spike growth, conjure animals, and plant growth, just in levels 1-3.
Hunters have obvious options for combating groups of enemies. Beast masters have animals that have control effects, help actions, AoO, and provide cover.
Mrr.... I suppose messing with the terrain counts, but ....
You're including single target controls, which monks and some fighters far and away dominate far better than rangers do.
Ok. But again, folks say that “these classes can do it better”, but again, the ranger can do lots of things. Some fighters and all monks can do a single target control thing. All rangers can do that and more, like with multiple target.
This is true, up to a point. Rangers do have a rather versatile kit; capable of a great deal. But they're not as flexible as you make them out to be. Their spells are, regrettably, limited in that they cannot prepare a new list every day. Their choices matter, and because they are half-casters they matter far more than those of a bard, sorcerer, or warlock. Fortunately, the ranger is also a martial class with a d10 hit die and fighting style. They can always fall back on that, but that's not a fun place to be. Still, it happens. Some adventuring days are grueling and you just run out of spell slots.
Other crowd control? Ensnaring strike, fog cloud, pass without trace, spike growth, conjure animals, and plant growth, just in levels 1-3.
Hunters have obvious options for combating groups of enemies. Beast masters have animals that have control effects, help actions, AoO, and provide cover.
Mrr.... I suppose messing with the terrain counts, but ....
You're including single target controls, which monks and some fighters far and away dominate far better than rangers do.
Ok. But again, folks say that “these classes can do it better”, but again, the ranger can do lots of things. Some fighters and all monks can do a single target control thing. All rangers can do that and more, like with multiple target.
This is true, up to a point. Rangers do have a rather versatile kit; capable of a great deal. But they're not as flexible as you make them out to be. Their spells are, regrettably, limited in that they cannot prepare a new list every day. Their choices matter, and because they are half-casters they matter far more than those of a bard, sorcerer, or warlock. Fortunately, the ranger is also a martial class with a d10 hit die and fighting style. They can always fall back on that, but that's not a fun place to be. Still, it happens. Some adventuring days are grueling and you just run out of spell slots.
That's just it. Bards, and Warlocks are no longer the half casters they once were. And Sorcerer's never were. They started out as a Wizard variant and have largely lived in their shadow to their detriment. All these classes are full casters with themed gimmicks to how they work now.
And half Casters really don't compare to any of them let alone the Druid, the Cleric, or the Wizard itself. Though everybody seems obsessed with trying. Half Casters Are unique things and are things like the Ranger, the Paladin, and certain Subclasses. But even they don't always compare well because they have different focus that changes up their style so styles that fit for one really do not fit for another. you might be able to compare Paladin and Eldritch Knight because they are both Fighters with a flavor of Combat Casting on top. But something like the Arcane Trickster, the 4 elements Monk, and the Ranger all serve very different purposes from that and don't do well in the tanking and Melee Barrage roles of those two classes. Ranger and Rogue probably have more in common than Ranger and Paladin do realistically. Since Ranger and Rogue serve more of the same capacities to some extent though going about them in somewhat different ways and somewhat different foci, And they are working off of similar combat styles. And the Monk is doing it's own thing largely even though it fits that skirmisher role decently enough.
At level 3 a scout is 10% better than the ranger some of the time at doing one thing while traveling.
NOTE: I'm not arguing with franks point just clarifying something that seems to be missed often.
This doesn't account for the fact that the only class that should be doing multiple things while traveling is the ranger(remaining alert +1). Especially the beast master which has a whole extra thing because beasts get their own. The problem is many dms allow other characters to have "multiple actions" while traveling but if they get extra the ranger should get extra too. The other common scenario is the dm assumes every one is alert but then doesn't allow the extra action for the ranger. A rogue or (other non ranger build) cannot remain alert to danger while tracking. Someone else has to provide that. No one but the ranger will get the exact timeline and counts. Any thing else is outside given class abilities.
PHB Ranger got these nebulous benefits (Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer) that do nothing 90% of the time and feel like a place holder for a better feature no one could think of.
This is pure exaggeration and should be treated as such. FE needs to be accounted for in builds that skip out on FF because you are trading out damage for utility.
PHB Ranger got these nebulous benefits (Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer) that do nothing 90% of the time and feel like a place holder for a better feature no one could think of.
This is pure exaggeration and should be treated as such. FE needs to be accounted for in builds that skip out on FF because you are trading out damage for utility.
Well to me it is not. In the 6 or so 5e campaigns I have been in or run the rangers have used their FE and NE abilities like 5 times out of the near 5 years of encounters. Mostly because I had to go out of my way as a DM to make it relevant. If you have an adventure in one biome (Out of the Abyss) I could see it being more useful. Otherwise I have found it to be near completely useless as a player.
Foe is fine as its literally better than nothing (Which is pretty close to what I consider Favored Enemy) so I guess we can take it. Otherwise its just a minor add of damage....I would have preferred if it had been something other than damage actually. Some small buff or debuff would have at least been interesting...instead its this silly one instance of damage that by the time it actually gets to a decent die about you are just summoning a bunch of wolves anyway.
And your anecdotes should be treated accordingly; as something not representative of how the game is played. Just because you don't find a use for it does not mean others don't. It does not mean the game does not encourage the use of those features.
And your anecdotes should be treated accordingly; as something not representative of how the game is played. Just because you don't find a use for it does not mean others don't. It does not mean the game does not encourage the use of those features.
As are your anecdotes that is actually useful....so I guess we are left with what the community thinks and I guess they hated it as they replaced it completely? Overall no other class got the extensive overhaul ranger did. No other class has had at least 5 iterations of the class to try to make it better....its pretty apparent which side of the isle most people fall on with the value it brings to the game.
And your anecdotes should be treated accordingly; as something not representative of how the game is played. Just because you don't find a use for it does not mean others don't. It does not mean the game does not encourage the use of those features.
As are your anecdotes that is actually useful....so I guess we are left with what the community thinks and I guess they hated it as they replaced it completely? Overall no other class got the extensive overhaul ranger did. No other class has had at least 5 iterations of the class to try to make it better....its pretty apparent which side of the isle most people fall on with the value it brings to the game.
Your 5-6 campaigns are not representative of the "community". For crying out loud, the "community" can't agree on anything. You, nor anyone else, gets to hold it up as some monolith to be appeased.
Some people vociferously complained about the ranger, and specifically the Beast Master. Presumably, these same people also didn't like to use the rules that made use of the features they were complaining about. When you change the game and how it behaves, you run the risk of breaking something. And if your changes do break something, the fault lies with you and not the developers. It's no different than sticking a mod file into a PC game, breaking something in the game, and then asking the developer to fix your mistake.
There has been no overhaul of the class. These new features in Tasha's are optional. They are, roughly, on par with what they would replace. And they were made, with the benefit of hindsight, for people who did not like to play the game as originally intended.
And your anecdotes should be treated accordingly; as something not representative of how the game is played. Just because you don't find a use for it does not mean others don't. It does not mean the game does not encourage the use of those features.
As are your anecdotes that is actually useful....so I guess we are left with what the community thinks and I guess they hated it as they replaced it completely? Overall no other class got the extensive overhaul ranger did. No other class has had at least 5 iterations of the class to try to make it better....its pretty apparent which side of the isle most people fall on with the value it brings to the game.
Your 5-6 campaigns are not representative of the "community". For crying out loud, the "community" can't agree on anything. You, nor anyone else, gets to hold it up as some monolith to be appeased.
Some people vociferously complained about the ranger, and specifically the Beast Master. Presumably, these same people also didn't like to use the rules that made use of the features they were complaining about. When you change the game and how it behaves, you run the risk of breaking something. And if your changes do break something, the fault lies with you and not the developers. It's no different than sticking a mod file into a PC game, breaking something in the game, and then asking the developer to fix your mistake.
There has been no overhaul of the class. These new features in Tasha's are optional. They are, roughly, on par with what they would replace. And they were made, with the benefit of hindsight, for people who did not like to play the game as originally intended.
I never stated my 5-6 campaigns were anything but my opinion....they are my experiences. However the community has been pretty clear of their distaste for the class. If you want to ignore all of that then denial it is I guess....
Again, your idea of the "community" can go stuff itself.
It's not a thing you can hold up as an exemplar for anything. Yes, there have been a few UA attempts and a metric ton of fan works. There are also more fan-made classes, subclasses, and races than you can shake a quarterstaff at. Nine Hells, there are multiple takes on the same darn thing. Lord knows how many. Even if the "community" could agree that a niche is wanted or needed to be filled, it can't agree on how.
Nothing has been "fixed". It's all homebrew. And most of it is hogwash.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hail of thorns is a great spell. Rangers should take it.
Other crowd control? Ensnaring strike, fog cloud, pass without trace, spike growth, conjure animals, and plant growth, just in levels 1-3.
Hunters have obvious options for combating groups of enemies. Beast masters have animals that have control effects, help actions, AoO, and provide cover.
I'm hoping not to get into a long drawn out conversation again, but rangers are used in the exploration part of the game, which most (according to all of them) people don't use at all, much, or thoroughly. A rogue, even the scout, is not better at exploration than the ranger base class. The scout is 10% better at doing a few things some of the time. And you just listed 5 classes doing a thing. 5. That the ranger does. Not one of those classes can do all what the others you listed can do.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/adventuring#ActivityWhileTraveling
https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/ranger#NaturalExplorer-295
At level 3 a scout is 10% better than the ranger some of the time at doing one thing while traveling.
Thats kinda the point...he can do it but the others do it better. Mostly the game is a party game so the collective make you not needed or even a liability if you are worse at it.
I would LOVE to see who actually uses these rules....
You and I agree on this point.
Yikes. That interpretation is beyond my comprehension. But I'll bow out now, as we both know we don't agree on a lot about this game.
Mrr.... I suppose messing with the terrain counts, but ....
You're including single target controls, which monks and some fighters far and away dominate far better than rangers do.
*Raises hand*
In case that wasn't clear, I do use those rules.
Ok. But again, folks say that “these classes can do it better”, but again, the ranger can do lots of things. Some fighters and all monks can do a single target control thing. All rangers can do that and more, like with multiple target.
This is true, up to a point. Rangers do have a rather versatile kit; capable of a great deal. But they're not as flexible as you make them out to be. Their spells are, regrettably, limited in that they cannot prepare a new list every day. Their choices matter, and because they are half-casters they matter far more than those of a bard, sorcerer, or warlock. Fortunately, the ranger is also a martial class with a d10 hit die and fighting style. They can always fall back on that, but that's not a fun place to be. Still, it happens. Some adventuring days are grueling and you just run out of spell slots.
That's just it. Bards, and Warlocks are no longer the half casters they once were. And Sorcerer's never were. They started out as a Wizard variant and have largely lived in their shadow to their detriment. All these classes are full casters with themed gimmicks to how they work now.
And half Casters really don't compare to any of them let alone the Druid, the Cleric, or the Wizard itself. Though everybody seems obsessed with trying. Half Casters Are unique things and are things like the Ranger, the Paladin, and certain Subclasses. But even they don't always compare well because they have different focus that changes up their style so styles that fit for one really do not fit for another. you might be able to compare Paladin and Eldritch Knight because they are both Fighters with a flavor of Combat Casting on top. But something like the Arcane Trickster, the 4 elements Monk, and the Ranger all serve very different purposes from that and don't do well in the tanking and Melee Barrage roles of those two classes. Ranger and Rogue probably have more in common than Ranger and Paladin do realistically. Since Ranger and Rogue serve more of the same capacities to some extent though going about them in somewhat different ways and somewhat different foci, And they are working off of similar combat styles. And the Monk is doing it's own thing largely even though it fits that skirmisher role decently enough.
NOTE: I'm not arguing with franks point just clarifying something that seems to be missed often.
This doesn't account for the fact that the only class that should be doing multiple things while traveling is the ranger(remaining alert +1). Especially the beast master which has a whole extra thing because beasts get their own. The problem is many dms allow other characters to have "multiple actions" while traveling but if they get extra the ranger should get extra too. The other common scenario is the dm assumes every one is alert but then doesn't allow the extra action for the ranger. A rogue or (other non ranger build) cannot remain alert to danger while tracking. Someone else has to provide that. No one but the ranger will get the exact timeline and counts. Any thing else is outside given class abilities.
This is pure exaggeration and should be treated as such. FE needs to be accounted for in builds that skip out on FF because you are trading out damage for utility.
Well to me it is not. In the 6 or so 5e campaigns I have been in or run the rangers have used their FE and NE abilities like 5 times out of the near 5 years of encounters. Mostly because I had to go out of my way as a DM to make it relevant. If you have an adventure in one biome (Out of the Abyss) I could see it being more useful. Otherwise I have found it to be near completely useless as a player.
Foe is fine as its literally better than nothing (Which is pretty close to what I consider Favored Enemy) so I guess we can take it. Otherwise its just a minor add of damage....I would have preferred if it had been something other than damage actually. Some small buff or debuff would have at least been interesting...instead its this silly one instance of damage that by the time it actually gets to a decent die about you are just summoning a bunch of wolves anyway.
And your anecdotes should be treated accordingly; as something not representative of how the game is played. Just because you don't find a use for it does not mean others don't. It does not mean the game does not encourage the use of those features.
As are your anecdotes that is actually useful....so I guess we are left with what the community thinks and I guess they hated it as they replaced it completely? Overall no other class got the extensive overhaul ranger did. No other class has had at least 5 iterations of the class to try to make it better....its pretty apparent which side of the isle most people fall on with the value it brings to the game.
Your 5-6 campaigns are not representative of the "community". For crying out loud, the "community" can't agree on anything. You, nor anyone else, gets to hold it up as some monolith to be appeased.
Some people vociferously complained about the ranger, and specifically the Beast Master. Presumably, these same people also didn't like to use the rules that made use of the features they were complaining about. When you change the game and how it behaves, you run the risk of breaking something. And if your changes do break something, the fault lies with you and not the developers. It's no different than sticking a mod file into a PC game, breaking something in the game, and then asking the developer to fix your mistake.
There has been no overhaul of the class. These new features in Tasha's are optional. They are, roughly, on par with what they would replace. And they were made, with the benefit of hindsight, for people who did not like to play the game as originally intended.
No but the COMPLETE REWRITE OF THE CLASS is indicative of the community. The fact that we had a revised ranger is indicative of the community and their distaste for the class. The fact that the class is the single most "fixed" class in the homebrew circle: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/4c1wj0/a_catalog_of_all_of_the_ranger_updates_i_could/
I never stated my 5-6 campaigns were anything but my opinion....they are my experiences. However the community has been pretty clear of their distaste for the class. If you want to ignore all of that then denial it is I guess....
Again, your idea of the "community" can go stuff itself.
It's not a thing you can hold up as an exemplar for anything. Yes, there have been a few UA attempts and a metric ton of fan works. There are also more fan-made classes, subclasses, and races than you can shake a quarterstaff at. Nine Hells, there are multiple takes on the same darn thing. Lord knows how many. Even if the "community" could agree that a niche is wanted or needed to be filled, it can't agree on how.
Nothing has been "fixed". It's all homebrew. And most of it is hogwash.