If a class feature mandates using a specific subclass to make using it worthwhile, it absolutely should not be treated as a focal feature of the entire class.
You don't need a specific subclass for HM to be worthwhile. 3 attacks per round is already enough to exceed the damage curve of a level 1 slot, anything more than that is gravy.
Yeah, as long as all subclasses can benefit from HM, Ranger will easily keep up even without specific feats and optimization.
No more Natural Explorer. You know what Wizards tells you to do instead to fill that "role" that was already built in? Just take expertise in Survival and take a few spells... No more Primeval Awareness, one of the most niche but interesting abilities the Ranger had that is just GONE. Not even built into something else or anything, just gone. Know what they tell you to do instead?? Just take expertise in Perception and take a few spells... No more Land's Stride, an actual unique feature that did something other classes could only semi replicate using spells or items. Wanna know what they replaced it with??? You guessed it, expertise! No more Hide in Plain Site or Vanish. A version still being there, Nature's Veil, but it was already an option from Tasha's, so nothing new, but Vanish is gone? Something actual useful that a Ranger could actually use, just gone...ok.
Holy smokes, it isn't often that I see someone actually demanding Primeval Awareness return. That feature genuinely sucked. It wasn't interesting, it just sucked. Rangers had to be extremely selective with their limited spell slots and PA used this limited currency just to give a basic yes/no answer on whether a particular creature type was within a mile of them. Any warlock or wizard would disrupt the effectiveness of this feature by virtue of their familiar too. Further, this feature did not reveal any useful information such as number or location. It was a colossal waste of a spell slot. There has been a ranger in about half the games I have been playing for the past 6 years and it has been used exactly never in any game. The moment Tasha's came out, every ranger I had played with swapped it for Primal Awareness. Every one. Now with the 2024 ranger, the spell list for rangers is expanded, so even Primal Awareness wasn't necessary.
Land Stride is unnecessary with Roving from Tasha's, which does almost the same thing but better, and comes in at an earlier level. Why is having extra Expertise a bad thing though? Are rangers supposed to not be as good at exploration as other classes?
Hide in Plain Sight and Vanish are useless since Tasha's introduced Nature's Veil, and it is increased in power for the 2024 rules as well. Why have two bad features when you can have one great one?
No more Natural Explorer. You know what Wizards tells you to do instead to fill that "role" that was already built in? Just take expertise in Survival and take a few spells... No more Primeval Awareness, one of the most niche but interesting abilities the Ranger had that is just GONE. Not even built into something else or anything, just gone. Know what they tell you to do instead?? Just take expertise in Perception and take a few spells... No more Land's Stride, an actual unique feature that did something other classes could only semi replicate using spells or items. Wanna know what they replaced it with??? You guessed it, expertise! No more Hide in Plain Site or Vanish. A version still being there, Nature's Veil, but it was already an option from Tasha's, so nothing new, but Vanish is gone? Something actual useful that a Ranger could actually use, just gone...ok.
Holy smokes, it isn't often that I see someone actually demanding Primeval Awareness return. That feature genuinely sucked. It wasn't interesting, it just sucked. Rangers had to be extremely selective with their limited spell slots and PA used this limited currency just to give a basic yes/no answer on whether a particular creature type was within a mile of them. Any warlock or wizard would disrupt the effectiveness of this feature by virtue of their familiar too. Further, this feature did not reveal any useful information such as number or location. It was a colossal waste of a spell slot. There has been a ranger in about half the games I have been playing for the past 6 years and it has been used exactly never in any game. The moment Tasha's came out, every ranger I had played with swapped it for Primal Awareness. Every one. Now with the 2024 ranger, the spell list for rangers is expanded, so even Primal Awareness wasn't necessary.
Land Stride was actually replaced with Roving, which does almost the same thing but better, and comes in at an earlier level. Why is having extra Expertise a bad thing though? Are rangers supposed to not be as good at exploration as other classes?
Hide in Plain Sight and Vanish are useless since Tasha's introduced Nature's Veil, and it is increased in power for the 2024 rules as well. Why have two bad features when you can have one great one?
Yeah, as long as all subclasses can benefit from HM, Ranger will easily keep up even without specific feats and optimization.
The ones that don't still get feats and weapon masteries. And even if for some reason you don't want to use those - just concentrate on something else. Nothing is actually forcing you to use Hunter's Mark.
Also, you bring up "All the new Ranger gets is improved Hunter's Mark, as long as we ignore Expertise, Roving, Tireless, Nature's Veil, and Feral Senses."
Dude, every single feature you mentioned, the 2014 Ranger already had with Tasha's. You know what we don't have anymore at all?
No more Natural Explorer. You know what Wizards tells you to do instead to fill that "role" that was already built in? Just take expertise in Survival and take a few spells... No more Primeval Awareness, one of the most niche but interesting abilities the Ranger had that is just GONE. Not even built into something else or anything, just gone. Know what they tell you to do instead?? Just take expertise in Perception and take a few spells... No more Land's Stride, an actual unique feature that did something other classes could only semi replicate using spells or items. Wanna know what they replaced it with??? You guessed it, expertise! No more Hide in Plain Site or Vanish. A version still being there, Nature's Veil, but it was already an option from Tasha's, so nothing new, but Vanish is gone? Something actual useful that a Ranger could actually use, just gone...ok.
Let's go over the "new" features though, shall we? Expertise is the exact same thing. Roving is the exact same thing. Tireless is the exact same thing. Nature's Veil is the exact sa- Oh wait, no, it starts 4 levels later. Feral Sense now gives you a keyword that does the exact same thing.
but hey, we get the abilities to go off of our Wisdom Modifier instead of proficiency bonus, so it's better, right? our Wisdom Mod will always be better than our proficiency bonus, right??
oh, and Hunter's Mark damage changing from your weapons damage to force is pretty cool actu- oh...it only happens at level 20...
As has been pointed out, the 2024 Ranger's features aren't identical to Tasha's, but are you actually surprised they're similar? Of course the Tasha's Ranger was the basis for the new class, Tasha's only came out four years ago. No other class got an update like that, so naturally the other classes mostly feel like they got more new features. Because the other classes weren't, speaking frankly, as badly designed as the 2014 Ranger was.
I don't think you understand simple mathematics. There's not a single other class that has a 4th of their entire core class abilities centered around a spell. Sure, Hunter's Mark can be a good spell, for sure, but it puts Rangers in such a box that no other class is in, and I can't understand how you don't see it. Either you build around Hunter's Mark and make a pretty good damage dealing character, or you decide to roleplay some other way and miss out on ONE FOURTH of you entire class. No other class does it, and it makes the Ranger a bad design when it comes to the game as a whole. It vastly limits options, as if you don't build around Hunter's Mark, you are outright weaker than every other class from the getgo.
Yeah man, if you don't use your class features you are weaker than characters who do. That's not really an insightful statement. The old Ranger got four Favored Enemy improvements, the new Ranger gets four features that interact with Hunter's Mark. You seem really upset that "one fourth" of the new Ranger's class abilities are dedicated to a spell that improves tracking, but you don't seem to have a problem with the 2014 Ranger's equal number of features dedicated to a transparently worse ability that also improved tracking. I do not understand this position.
I'm kind of tired of babying people over this. The 2014 Ranger was a mess; of course they changed it. Natural Explorer was a bad feature and I'm glad it's gone. Favored Enemy was weird and often racist. Primeval Awareness was cool but nearly useless, Vanish stepped on the Rogue's toes, and Hide in Plain Sight committed the twin sins of being simultaneously overpowered and boring.
All this whinging takes for granted the idea that the 2014 Ranger was good, and it just wasn't. The new Ranger has a much clearer core concept that focuses on active, player-facing features, and for that reason I expect to actually see it played in games more than once every few years.
I never "demanded" that primeval awareness return, just the fact that they removed an actual interesting ability instead of making it more useful is crazy.
Having Expertise doesn't make a person better at exploring, it makes them better at a specific skill, which doesn't always have to be Survival. It's just what a Rogue and Bard can do...it's nothing new.
Also, Vanish didn't have a limit. You could just hide as a bonus action, similar to a rogue. Now, you only get to turn invisible a certain amount of times a day...please be truthful and tell me that's not a nerf.
Sure, the Ranger can be a class that CAN be optimized, but unlike every other class, the Ranger HAS to be played a certain way to or you miss out.
They are wanting to make the Ranger into a Spellcasting skill monkey like the Rogue...but the Bard already exists.
The problem has nothing to do with the 2014 Ranger being a mess. It's that the identity of what the Ranger has been throughout D&D's history has fundamentally changed into expertise, spellcasting, and Hunter's Mark, which when compared to other classes, is bad design. I mean, we don't even get the option of Favored Foe, we just have Hunter's Mark. Now, Hunter's Mark is obviously a decent spell in it's own right for the Ranger, but jeez, making a 4th of the class based around it is both lazy and limiting. That's like if they made a 4th of the Paladins abilities based around Divine Smite, or a 4th of the Warlocks abilities based around Hex.
Of course the new Ranger is more concrete with what Wizards wants it to be. The old Ranger was just weak overall. Sure, they made the new Ranger "Stronger," but only if you play in a very specific way. You can play the Ranger archetype as both Rogue or Druid, but not the other way around. It just lacks versatility, which is why it's badly designed for a game like D&D.
Yeah, as long as all subclasses can benefit from HM, Ranger will easily keep up even without specific feats and optimization.
The ones that don't still get feats and weapon masteries. And even if for some reason you don't want to use those - just concentrate on something else. Nothing is actually forcing you to use Hunter's Mark.
I think Im being bad at trying to get my point across here. Sorry for that. What I think I am trying to say is, that it would be nice that the floor of the 2024 Ranger is that all subclasses has some sort of benefit from HM just like Beastmaster. It doesnt have to be something crazy, just something that feels like im getting to trigger it an extra time over the 2 you get from your attack action. If people want to use TWF, XBE, Nick and benefit even more, thats great. HM is free, all Rangers are going to want to try to squeeze it in their repetoire. Its the capstone afterall.
I never "demanded" that primeval awareness return, just the fact that they removed an actual interesting ability instead of making it more useful is crazy.
Having Expertise doesn't make a person better at exploring, it makes them better at a specific skill, which doesn't always have to be Survival. It's just what a Rogue and Bard can do...it's nothing new.
Also, Vanish didn't have a limit. You could just hide as a bonus action, similar to a rogue. Now, you only get to turn invisible a certain amount of times a day...please be truthful and tell me that's not a nerf.
Sure, the Ranger can be a class that CAN be optimized, but unlike every other class, the Ranger HAS to be played a certain way to or you miss out.
They are wanting to make the Ranger into a Spellcasting skill monkey like the Rogue...but the Bard already exists.
Yes, if you are saying that it is crazy to remove a bad feature, you are advocating for its return. Whether you are also asking it to be modified is immaterial to the point; you want a bad feature to return.
Having Expertise can make you better at exploration most of the time. But thank you for pointing out that having Expertise is better than just being pigeonholed into being a better explorer: some people actually want to be a ranger but not have to care at all about exploration. This class therefore is more customizable to meet the diverse needs of many players, which lends evidence to defeating the argument that the ranger lacks customization.
Nature's Veil is not a nerf. It is 12 seconds of invisibility. There is a reason that Invisibility is a must have for many spellcasting builds and vital to any stealth build with access to spells. You know what you don't have to do with Nature's Veil that you did have to do with Hide in Plain Sight? Remain still. Unmoving. Passive. In what way is the Hide ability better than Invisibility?
The 2014 ranger had to be played certain ways just to avoid lagging behind other classes with players who did not even optimize at all. In fact, the internet is rife with homebrews meant to make the 2014 ranger keep up. Now this is not even necessary.
The bard cannot meet the martial demand that a ranger can. It is entirely acceptable and even a great idea to have Experts who can do different things. That was the goal of having ranger included in the Expert Group and they succeeded in this effort.
No, once again, I'm not advocating for it's return. Instead of changing it to be something better, all I've done is state that's its been removed, therefore nerfing the class. Even if it was a bad ability, it's still now something they can't do at all.
Yes, expertise can make you more customizable, but with the class as a whole, when you take all of the other class features into account, both the Bard and especially the Rogue just do it better, making the Ranger not as unique and just seems lazy in comparison.
I also never said that Hide in Plain Site was better?
The 2014 had to be played...like a Ranger...a bad one at that, but they specificalized in tracking, which was interesting, even if not that good. The new Ranger now specializes in Hunter's Mark along with things other classes can already do.
It's fine if they want the Ranger to fit in the Expert group of classes. It's just unfortunate that the identity of the Ranger is now just a spell.
One thing I will note that seems to have been forgotten is that the Tasha's version of favored foe required concentration. So, no concentration spells can be active while it is in use.
The problem has nothing to do with the 2014 Ranger being a mess. It's that the identity of what the Ranger has been throughout D&D's history has fundamentally changed into expertise, spellcasting, and Hunter's Mark, which when compared to other classes, is bad design. I mean, we don't even get the option of Favored Foe, we just have Hunter's Mark. Now, Hunter's Mark is obviously a decent spell in it's own right for the Ranger, but jeez, making a 4th of the class based around it is both lazy and limiting. That's like if they made a 4th of the Paladins abilities based around Divine Smite, or a 4th of the Warlocks abilities based around Hex.
Of course the new Ranger is more concrete with what Wizards wants it to be. The old Ranger was just weak overall. Sure, they made the new Ranger "Stronger," but only if you play in a very specific way. You can play the Ranger archetype as both Rogue or Druid, but not the other way around. It just lacks versatility, which is why it's badly designed for a game like D&D.
Go back and reread Favored Foe. Now look at Hunter's Mark. Do you just not like magic? Is that what's going on here? Because that's the only reason I can imagine you would want Favored Foe rather than the improved Hunter's Mark the new Ranger gets.
When you say the Ranger getting 4 Hunter's Mark improvements is "limiting", what do you mean? I actually don't understand what limitations you're talking about, because Hunter's Mark is just doing exactly what Favored Foe was doing but better and with added out-of-combat utility. Same thing when you say the new Ranger "lacks versatility"; I have no idea what you mean. You thought the old Ranger was more versatile? I'm going to need you to explain that, because I could describe the 2014 Ranger a lot of ways, but "flexible" would not be one.
No, once again, I'm not advocating for it's return. Instead of changing it to be something better, all I've done is state that's its been removed, therefore nerfing the class. Even if it was a bad ability, it's still now something they can't do at all.
Yes, expertise can make you more customizable, but with the class as a whole, when you take all of the other class features into account, both the Bard and especially the Rogue just do it better, making the Ranger not as unique and just seems lazy in comparison.
I also never said that Hide in Plain Site was better?
The 2014 had to be played...like a Ranger...a bad one at that, but they specificalized in tracking, which was interesting, even if not that good. The new Ranger now specializes in Hunter's Mark along with things other classes can already do.
It's fine if they want the Ranger to fit in the Expert group of classes. It's just unfortunate that the identity of the Ranger is now just a spell.
Great, so you agree that Primeval Awareness was a terrible feature and are not advocating for its return. It was replaced with Primal Awareness, which was indisputably better. Now, with the expanded spell lists, Primal Awareness is not necessary and the 2024 has more options to choose from in customizing its focus.
How does the bard and rogue do exploration better than the ranger? Be specific instead of speaking in these vague, general statements.
You expressed frustration that Hide in Plain Sight was removed here. I responded that it and Vanish were no longer useful features since Tasha's gave us Nature's Veil and in the 2024 rules, this feature is even better. I do not think you are tracking this conversation very well.
2014 ranger was forced to be played in one specific role that some people think makes a ranger a ranger. If number of players and survey results are any indication, that is a definition of ranger that was unsatisfactory enough to most to warrant sweeping changes to the class design. The 2024 ranger has a lot more options to meet the needs of the player rather than the other way around and the response to it was largely favorable, else we would not be seeing it in its current form.
Sure, HM is the 2024 ranger's entire identity if you ignore literally all the features it gets that no other class gets.
Having Expertise can make you better at exploration most of the time. But thank you for pointing out that having Expertise is better than just being pigeonholed into being a better explorer: some people actually want to be a ranger but not have to care at all about exploration. This class therefore is more customizable to meet the diverse needs of many players, which lends evidence to defeating the argument that the ranger lacks customization.
The 2014 ranger had to be played certain ways just to avoid lagging behind other classes with players who did not even optimize at all. In fact, the internet is rife with homebrews meant to make the 2014 ranger keep up. Now this is not even necessary.
Separately to the broader discussion, part of the reason I appreciate the new Ranger is that I run a campaign in an urban environment. Before starting, I sat down and tried to lightly homebrew the Ranger to make it fun to play in a city, and I couldn't do it. I ended up with an all-new homebrew class instead. So yeah, I really like that the 5.24 Ranger isn't forced to stay in their pre-approved environment and fight only pre-approved foes to use their major features.
Having Expertise doesn't make a person better at exploring, it makes them better at a specific skill, which doesn't always have to be Survival. It's just what a Rogue and Bard can do...it's nothing new.
1) If exploring is something you care this much about though, why wouldn't you pick Survival as one of your three? It seems contradictory to say you want to be good at exploring but not buff the skill that's tied to exploring.
2) Even without Expertise, Rangers also get great exploration spells, like Locate Object or Commune with Nature. And even the spell you're maligning, Hunter's Mark, has exploration uses by helping you track down targets you're spying on or that try to flee from combat. It lasts for an hour minimum, so it's bound to be useful for however long it takes you to follow your quarry.
Having Expertise can make you better at exploration most of the time. But thank you for pointing out that having Expertise is better than just being pigeonholed into being a better explorer: some people actually want to be a ranger but not have to care at all about exploration. This class therefore is more customizable to meet the diverse needs of many players, which lends evidence to defeating the argument that the ranger lacks customization.
The 2014 ranger had to be played certain ways just to avoid lagging behind other classes with players who did not even optimize at all. In fact, the internet is rife with homebrews meant to make the 2014 ranger keep up. Now this is not even necessary.
Separately to the broader discussion, part of the reason I appreciate the new Ranger is that I run a campaign in an urban environment. Before starting, I sat down and tried to lightly homebrew the Ranger to make it functional in a city, and I couldn't do it. I ended up with an all-new homebrew class instead. So yeah, I really like that the 5.24 Ranger isn't forced to stay in their pre-approved environment and fight only pre-approved foes to use their major features.
That is a fantastic point. There are a lot of urban campaign players that the ranger can now be a viable option for.
It has nothing to do with the Ranger being good at magic or not, and I also never said I particularly liked Favored Foe either. I'm finding hard to grasp how people aren't getting my point, so maybe I'm presenting it the wrong way
I don't like the 2014 Ranger because it's badly designed.
I don't like the 2024 Ranger because it's badly designed.
Idk, it's simple for me. They shifted, not improved, and not only shifted, but made the class about a spell.
Yes, I agree it wasn't a good feature. They were lazy and just through it away instead of melding a cool concept into something usable.
If the prime example of a Ranger being able to be the Explorer type is just gaining expertise in Survival, not only can Rogue do that, but at level 11, the Rogue could alway guarantee it being somewhere around 20~23, easily. The Bard can get Expertise in the same way, plus has a variety of spells, including the chance to take spells from any spell list, including the Druid and Ranger spell list.
Again, Hide in Plain Site was ok to be removed, but now no hiding as a bonus action and not being able to be tracked, which was a cool thematic but not well implemented.
I think people are ignoring what I've said multiple times now. Yes, people can go ahead and build Rangers in a way where they won't make HM as a mainstay in their build, but then if they don't, they are missing out on a 4th of their entire class, quite literally making them weaker than every other class just based on statistics.
It's not so much that exploring is so important to me. It's that the way the class is presented, it can't do anything unique when it comes to exploration that other classes can't already do.
And when it comes to the spells....a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Wizard can Locate Object. Same group can Locate Creature. I'd say that Commune with Nature is probably one of the only semi unique spells since only Druids and Rangers can get it, so there's that, but still.
On another note, College Of Swords Bard can do nearly everything the new Ranger can do...it can take Hunter's Mark, gets Expertise, gets only 1 extra attack sure, but it's still close, and gets an expanded spell list with more spell slots. The features that the Bard can't get access to, most affects can just be emulated by spells.
Look, I'm glad if people are happy with the way the classes turn out. If it mechanically makes you happy, good on you, truly. It just pigeonholes the class as a whole so much that the experience of a Ranger just doesn't feel unique anymore.
If the prime example of a Ranger being able to be the Explorer type is just gaining expertise in Survival, not only can Rogue do that, but at level 11, the Rogue could alway guarantee it being somewhere around 20~23, easily. The Bard can get Expertise in the same way, plus has a variety of spells, including the chance to take spells from any spell list, including the Druid and Ranger spell list.
Again, Hide in Plain Site was ok to be removed, but now no hiding as a bonus action and not being able to be tracked, which was a cool thematic but not well implemented.
I think people are ignoring what I've said multiple times now. Yes, people can go ahead and build Rangers in a way where they won't make HM as a mainstay in their build, but then if they don't, they are missing out on a 4th of their entire class, quite literally making them weaker than every other class just based on statistics.
Expertise is available to everyone in the Expert Group. That does not make them better. If anything, that makes them on par with the ranger only and if, for some reason, a bard wanted to focus on survivalist type skills. A rogue, maybe, but a bard? Anything a bard can get in terms of spellcasting, a ranger can get as well but won't have to make extremely expensive trades for with Magical Secrets. I suppose it can happen, but it is one of those absurd made-up examples that is never really something we see in play. Further, a bard will only get a couple of spells from this spell list. Are you trying to say that the ranger is only rangery if they have 4 spells? Reliable Talent will make survival checks high IF a rogue invests in those skills, sure, but a rogue will not have Roving to get them across a map or through an environmental challenge, nor will they be able to push themselves beyond normal limits in harsh environments like the ranger can.
You don't need hiding as a bonus action if you can just be invisible as a bonus action.
Yes, it will make a ranger weaker to refuse to utilize Hunter's Mark, but a barbarian that refuses to use Rage is also going to be ******, but no one is gnashing their teeth about that.
Yeah, as long as all subclasses can benefit from HM, Ranger will easily keep up even without specific feats and optimization.
Holy smokes, it isn't often that I see someone actually demanding Primeval Awareness return. That feature genuinely sucked. It wasn't interesting, it just sucked. Rangers had to be extremely selective with their limited spell slots and PA used this limited currency just to give a basic yes/no answer on whether a particular creature type was within a mile of them. Any warlock or wizard would disrupt the effectiveness of this feature by virtue of their familiar too. Further, this feature did not reveal any useful information such as number or location. It was a colossal waste of a spell slot. There has been a ranger in about half the games I have been playing for the past 6 years and it has been used exactly never in any game. The moment Tasha's came out, every ranger I had played with swapped it for Primal Awareness. Every one. Now with the 2024 ranger, the spell list for rangers is expanded, so even Primal Awareness wasn't necessary.
Land Stride is unnecessary with Roving from Tasha's, which does almost the same thing but better, and comes in at an earlier level. Why is having extra Expertise a bad thing though? Are rangers supposed to not be as good at exploration as other classes?
Hide in Plain Sight and Vanish are useless since Tasha's introduced Nature's Veil, and it is increased in power for the 2024 rules as well. Why have two bad features when you can have one great one?
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
Agree to all of this.
The ones that don't still get feats and weapon masteries. And even if for some reason you don't want to use those - just concentrate on something else. Nothing is actually forcing you to use Hunter's Mark.
As has been pointed out, the 2024 Ranger's features aren't identical to Tasha's, but are you actually surprised they're similar? Of course the Tasha's Ranger was the basis for the new class, Tasha's only came out four years ago. No other class got an update like that, so naturally the other classes mostly feel like they got more new features. Because the other classes weren't, speaking frankly, as badly designed as the 2014 Ranger was.
Yeah man, if you don't use your class features you are weaker than characters who do. That's not really an insightful statement. The old Ranger got four Favored Enemy improvements, the new Ranger gets four features that interact with Hunter's Mark. You seem really upset that "one fourth" of the new Ranger's class abilities are dedicated to a spell that improves tracking, but you don't seem to have a problem with the 2014 Ranger's equal number of features dedicated to a transparently worse ability that also improved tracking. I do not understand this position.
I'm kind of tired of babying people over this. The 2014 Ranger was a mess; of course they changed it. Natural Explorer was a bad feature and I'm glad it's gone. Favored Enemy was weird and often racist. Primeval Awareness was cool but nearly useless, Vanish stepped on the Rogue's toes, and Hide in Plain Sight committed the twin sins of being simultaneously overpowered and boring.
All this whinging takes for granted the idea that the 2014 Ranger was good, and it just wasn't. The new Ranger has a much clearer core concept that focuses on active, player-facing features, and for that reason I expect to actually see it played in games more than once every few years.
A couple things:
I never "demanded" that primeval awareness return, just the fact that they removed an actual interesting ability instead of making it more useful is crazy.
Having Expertise doesn't make a person better at exploring, it makes them better at a specific skill, which doesn't always have to be Survival. It's just what a Rogue and Bard can do...it's nothing new.
Also, Vanish didn't have a limit. You could just hide as a bonus action, similar to a rogue. Now, you only get to turn invisible a certain amount of times a day...please be truthful and tell me that's not a nerf.
Sure, the Ranger can be a class that CAN be optimized, but unlike every other class, the Ranger HAS to be played a certain way to or you miss out.
They are wanting to make the Ranger into a Spellcasting skill monkey like the Rogue...but the Bard already exists.
The problem has nothing to do with the 2014 Ranger being a mess. It's that the identity of what the Ranger has been throughout D&D's history has fundamentally changed into expertise, spellcasting, and Hunter's Mark, which when compared to other classes, is bad design. I mean, we don't even get the option of Favored Foe, we just have Hunter's Mark. Now, Hunter's Mark is obviously a decent spell in it's own right for the Ranger, but jeez, making a 4th of the class based around it is both lazy and limiting. That's like if they made a 4th of the Paladins abilities based around Divine Smite, or a 4th of the Warlocks abilities based around Hex.
Of course the new Ranger is more concrete with what Wizards wants it to be. The old Ranger was just weak overall. Sure, they made the new Ranger "Stronger," but only if you play in a very specific way. You can play the Ranger archetype as both Rogue or Druid, but not the other way around. It just lacks versatility, which is why it's badly designed for a game like D&D.
I think Im being bad at trying to get my point across here. Sorry for that. What I think I am trying to say is, that it would be nice that the floor of the 2024 Ranger is that all subclasses has some sort of benefit from HM just like Beastmaster. It doesnt have to be something crazy, just something that feels like im getting to trigger it an extra time over the 2 you get from your attack action. If people want to use TWF, XBE, Nick and benefit even more, thats great. HM is free, all Rangers are going to want to try to squeeze it in their repetoire. Its the capstone afterall.
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
Point by point.
No, once again, I'm not advocating for it's return. Instead of changing it to be something better, all I've done is state that's its been removed, therefore nerfing the class. Even if it was a bad ability, it's still now something they can't do at all.
Yes, expertise can make you more customizable, but with the class as a whole, when you take all of the other class features into account, both the Bard and especially the Rogue just do it better, making the Ranger not as unique and just seems lazy in comparison.
I also never said that Hide in Plain Site was better?
The 2014 had to be played...like a Ranger...a bad one at that, but they specificalized in tracking, which was interesting, even if not that good. The new Ranger now specializes in Hunter's Mark along with things other classes can already do.
It's fine if they want the Ranger to fit in the Expert group of classes. It's just unfortunate that the identity of the Ranger is now just a spell.
One thing I will note that seems to have been forgotten is that the Tasha's version of favored foe required concentration. So, no concentration spells can be active while it is in use.
Go back and reread Favored Foe. Now look at Hunter's Mark. Do you just not like magic? Is that what's going on here? Because that's the only reason I can imagine you would want Favored Foe rather than the improved Hunter's Mark the new Ranger gets.
When you say the Ranger getting 4 Hunter's Mark improvements is "limiting", what do you mean? I actually don't understand what limitations you're talking about, because Hunter's Mark is just doing exactly what Favored Foe was doing but better and with added out-of-combat utility. Same thing when you say the new Ranger "lacks versatility"; I have no idea what you mean. You thought the old Ranger was more versatile? I'm going to need you to explain that, because I could describe the 2014 Ranger a lot of ways, but "flexible" would not be one.
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
Separately to the broader discussion, part of the reason I appreciate the new Ranger is that I run a campaign in an urban environment. Before starting, I sat down and tried to lightly homebrew the Ranger to make it fun to play in a city, and I couldn't do it. I ended up with an all-new homebrew class instead. So yeah, I really like that the 5.24 Ranger isn't forced to stay in their pre-approved environment and fight only pre-approved foes to use their major features.
1) If exploring is something you care this much about though, why wouldn't you pick Survival as one of your three? It seems contradictory to say you want to be good at exploring but not buff the skill that's tied to exploring.
2) Even without Expertise, Rangers also get great exploration spells, like Locate Object or Commune with Nature. And even the spell you're maligning, Hunter's Mark, has exploration uses by helping you track down targets you're spying on or that try to flee from combat. It lasts for an hour minimum, so it's bound to be useful for however long it takes you to follow your quarry.
That is a fantastic point. There are a lot of urban campaign players that the ranger can now be a viable option for.
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
It has nothing to do with the Ranger being good at magic or not, and I also never said I particularly liked Favored Foe either. I'm finding hard to grasp how people aren't getting my point, so maybe I'm presenting it the wrong way
I don't like the 2014 Ranger because it's badly designed.
I don't like the 2024 Ranger because it's badly designed.
Idk, it's simple for me. They shifted, not improved, and not only shifted, but made the class about a spell.
Yes, I agree it wasn't a good feature. They were lazy and just through it away instead of melding a cool concept into something usable.
If the prime example of a Ranger being able to be the Explorer type is just gaining expertise in Survival, not only can Rogue do that, but at level 11, the Rogue could alway guarantee it being somewhere around 20~23, easily. The Bard can get Expertise in the same way, plus has a variety of spells, including the chance to take spells from any spell list, including the Druid and Ranger spell list.
Again, Hide in Plain Site was ok to be removed, but now no hiding as a bonus action and not being able to be tracked, which was a cool thematic but not well implemented.
I think people are ignoring what I've said multiple times now. Yes, people can go ahead and build Rangers in a way where they won't make HM as a mainstay in their build, but then if they don't, they are missing out on a 4th of their entire class, quite literally making them weaker than every other class just based on statistics.
It's not so much that exploring is so important to me. It's that the way the class is presented, it can't do anything unique when it comes to exploration that other classes can't already do.
And when it comes to the spells....a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Wizard can Locate Object. Same group can Locate Creature. I'd say that Commune with Nature is probably one of the only semi unique spells since only Druids and Rangers can get it, so there's that, but still.
On another note, College Of Swords Bard can do nearly everything the new Ranger can do...it can take Hunter's Mark, gets Expertise, gets only 1 extra attack sure, but it's still close, and gets an expanded spell list with more spell slots. The features that the Bard can't get access to, most affects can just be emulated by spells.
Look, I'm glad if people are happy with the way the classes turn out. If it mechanically makes you happy, good on you, truly. It just pigeonholes the class as a whole so much that the experience of a Ranger just doesn't feel unique anymore.
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