No matter how much you repeat the word "ribbon", it doesn't negate the existence of players who have the creativity and thought to take advantage of non-combat class features, or tables that don't gloss over anything but combat.
If you have "creativity and thought, " guess what, that applies to ability checks too. So the ribbons are still pointless and extraneous design.
But the beauty is that if you like the ribbons so much, your 2014 books aren't going anywhere, dust and all.
Getting features replaced by spells isnt fun at all.
Honest question: why? What is so gosh-darned un-fun about spells on a spellcasting class
But they marketed the Ranger class as one of the Expert classes, not a spellcasting class. Theres nothing wrong with having spells as a class with spellcasting, I just feel they removed too many unique features that Rangers had that added flavor and uniqueness to Ranger, and just gave them expertise and told us to just use spells and that will replace all the explorer features unique to Ranger. It makes me feel like I might just pick another class, since the spells they tell you to use arent even unique to Ranger.
The changes have me worried and sad about my favroite class and I dont know i am just being pessimistic and affected to D&D content creator, but the changes just dont look like much fun. It's hard to stay positive and see the good in the new Ranger when all my favorite creators say they dont like the new Ranger at all.
I think the problem that WotC was trying to address, with Tasha’s replacement features and this new version wa the 2014 Ranger had features that were thematic but if you weren’t dealing with specific creatures or specific environments then you were basically a fighter with spells.
Now if they kept some of those features (Favored Enemy, Natural explorer) in addition to the new 2024 features it would help keep that feel. Some modifications would be necessary.
And the exploration pillar is fairly anemic in this edition as far as WotC providing information. So, much seems left up to DM’s. And travel/survival seems to be hand waived at many tables which leaves the old Ranger features just ink on the page.
Getting features replaced by spells isnt fun at all.
Honest question: why? What is so gosh-darned un-fun about spells on a spellcasting class
But they marketed the Ranger class as one of the Expert classes, not a spellcasting class. Theres nothing wrong with having spells as a class with spellcasting, I just feel they removed too many unique features that Rangers had that added flavor and uniqueness to Ranger, and just gave them expertise and told us to just use spells and that will replace all the explorer features unique to Ranger. It makes me feel like I might just pick another class, since the spells they tell you to use arent even unique to Ranger.
The changes have me worried and sad about my favroite class and I dont know i am just being pessimistic and affected to D&D content creator, but the changes just dont look like much fun. It's hard to stay positive and see the good in the new Ranger when all my favorite creators say they dont like the new Ranger at all.
I think the problem that WotC was trying to address, with Tasha’s replacement features and this new version wa the 2014 Ranger had features that were thematic but if you weren’t dealing with specific creatures or specific environments then you were basically a fighter with spells.
Now if they kept some of those features (Favored Enemy, Natural explorer) in addition to the new 2024 features it would help keep that feel. Some modifications would be necessary.
And the exploration pillar is fairly anemic in this edition as far as WotC providing information. So, much seems left up to DM’s. And travel/survival seems to be hand waived at many tables which leaves the old Ranger features just ink on the page.
the loss of some of its old features in place of being replaces with spells did kinda kill alot of the flavor of the class
But they marketed the Ranger class as one of the Expert classes, not a spellcasting class. Theres nothing wrong with having spells as a class with spellcasting, I just feel they removed too many unique features that Rangers had that added flavor and uniqueness to Ranger, and just gave them expertise and told us to just use spells and that will replace all the explorer features unique to Ranger. It makes me feel like I might just pick another class, since the spells they tell you to use arent even unique to Ranger.
The changes have me worried and sad about my favroite class and I dont know i am just being pessimistic and affected to D&D content creator, but the changes just dont look like much fun. It's hard to stay positive and see the good in the new Ranger when all my favorite creators say they dont like the new Ranger at all.
Bards are included in the Expert classification and they are full spellcasters. The Expert grouping did not imply that they cannot be spellcasters. In fact, they said that in addition to all gaining Expertise, the Expert group takes pieces from other groups because they are polymaths. Bards are full spellcasters, rangers are half, and rogues are martial.
What feature did they remove from the ranger that had flavor and uniqueness, and also made it a good class? Because the flavor features that I am seeing are also the features that drove players to play other classes because those other classes could do what the ranger did, but better. I don't have a dog in the fight, but there is the old argument that the 2014 fighter is a vastly better ranger than the 2014 ranger is. I do not believe that is going to be an argument we see going forward though.
If flavor over functionality is important enough that you feel you had something taken away from you, why not just add flavor like spellcasters often do for their spells? I am playing in a game as a wizard right now and there is very little lore on spellcasting, so I flavor my spells as drawing equations in the air. Our artificer had wooden orbs that he has enchanted with spells. Mechanically, both are just Spellcasting with no functional difference. When you get Nature's Veil and want to flavor that as slathering yourself with mud to become invisible, why not? You'd get the flavor and the functionality at the same time.
Yes, but removing so muny features that gave Ranger a unique feel and flavor has left me with just another caster. The old features have gotten fixed, becasue they almost all boiled down to Ranger being good at doing a Survival roll. I just wish they didnt fix Ranger by stripping it of everything and just making it a weaker Wizard/Druid with a weaker Sneack Attack with Hunters Mark.
Maybe it will feel better when I have the new PHB and can properly see what the new subclasses features are, but right now, the new Ranger just makes me sad.
Getting features replaced by spells isnt fun at all.
Honest question: why? What is so gosh-darned un-fun about spells on a spellcasting class
But they marketed the Ranger class as one of the Expert classes, not a spellcasting class. Theres nothing wrong with having spells as a class with spellcasting, I just feel they removed too many unique features that Rangers had that added flavor and uniqueness to Ranger, and just gave them expertise and told us to just use spells and that will replace all the explorer features unique to Ranger. It makes me feel like I might just pick another class, since the spells they tell you to use arent even unique to Ranger.
The changes have me worried and sad about my favroite class and I dont know i am just being pessimistic and affected to D&D content creator, but the changes just dont look like much fun. It's hard to stay positive and see the good in the new Ranger when all my favorite creators say they dont like the new Ranger at all.
I think the problem that WotC was trying to address, with Tasha’s replacement features and this new version wa the 2014 Ranger had features that were thematic but if you weren’t dealing with specific creatures or specific environments then you were basically a fighter with spells.
Now if they kept some of those features (Favored Enemy, Natural explorer) in addition to the new 2024 features it would help keep that feel. Some modifications would be necessary.
And the exploration pillar is fairly anemic in this edition as far as WotC providing information. So, much seems left up to DM’s. And travel/survival seems to be hand waived at many tables which leaves the old Ranger features just ink on the page.
Youre right, all it came down do was rolling a Survival roll good and they have fixed that with giving them Expetise that they can put in survival. Theyve even buffed Natural Explorer in my eyes by making it Expertise. Thats all great.
Favored Enemy has just become a weak Sneak Attack, the features that buff Hunters Mark come way too late for it to be any good.
Í just wish they didnt fix Rangers boring part by removing everything that made it feel unique and not adding anything back.
All their fixes has just made Ranger into a weak caster with a weak Sneak Attack in my eyes. But it has also made Ranger into this open slate that you can flavor in any way you want. Maybe the new sublasses features will make it feel better when we get to see what those are properly.
Favored Enemy has just become a weak Sneak Attack, the features that buff Hunters Mark come way too late for it to be any good.
But it's not "weak sneak attack"; It applies to every hit. Rangers have way better damage potential than Rogues, are nearly as good at ability checks, and have spells that let them do things most rogues can't dream of; a ranger can interrogate the potted plant in the corner of the murder scene, or find the kidnapped king by knowing what his signet ring looks like, send a rat to tell him help is on the way, then feed and heal him once they get there.
Yes, but removing so muny features that gave Ranger a unique feel and flavor has left me with just another caster. The old features have gotten fixed, becasue they almost all boiled down to Ranger being good at doing a Survival roll. I just wish they didnt fix Ranger by stripping it of everything and just making it a weaker Wizard/Druid with a weaker Sneack Attack with Hunters Mark.
Maybe it will feel better when I have the new PHB and can properly see what the new subclasses features are, but right now, the new Ranger just makes me sad.
I sympathize. It seems like this change has left you feeling like your favorite class is too different to be what you loved. I encourage you to give it a try though. From an outsider's perspective as a player who never really played a 2014 ranger specifically because of all the problems it had, I now want to play one. To me, it feels like a functional class that is tailored for exploration, moving around, and is a dangerous opponent on the battlefield. I mean, Nature's Veil cannot be dismissed. 12 seconds of invisibility as a bonus action is nasty work that can be useful in so many situations.
2014's Natural Explorer, which I am seeing a lot from some people, was probably an ability I simply hated as a DM. It was not something that made a ranger feel rangery. It simply prevented encounters from happening at all. From a DM's perspective, it was a fun-reducing feature. Identity features should be things you can do, not things you don't do. It would be like if a bard had a feature that prevented social checks and gave you automatic success.
What I am trying to say is that I hope you try the 2014 ranger out and allow yourself to be open to the idea of enjoying it. You might find that you actually like it better than the 2014 if you do.
Favored Enemy has just become a weak Sneak Attack, the features that buff Hunters Mark come way too late for it to be any good.
But it's not "weak sneak attack"; It applies to every hit. Rangers have way better damage potential than Rogues, are nearly as good at ability checks, and have spells that let them do things most rogues can't dream of; a ranger can interrogate the potted plant in the corner of the murder scene, or find the kidnapped king by knowing what his signet ring looks like, send a rat to tell him help is on the way, then feed and heal him once they get there.
Yes, but in most cases Rangers are going to get their two attack, so its 2 weapon damage die and 2d10 from HM. Rogues get 1 weapon damage die and 10d6. I dont see the damage potential Ragners have over Rogues at all.
And the spells some other classes can do, theres no unique thing to the Ranger at all.
Yes, but removing so muny features that gave Ranger a unique feel and flavor has left me with just another caster. The old features have gotten fixed, becasue they almost all boiled down to Ranger being good at doing a Survival roll. I just wish they didnt fix Ranger by stripping it of everything and just making it a weaker Wizard/Druid with a weaker Sneack Attack with Hunters Mark.
Maybe it will feel better when I have the new PHB and can properly see what the new subclasses features are, but right now, the new Ranger just makes me sad.
I sympathize. It seems like this change has left you feeling like your favorite class is too different to be what you loved. I encourage you to give it a try though. From an outsider's perspective as a player who never really played a 2014 ranger specifically because of all the problems it had, I now want to play one. To me, it feels like a functional class that is tailored for exploration, moving around, and is a dangerous opponent on the battlefield. I mean, Nature's Veil cannot be dismissed. 12 seconds of invisibility as a bonus action is nasty work that can be useful in so many situations.
2014's Natural Explorer, which I am seeing a lot from some people, was probably an ability I simply hated as a DM. It was not something that made a ranger feel rangery. It simply prevented encounters from happening at all. From a DM's perspective, it was a fun-reducing feature. Identity features should be things you can do, not things you don't do. It would be like if a bard had a feature that prevented social checks and gave you automatic success.
What I am trying to say is that I hope you try the 2014 ranger out and allow yourself to be open to the idea of enjoying it. You might find that you actually like it better than the 2014 if you do.
Yeah, I most likely will try it out. It will probably feel about the same, constantly questioning what you should use your bonus action for.
It's so unfortunate that they made Ranger legit the worst class to play when it comes to customization. Like, seriously, why the hell is the half the damn class around a single concentration spell??? That's like trying to make Warlock ALL about Hex. I'd get it if there were choices to be made, but that's not the case. It's...so sad to see that the 2014 Ranger, while still not being good, is still the better option.
It's so unfortunate that they made Ranger legit the worst class to play when it comes to customization. Like, seriously, why the hell is the half the damn class around a single concentration spell??? That's like trying to make Warlock ALL about Hex. I'd get it if there were choices to be made, but that's not the case. It's...so sad to see that the 2014 Ranger, while still not being good, is still the better option.
Hopefully, costumization will come through the subclasses. But theres plenty to cosutmize still. You have more spells than ever, you can go STR or DEX, melee or ranged, you can put yout Expertise wherever you want.
Just on the question of Rogue vs Ranger damage at level 20:
Assuming both DEX 22, Rogue using rapier and Ranger using shortsword and scimitar ( with TWF fighting style); both with appropriate weapon masteries. Damage based on base class features only and no magic weapons. Assuming all attacks hit.
Bruh, no one is wanting "unlimited abilities" on the Ranger, we just want the abilities THAT EXISTED to be better, and instead of making the class gain more of its own identity, they stripped it away and left it by saying, "but have you seen this cool spell Hunter's Mark???"
At least the Paladin has a variety in what they can do, but with the Ranger?? 5 WHOLE ABILITES based around the spell...that's some easy math to do, cuz that's a quarter of the classes identity now, which is INSANE! Wanna know WHY it's insane, other than it being a SPELL that's a 4th of the class is based around??
It can only target one person at a time. Hunter's Mark is concentration. Quite literally over half of the spells on the Rangers current spell list require concentration. From level 1, all the way to level 19, the damage die STAYS at 1d6.
A fourth of what the class is can be canceled out by something as simple as Dispel Magic...it's so pathetic, it's unreal.
Just on the question of Rogue vs Ranger damage at level 20:
Assuming both DEX 22, Rogue using rapier and Ranger using shortsword and scimitar ( with TWF fighting style); both with appropriate weapon masteries. Damage based on base class features only and no magic weapons. Assuming all attacks hit.
Rogue: d8+6 + 10d6 = 45.5
Ranger: 3x (d6+6) + 3d10 = 45
If youre going to maximize the amount of attacks like that, you have to take the Nick weapon mastery into consideration for the Rogue. The best way to compare them will be just using their normal amount of attacks because thats the most likely outcome. Otherwise we will have to argue into infinity who has the most damage potential.
Quite literally over half of the spells on the Rangers current spell list require concentration.
It's already been confirmed the Ranger spell list has been updated; we just don't know how. I wouldn't be surprised if most Ranger specific spells lose concentration, since JC mentioned that all spells on the new PHB were revised in some form and some lost concentration.
Quite literally over half of the spells on the Rangers current spell list require concentration.
It's already been confirmed the Ranger spell list has been updated; we just don't know how. I wouldn't be surprised if most Ranger specific spells lose concentration, since JC mentioned that all spells on the new PHB were revised in some form and some lost concentration.
This is the annoying part to trying to discuss the 2024 Ranger. We don't have the exact features of the subclasses and we don't have the spells. We might be sitting here and arguing over nothing
Just on the question of Rogue vs Ranger damage at level 20:
Assuming both DEX 22, Rogue using rapier and Ranger using shortsword and scimitar ( with TWF fighting style); both with appropriate weapon masteries. Damage based on base class features only and no magic weapons. Assuming all attacks hit.
Rogue: d8+6 + 10d6 = 45.5
Ranger: 3x (d6+6) + 3d10 = 45
If youre going to maximize the amount of attacks like that, you have to take the Nick weapon mastery into consideration for the Rogue. The best way to compare them will be just using their normal amount of attacks because thats the most likely outcome. Otherwise we will have to argue into infinity who has the most damage potential.
Ok: fair enough. It would change the d8+6 to 2d6+6, so an extra 2.5. The Rogue might also pull ahead a bit as more of their attacks (if using a Rapier as in my original example) will be with Advantage (from Vex). Plus, they’re more likely to reach DEX 22 than the Ranger, who will also need to boost their WIS score. Obviously, I’ve also left out subclass bonuses to damage.
However, my main purpose was to show that the Ranger at that level is broadly comparable to the Rogue for danger, as the previous poster had expressed considerable doubt about that.
Yes, but in most cases Rangers are going to get their two attack, so its 2 weapon damage die and 2d10 from HM. Rogues get 1 weapon damage die and 10d6. I dont see the damage potential Rangers have over Rogues at all.
Because for some reason I can't fathom, you've chosen to not even use basic optimization. No TWF, no Nick/Vex, no Sentinel or OAs for your reaction, no BM or XBE... you can easily get 4 attacks per round with ranger, or even up to 7 if you push it (Beastmaster), all of which get your ability mod AND the HM bonus added to damage. Not even Soulknife can keep up with that. And you can push it even further with a Haste scroll (rules will be in the PHB now) handed off to a familiar or ally. Of course if you stop at 2 attacks Ranger is going to be underwhelming, but like... don't?
Bruh, no one is wanting "unlimited abilities" on the Ranger, we just want the abilities THAT EXISTED to be better, and instead of making the class gain more of its own identity, they stripped it away and left it by saying, "but have you seen this cool spell Hunter's Mark???"
At least the Paladin has a variety in what they can do, but with the Ranger?? 5 WHOLE ABILITES based around the spell...that's some easy math to do, cuz that's a quarter of the classes identity now, which is INSANE! Wanna know WHY it's insane, other than it being a SPELL that's a 4th of the class is based around??
It can only target one person at a time. Hunter's Mark is concentration. Quite literally over half of the spells on the Rangers current spell list require concentration. From level 1, all the way to level 19, the damage die STAYS at 1d6.
A fourth of what the class is can be canceled out by something as simple as Dispel Magic...it's so pathetic, it's unreal.
The poster I was responding to asked why the old Ranger's features couldn't exist alongside the new features. If you just want the 2014 features without the new ones... Just play the old Ranger.
All the new Ranger gets is improved Hunter's Mark, as long as we ignore Expertise, Roving, Tireless, Nature's Veil, and Feral Senses. I mean... That's a lot of stuff to ignore, but you seem determined to do it so let's do it.
Hunter's Mark is a SPELL, which seems pretty normal for a SPELLCASTING class to have, but let's see why this is INSANE: It targets one creature (but can be retargeted as a bonus action when the target dies), it requires concentration (oh no, you'll have to engage with concentration management as a game mechanic, how terrible), and all the way up to level 19 the damage die stays at 1d6 (although you'll apply that more often due to Extra Attack and you get advantage on all attacks against the target at 17). Because it's a spell it can be removed by Dispel Magic (which requires an action and a 3rd level spell slot), though I guess you could just, I dunno, reapply it (using a Bonus Action, for free)?
We're also just not talking about the way Hunter's Mark gives you advantage on Perception and Survival checks to track the target, regardless of range, for an hour (or longer if you upcast it, which you can do because it's a SPELL). It feels weird to me that this aspect of the spell is totally absent from a discussion that's allegedly about the Ranger's utility features, but I guess we'd rather have a feature set that just passively turns off entire sections of the traveling rules.
The number of things y'all have to ignore to pretend this update is worse than the 2014 Ranger is unreal.
Late Edit: Actually the Concentration complaint annoys me more than I expected. Currently a lot of Ranger spells require concentration. That's not like... An accident. Deciding when to drop Concentration on one spell in order to cast another is a key aspect of skill expression with the Ranger. The idea that having to choose between different Concentration spells is inherently bad or weak displays an ignorance of fundamental game mechanics. It is not a serious argument.
Yes, but in most cases Rangers are going to get their two attack, so its 2 weapon damage die and 2d10 from HM. Rogues get 1 weapon damage die and 10d6. I dont see the damage potential Rangers have over Rogues at all.
Because for some reason I can't fathom, you've chosen to not even use basic optimization. No TWF, no Nick/Vex, no Sentinel or OAs for your reaction, no BM or XBE... you can easily get 4 attacks per round with ranger, or even up to 7 if you push it (Beastmaster), all of which get your ability mod AND the HM bonus added to damage. Not even Soulknife can keep up with that. And you can push it even further with a Haste scroll (rules will be in the PHB now) handed off to a familiar or ally. Of course if you stop at 2 attacks Ranger is going to be underwhelming, but like... don't?
Because most people wont play a super optimized way like that and to pull all of that off every round isnt realistic. The amount of attacks youll get per round will most likely only be 2-3 per round. I usually use a ranged weapon with my rangers. I cant use most of the things youre listing off and Im not going to change my way of playing because some sort of powergaming meta is telling me to. So of course, to me the new rangers damage capabilities come of really lackluster depending how Ranger spells have changed and how the subclasses will work.
Because most people wont play a super optimized way like that and to pull all of that off every round isnt realistic. The amount of attacks youll get per round will most likely only be 2-3 per round.
We have very different definitions of "super optimized" then so there isn't much point in continuing. Sticking with 2 attacks per round is intentionally gimping yourself in my eyes, in which case yeah you're probably better off not being a ranger, but that doesn't change the game that WotC has to design for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you have "creativity and thought, " guess what, that applies to ability checks too. So the ribbons are still pointless and extraneous design.
But the beauty is that if you like the ribbons so much, your 2014 books aren't going anywhere, dust and all.
I think the problem that WotC was trying to address, with Tasha’s replacement features and this new version wa the 2014 Ranger had features that were thematic but if you weren’t dealing with specific creatures or specific environments then you were basically a fighter with spells.
Now if they kept some of those features (Favored Enemy, Natural explorer) in addition to the new 2024 features it would help keep that feel. Some modifications would be necessary.
And the exploration pillar is fairly anemic in this edition as far as WotC providing information. So, much seems left up to DM’s. And travel/survival seems to be hand waived at many tables which leaves the old Ranger features just ink on the page.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
the loss of some of its old features in place of being replaces with spells did kinda kill alot of the flavor of the class
Yes, but removing so muny features that gave Ranger a unique feel and flavor has left me with just another caster. The old features have gotten fixed, becasue they almost all boiled down to Ranger being good at doing a Survival roll. I just wish they didnt fix Ranger by stripping it of everything and just making it a weaker Wizard/Druid with a weaker Sneack Attack with Hunters Mark.
Maybe it will feel better when I have the new PHB and can properly see what the new subclasses features are, but right now, the new Ranger just makes me sad.
Youre right, all it came down do was rolling a Survival roll good and they have fixed that with giving them Expetise that they can put in survival. Theyve even buffed Natural Explorer in my eyes by making it Expertise. Thats all great.
Favored Enemy has just become a weak Sneak Attack, the features that buff Hunters Mark come way too late for it to be any good.
Í just wish they didnt fix Rangers boring part by removing everything that made it feel unique and not adding anything back.
All their fixes has just made Ranger into a weak caster with a weak Sneak Attack in my eyes. But it has also made Ranger into this open slate that you can flavor in any way you want. Maybe the new sublasses features will make it feel better when we get to see what those are properly.
But it's not "weak sneak attack"; It applies to every hit. Rangers have way better damage potential than Rogues, are nearly as good at ability checks, and have spells that let them do things most rogues can't dream of; a ranger can interrogate the potted plant in the corner of the murder scene, or find the kidnapped king by knowing what his signet ring looks like, send a rat to tell him help is on the way, then feed and heal him once they get there.
I sympathize. It seems like this change has left you feeling like your favorite class is too different to be what you loved. I encourage you to give it a try though. From an outsider's perspective as a player who never really played a 2014 ranger specifically because of all the problems it had, I now want to play one. To me, it feels like a functional class that is tailored for exploration, moving around, and is a dangerous opponent on the battlefield. I mean, Nature's Veil cannot be dismissed. 12 seconds of invisibility as a bonus action is nasty work that can be useful in so many situations.
2014's Natural Explorer, which I am seeing a lot from some people, was probably an ability I simply hated as a DM. It was not something that made a ranger feel rangery. It simply prevented encounters from happening at all. From a DM's perspective, it was a fun-reducing feature. Identity features should be things you can do, not things you don't do. It would be like if a bard had a feature that prevented social checks and gave you automatic success.
What I am trying to say is that I hope you try the 2014 ranger out and allow yourself to be open to the idea of enjoying it. You might find that you actually like it better than the 2014 if you do.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Yes, but in most cases Rangers are going to get their two attack, so its 2 weapon damage die and 2d10 from HM. Rogues get 1 weapon damage die and 10d6. I dont see the damage potential Ragners have over Rogues at all.
And the spells some other classes can do, theres no unique thing to the Ranger at all.
Yeah, I most likely will try it out. It will probably feel about the same, constantly questioning what you should use your bonus action for.
It's so unfortunate that they made Ranger legit the worst class to play when it comes to customization. Like, seriously, why the hell is the half the damn class around a single concentration spell??? That's like trying to make Warlock ALL about Hex. I'd get it if there were choices to be made, but that's not the case. It's...so sad to see that the 2014 Ranger, while still not being good, is still the better option.
Hopefully, costumization will come through the subclasses. But theres plenty to cosutmize still. You have more spells than ever, you can go STR or DEX, melee or ranged, you can put yout Expertise wherever you want.
Just on the question of Rogue vs Ranger damage at level 20:
Assuming both DEX 22, Rogue using rapier and Ranger using shortsword and scimitar ( with TWF fighting style); both with appropriate weapon masteries. Damage based on base class features only and no magic weapons. Assuming all attacks hit.
Rogue: d8+6 + 10d6 = 45.5
Ranger: 3x (d6+6) + 3d10 = 45
Bruh, no one is wanting "unlimited abilities" on the Ranger, we just want the abilities THAT EXISTED to be better, and instead of making the class gain more of its own identity, they stripped it away and left it by saying, "but have you seen this cool spell Hunter's Mark???"
At least the Paladin has a variety in what they can do, but with the Ranger?? 5 WHOLE ABILITES based around the spell...that's some easy math to do, cuz that's a quarter of the classes identity now, which is INSANE! Wanna know WHY it's insane, other than it being a SPELL that's a 4th of the class is based around??
It can only target one person at a time.
Hunter's Mark is concentration.
Quite literally over half of the spells on the Rangers current spell list require concentration.
From level 1, all the way to level 19, the damage die STAYS at 1d6.
A fourth of what the class is can be canceled out by something as simple as Dispel Magic...it's so pathetic, it's unreal.
If youre going to maximize the amount of attacks like that, you have to take the Nick weapon mastery into consideration for the Rogue. The best way to compare them will be just using their normal amount of attacks because thats the most likely outcome. Otherwise we will have to argue into infinity who has the most damage potential.
It's already been confirmed the Ranger spell list has been updated; we just don't know how. I wouldn't be surprised if most Ranger specific spells lose concentration, since JC mentioned that all spells on the new PHB were revised in some form and some lost concentration.
This is the annoying part to trying to discuss the 2024 Ranger. We don't have the exact features of the subclasses and we don't have the spells. We might be sitting here and arguing over nothing
And using the UA as a reference is not a done deal since they made changes prior to the 2024 release
Ok: fair enough. It would change the d8+6 to 2d6+6, so an extra 2.5.
The Rogue might also pull ahead a bit as more of their attacks (if using a Rapier as in my original example) will be with Advantage (from Vex). Plus, they’re more likely to reach DEX 22 than the Ranger, who will also need to boost their WIS score.
Obviously, I’ve also left out subclass bonuses to damage.
However, my main purpose was to show that the Ranger at that level is broadly comparable to the Rogue for danger, as the previous poster had expressed considerable doubt about that.
Because for some reason I can't fathom, you've chosen to not even use basic optimization. No TWF, no Nick/Vex, no Sentinel or OAs for your reaction, no BM or XBE... you can easily get 4 attacks per round with ranger, or even up to 7 if you push it (Beastmaster), all of which get your ability mod AND the HM bonus added to damage. Not even Soulknife can keep up with that. And you can push it even further with a Haste scroll (rules will be in the PHB now) handed off to a familiar or ally. Of course if you stop at 2 attacks Ranger is going to be underwhelming, but like... don't?
The poster I was responding to asked why the old Ranger's features couldn't exist alongside the new features. If you just want the 2014 features without the new ones... Just play the old Ranger.
All the new Ranger gets is improved Hunter's Mark, as long as we ignore Expertise, Roving, Tireless, Nature's Veil, and Feral Senses. I mean... That's a lot of stuff to ignore, but you seem determined to do it so let's do it.
Hunter's Mark is a SPELL, which seems pretty normal for a SPELLCASTING class to have, but let's see why this is INSANE: It targets one creature (but can be retargeted as a bonus action when the target dies), it requires concentration (oh no, you'll have to engage with concentration management as a game mechanic, how terrible), and all the way up to level 19 the damage die stays at 1d6 (although you'll apply that more often due to Extra Attack and you get advantage on all attacks against the target at 17). Because it's a spell it can be removed by Dispel Magic (which requires an action and a 3rd level spell slot), though I guess you could just, I dunno, reapply it (using a Bonus Action, for free)?
We're also just not talking about the way Hunter's Mark gives you advantage on Perception and Survival checks to track the target, regardless of range, for an hour (or longer if you upcast it, which you can do because it's a SPELL). It feels weird to me that this aspect of the spell is totally absent from a discussion that's allegedly about the Ranger's utility features, but I guess we'd rather have a feature set that just passively turns off entire sections of the traveling rules.
The number of things y'all have to ignore to pretend this update is worse than the 2014 Ranger is unreal.
Late Edit: Actually the Concentration complaint annoys me more than I expected. Currently a lot of Ranger spells require concentration. That's not like... An accident. Deciding when to drop Concentration on one spell in order to cast another is a key aspect of skill expression with the Ranger. The idea that having to choose between different Concentration spells is inherently bad or weak displays an ignorance of fundamental game mechanics. It is not a serious argument.
Because most people wont play a super optimized way like that and to pull all of that off every round isnt realistic. The amount of attacks youll get per round will most likely only be 2-3 per round. I usually use a ranged weapon with my rangers. I cant use most of the things youre listing off and Im not going to change my way of playing because some sort of powergaming meta is telling me to. So of course, to me the new rangers damage capabilities come of really lackluster depending how Ranger spells have changed and how the subclasses will work.
We have very different definitions of "super optimized" then so there isn't much point in continuing. Sticking with 2 attacks per round is intentionally gimping yourself in my eyes, in which case yeah you're probably better off not being a ranger, but that doesn't change the game that WotC has to design for.