rangers,especially ranger hunters,don’t have many collective attibutes, that is why people think they are weak.I have calculated(probaly wrong btw)that, not including race,basic abilities,alignment or gender, a ranger hunter can be one of a total of around 17.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 outcomes(with all things not included included it will be probaly six zeros of more more).a ranger hunter has triple split,while most classes have single or weak double split.this is what I mean by that splits:normal (sub)classes have the first split in the start with ability and weapons and the second (with subclass and) maybe fighting style.a ranger hunter has the same first split, but has a second split in the form of favored enemy,natural explorer and fighting style, and the third is in the hunter subclass with the three choises between features.both the strength and the weakness is the ability to specify,in expertise terrain is a ranger very strong but otherwise very weak,but don’t forget a ranger can choose opposite features to become all-round , a ranger can be either the most all-round(maybe not translated good) or the most specific party member.that is why a faction of rangers would be strong, with specialized agents for each problem,one problem there is no world or even all worlds ever made in dungeons and dragons that could have so much rangers,even if everyone was ranger.this would need a population as big as the amount of sand on a big beach or the sahara if you include race,alignment,weapon,basic abilities,gender and global background.what do you think.
The problem with rangers isn’t that they lack damage output or anything like that; rangers do great damage. The problem is that aside from that, all of their class features are specific to particular environments or creature types, which means they rely on the DM to provide those specific environments and creatures, which is a requirement that literally no other class has to deal with in order to be useful. That’s it, that’s the whole problem.
The problem with rangers isn’t that they lack damage output or anything like that; rangers do great damage. The problem is that aside from that, all of their class features are specific to particular environments or creature types, which means they rely on the DM to provide those specific environments and creatures, which is a requirement that literally no other class has to deal with in order to be useful. That’s it, that’s the whole problem.
yes sorry,but what I said at the end was that rangers can be all-round
A factor that makes Rangers quite situational/un-appealing to people is that a number of their skills and abilities are centered on a style of gameplay that modern D&D 5E isn't really well equipped for. IE: wilderness exploration/survival. It's no longer a matter of "all their features are weak" as it was early on, it's more that "the niche they fill isn't often useful". They aren't as good with raw weapon damage as other martial classes, they aren't as good with spells as dedicated casters, and they aren't as skilful as rogues; and if you desperately need a "jack of all trades" there's always the bard.
My first character ever was a ranger; I have a ranger I play now... It doesn't stop the above from being sort of true at present though.
rangers,especially ranger hunters,don’t have many collective attibutes, that is why people think they are weak.I have calculated(probaly wrong btw)that, not including race,basic abilities,alignment or gender, a ranger hunter can be one of a total of around 17.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 outcomes(with all things not included included it will be probaly six zeros of more more).a ranger hunter has triple split,while most classes have single or weak double split.this is what I mean by that splits:normal (sub)classes have the first split in the start with ability and weapons and the second (with subclass and) maybe fighting style.a ranger hunter has the same first split, but has a second split in the form of favored enemy,natural explorer and fighting style, and the third is in the hunter subclass with the three choises between features.both the strength and the weakness is the ability to specify,in expertise terrain is a ranger very strong but otherwise very weak,but don’t forget a ranger can choose opposite features to become all-round , a ranger can be either the most all-round(maybe not translated good) or the most specific party member.that is why a faction of rangers would be strong, with specialized agents for each problem,one problem there is no world or even all worlds ever made in dungeons and dragons that could have so much rangers,even if everyone was ranger.this would need a population as big as the amount of sand on a big beach or the sahara if you include race,alignment,weapon,basic abilities,gender and global background.what do you think.
correction the amount of optional class features combinations is three times the big and hunter has a fourth choise
Rangers have never been weak, what they have always been is multidimensional and that creates problems for many players, especially those that don’t think multilaterally. Rangers are the decathaletes of D&d and that confuses folks who try to pigeonhole them into single roles. They generally aren’t quite as good as the best at any one thing, but they are the second or third best at basically everything. So they seem weak when compared to the best at each individual role then surprise the cr*p out of you by solving the problems in alternative ways using other skills and abilities. I’ve been playing (mostly) rangers and ranger based multiclasses for 40 years and I don’t think any of them have ever died - they always found ways out of the situation.
I agree, also I feel people get hung up on the "Favored Enemy" as something they must hate and then they search for reason to hate X so their FE type makes sense, when they could choose an FE type because they know them well for whatever reason.
Example: My Drow Ranger grew up in the Feywilds, her FE is Fey, but she doesn't hate Fey, she just knows them well due to growing up around them.
Rangers have never been weak, what they have always been is multidimensional and that creates problems for many players, especially those that don’t think multilaterally. Rangers are the decathaletes of D&d and that confuses folks who try to pigeonhole them into single roles. They generally aren’t quite as good as the best at any one thing, but they are the second or third best at basically everything. So they seem weak when compared to the best at each individual role then surprise the cr*p out of you by solving the problems in alternative ways using other skills and abilities. I’ve been playing (mostly) rangers and ranger based multiclasses for 40 years and I don’t think any of them have ever died - they always found ways out of the situation.
you are right,many people can’t see the option to make rangers good in everything
The PHB ranger with FE and FT is a special case of player foolishness - if you are not talking to your DM about what terrains and what enemies to take then you are being foolish and any lack of effectiveness is your fault not the class’s. It’s true that the number of terrains and enemies you get “expertise” in is less than half those available, but any decent DM should be steering you to the appropriate enemies and terrains at each level you receive a new one. Of course all of this disappears in the 1D&D UA and probably the 5e revised.
If you are bringing premade characters into a new campaign you should be able to change the enemies and terrains but it is your responsibility to ask the DM about changing and what enemies and terrains should be considered. The only time I can see being stuck with mismatched enemies and terrains is if you are bringing in characters from other campaigns that have “world walked” to the new one (BTDT- moved more than 1 times in the last 40 years). Even then you can ask the DM if one or more can be changed or what is most appropriate for the next one based on the new campaign. iIf all else fails there is a nice old thread in the ranger forum on which enemies and terrains are the best/most useful if you have to pick blindly.
The PHB ranger with FE and FT is a special case of player foolishness - if you are not talking to your DM about what terrains and what enemies to take then you are being foolish and any lack of effectiveness is your fault not the class’s. It’s true that the number of terrains and enemies you get “expertise” in is less than half those available, but any decent DM should be steering you to the appropriate enemies and terrains at each level you receive a new one.
The issue there is that it requires the GM to A) actually have a long-term plan for the campaign and B) stick with it. A lot of GMs find that to be difficult.
The PHB ranger with FE and FT is a special case of player foolishness - if you are not talking to your DM about what terrains and what enemies to take then you are being foolish and any lack of effectiveness is your fault not the class’s. It’s true that the number of terrains and enemies you get “expertise” in is less than half those available, but any decent DM should be steering you to the appropriate enemies and terrains at each level you receive a new one. Of course all of this disappears in the 1D&D UA and probably the 5e revised.
If you are bringing premade characters into a new campaign you should be able to change the enemies and terrains but it is your responsibility to ask the DM about changing and what enemies and terrains should be considered. The only time I can see being stuck with mismatched enemies and terrains is if you are bringing in characters from other campaigns that have “world walked” to the new one (BTDT- moved more than 1 times in the last 40 years). Even then you can ask the DM if one or more can be changed or what is most appropriate for the next one based on the new campaign. iIf all else fails there is a nice old thread in the ranger forum on which enemies and terrains are the best/most useful if you have to pick blindly.
well,I don’t know if that is cheating,but just choose your features well and you don’t need to use them fulltime
There are terrains not on the list too though. Urban campaign is not present, neither is high seas. The PHB design is not completely beyond criticism.
yes a few reasons:1.a ranger hates urban,that is their most shared feature.2.rangers aren’t pirates.3.no class has high seas and rogues are the only with an unofficial advantage
I agree, also I feel people get hung up on the "Favored Enemy" as something they must hate and then they search for reason to hate X so their FE type makes sense, when they could choose an FE type because they know them well for whatever reason.
Example: My Drow Ranger grew up in the Feywilds, her FE is Fey, but she doesn't hate Fey, she just knows them well due to growing up around them.
agreed.I play a wood elf ranger with elves and orcs,just to be safe in case of a civil war with the drow
There are terrains not on the list too though. Urban campaign is not present, neither is high seas. The PHB design is not completely beyond criticism.
yes a few reasons:1.a ranger hates urban,that is their most shared feature.2.rangers aren’t pirates.3.no class has high seas and rogues are the only with an unofficial advantage
Every Ranger hates Urban, that's news to me. So there are no rangers in Ravnica? No bounty hunters or thief-takers with Favored Enemy humanoid? No temples of Mielikki in any city? And the oceans are part of nature too I'm pretty sure. Face it, the PHB is flawed, it's a 9 year old rulebook. There's no shame in admitting that.
Ok let’s look at urban and high seas for few minutes. * no neither one s listed in the PHB ( or in Tasha’s, Xanther’s or any other guide/rules extension), so why aren’t they? 1) for one thing, the skills of a ranger are sufficient to cover urban since what you need is not so much the terrain as the appropriate enemies and those you could take (humanoids: humans and elves/half elves/half orcs/ your choice) . 2) scout rogues fit better in a city/urban environment so most folks took them instead. 3) most campaigns were not city based so having your ranger focus on the city didn’t make a lot of sense. 4) there simply wasn’t much call for an urban ranger before 5e so while it was homebrewed where desired no one (TSR/WOtC) saw a pressing need to include it. High seas this is a little trickier but not much. 1) high seas is not really a terrain - you are on a freaking boat not moving through the open ocean environments as you would in a forest or the underdark. If you want to talk about an undersea campaign with sea elves, merfolk, tritons, etc then yes you need an open ocean terrain or three. But honestly, how frequent is such a campaign? So again it’s not in the PHB, and not really in the DMG or elsewhere either because there wasn’t then, and really isn’t today a need for the terrain except as an argument here.
The PHB ranger isn’t weak, it’s actually quite strong. Could it have been improved? Obviously. The beast master was improved in Tasha, the newer subclasses all have some extra spells which is good. FE and FT have alternatives ( along with most other PHB ranger class features). That actually isn’t the way I would have gone ( I would have added the spells but I would have added terrains and enemies, cleared up the text on some of the others and given hunters all the options at L11 & 15 not force them to choose one permanently) but it is what it is and it does improve it for many folks. The 1D&D Ranger is in someways even better despite its loosing most of the flavoring of a ranger. My only real complaints there are that loss flavor and not getting evocation spells which, as a martial should have been the first things it got.
It's not that 2014 Ranger is weak (though Hide In Plain Sight and Vanish are definitely weak for their level), it's flawed. Those are not the same thing. Even if you with 100% accuracy pick all the perfect terrain(s) in the right order for your entire campaign, the flaws remain.
I think it was Treantmonk who put it best - a bonus to overcome a challenge is better than simply negating or bypassing that challenge, and that's what the 2014 Ranger does. Was potentially getting lost or sidetracked part of the challenge? Not anymore, you have a Ranger with the right terrain. Was the challenge figuring out which group of bugbears has the kidnapped princess you need to follow? Not anymore, you have a Ranger with the right terrain. Was there a concern about your group being followed from the dungeon back to your base? Not anymore, you have a Ranger with the right terrain. And even when you do get a bonus instead of an autosuccess coupon, it still leads to annoyance at the table. "Is that check related to my favored terrain? How about that one? Or that one?"
And then there's other implications of those abilities that a DM might not even have considered. Rangers with the right terrain can remain alert to danger while following tracks. Uh, ok, does that mean nobody else can do that, or does that mean all other classes have to roll maybe? It's not clear. You can move at full speed while stealthing if you're alone - does that mean Beast Masters have to leave their pet behind? What if it's a bird flying overhead, or a mole burrowing through the ground, or something naturally sneaky like a spider?
I for one can see why the new version in the UA scored as highly as it did. Just give me some skills, Expertise, and my DM and I can handle the rest. And the groups who were okay with autosuccess on very niche things can still do that if they want. It's win-win.
Flawed/weak, not sure what the difference really is there. They were pretty much drawing those straight from 3.5 and earlier and no one considered them weak or flawed then. What you got was essentially persist in the ones you selected and normal skill in all the others . In the UA if you put your xpertise not survival and nature you now have auto success on all of them effectively. Yes hide in plain sight and vanish really did need cleaning up, they would have been better if reversed ( vanish at 11) and with hide in plain sight actually duplicating the way camouflage works not requiring a 1 minute touch up after any move (you take 5 minutes to set your camouflage, afterwards for the next 8 hours you gain a + 10 to stealth checks when attempting to move stealthily and foes take a -10 to perception checks if you are still and pressed against a natural surface (ground, tree trunk, cliff, etc)). The PHB ranger wasn’t perfect, but is and was far better than many folks - including truant monk ever gave it credit for being.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
rangers,especially ranger hunters,don’t have many collective attibutes, that is why people think they are weak.I have calculated(probaly wrong btw)that, not including race,basic abilities,alignment or gender, a ranger hunter can be one of a total of around 17.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 outcomes(with all things not included included it will be probaly six zeros of more more).a ranger hunter has triple split,while most classes have single or weak double split.this is what I mean by that splits:normal (sub)classes have the first split in the start with ability and weapons and the second (with subclass and) maybe fighting style.a ranger hunter has the same first split, but has a second split in the form of favored enemy,natural explorer and fighting style, and the third is in the hunter subclass with the three choises between features.both the strength and the weakness is the ability to specify,in expertise terrain is a ranger very strong but otherwise very weak,but don’t forget a ranger can choose opposite features to become all-round , a ranger can be either the most all-round(maybe not translated good) or the most specific party member.that is why a faction of rangers would be strong, with specialized agents for each problem,one problem there is no world or even all worlds ever made in dungeons and dragons that could have so much rangers,even if everyone was ranger.this would need a population as big as the amount of sand on a big beach or the sahara if you include race,alignment,weapon,basic abilities,gender and global background.what do you think.
I think you need paragraph breaks.
The problem with rangers isn’t that they lack damage output or anything like that; rangers do great damage. The problem is that aside from that, all of their class features are specific to particular environments or creature types, which means they rely on the DM to provide those specific environments and creatures, which is a requirement that literally no other class has to deal with in order to be useful. That’s it, that’s the whole problem.
and that problem was resolved by tashas' changes a while ago. So we can all agree now that ranger's aren't weak at all :)
yes sorry,but what I said at the end was that rangers can be all-round
my point is that phb rangers are still strong
A factor that makes Rangers quite situational/un-appealing to people is that a number of their skills and abilities are centered on a style of gameplay that modern D&D 5E isn't really well equipped for. IE: wilderness exploration/survival. It's no longer a matter of "all their features are weak" as it was early on, it's more that "the niche they fill isn't often useful". They aren't as good with raw weapon damage as other martial classes, they aren't as good with spells as dedicated casters, and they aren't as skilful as rogues; and if you desperately need a "jack of all trades" there's always the bard.
My first character ever was a ranger; I have a ranger I play now... It doesn't stop the above from being sort of true at present though.
correction the amount of optional class features combinations is three times the big and hunter has a fourth choise
Rangers have never been weak, what they have always been is multidimensional and that creates problems for many players, especially those that don’t think multilaterally. Rangers are the decathaletes of D&d and that confuses folks who try to pigeonhole them into single roles. They generally aren’t quite as good as the best at any one thing, but they are the second or third best at basically everything. So they seem weak when compared to the best at each individual role then surprise the cr*p out of you by solving the problems in alternative ways using other skills and abilities. I’ve been playing (mostly) rangers and ranger based multiclasses for 40 years and I don’t think any of them have ever died - they always found ways out of the situation.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I agree, also I feel people get hung up on the "Favored Enemy" as something they must hate and then they search for reason to hate X so their FE type makes sense, when they could choose an FE type because they know them well for whatever reason.
Example: My Drow Ranger grew up in the Feywilds, her FE is Fey, but she doesn't hate Fey, she just knows them well due to growing up around them.
you are right,many people can’t see the option to make rangers good in everything
The PHB ranger with FE and FT is a special case of player foolishness - if you are not talking to your DM about what terrains and what enemies to take then you are being foolish and any lack of effectiveness is your fault not the class’s. It’s true that the number of terrains and enemies you get “expertise” in is less than half those available, but any decent DM should be steering you to the appropriate enemies and terrains at each level you receive a new one. Of course all of this disappears in the 1D&D UA and probably the 5e revised.
If you are bringing premade characters into a new campaign you should be able to change the enemies and terrains but it is your responsibility to ask the DM about changing and what enemies and terrains should be considered. The only time I can see being stuck with mismatched enemies and terrains is if you are bringing in characters from other campaigns that have “world walked” to the new one (BTDT- moved more than 1 times in the last 40 years). Even then you can ask the DM if one or more can be changed or what is most appropriate for the next one based on the new campaign.
iIf all else fails there is a nice old thread in the ranger forum on which enemies and terrains are the best/most useful if you have to pick blindly.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The issue there is that it requires the GM to A) actually have a long-term plan for the campaign and B) stick with it. A lot of GMs find that to be difficult.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There are terrains not on the list too though. Urban campaign is not present, neither is high seas. The PHB design is not completely beyond criticism.
well,I don’t know if that is cheating,but just choose your features well and you don’t need to use them fulltime
yes a few reasons:1.a ranger hates urban,that is their most shared feature.2.rangers aren’t pirates.3.no class has high seas and rogues are the only with an unofficial advantage
agreed.I play a wood elf ranger with elves and orcs,just to be safe in case of a civil war with the drow
Every Ranger hates Urban, that's news to me. So there are no rangers in Ravnica? No bounty hunters or thief-takers with Favored Enemy humanoid? No temples of Mielikki in any city? And the oceans are part of nature too I'm pretty sure. Face it, the PHB is flawed, it's a 9 year old rulebook. There's no shame in admitting that.
Ok let’s look at urban and high seas for few minutes.
* no neither one s listed in the PHB ( or in Tasha’s, Xanther’s or any other guide/rules extension), so why aren’t they?
1) for one thing, the skills of a ranger are sufficient to cover urban since what you need is not so much the terrain as the appropriate enemies and those you could take (humanoids: humans and elves/half elves/half orcs/ your choice) .
2) scout rogues fit better in a city/urban environment so most folks took them instead.
3) most campaigns were not city based so having your ranger focus on the city didn’t make a lot of sense.
4) there simply wasn’t much call for an urban ranger before 5e so while it was homebrewed where desired no one (TSR/WOtC) saw a pressing need to include it.
High seas
this is a little trickier but not much.
1) high seas is not really a terrain - you are on a freaking boat not moving through the open ocean environments as you would in a forest or the underdark. If you want to talk about an undersea campaign with sea elves, merfolk, tritons, etc then yes you need an open ocean terrain or three. But honestly, how frequent is such a campaign? So again it’s not in the PHB, and not really in the DMG or elsewhere either because there wasn’t then, and really isn’t today a need for the terrain except as an argument here.
The PHB ranger isn’t weak, it’s actually quite strong. Could it have been improved? Obviously. The beast master was improved in Tasha, the newer subclasses all have some extra spells which is good. FE and FT have alternatives ( along with most other PHB ranger class features). That actually isn’t the way I would have gone ( I would have added the spells but I would have added terrains and enemies, cleared up the text on some of the others and given hunters all the options at L11 & 15 not force them to choose one permanently) but it is what it is and it does improve it for many folks. The 1D&D Ranger is in someways even better despite its loosing most of the flavoring of a ranger. My only real complaints there are that loss flavor and not getting evocation spells which, as a martial should have been the first things it got.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It's not that 2014 Ranger is weak (though Hide In Plain Sight and Vanish are definitely weak for their level), it's flawed. Those are not the same thing. Even if you with 100% accuracy pick all the perfect terrain(s) in the right order for your entire campaign, the flaws remain.
I think it was Treantmonk who put it best - a bonus to overcome a challenge is better than simply negating or bypassing that challenge, and that's what the 2014 Ranger does. Was potentially getting lost or sidetracked part of the challenge? Not anymore, you have a Ranger with the right terrain. Was the challenge figuring out which group of bugbears has the kidnapped princess you need to follow? Not anymore, you have a Ranger with the right terrain. Was there a concern about your group being followed from the dungeon back to your base? Not anymore, you have a Ranger with the right terrain. And even when you do get a bonus instead of an autosuccess coupon, it still leads to annoyance at the table. "Is that check related to my favored terrain? How about that one? Or that one?"
And then there's other implications of those abilities that a DM might not even have considered. Rangers with the right terrain can remain alert to danger while following tracks. Uh, ok, does that mean nobody else can do that, or does that mean all other classes have to roll maybe? It's not clear. You can move at full speed while stealthing if you're alone - does that mean Beast Masters have to leave their pet behind? What if it's a bird flying overhead, or a mole burrowing through the ground, or something naturally sneaky like a spider?
I for one can see why the new version in the UA scored as highly as it did. Just give me some skills, Expertise, and my DM and I can handle the rest. And the groups who were okay with autosuccess on very niche things can still do that if they want. It's win-win.
Flawed/weak, not sure what the difference really is there. They were pretty much drawing those straight from 3.5 and earlier and no one considered them weak or flawed then. What you got was essentially persist in the ones you selected and normal skill in all the others . In the UA if you put your xpertise not survival and nature you now have auto success on all of them effectively. Yes hide in plain sight and vanish really did need cleaning up, they would have been better if reversed ( vanish at 11) and with hide in plain sight actually duplicating the way camouflage works not requiring a 1 minute touch up after any move (you take 5 minutes to set your camouflage, afterwards for the next 8 hours you gain a + 10 to stealth checks when attempting to move stealthily and foes take a -10 to perception checks if you are still and pressed against a natural surface (ground, tree trunk, cliff, etc)). The PHB ranger wasn’t perfect, but is and was far better than many folks - including truant monk ever gave it credit for being.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.