Flawed/weak, not sure what the difference really is there.
The difference is that something can be mechanically useful or strong at a number of tables, and still be design that's worthy of being improved in the next iteration.
They were pretty much drawing those straight from 3.5 and earlier and no one considered them weak or flawed then.
I'm looking at the 3.5 ranger and it didn't have anything about favored terrains. There's an optional variant rule in the 3.5 UA book that confers those, and even then they are just bonuses to checks you make there, nothing about it being impossible to become lost or be followed. (Hilariously, one of the terrains available in 3.5 was indeed high seas/ocean, as well as an entire variant for urban rangers, so apparently thinking of those wasn't that outlandish after all.)
The PHB ranger wasn’t perfect, but is and was far better than many folks - including truant monk ever gave it credit for being.
Treantmonk actually defended the PHB Ranger overall, he just thinks (as I do) that the Tasha version is even better. It's possible to support something while still acknowledging how it's been improved, you know.
by the way, a monk is because low armor class,reach and damage much weaker.for example, my level 2 ranger can kill a level 2 monk in one turn.I have proficiency and +2 dex with two normal scimitars with one d6 damage each and +4 attack so,20 hp and 16 AC.a monk probaly(I use median and average(and this from the point with +1/2 for dex,str and wis,+0 for con and don’t matter for cha and int,this means that a monk probaly will be weaker))is around 12-13 hp,with 13-14 ac and 7-9 damage on unarmed,+ 5-6 hit chance.this means 16-5/6=10/11 hit chance dc,45-50%.13/14-4=9/10,50-55% hit chance. 3,5+4 +3,5+4=15 damage on average,12/13-15=-2/3=super dead.20-7/8/9x3=-1/4/7=dead in three hits.my ranger has 25% chance to kill the monk in one turn,56,25% for two,18,75 for three turns,(I use the 50% hit chance here).a monk has 12,5% chance to kill in three turns,25% for four turns,15,625% for five turns,9,555% for six turns and so on.with the chances I don’t include critical.if you counted there is probaly an equal chance on iniative for both which means the monk has a 1,171875% chance for the monk to beat the ranger 1v1 without complications,and for the ranger 98,828125% chance to win.
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 :)
my point is that phb rangers are still strong
Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer give minor benefits when the situation is perfect. Primeval Awareness is extremely situational. Hide in plain sight is not very good for a tenth level class feature. So you still have good DPR and good AC but a lot of useless class features. At that point it’s comparable to the paladin but with barely stronger subclasses, no heavy armor, a different casting stat, and much less useful class features (no smite, auras, or Divine sense).
by the way, a monk is because low armor class,reach and damage much weaker.for example, my level 2 ranger can kill a level 2 monk in one turn.I have proficiency and +2 dex with two normal scimitars with one d6 damage each and +4 attack so,20 hp and 16 AC.a monk probaly(I use median and average(and this from the point with +1/2 for dex,str and wis,+0 for con and don’t matter for cha and int,this means that a monk probaly will be weaker))is around 12-13 hp,with 13-14 ac and 7-9 damage on unarmed,+ 5-6 hit chance.this means 16-5/6=10/11 hit chance dc,45-50%.13/14-4=9/10,50-55% hit chance. 3,5+4 +3,5+4=15 damage on average,12/13-15=-2/3=super dead.20-7/8/9x3=-1/4/7=dead in three hits.my ranger has 25% chance to kill the monk in one turn,56,25% for two,18,75 for three turns,(I use the 50% hit chance here).a monk has 12,5% chance to kill in three turns,25% for four turns,15,625% for five turns,9,555% for six turns and so on.with the chances I don’t include critical.if you counted there is probaly an equal chance on iniative for both which means the monk has a 1,171875% chance for the monk to beat the ranger 1v1 without complications,and for the ranger 98,828125% chance to win.
Monks should have higher con than str. Period. Also your math seems off.
Human monk, level 2, 16 dex wis and con, 9 int cha str, 15 hp. 16 AC for both characters, monk has +5 to hit, monk has 2 attacks doing 1d4+3 dmg. Monk expected damage is 3.025 per attack, 3 attacks with flurry of blows, 9.075 expected damage/round, and with crit chances, Monk can probably kill a ranger with 20 hp(btw with 16 con you’d have 18 hp instead of 20, and I doubt you have 16 con) in 2 rounds. Monk also has better than normal speed.
Human Ranger, level 2, 16 dex wis con, 9 int cha str, 16 AC, +5 to hit(why do you not have 16 dex?), ranger has 2 attacks doing 1d6+3 damage, 3.575 dmg per attack, 7.15 dmg/ round. That can likely kill the monk in 2 rounds.
so really the only difference is the monk has better speed and the ki class feature, and the ranger has half casting (which I didn’t count because you’re using your BA for two weapon fighting) and situational class features that do almost nothing. It really just comes down to preference between the two, although monk gets better at higher levels.
Also, your character seem terribly built. Ranger with +2 dex? Just, no.
P. S. A variant human monk could have 16 dex and con, 15 wis, 8 str int and cha, fighting initiate feat with unarmed fighting, the damage dice of thier unarmed strikes are d8s.
by the way, a monk is because low armor class,reach and damage much weaker.for example, my level 2 ranger can kill a level 2 monk in one turn.I have proficiency and +2 dex with two normal scimitars with one d6 damage each and +4 attack so,20 hp and 16 AC.a monk probaly(I use median and average(and this from the point with +1/2 for dex,str and wis,+0 for con and don’t matter for cha and int,this means that a monk probaly will be weaker))is around 12-13 hp,with 13-14 ac and 7-9 damage on unarmed,+ 5-6 hit chance.this means 16-5/6=10/11 hit chance dc,45-50%.13/14-4=9/10,50-55% hit chance. 3,5+4 +3,5+4=15 damage on average,12/13-15=-2/3=super dead.20-7/8/9x3=-1/4/7=dead in three hits.my ranger has 25% chance to kill the monk in one turn,56,25% for two,18,75 for three turns,(I use the 50% hit chance here).a monk has 12,5% chance to kill in three turns,25% for four turns,15,625% for five turns,9,555% for six turns and so on.with the chances I don’t include critical.if you counted there is probaly an equal chance on iniative for both which means the monk has a 1,171875% chance for the monk to beat the ranger 1v1 without complications,and for the ranger 98,828125% chance to win.
Monks should have higher con than str. Period. Also your math seems off.
Human monk, level 2, 16 dex wis and con, 9 int cha str, 15 hp. 16 AC for both characters, monk has +5 to hit, monk has 2 attacks doing 1d4+3 dmg. Monk expected damage is 3.025 per attack, 3 attacks with flurry of blows, 9.075 expected damage/round, and with crit chances, Monk can probably kill a ranger with 20 hp(btw with 16 con you’d have 18 hp instead of 20, and I doubt you have 16 con) in 2 rounds. Monk also has better than normal speed.
Human Ranger, level 2, 16 dex wis con, 9 int cha str, 16 AC, +5 to hit(why do you not have 16 dex?), ranger has 2 attacks doing 1d6+3 damage, 3.575 dmg per attack, 7.15 dmg/ round. That can likely kill the monk in 2 rounds.
so really the only difference is the monk has better speed and the ki class feature, and the ranger has half casting (which I didn’t count because you’re using your BA for two weapon fighting) and situational class features that do almost nothing. It really just comes down to preference between the two, although monk gets better at higher levels.
Also, your character seem terribly built. Ranger with +2 dex? Just, no.
P. S. A variant human monk could have 16 dex and con, 15 wis, 8 str int and cha, fighting initiate feat with unarmed fighting, the damage dice of thier unarmed strikes are d8s.
first:I am talking about my character which is an elf,with all bonuses including
second:you are presuming that the monk has 15,,15,15,8,8,8?
third:you can choose to add dex,but you must use strength for unarmed attack
fourth:wait a minute, you say 1d6 is only a little more than a half on average,also you forget proficiency
fifth:I forgot the flurry of blows,but it takes ki point and that means you cannot use it after using it a few times,so in the scenario of a battle and an encounter on the battlefield withour getting harmed it won’t work
sixth:I have +2 con,and I threw an eighth on the d10,so…
seventh:I rolled the stats,I was new when I built the character and my only negative bonus is for str,your idea was letting three abilities fall,I have +1 to int and cha,+0 for wis,+2 con and dex and -1 str that seems better to me than +3,+3,+3,-1,-1,-1.your idea has netto +6 and one extra language of choice,my character has netto +5,elvish,+5 speed,mask of the wild,trance and fey ancestry.I don’t think +1 netto with polarization and the choice about a language is worth more than extra speed,camouflage,shorter rest and magic resistance.
eigth:I have extra speed to and speed doesn’t matter in melee and I don’t think the stereotype unarmed warrior is going to try to defeat a ranger by running away throwing darts,because a ranger has a longbow and so has much more damage and has proficiency with it.a ranged fight between monk and ranger is synonym for dead monk.
by the way, a monk is because low armor class,reach and damage much weaker.for example, my level 2 ranger can kill a level 2 monk in one turn.I have proficiency and +2 dex with two normal scimitars with one d6 damage each and +4 attack so,20 hp and 16 AC.a monk probaly(I use median and average(and this from the point with +1/2 for dex,str and wis,+0 for con and don’t matter for cha and int,this means that a monk probaly will be weaker))is around 12-13 hp,with 13-14 ac and 7-9 damage on unarmed,+ 5-6 hit chance.this means 16-5/6=10/11 hit chance dc,45-50%.13/14-4=9/10,50-55% hit chance. 3,5+4 +3,5+4=15 damage on average,12/13-15=-2/3=super dead.20-7/8/9x3=-1/4/7=dead in three hits.my ranger has 25% chance to kill the monk in one turn,56,25% for two,18,75 for three turns,(I use the 50% hit chance here).a monk has 12,5% chance to kill in three turns,25% for four turns,15,625% for five turns,9,555% for six turns and so on.with the chances I don’t include critical.if you counted there is probaly an equal chance on iniative for both which means the monk has a 1,171875% chance for the monk to beat the ranger 1v1 without complications,and for the ranger 98,828125% chance to win.
Monks should have higher con than str. Period. Also your math seems off.
Human monk, level 2, 16 dex wis and con, 9 int cha str, 15 hp. 16 AC for both characters, monk has +5 to hit, monk has 2 attacks doing 1d4+3 dmg. Monk expected damage is 3.025 per attack, 3 attacks with flurry of blows, 9.075 expected damage/round, and with crit chances, Monk can probably kill a ranger with 20 hp(btw with 16 con you’d have 18 hp instead of 20, and I doubt you have 16 con) in 2 rounds. Monk also has better than normal speed.
Human Ranger, level 2, 16 dex wis con, 9 int cha str, 16 AC, +5 to hit(why do you not have 16 dex?), ranger has 2 attacks doing 1d6+3 damage, 3.575 dmg per attack, 7.15 dmg/ round. That can likely kill the monk in 2 rounds.
so really the only difference is the monk has better speed and the ki class feature, and the ranger has half casting (which I didn’t count because you’re using your BA for two weapon fighting) and situational class features that do almost nothing. It really just comes down to preference between the two, although monk gets better at higher levels.
Also, your character seem terribly built. Ranger with +2 dex? Just, no.
P. S. A variant human monk could have 16 dex and con, 15 wis, 8 str int and cha, fighting initiate feat with unarmed fighting, the damage dice of thier unarmed strikes are d8s.
first:I am talking about my character which is an elf,with all bonuses including
second:you are presuming that the monk has 15,,15,15,8,8,8?
third:you can choose to add dex,but you must use strength for unarmed attack
fourth:wait a minute, you say 1d6 is only a little more than a half on average,also you forget proficiency
fifth:I forgot the flurry of blows,but it takes ki point and that means you cannot use it after using it a few times,so in the scenario of a battle and an encounter on the battlefield withour getting harmed it won’t work
sixth:I have +2 con,and I threw an eighth on the d10,so…
seventh:I rolled the stats,I was new when I built the character and my only negative bonus is for str,your idea was letting three abilities fall,I have +1 to int and cha,+0 for wis,+2 con and dex and -1 str that seems better to me than +3,+3,+3,-1,-1,-1.your idea has netto +6 and one extra language of choice,my character has netto +5,elvish,+5 speed,mask of the wild,trance and fey ancestry.I don’t think +1 netto with polarization and the choice about a language is worth more than extra speed,camouflage,shorter rest and magic resistance.
eigth:I have extra speed to and speed doesn’t matter in melee and I don’t think the stereotype unarmed warrior is going to try to defeat a ranger by running away throwing darts,because a ranger has a longbow and so has much more damage and has proficiency with it.a ranged fight between monk and ranger is synonym for dead monk.
First: cool. I was just using human stats to be simple.
second: yes. Point buy.
third: no. Martial arts overrides unarmed fighting
fourth: that’s expected damage, which is average damage * to hit chance(55%). And you don’t ad PB to damage.
fifth: flurry of blows would likely last the whole fight
sixth: I was assuming average hit die rolls because rolling is unfair.
seventh:never roll stats it’s unfair; also why is your wis lower than int and cha? Btw you are correct standard human is terrible, but elves don’t get magic resistance.
Ummm can we just take the monk discussion private or side table it? A lot of the ?problems? With the ranger seem to come, imnsho, from the fact that the designers don’t seem to have much if any wilderness experience so they keep messing up things like hide in plain sight. The idea appears to be based off the many stories of apaches and other First Nations folk being able to do just that with cammoflage- hide in plain sight then move, attack and fade back into hiding again. We see much the same sort of real world examples from of the US Vietnamese era snipers as well as modern sniper school graduates. As written I agree it was confused at best and useless at worst. As it should have been written it would have very powerful. One of the best “hide in plain sight stories is very well documented and both perfectly typical and completely atypical at the same time - Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral gunfight. Everyone else was moving, dodging, running, etc and everyone else got hit at least once somewhere. Wyat simply stood stock still firing and was the only one untouched - he simply didn’t register on folks brains because he wasn’t moving and attracting attention and fire.now that is hiding in plain sight! Granted I don’t think we could make a feature that would allow that for the game but something that you could do ahead of time ( like the face camo the special forces frequently uses etc) that would then give you advantage on hide and stealth checks even when lightly obscured for 8-12 hours which is how many folks used it RAW or not would have been better. PsyrenXY is right on a number of points but I will say this - flawed is, by definition weak when compared to un flawed. But some flaws are far weaker than others. If I had my druthers rangers would get expertise in nature if they take it and tracking would be a nature skill with a variable DC and following a ranger or other nature skilled individual would be an opposed check with the person being followed setting the DC and the follower having to beat it to follow. Finding food/water would be a survival check with rangers getting expertise IF they take the skill (yes I like the way it’s done in 1D&D). The listed problems with terrains and enemies in the PHB ranger are really more about bad play and DMing than about actual flaws in the abilities. If your laying roperly and your DM is DMing properly then they are helping you pick those to suit the campaign not just randomly selecting them. When done that way the abilities are actually very strong. The only flaw might be that it would be nice to have a ranger feat that allowed you to select a couple more of each to represent the wide ranging ranger vs the “stay at home” ranger. Someone like Daniel Boone was definitely a ranger ( modern day more or less) and he really had only 1 terrain (Eastern Forests) and 2-3 Favoured Enemies (Europeans, native Americans, beasts) even the mountain men only had 3-4 terrains by D&D standards: Plains, mountains, Forests and maybe Deserts. The biggest problem any/every ranger has is nothing involving the player mechanics, it’s the fact that the area where he really shines is the least played area of the game even though it’s typically the most common type of area in the game world - the wilderness. That “third pillar” of the game that almost never really gets used.
Ummm can we just take the monk discussion private or side table it? A lot of the ?problems? With the ranger seem to come, imnsho, from the fact that the designers don’t seem to have much if any wilderness experience so they keep messing up things like hide in plain sight. The idea appears to be based off the many stories of apaches and other First Nations folk being able to do just that with cammoflage- hide in plain sight then move, attack and fade back into hiding again. We see much the same sort of real world examples from of the US Vietnamese era snipers as well as modern sniper school graduates. As written I agree it was confused at best and useless at worst. As it should have been written it would have very powerful. One of the best “hide in plain sight stories is very well documented and both perfectly typical and completely atypical at the same time - Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral gunfight. Everyone else was moving, dodging, running, etc and everyone else got hit at least once somewhere. Wyat simply stood stock still firing and was the only one untouched - he simply didn’t register on folks brains because he wasn’t moving and attracting attention and fire.now that is hiding in plain sight! Granted I don’t think we could make a feature that would allow that for the game but something that you could do ahead of time ( like the face camo the special forces frequently uses etc) that would then give you advantage on hide and stealth checks even when lightly obscured for 8-12 hours which is how many folks used it RAW or not would have been better. PsyrenXY is right on a number of points but I will say this - flawed is, by definition weak when compared to un flawed. But some flaws are far weaker than others. If I had my druthers rangers would get expertise in nature if they take it and tracking would be a nature skill with a variable DC and following a ranger or other nature skilled individual would be an opposed check with the person being followed setting the DC and the follower having to beat it to follow. Finding food/water would be a survival check with rangers getting expertise IF they take the skill (yes I like the way it’s done in 1D&D). The listed problems with terrains and enemies in the PHB ranger are really more about bad play and DMing than about actual flaws in the abilities. If your laying roperly and your DM is DMing properly then they are helping you pick those to suit the campaign not just randomly selecting them. When done that way the abilities are actually very strong. The only flaw might be that it would be nice to have a ranger feat that allowed you to select a couple more of each to represent the wide ranging ranger vs the “stay at home” ranger. Someone like Daniel Boone was definitely a ranger ( modern day more or less) and he really had only 1 terrain (Eastern Forests) and 2-3 Favoured Enemies (Europeans, native Americans, beasts) even the mountain men only had 3-4 terrains by D&D standards: Plains, mountains, Forests and maybe Deserts. The biggest problem any/every ranger has is nothing involving the player mechanics, it’s the fact that the area where he really shines is the least played area of the game even though it’s typically the most common type of area in the game world - the wilderness. That “third pillar” of the game that almost never really gets used.
okay,I just wanted to say the ranger is at least better than one class
...but are we just breaking to classes to number crunching and stat blocks? Maybe I'm a bit luckier at my table as my players seem happy to play characters with weaknesses and that's where some of our fun lies. I'm not saying "you're playing D&D wrong", but I think maybe you might be overlooking the fun to be had with the RP element of rolling with the punches in character creation.
It's just a major pillar of the game for me and DM-wise I'll be pretty lenient for a party that embrace the RP as well as the rolls + have a lot more fun (hopefully). Side note - I tend to actually play as Ranger because I just like the flavour of that "wildrerness loner" type and playing that "socially awkward" fish out of water in a city - I've always found fun. Strange "rural" ways and the like, but - there's no "wrong way" it's just not something I'm seeing talked about here and even within that there's a lot of scope, to reduce it to basics and laziness I've got a couple Ranger NPC's in my current IWD campaign:
TedKacynski "type" militant, hates anything he perceives as "tech", Harper.
Deadwood/Richardson-rip off, non-verbal communicates through gesturing with a broken antler + Twin Peaks "Log Lady" rip off "my antlers saw something"
Bill Moseley caricature - hard drinker, bit of a maniac, in love with a Djinn - which caused him to abandon his life as an Ice Druid.
...but are we just breaking to classes to number crunching and stat blocks? Maybe I'm a bit luckier at my table as my players seem happy to play characters with weaknesses and that's where some of our fun lies. I'm not saying "you're playing D&D wrong", but I think maybe you might be overlooking the fun to be had with the RP element of rolling with the punches in character creation.
Thank you. I thought I was alone here. The discussion seemed to be centered around the ranger's performance in combat, and ignoring the ranger's usefulness in all kinds of situations/obstacles.
A little imagination goes a long way.
You can do that with literally any character. Most of the class features of ranger aren’t even that useful in exploration, a pillar of the game that very few DMs spend much time on. None of the features add to social interaction, and the features meant to add to combat prowess do anything of the sort. PHB ranger is weak, and you can still RP just fine with the TCoE optional class features.
...but are we just breaking to classes to number crunching and stat blocks? Maybe I'm a bit luckier at my table as my players seem happy to play characters with weaknesses and that's where some of our fun lies. I'm not saying "you're playing D&D wrong", but I think maybe you might be overlooking the fun to be had with the RP element of rolling with the punches in character creation.
When trying to compare classes objectively, by necessity you need to drop subjective comparisons like "Ranger is just cooler thematically than Paladin," and all the stuff about RP is a wash because you can RP with a Paladin just as well as you can with a Ranger. And this is where I will say that the idea that a weaker class somehow provides superior roleplay opportunity is simply wrong thinking. If you don't believe me, look up the Stormwind Fallacy. I'm not going to rehash all of that.
So anyway the argument becomes, "did WotC balance these classes fairly as the raw material for our characters?" And for that you need to look at the features and numbers they produce. Well-balanced classes allow you to play whatever you want without having to worry about overburdening the other people at your table who are relying on your to pull your weight in life or death situations. Balance doesn't lessen roleplay opportunities by any measure, and it in fact increases them for the people who feel uncomfortable performing poorly in a team game.
Wilderness exploration and survival is about making do with limited resources, tools and info on what is out there. Following a wagon trail or the last 1000 d keys to tread a path between towns it’s not. This is the problem with the exploration leg, you have to be willing to actually track things like encumbrance, rations, water, expended material components, missiles, etc to really get the feel of it in game. If you are then you can do a lot with the leg and give realistic DCs for folks to try to do this (like in the 15-30 range not the 5-15 range). Find and recognize drinkable water in a desert? DC 25-30, now you want a desert terrain ranger helping you. Is that plant at the water’s edge an edible lily or a death lily? How do you maintain directions when the trees block the sun and the boles are 10’ across so you are constantly having to go around them? What types of creatures should we be prepared to face while camped tonight? Is this nice wide flat sandy site a good camping site or are we in a flash flood zone? The storm is coming, do we want to pitch tents in the low areas that might get flooded, or on this long thin strip of elevated flat land? ( oh, Cr*p, is that a herd of elk leaping over my tent at 4AM on this game trail? Oh double cr*p, I wonder what set the whole herd off charging down this trail where I stupidly pitched my tent - is it hungry? Are those bear tracks? Or Owlbear tracks? Etc. when folks actually go to this kind of detail rangers shine, when the DM (&/or party) decide it’s too much trouble and cinematic montage it the ranger is just another fighter subclass. Tasha’s helped the combat somewhat but killed the exploration, 1D&D brings back the wilderness expertise along with decent combat but lacked “flavor” when I read it.
Oh I can add it, that’s not the problem. The write up for a class should give you a feel for that class and the ODD write up reads more like it’s designed to be GISH chassis than a wilderness explorer and survivor. I can make a heck of a ranger from the mechanics without any problems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The difference is that something can be mechanically useful or strong at a number of tables, and still be design that's worthy of being improved in the next iteration.
I'm looking at the 3.5 ranger and it didn't have anything about favored terrains. There's an optional variant rule in the 3.5 UA book that confers those, and even then they are just bonuses to checks you make there, nothing about it being impossible to become lost or be followed. (Hilariously, one of the terrains available in 3.5 was indeed high seas/ocean, as well as an entire variant for urban rangers, so apparently thinking of those wasn't that outlandish after all.)
Treantmonk actually defended the PHB Ranger overall, he just thinks (as I do) that the Tasha version is even better. It's possible to support something while still acknowledging how it's been improved, you know.
by the way, a monk is because low armor class,reach and damage much weaker.for example, my level 2 ranger can kill a level 2 monk in one turn.I have proficiency and +2 dex with two normal scimitars with one d6 damage each and +4 attack so,20 hp and 16 AC.a monk probaly(I use median and average(and this from the point with +1/2 for dex,str and wis,+0 for con and don’t matter for cha and int,this means that a monk probaly will be weaker))is around 12-13 hp,with 13-14 ac and 7-9 damage on unarmed,+ 5-6 hit chance.this means 16-5/6=10/11 hit chance dc,45-50%.13/14-4=9/10,50-55% hit chance. 3,5+4 +3,5+4=15 damage on average,12/13-15=-2/3=super dead.20-7/8/9x3=-1/4/7=dead in three hits.my ranger has 25% chance to kill the monk in one turn,56,25% for two,18,75 for three turns,(I use the 50% hit chance here).a monk has 12,5% chance to kill in three turns,25% for four turns,15,625% for five turns,9,555% for six turns and so on.with the chances I don’t include critical.if you counted there is probaly an equal chance on iniative for both which means the monk has a 1,171875% chance for the monk to beat the ranger 1v1 without complications,and for the ranger 98,828125% chance to win.
Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer give minor benefits when the situation is perfect. Primeval Awareness is extremely situational. Hide in plain sight is not very good for a tenth level class feature. So you still have good DPR and good AC but a lot of useless class features. At that point it’s comparable to the paladin but with barely stronger subclasses, no heavy armor, a different casting stat, and much less useful class features (no smite, auras, or Divine sense).
Monks should have higher con than str. Period. Also your math seems off.
Human monk, level 2, 16 dex wis and con, 9 int cha str, 15 hp. 16 AC for both characters, monk has +5 to hit, monk has 2 attacks doing 1d4+3 dmg. Monk expected damage is 3.025 per attack, 3 attacks with flurry of blows, 9.075 expected damage/round, and with crit chances, Monk can probably kill a ranger with 20 hp(btw with 16 con you’d have 18 hp instead of 20, and I doubt you have 16 con) in 2 rounds. Monk also has better than normal speed.
Human Ranger, level 2, 16 dex wis con, 9 int cha str, 16 AC, +5 to hit(why do you not have 16 dex?), ranger has 2 attacks doing 1d6+3 damage, 3.575 dmg per attack, 7.15 dmg/ round. That can likely kill the monk in 2 rounds.
so really the only difference is the monk has better speed and the ki class feature, and the ranger has half casting (which I didn’t count because you’re using your BA for two weapon fighting) and situational class features that do almost nothing. It really just comes down to preference between the two, although monk gets better at higher levels.
Also, your character seem terribly built. Ranger with +2 dex? Just, no.
P. S. A variant human monk could have 16 dex and con, 15 wis, 8 str int and cha, fighting initiate feat with unarmed fighting, the damage dice of thier unarmed strikes are d8s.
first:I am talking about my character which is an elf,with all bonuses including
second:you are presuming that the monk has 15,,15,15,8,8,8?
third:you can choose to add dex,but you must use strength for unarmed attack
fourth:wait a minute, you say 1d6 is only a little more than a half on average,also you forget proficiency
fifth:I forgot the flurry of blows,but it takes ki point and that means you cannot use it after using it a few times,so in the scenario of a battle and an encounter on the battlefield withour getting harmed it won’t work
sixth:I have +2 con,and I threw an eighth on the d10,so…
seventh:I rolled the stats,I was new when I built the character and my only negative bonus is for str,your idea was letting three abilities fall,I have +1 to int and cha,+0 for wis,+2 con and dex and -1 str that seems better to me than +3,+3,+3,-1,-1,-1.your idea has netto +6 and one extra language of choice,my character has netto +5,elvish,+5 speed,mask of the wild,trance and fey ancestry.I don’t think +1 netto with polarization and the choice about a language is worth more than extra speed,camouflage,shorter rest and magic resistance.
eigth:I have extra speed to and speed doesn’t matter in melee and I don’t think the stereotype unarmed warrior is going to try to defeat a ranger by running away throwing darts,because a ranger has a longbow and so has much more damage and has proficiency with it.a ranged fight between monk and ranger is synonym for dead monk.
First: cool. I was just using human stats to be simple.
second: yes. Point buy.
third: no. Martial arts overrides unarmed fighting
fourth: that’s expected damage, which is average damage * to hit chance(55%). And you don’t ad PB to damage.
fifth: flurry of blows would likely last the whole fight
sixth: I was assuming average hit die rolls because rolling is unfair.
seventh:never roll stats it’s unfair; also why is your wis lower than int and cha? Btw you are correct standard human is terrible, but elves don’t get magic resistance.
eighth: you are correct.
Ummm can we just take the monk discussion private or side table it? A lot of the ?problems? With the ranger seem to come, imnsho, from the fact that the designers don’t seem to have much if any wilderness experience so they keep messing up things like hide in plain sight. The idea appears to be based off the many stories of apaches and other First Nations folk being able to do just that with cammoflage- hide in plain sight then move, attack and fade back into hiding again. We see much the same sort of real world examples from of the US Vietnamese era snipers as well as modern sniper school graduates. As written I agree it was confused at best and useless at worst. As it should have been written it would have very powerful. One of the best “hide in plain sight stories is very well documented and both perfectly typical and completely atypical at the same time - Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral gunfight. Everyone else was moving, dodging, running, etc and everyone else got hit at least once somewhere. Wyat simply stood stock still firing and was the only one untouched - he simply didn’t register on folks brains because he wasn’t moving and attracting attention and fire.now that is hiding in plain sight! Granted I don’t think we could make a feature that would allow that for the game but something that you could do ahead of time ( like the face camo the special forces frequently uses etc) that would then give you advantage on hide and stealth checks even when lightly obscured for 8-12 hours which is how many folks used it RAW or not would have been better. PsyrenXY is right on a number of points but I will say this - flawed is, by definition weak when compared to un flawed. But some flaws are far weaker than others. If I had my druthers rangers would get expertise in nature if they take it and tracking would be a nature skill with a variable DC and following a ranger or other nature skilled individual would be an opposed check with the person being followed setting the DC and the follower having to beat it to follow. Finding food/water would be a survival check with rangers getting expertise IF they take the skill (yes I like the way it’s done in 1D&D). The listed problems with terrains and enemies in the PHB ranger are really more about bad play and DMing than about actual flaws in the abilities. If your laying roperly and your DM is DMing properly then they are helping you pick those to suit the campaign not just randomly selecting them. When done that way the abilities are actually very strong. The only flaw might be that it would be nice to have a ranger feat that allowed you to select a couple more of each to represent the wide ranging ranger vs the “stay at home” ranger. Someone like Daniel Boone was definitely a ranger ( modern day more or less) and he really had only 1 terrain (Eastern Forests) and 2-3 Favoured Enemies (Europeans, native Americans, beasts) even the mountain men only had 3-4 terrains by D&D standards: Plains, mountains, Forests and maybe Deserts.
The biggest problem any/every ranger has is nothing involving the player mechanics, it’s the fact that the area where he really shines is the least played area of the game even though it’s typically the most common type of area in the game world - the wilderness. That “third pillar” of the game that almost never really gets used.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
okay,I just wanted to say the ranger is at least better than one class
PHB ranger<Monk
I don't mean to be that guy/DM...
...but are we just breaking to classes to number crunching and stat blocks? Maybe I'm a bit luckier at my table as my players seem happy to play characters with weaknesses and that's where some of our fun lies. I'm not saying "you're playing D&D wrong", but I think maybe you might be overlooking the fun to be had with the RP element of rolling with the punches in character creation.
https://wulfgold.substack.com
Blog - nerd stuff
https://deepdreamgenerator.com/u/wulfgold
A.I. art - also nerd stuff - a gallery of NPC portraits - help yourself.
I find PHB Ranger boring because your class features hardly matter.
It's just a major pillar of the game for me and DM-wise I'll be pretty lenient for a party that embrace the RP as well as the rolls + have a lot more fun (hopefully).
Side note - I tend to actually play as Ranger because I just like the flavour of that "wildrerness loner" type and playing that "socially awkward" fish out of water in a city - I've always found fun. Strange "rural" ways and the like, but - there's no "wrong way" it's just not something I'm seeing talked about here and even within that there's a lot of scope, to reduce it to basics and laziness I've got a couple Ranger NPC's in my current IWD campaign:
https://wulfgold.substack.com
Blog - nerd stuff
https://deepdreamgenerator.com/u/wulfgold
A.I. art - also nerd stuff - a gallery of NPC portraits - help yourself.
You can do that with literally any character. Most of the class features of ranger aren’t even that useful in exploration, a pillar of the game that very few DMs spend much time on. None of the features add to social interaction, and the features meant to add to combat prowess do anything of the sort. PHB ranger is weak, and you can still RP just fine with the TCoE optional class features.
When trying to compare classes objectively, by necessity you need to drop subjective comparisons like "Ranger is just cooler thematically than Paladin," and all the stuff about RP is a wash because you can RP with a Paladin just as well as you can with a Ranger. And this is where I will say that the idea that a weaker class somehow provides superior roleplay opportunity is simply wrong thinking. If you don't believe me, look up the Stormwind Fallacy. I'm not going to rehash all of that.
So anyway the argument becomes, "did WotC balance these classes fairly as the raw material for our characters?" And for that you need to look at the features and numbers they produce. Well-balanced classes allow you to play whatever you want without having to worry about overburdening the other people at your table who are relying on your to pull your weight in life or death situations. Balance doesn't lessen roleplay opportunities by any measure, and it in fact increases them for the people who feel uncomfortable performing poorly in a team game.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Wilderness exploration and survival is about making do with limited resources, tools and info on what is out there. Following a wagon trail or the last 1000 d keys to tread a path between towns it’s not. This is the problem with the exploration leg, you have to be willing to actually track things like encumbrance, rations, water, expended material components, missiles, etc to really get the feel of it in game. If you are then you can do a lot with the leg and give realistic DCs for folks to try to do this (like in the 15-30 range not the 5-15 range). Find and recognize drinkable water in a desert? DC 25-30, now you want a desert terrain ranger helping you. Is that plant at the water’s edge an edible lily or a death lily? How do you maintain directions when the trees block the sun and the boles are 10’ across so you are constantly having to go around them? What types of creatures should we be prepared to face while camped tonight? Is this nice wide flat sandy site a good camping site or are we in a flash flood zone? The storm is coming, do we want to pitch tents in the low areas that might get flooded, or on this long thin strip of elevated flat land? ( oh, Cr*p, is that a herd of elk leaping over my tent at 4AM on this game trail? Oh double cr*p, I wonder what set the whole herd off charging down this trail where I stupidly pitched my tent - is it hungry? Are those bear tracks? Or Owlbear tracks? Etc. when folks actually go to this kind of detail rangers shine, when the DM (&/or party) decide it’s too much trouble and cinematic montage it the ranger is just another fighter subclass. Tasha’s helped the combat somewhat but killed the exploration, 1D&D brings back the wilderness expertise along with decent combat but lacked “flavor” when I read it.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Any decent player can add flavor really easily.
Is there anything a PHB Ranger could do that a PHB cleric couldn't do better?
Oh I can add it, that’s not the problem. The write up for a class should give you a feel for that class and the ODD write up reads more like it’s designed to be GISH chassis than a wilderness explorer and survivor. I can make a heck of a ranger from the mechanics without any problems.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.