I am glad we are on the same page. Now if I can only convince people that the ranger losses are actually alot but covered by "Happy no concentration Huntersmark"
I what i would miss playing by the new rules:
possible(with growth by level choice) expertise in all your Proficent INT and wisdom skills (and tools)(3-10 skills)
Possible (with growth by level choice) advantage in all Int skills (and tools) (even if not proficent)
Loss of a possible free activity while traveling (crafting, harvesting, ect )
Loss of preparation knowledge (end of the night primeval awareness) so you know what you are fighting tomorrow or during the rest.
Loss of difficult terrain removal (F-Terrain and Land stride)
Loss of truesight, blindsight ect immune hiding ....... Also anti tracking abilities now dumped on non detection.
possible Nerfs incoming to Select builds and spells.
The new game play loop may functionally allow such things but its so different in approach that I am not sure it will make ranger more enjoyable than monk or fighter.
Well I think part of where Ranger got buffed is also where the concentration can now go, since you don't need to maintain it for hunter's mark. Spells like Entangle, Barkskin, Elemental Weapon, Polymorph, Guardian of Nature, Swift Quiver, etc.
Still Ranger probably could use something to avoid difficult terrain still, since it's kinda thematic to the class.
To note, the light weapons change actually is also a stealth buff to haste on rogues, since rogues can now take the attack action on haste to get out their sneak attack and ready an attack to use their reaction for a 3rd attack to try and get another sneak attack on the reaction.
the new sneak can happen only on your turn and only once. Haste won't help.
You need to re-read then, because you missed something important in that statement, trust me you missed it.
Okay I'm missing it and read it a couple times. It says once on each of your turns, haste gives you another action on your turns but not another turn so I don't see how haste helps getting a 2nd sneak attack. And a readied attack is not on your turn so it wont qualify for a sneak attack either.
Edit to add wow thats a bigger nerf than I thought a rogue can't even get a sneak attack off when readying an attack in a ambush. Maybe they will change the ready action rules so its considered your turn now.
oh right, I forgot about that, Rogue use to be able to sneak attack once per turn, now it's only on their turn... so ready action no longer helps... that is a HUGE nerf.
I am glad we are on the same page. Now if I can only convince people that the ranger losses are actually alot but covered by "Happy no concentration Huntersmark"
I what i would miss playing by the new rules:
possible(with growth by level choice) expertise in all your Proficent INT and wisdom skills (and tools)(3-10 skills)
Possible (with growth by level choice) advantage in all Int skills (and tools) (even if not proficent)
Loss of a possible free activity while traveling (crafting, harvesting, ect )
Loss of preparation knowledge (end of the night primeval awareness) so you know what you are fighting tomorrow or during the rest.
Loss of difficult terrain removal (F-Terrain and Land stride)
Loss of truesight, blindsight ect immune hiding ....... Also anti tracking abilities now dumped on non detection.
possible Nerfs incoming to Select build styles and spells.
The new game play loop may functionally allow such things but its so different in approach that I am not sure it will make ranger more enjoyable than monk or fighter.
what did they really lose.
Favored enemy is redone, I think done for the better here.
Natural explorer, sure they lost that, but you had to pick one terrain and didn't see another until level 6 then 14th, its useful when it comes up but its pretty narrow.
They now gain spells at level 1 and they are prepared vs known and expertise in two skills so instead of hey I have expertise when I'm in the tundra with these skills you have i always am an expert in survival etc that is a win imo.
level 2 is basically the same, level 3 you lose primeval awareness which while thematic i very rarely saw used, 4-5 are the same
level 6 instead of getting a 2nd terrain/enemy another subclass feature, I'd say that is generally better,
level 7, you got nothing, now you get +10 to movement with a swim and climb speed, that is really good. 8th sure you lose the difficult terrain ability and now only get a feat but I think the level 7 ability is far better than that.
level 9 previously nothing now two more skills with expertise,
level 10 yeah you lose hide in plain site and 3rd terrain but it was so situational i never saw anyone even both using it especially since pass without trace existed, now you get a subclass feature, level 11 you used to get a subclass feature, now its tireless, in conjunction with level 10 I'd say that is a win for the new ranger,
level 12 feat on both,
13 was nothing now is natures veil while 14 was vanish(3rd enemy) and is now a subclass feature, yeah natures veil is a dud this part is a loss,
15 was a sub class feature(now 14th) but now you get blindsight, which is awesome
16/17 are the same
18 you effectively got blindsight which now is at 15th level and now get improved hunters mark which is a dud of a end class ability, make it 3d6 or something wizards.
19 same
20 now you get a epic boon which honestly underwhelmed with for the most part but the stealth one is really good.
while there are a couple losses overall the ranger is mechanically better overall, I'm not against bringing back some of what they lost as they are thematic and that is important, and yeah natures veil is lame as heck whereas vanish was good, so i'd maybe bring back vanish though honestly you may be using enough bonus actions where vanish would not be good either. And if you are comparing it to the optional features ranger, well this is basically just better versions of all of those, canny was 3 skills with expertise vs 4 gained now, rover was 5 feet not 10, tireless is pretty much the same, the favored foe was d4(scaled to d6, then d8) once a turn vs hunters mark which is d6 every attack and it was only 2-6 enemies a day.
The new ranger is just better mechanically overall, it may need some thematic boosts to get it more nature warrior vibes but I'm not really against toning that back either so people who were going for more of a military scout or skirmisher don't get saddled with thematic baggage.
To note, the light weapons change actually is also a stealth buff to haste on rogues, since rogues can now take the attack action on haste to get out their sneak attack and ready an attack to use their reaction for a 3rd attack to try and get another sneak attack on the reaction.
the new sneak can happen only on your turn and only once. Haste won't help.
You need to re-read then, because you missed something important in that statement, trust me you missed it.
Okay I'm missing it and read it a couple times. It says once on each of your turns, haste gives you another action on your turns but not another turn so I don't see how haste helps getting a 2nd sneak attack. And a readied attack is not on your turn so it wont qualify for a sneak attack either.
Edit to add wow thats a bigger nerf than I thought a rogue can't even get a sneak attack off when readying an attack in a ambush. Maybe they will change the ready action rules so its considered your turn now.
oh right, I forgot about that, Rogue use to be able to sneak attack once per turn, now it's only on their turn... so ready action no longer helps... that is a HUGE nerf.
I am glad we are on the same page. Now if I can only convince people that the ranger losses are actually alot but covered by "Happy no concentration Huntersmark"
I what i would miss playing by the new rules:
possible(with growth by level choice) expertise in all your Proficent INT and wisdom skills (and tools)(3-10 skills)
Possible (with growth by level choice) advantage in all Int skills (and tools) (even if not proficent)
Loss of a possible free activity while traveling (crafting, harvesting, ect )
Loss of preparation knowledge (end of the night primeval awareness) so you know what you are fighting tomorrow or during the rest.
Loss of difficult terrain removal (F-Terrain and Land stride)
Loss of truesight, blindsight ect immune hiding ....... Also anti tracking abilities now dumped on non detection.
possible Nerfs incoming to Select build styles and spells.
The new game play loop may functionally allow such things but its so different in approach that I am not sure it will make ranger more enjoyable than monk or fighter.
what did they really lose.
Favored enemy is redone, I think done for the better here.
Natural explorer, sure they lost that, but you had to pick one terrain and didn't see another until level 6 then 14th, its useful when it comes up but its pretty narrow.
They now gain spells at level 1 and they are prepared vs known and expertise in two skills so instead of hey I have expertise when I'm in the tundra with these skills you have i always am an expert in survival etc that is a win imo.
level 2 is basically the same, level 3 you lose primeval awareness which while thematic i very rarely saw used, 4-5 are the same
level 6 instead of getting a 2nd terrain/enemy another subclass feature, I'd say that is generally better,
level 7, you got nothing, now you get +10 to movement with a swim and climb speed, that is really good. 8th sure you lose the difficult terrain ability and now only get a feat but I think the level 7 ability is far better than that.
level 9 previously nothing now two more skills with expertise,
level 10 yeah you lose hide in plain site and 3rd terrain but it was so situational i never saw anyone even both using it especially since pass without trace existed, now you get a subclass feature, level 11 you used to get a subclass feature, now its tireless, in conjunction with level 10 I'd say that is a win for the new ranger,
level 12 feat on both,
13 was nothing now is natures veil while 14 was vanish(3rd enemy) and is now a subclass feature, yeah natures veil is a dud this part is a loss,
15 was a sub class feature(now 14th) but now you get blindsight, which is awesome
16/17 are the same
18 you effectively got blindsight which now is at 15th level and now get improved hunters mark which is a dud of a end class ability, make it 3d6 or something wizards.
19 same
20 now you get a epic boon which honestly underwhelmed with for the most part but the stealth one is really good.
while there are a couple losses overall the ranger is mechanically better overall, I'm not against bringing back some of what they lost as they are thematic and that is important, and yeah natures veil is lame as heck whereas vanish was good, so i'd maybe bring back vanish though honestly you may be using enough bonus actions where vanish would not be good either. And if you are comparing it to the optional features ranger, well this is basically just better versions of all of those, canny was 3 skills with expertise vs 4 gained now, rover was 5 feet not 10, tireless is pretty much the same, the favored foe was d4(scaled to d6, then d8) once a turn vs hunters mark which is d6 every attack and it was only 2-6 enemies a day.
The new ranger is just better mechanically overall, it may need some thematic boosts to get it more nature warrior vibes but I'm not really against toning that back either so people who were going for more of a military scout or skirmisher don't get saddled with thematic baggage.
whether or not you like them or find them useful they are still gone. and it covers common complaints from players about rangers not feeling like expert characters that live on the range.
It's basically streamlining anything that came out of Tasha as a patch and making it permanent with a lot less choice than there was; without identifying the core problem... which was that the 5e chassis for Ranger did not mechanically live up well to its class fantasy. Now that's its bloated up with the Tasha replacement, they stuck to the safe choices and didn't try to innovate like they should have had.
The ranger is just there to do some damage, have some skills and sling about some druid spells, without getting much that would have a party go "YES, WE HAVE A RANGER" and rejoice the same way they might with a Paladin or a Bard.
Think about it: when do people - in-character - actually want and value a ranger's skills? It's when they want an expert at dealing with dangers out in the wilds. From dealing with dangerous monsters because the ranger had an eye for dealing with them, to ease of getting around in the wilderness, to dealing with dangerous hazard.
The ranger is supposed to be known as a master at dealing with all of that. More importantly, the fiction usually support that a party needs what the ranger knows.
Why?
Because the Ranger should have been designed as a force-multiplier.
I think the Ranger should have had a focus on showing his allies how to better hurt monsters, along with a specialize it to provide disadvantages on hit:
Hunter's Mark becoming a class feature that helps your party, once per round, in dealing more damage to the marked creature;
Hunter's Mark being expanded to impose temporary conditions on hit (ex.: movement reduction, applying disadvantage to attacks, impeding reach/opportunity attacks, halving damage, negating healing)
In practice:
The use of Hindering Mark, a mark made so that allies hitting the target will deal extra damage and impose disadvantage on the target's next attack. A ranger could yell:"Friends, attack its hind legs!" - knowing striking the hind legs will make it harder for the dragon to attack with its forepaws. Then anyone striking at the marked creature would be the driver for extra damage and applying said condition.
And I believe the Ranger, as the ultimate survivalist guide, should be to pick from a variety of party-wide benefits against danger:
Mechanical benefits in combat, such as being able to use a reaction to halve the damage from an element, or overturn a condition.
Benefits while dealing with environment to help an entire party survive better, travel better, and discover things better.
In practice:
A desert-oriented ranger may have picked Firewatcher, a Wilderness Lore feat that helps his party better deal with the extreme heat of a desert, a volcano, or the Fire Elemental plane. In addition, in combat, he could be able to use his reaction to yell - "Firebreath! Take cover!" - halving fire damage to his entire party when a Red Dragon breathes on them.
Rather than spell out a Ranger is a 'slayer of Ice Trolls', a ranger instead trained in Enervating Mark (the Hunter's Mark that hinders healing) and Snowscaper (the Cold equivalent of Firewatcher, cold resists as well as benefits to not slipping and maintaining balance/not being knocked prone) could end up calling himself a specialist at killing Ice Trolls... without being narrowed down to that single monster. His affinities against preventing healing and helping his party resist cold and being knocked prone could come in handy in any number of encounters much more commonly than just with trolls.
Just as a Battlemaster fighter starts with a few maneuvers and picks others later in his career; or Warlock earns extra invocations along the way... such a Ranger could build a repertoire which could benefit both himself and his group. A bard improves the prowess of a group; while a ranger could improve the efficacity of a group against a marked target, against dangers and overall ease of dealing with hazards while traveling.
Also, the few people I've talked to so far whom commented on the idea seemed to find this idea nice, but too powerful in addition to what the Ranger in the UA has. In my eyes it would replace the features Tasha replaced Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer for, provide the substance both original iterations missed, and land the Ranger in the enviable position of giving party-wide 'resist element', something we've yet to have in 5E.
I'm quite happy with these changes. Becoming a prepared caster especially is something I thought rangers needed for a loong time. Rangers are survivalists who solve problems with a mix of magic, knowledge, and skill. It only makes sense that they should be able to choose what spells will most suit their current situation based on what they know of their environment and threats.
Since we're also getting spellcasting at level 1 I wouldn't mind getting Favored Foe at level 2 like some have suggested. Especially since you can just cast Hunter's Mark normally before getting the feature that ignores concentration.
I do get why some people say it is missing flavor, but a lot of ranger flavor is tied to skill checks. Survival, Stealth, Perception, etc are all things a ranger should be expected to excel at, so getting so much Expertise is great for fulfilling that part of the class fantasy.
If I had to suggest some changes to make it more thematic I'd likely include ignoring non-magical difficult terrain to Rover. Rangers moving through harsh environments easier than anyone else is just an iconic part of the class fantasy. I'd also like to see another mechanic dedicated to tracking foes. Maybe rangers can find hidden tracks or get the Scent ability, allowing them to detect and track enemies by smell alone. Something that makes rangers better trackers than a bard or rogue who also took Expertise: Survival.
Hunter's Mark alone kind of does this, but you need to see the enemy first to get your tracking bonus.
Another flavorful addition off the top of my head; Have Tireless also reduce the amount of actual sleep a ranger needs so they can spend a larger percentage of their Long Rest keeping watch.
I think Wizards Of The Coast needs to stop being scared of making Hunter's Mark a core feature of the Ranger.
They literally put it in a class with others who have scalable core features, what is so hard about doing the same for Hunter's Mark? If you have a section for Bardic Inspiration die and a section for Sneak Attack damage then make a section for Hunter's Mark and allow players to do it a number of times equal to their Wisdom modifier before needing a long rest to regain uses. They're giving them Expertise because the others have it so why not give them a scalable core feature too?!
If you're going to keep pushing other class dynamics into Ranger without making it its own thing really then at least copy the good stuff.
Also, have an Urban subclass/bounty hunter type because not every Ranger lives in a forest forever. I get they want to make the "Xiest X to X" for new players but veterans still play too and veteran status aside some people just want variety. But mainly they need to just go ahead and make Hunter's Mark a feature the same as Bardic Inspiration or Sneak Attack because having it still be a spell is weak; I know they took off Concentration to make it more appealing but it still doesn't fix the issue of Ranger not really having its own thing like other classes, no being the "nature one" doesn't count because Druids are nature too and anyone with a high enough perception score can track.
Hunter's Mark is what the Ranger class is known for just like Sneak Attack is the Rogue's butter so why is one locked off but the other not?
Assuming you want to limit 1 level dips and try to force at least 2 level dips for multiclassing then yes moving favored enemy to L2 makes a lot of sense. Level 1 you get expertise and prepared spells including the basic hunters mark with concentration required. Nothing else. Level 2 in addition to the fighting style you get favored enemy which grants you the chance to activate hunter’s mark proficiency bonus times per long rest with more uses requiring spell slots. It also makes hunter’s mark a concentrationless ability/ spell for rangers. Level 3 you choose your subclass. That would go a long way to limiting 1 level dips.
At higher levels my main complaints are: 1) Level 7 Roving you gain 10’ of movement which is fine AND a climbing and swimming speed equal to the (new-40’) movement speed. Now the added walking speed and adding A climbing and A Swimming speed are fine. The speeds are not. I would actually be happy to give all land based humanoid races a climbing speed of 10’ as part of their backgrounds. Then here you would increase tha to 20’ with the 10’ bonus and grant a swimming speed of 10’. Then perhaps add a L8 feat that increased climbing to 30’ and swimming to 20’ but the reality is you can walk the length of an Olympic pool far faster than Phelps can swim it so having a walking and swimming speed that are equal is, to me, crazy. 2) Level 13 Nature’s Veil - should not use spell slots. At level 13 your PB is 5 and that would be plenty if it lasted, like the invisibility spell, until you attacked or cast a spell. 3) Level 18 Foe Slayer - frankly the PHB foe slayer was far better I would go back to it but make it usable on every strike not just ne. The best part of it was that it could be used on either to hit or damage as you needed. The bad part of the lid one was that it could only be used once a round. Making it usable on every strike solves the problem and gives you either a +3-+5 to hit if needed or a +3 to +5 on damage if you hit without it. 4) hunter Level 10 Multi attack: While I get why they used conjure barrage here ( only attack spell available at L3 spells and a way to introduce downcasting) it sucks. Even the PHB multi attack is better, but what should be here is both volley and whirlwind attack not choose one or the other forever. Rangers should gain both abilities and be able to decide each combat which they will use. If you want to put a limit on it make it so you can’t change which you use in a single group fight. 5) there is really nothing left of the wilderness expert mechanically that anyone else with expertise in nature and survival doesn’t have. This flavoring really needs to reappear in some way. That could be by expanding the nature and survival skills and granting rangers (and maybe Druids) something special there. Bluntly a ranger with expertise in nature, survival and stealth should be superior to the rogue in their uses of nature and survival and the rogue’s equal in stealth. As is they are equal.
I think Wizards Of The Coast needs to stop being scared of making Hunter's Mark a core feature of the Ranger.
They literally put it in a class with others who have scalable core features, what is so hard about doing the same for Hunter's Mark? If you have a section for Bardic Inspiration die and a section for Sneak Attack damage then make a section for Hunter's Mark and allow players to do it a number of times equal to their Wisdom modifier before needing a long rest to regain uses. They're giving them Expertise because the others have it so why not give them a scalable core feature too?!
If you're going to keep pushing other class dynamics into Ranger without making it its own thing really then at least copy the good stuff.
Also, have an Urban subclass/bounty hunter type because not every Ranger lives in a forest forever. I get they want to make the "Xiest X to X" for new players but veterans still play too and veteran status aside some people just want variety. But mainly they need to just go ahead and make Hunter's Mark a feature the same as Bardic Inspiration or Sneak Attack because having it still be a spell is weak; I know they took off Concentration to make it more appealing but it still doesn't fix the issue of Ranger not really having its own thing like other classes, no being the "nature one" doesn't count because Druids are nature too and anyone with a high enough perception score can track.
Hunter's Mark is what the Ranger class is known for just like Sneak Attack is the Rogue's butter so why is one locked off but the other not?
All very good points. If a traditionally urban rogue can have a scout subclass, then ranger should have some urban subclass. Like ying and yang. I also agree that hunter's mark, as a basic class feature, should not be a spell, and moreover, it should serve as a foundation for various subclass mechanics, like hunter's lore. We need more of that. It's only logical to make it scaleable. And we won't need every ranger subclass to have its variation of "deal 1d8 damage once per turn, but slightly differently" feature; this tier could have something more interesting.
Assuming you want to limit 1 level dips and try to force at least 2 level dips for multiclassing then yes moving favored enemy to L2 makes a lot of sense. Level 1 you get expertise and prepared spells including the basic hunters mark with concentration required. Nothing else. Level 2 in addition to the fighting style you get favored enemy which grants you the chance to activate hunter’s mark proficiency bonus times per long rest with more uses requiring spell slots. It also makes hunter’s mark a concentrationless ability/ spell for rangers. Level 3 you choose your subclass. That would go a long way to limiting 1 level dips.
At higher levels my main complaints are: 1) Level 7 Roving you gain 10’ of movement which is fine AND a climbing and swimming speed equal to the (new-40’) movement speed. Now the added walking speed and adding A climbing and A Swimming speed are fine. The speeds are not. I would actually be happy to give all land based humanoid races a climbing speed of 10’ as part of their backgrounds. Then here you would increase tha to 20’ with the 10’ bonus and grant a swimming speed of 10’. Then perhaps add a L8 feat that increased climbing to 30’ and swimming to 20’ but the reality is you can walk the length of an Olympic pool far faster than Phelps can swim it so having a walking and swimming speed that are equal is, to me, crazy. 2) Level 13 Nature’s Veil - should not use spell slots. At level 13 your PB is 5 and that would be plenty if it lasted, like the invisibility spell, until you attacked or cast a spell. 3) Level 18 Foe Slayer - frankly the PHB foe slayer was far better I would go back to it but make it usable on every strike not just ne. The best part of it was that it could be used on either to hit or damage as you needed. The bad part of the lid one was that it could only be used once a round. Making it usable on every strike solves the problem and gives you either a +3-+5 to hit if needed or a +3 to +5 on damage if you hit without it. 4) hunter Level 10 Multi attack: While I get why they used conjure barrage here ( only attack spell available at L3 spells and a way to introduce downcasting) it sucks. Even the PHB multi attack is better, but what should be here is both volley and whirlwind attack not choose one or the other forever. Rangers should gain both abilities and be able to decide each combat which they will use. If you want to put a limit on it make it so you can’t change which you use in a single group fight. 5) there is really nothing left of the wilderness expert mechanically that anyone else with expertise in nature and survival doesn’t have. This flavoring really needs to reappear in some way. That could be by expanding the nature and survival skills and granting rangers (and maybe Druids) something special there. Bluntly a ranger with expertise in nature, survival and stealth should be superior to the rogue in their uses of nature and survival and the rogue’s equal in stealth. As is they are equal.
I think switching Hunters mark to a unique "spell ability" with the same rules, linked either to proficiency, or probably better Ranger level. So it doesn't use a spell slot but can be cast X many times (ranger level divided by 2 rounding up) between long rests maybe, and then at a higher level allow recovery during a short rest. Maybe also increasing the damage as the ranger levels, by level 15 an extra d6 damage is a far lower proportion of the total damage the ranger can do then it is at level 1.
I do like the ability to know the enemies strengths, weakness etc however. Although I would possibly switch that to requiring a successful hit rather than just auto knowing (to stop the ranger moving hunters mark around the battle to learn all the things in the first couple of rounds) similar to the monk subclass that allows a successful flurry of blows hit to learn the same info.
I would also love to see a "trapper" ranger sub class of some description.
I am dissatisfied. Favored enemy is now... a spell. A spell that, so far as I can tell, takes a cast to use. So how is that even a freaking benefit? It's a spell we would already have anyways. I also miss the exploration or tracking benefits of previous versions (though I suppose expertise helps with that a bit). This just doesn't scream Ranger at me at all. The only class feats that even sound 'rangerly' are Nature's Veil (invisibility spell for a spell slot) and Feral Senses (Blindsight). Aside from those two (of which only the Feral Senses strikes me as being class appropriate) there is nothing that makes this version of the Ranger a Ranger to me.
What I would prefer:
Return Natural Explorer (PHB, but get new terrains at 6, 11, and 17th levels) to level one.
Move expertise to level 2 to keep it from being front-loaded so much.
Bring back Primeval Awareness to level 3, but remove the use a spell slot bit (limit use to once per day), increase the range to 5 miles, have the spell give you rough range and bearing to any unnatural presences in the area (aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead) though you don't get an exact number. You get a better range, bearing, and count of any favored enemies (assuming something like the classic favored enemy concept even exists). However, add the ability that regardless if you are in your favored terrain or not, for the next 24 hours (or 1 hour/ranger level may be more appropriate) the terrain you used this in is counted as being favored. That would alleviate the complaint that Natural Explorer is kind of hit or miss if you happen to not have the right terrain for a campaign and it kind of makes sense from the ability description -- you are forging a spiritual connection to the land, which sounds kind of favored to me.
And the big thing, make Favored Enemy something that isn't just hunter's freaking mark. That's just lazy. What about the PHB version of favored enemy, add a +2 to hit, and add the ability to change your favored enemy (or one of them at least if you have more than one) whenever you level up* and also add more opportunities to choose an additional favored enemy (you could have like 5 in ver 3 iirc). The big issue is that if you take a favored enemy at level 1 that is useful to have a bonus against, by the time you are level 10 that enemy is pointlessly easy and the bonus is wasted. Being able to change the foes on a level up is sensible (you're supposed to be studying and training then anyways) and would help with that.
edit to add:
I forgot a couple points: Roving is OP, it should be +10 to all speeds, not making climb and swim the same as walking. That's silly.
Nature's Veil should be only usable in natural environments, but not cost a spell slot.
Foe slayer should be what it was in the PHB (assuming my advice about favored enemy is taken).
I am dissatisfied. Favored enemy is now... a spell. A spell that, so far as I can tell, takes a cast to use. So how is that even a freaking benefit? It's a spell we would already have anyways. I also miss the exploration or tracking benefits of previous versions (though I suppose expertise helps with that a bit). This just doesn't scream Ranger at me at all. The only class feats that even sound 'rangerly' are Nature's Veil (invisibility spell for a spell slot) and Feral Senses (Blindsight). Aside from those two (of which only the Feral Senses strikes me as being class appropriate) there is nothing that makes this version of the Ranger a Ranger to me.
What I would prefer:
Return Natural Explorer (PHB, but get new terrains at 6, 11, and 17th levels) to level one.
Move expertise to level 2 to keep it from being front-loaded so much.
Bring back Primeval Awareness to level 3, but remove the use a spell slot bit (limit use to once per day), increase the range to 5 miles, have the spell give you rough range and bearing to any unnatural presences in the area (aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead) though you don't get an exact number. You get a better range, bearing, and count of any favored enemies (assuming something like the classic favored enemy concept even exists). However, add the ability that regardless if you are in your favored terrain or not, for the next 24 hours (or 1 hour/ranger level may be more appropriate) the terrain you used this in is counted as being favored. That would alleviate the complaint that Natural Explorer is kind of hit or miss if you happen to not have the right terrain for a campaign and it kind of makes sense from the ability description -- you are forging a spiritual connection to the land, which sounds kind of favored to me.
And the big thing, make Favored Enemy something that isn't just hunter's freaking mark. That's just lazy. What about the PHB version of favored enemy, add a +2 to hit, and add the ability to change your favored enemy (or one of them at least if you have more than one) whenever you level up* and also add more opportunities to choose an additional favored enemy (you could have like 5 in ver 3 iirc). The big issue is that if you take a favored enemy at level 1 that is useful to have a bonus against, by the time you are level 10 that enemy is pointlessly easy and the bonus is wasted. Being able to change the foes on a level up is sensible (you're supposed to be studying and training then anyways) and would help with that.
edit to add:
I forgot a couple points: Roving is OP, it should be +10 to all speeds, not making climb and swim the same as walking. That's silly.
Nature's Veil should be only usable in natural environments, but not cost a spell slot.
Foe slayer should be what it was in the PHB (assuming my advice about favored enemy is taken).
*ranger level, sorry multiclassers
While I agree for the most part there is reason some tables couldn't make some of the original stuff work.
Unfortunately some clarity was needed on "related to" and that will probably never get fixed. Skill Advantage Uses per day seems just simpler and in line with the new design philosophy. (Maybe allow
But primal awareness and hide in plain sight could easily be fixed if the raw just tightened up around the interpretation tables that had fun with it practically used.
.... I do like the ability to know the enemies strengths, weakness etc however. Although I would possibly switch that to requiring a successful hit rather than just auto knowing (to stop the ranger moving hunters mark around the battle to learn all the things in the first couple of rounds) similar to the monk subclass that allows a successful flurry of blows hit to learn the same info.
I would also love to see a "trapper" ranger sub class of some description.
Hunter's mark cannot be moved unless the target dies or if you recast it. This is why I don't like the whole class being focused around its limited spell slots.
When out of spells (or saving for important combats) you have less to work with and less to provide party support than even the phb ranger.
I built a decent trapper with a phb beastmaster and thief multi-class in 5e but with fast hands nerfed and probably phb beastmaster benefits removed, there's little hope for a trapper without a subclass tied to it.
They feel like dungeoneers, not rangers. Favored Enemy can apply to anyone, anytime, and that makes it too strong. Rover and Tireless are nice, but they're broadly applicable. I really miss having rangers feel tied to specific terrains.
Features like Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer (Favored Terrain) date back to at least AD&D 2nd edition. You'd have specifically designated enemies. You were an experienced woodsman. Now…the current packet dilutes that.
Thank you Jounichi. I feel much the same way. The ranger class is no longer a ranger it’s a dungeoneer Gish Chassis. As I look at at the expert classes what I see is a caster expert (Bard), a non caster expert (rogue) and a half caster half martial expert (ranger). You can sort of make a “ranger” out of any one of the three by taking nature and survival skills and expertise in them and then doing what ever else you want within the rules. Actually, right now until a UA with the scout subclass comes out you can build a trapper ranger better from the rogue chassis than the ranger IF you don’t mind giving up spells - 2 expertise at L1, expertise in nature & survival (scout class feature), 2 more expert skills at L7 and reliable talent at L11.
If WOTC are going to effectively cap play at L20 like they do now I see no reason not to update the PHB favored enemy and terrains so that by L20 you have them all. There are 14 enemy types ( including humanoids), you could get 4 at L1 (or maybe humanoids and 3 others), 3 more at L6, 3 more at L11 and the last 4 at L16. Terrains would work as well: 10 terrains including wildspace (spelljammer) and urban. Then you get 3@L1, 2 at L6 , 3 at L11 and the last 2 at L16. In a terrain you know in addition to the expertise you get advantage on the rolls as well as the ability to treat difficult terrain as normal terrain for you and your party.
Thank you Jounichi. I feel much the same way. The ranger class is no longer a ranger it’s a dungeoneer Gish Chassis. As I look at at the expert classes what I see is a caster expert (Bard), a non caster expert (rogue) and a half caster half martial expert (ranger). You can sort of make a “ranger” out of any one of the three by taking nature and survival skills and expertise in them and then doing what ever else you want within the rules. Actually, right now until a UA with the scout subclass comes out you can build a trapper ranger better from the rogue chassis than the ranger IF you don’t mind giving up spells - 2 expertise at L1, expertise in nature & survival (scout class feature), 2 more expert skills at L7 and reliable talent at L11.
If WOTC are going to effectively cap play at L20 like they do now I see no reason not to update the PHB favored enemy and terrains so that by L20 you have them all. There are 14 enemy types ( including humanoids), you could get 4 at L1 (or maybe humanoids and 3 others), 3 more at L6, 3 more at L11 and the last 4 at L16. Terrains would work as well: 10 terrains including wildspace (spelljammer) and urban. Then you get 3@L1, 2 at L6 , 3 at L11 and the last 2 at L16. In a terrain you know in addition to the expertise you get advantage on the rolls as well as the ability to treat difficult terrain as normal terrain for you and your party.
It seems to me that there are essentially two main camps on the Ranger, those that want it to be a broad class that can encompass more than just the outdoorsy wilderness master (so a class that can use its abilities more widely) and those (like you and Jounichi) that have problems with it then losing its more classical connections, that then might restrict the usefulness of its features if it is not in a specific environment. Perhaps it might be best to leave the base class very broad but include a sort of "Archetype of the Land" akin to the current Druid's "Circle of the Land". Within that subclass, it would be possible to select a ranger that has abilities tied to a specific type of terrain while also allowing others to play a more general primal/martial gish by selecting one of the other subclasses.
I really think that the battle is pretty much already lost for those who want Rangers to stick to the narrowest view of the wilderness expert and the best that can be hoped for is a broad "Land" subclass that could then include specific choices to focus in on distinct classical Ranger abilities.
Thank you Jounichi. I feel much the same way. The ranger class is no longer a ranger it’s a dungeoneer Gish Chassis. As I look at at the expert classes what I see is a caster expert (Bard), a non caster expert (rogue) and a half caster half martial expert (ranger). You can sort of make a “ranger” out of any one of the three by taking nature and survival skills and expertise in them and then doing what ever else you want within the rules. Actually, right now until a UA with the scout subclass comes out you can build a trapper ranger better from the rogue chassis than the ranger IF you don’t mind giving up spells - 2 expertise at L1, expertise in nature & survival (scout class feature), 2 more expert skills at L7 and reliable talent at L11.
If WOTC are going to effectively cap play at L20 like they do now I see no reason not to update the PHB favored enemy and terrains so that by L20 you have them all. There are 14 enemy types ( including humanoids), you could get 4 at L1 (or maybe humanoids and 3 others), 3 more at L6, 3 more at L11 and the last 4 at L16. Terrains would work as well: 10 terrains including wildspace (spelljammer) and urban. Then you get 3@L1, 2 at L6 , 3 at L11 and the last 2 at L16. In a terrain you know in addition to the expertise you get advantage on the rolls as well as the ability to treat difficult terrain as normal terrain for you and your party.
It seems to me that there are essentially two main camps on the Ranger, those that want it to be a broad class that can encompass more than just the outdoorsy wilderness master (so a class that can use its abilities more widely) and those (like you and Jounichi) that have problems with it then losing its more classical connections, that then might restrict the usefulness of its features if it is not in a specific environment. Perhaps it might be best to leave the base class very broad but include a sort of "Archetype of the Land" akin to the current Druid's "Circle of the Land". Within that subclass, it would be possible to select a ranger that has abilities tied to a specific type of terrain while also allowing others to play a more general primal/martial gish by selecting one of the other subclasses.
I really think that the battle is pretty much already lost for those who want Rangers to stick to the narrowest view of the wilderness expert and the best that can be hoped for is a broad "Land" subclass that could then include specific choices to focus in on distinct classical Ranger abilities.
I don't think the ranger needs to stick to the narrowest view. Those more niche features can be added on to, rather than disposed of, and allow us to have the best of two worlds. I am worried, however, this elimination means other elements of the game will increasingly fall to the wayside.
Movement, including overland travel and exploration, is an essential pillar of the game. You have to get to the dungeon. You need to explore the dungeon. Stripping out abilities that make these easier doesn't benefit the game. And many players enjoy them. There's an entire module, Tomb of Annihilation, with a dedicated "let's explore this jungle and map it" component. I'm running a game tonight, and we should be wrapping up Unwelcome Spirits from EGW. I chose it specifically because of the hexcrawl. And while nobody chose to play a ranger, having one in the group would have made traversing the Brokenveil Marsh so much easier.
As an aside, I have also noticed what I think are three forced errors with the adventure. First, the timeline of events doesn't match up. The second is Morgid, their guide, a hobgoblin scout who should be a hobgoblin scout. And the third is what I'm hoping was just a typo: saying they could navigate 10 hexes in 8 hours instead of 12 while traveling at a normal pace. But I digress.
Between the class feature variants for rangers introduced in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, the complete disregard for overland travel in Rime of the Frostmaiden (to the point where huge swaths are borderline unplayable), and most recently the complete bungling of Hadozee...WotC is making it increasingly more difficult for me to justify acquiring any new material from them. The rules should support all elements of the game. If a table wants to de-emphasize some of them, they can. But those tools need to still be there.
And I struggle to see how the ranger having some of its archetypal identity stripped away is anything but a bad thing.
Thank you Jounichi. I feel much the same way. The ranger class is no longer a ranger it’s a dungeoneer Gish Chassis. As I look at at the expert classes what I see is a caster expert (Bard), a non caster expert (rogue) and a half caster half martial expert (ranger). You can sort of make a “ranger” out of any one of the three by taking nature and survival skills and expertise in them and then doing what ever else you want within the rules. Actually, right now until a UA with the scout subclass comes out you can build a trapper ranger better from the rogue chassis than the ranger IF you don’t mind giving up spells - 2 expertise at L1, expertise in nature & survival (scout class feature), 2 more expert skills at L7 and reliable talent at L11.
If WOTC are going to effectively cap play at L20 like they do now I see no reason not to update the PHB favored enemy and terrains so that by L20 you have them all. There are 14 enemy types ( including humanoids), you could get 4 at L1 (or maybe humanoids and 3 others), 3 more at L6, 3 more at L11 and the last 4 at L16. Terrains would work as well: 10 terrains including wildspace (spelljammer) and urban. Then you get 3@L1, 2 at L6 , 3 at L11 and the last 2 at L16. In a terrain you know in addition to the expertise you get advantage on the rolls as well as the ability to treat difficult terrain as normal terrain for you and your party.
It seems to me that there are essentially two main camps on the Ranger, those that want it to be a broad class that can encompass more than just the outdoorsy wilderness master (so a class that can use its abilities more widely) and those (like you and Jounichi) that have problems with it then losing its more classical connections, that then might restrict the usefulness of its features if it is not in a specific environment. Perhaps it might be best to leave the base class very broad but include a sort of "Archetype of the Land" akin to the current Druid's "Circle of the Land". Within that subclass, it would be possible to select a ranger that has abilities tied to a specific type of terrain while also allowing others to play a more general primal/martial gish by selecting one of the other subclasses.
I really think that the battle is pretty much already lost for those who want Rangers to stick to the narrowest view of the wilderness expert and the best that can be hoped for is a broad "Land" subclass that could then include specific choices to focus in on distinct classical Ranger abilities.
I don't think its about narrative as much as it is mechanical uniqueness. right now i see little reason to play a ranger over a fighter/druid multiclass.(using basic extrapolation) extra speed is easy to get via spells or other choices. exhaustion removal is a worse greater restoration(at least let me use it on the party). nothing mechanically fills a gameplay need. (the extra concentration is nice but restrictive to one goal and highly resource dependent). How about a beast master removing concentration on fog cloud. so beast sense can be used tactically with it. where is the expert part (besides spells and expertise)?
just like how bards wanted more than just songs of restoration defining them as healers, many rangers don't want to be dependent on Hunters mark (defining them as multi attack damagers).
So, I had a thought while viewing this thread and ruminating on the Ranger's class identity. As was stated previously, a lot of the Ranger's previous abilities are easily recreated with good survival and nature skills, especially if you get expertise in them. Someone in the thread above said you can make an effective Ranger with the Rogue class, and that got me to thinking: The Ranger could be the thematic opposite to the Rogue. Someone else mentioned that they thought Hunter's Mark should add to the attack roll instead of accuracy, which would provide a distinction from the Rogue, with it's bonus damage. If the Rogue is good at hiding away and sneaking, then the Ranger should be good at finding things, whether that's food, shelter, or enemies. The Ranger's focus could be on Investigation instead of Survival. The Rogue's usual methodology is going solo; The Ranger's should be inherently cooperative, assisting other players with their rolls. I dunno if I'm making any sense here, but I thought I'd put this out there.
They feel like dungeoneers, not rangers. Favored Enemy can apply to anyone, anytime, and that makes it too strong. Rover and Tireless are nice, but they're broadly applicable. I really miss having rangers feel tied to specific terrains.
Features like Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer (Favored Terrain) date back to at least AD&D 2nd edition. You'd have specificly designated enemies. You were an experienced woodsman. Now…the current packet dilutes that.
I always saw ranger specialization as a weakness. Paladins' divine smite could damage anyone, but was extra effective against undead and fiends. 100% effective normally, 200% effective in select cases. That's how ranger features were supposed to work. But instead, they are 0% effective normally, and 100% effective in select cases. That just sucked. It's like you're a ranger only sometimes, otherwise you're just a weaker fighter with some druid spells. I suppose there's hardly a cure for that other than reimagining ranger altogether. A woodsman is shackled to the woods. Ranger's gotta be more than that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well I think part of where Ranger got buffed is also where the concentration can now go, since you don't need to maintain it for hunter's mark. Spells like Entangle, Barkskin, Elemental Weapon, Polymorph, Guardian of Nature, Swift Quiver, etc.
Still Ranger probably could use something to avoid difficult terrain still, since it's kinda thematic to the class.
Overall positive.
what did they really lose.
Favored enemy is redone, I think done for the better here.
Natural explorer, sure they lost that, but you had to pick one terrain and didn't see another until level 6 then 14th, its useful when it comes up but its pretty narrow.
They now gain spells at level 1 and they are prepared vs known and expertise in two skills so instead of hey I have expertise when I'm in the tundra with these skills you have i always am an expert in survival etc that is a win imo.
level 2 is basically the same, level 3 you lose primeval awareness which while thematic i very rarely saw used, 4-5 are the same
level 6 instead of getting a 2nd terrain/enemy another subclass feature, I'd say that is generally better,
level 7, you got nothing, now you get +10 to movement with a swim and climb speed, that is really good. 8th sure you lose the difficult terrain ability and now only get a feat but I think the level 7 ability is far better than that.
level 9 previously nothing now two more skills with expertise,
level 10 yeah you lose hide in plain site and 3rd terrain but it was so situational i never saw anyone even both using it especially since pass without trace existed, now you get a subclass feature, level 11 you used to get a subclass feature, now its tireless, in conjunction with level 10 I'd say that is a win for the new ranger,
level 12 feat on both,
13 was nothing now is natures veil while 14 was vanish(3rd enemy) and is now a subclass feature, yeah natures veil is a dud this part is a loss,
15 was a sub class feature(now 14th) but now you get blindsight, which is awesome
16/17 are the same
18 you effectively got blindsight which now is at 15th level and now get improved hunters mark which is a dud of a end class ability, make it 3d6 or something wizards.
19 same
20 now you get a epic boon which honestly underwhelmed with for the most part but the stealth one is really good.
while there are a couple losses overall the ranger is mechanically better overall, I'm not against bringing back some of what they lost as they are thematic and that is important, and yeah natures veil is lame as heck whereas vanish was good, so i'd maybe bring back vanish though honestly you may be using enough bonus actions where vanish would not be good either. And if you are comparing it to the optional features ranger, well this is basically just better versions of all of those, canny was 3 skills with expertise vs 4 gained now, rover was 5 feet not 10, tireless is pretty much the same, the favored foe was d4(scaled to d6, then d8) once a turn vs hunters mark which is d6 every attack and it was only 2-6 enemies a day.
The new ranger is just better mechanically overall, it may need some thematic boosts to get it more nature warrior vibes but I'm not really against toning that back either so people who were going for more of a military scout or skirmisher don't get saddled with thematic baggage.
whether or not you like them or find them useful they are still gone. and it covers common complaints from players about rangers not feeling like expert characters that live on the range.
I was pretty crestfallen by it.
5E started with a flawed Ranger chassis.
It's basically streamlining anything that came out of Tasha as a patch and making it permanent with a lot less choice than there was; without identifying the core problem... which was that the 5e chassis for Ranger did not mechanically live up well to its class fantasy. Now that's its bloated up with the Tasha replacement, they stuck to the safe choices and didn't try to innovate like they should have had.
The ranger is just there to do some damage, have some skills and sling about some druid spells, without getting much that would have a party go "YES, WE HAVE A RANGER" and rejoice the same way they might with a Paladin or a Bard.
Think about it: when do people - in-character - actually want and value a ranger's skills? It's when they want an expert at dealing with dangers out in the wilds. From dealing with dangerous monsters because the ranger had an eye for dealing with them, to ease of getting around in the wilderness, to dealing with dangerous hazard.
The ranger is supposed to be known as a master at dealing with all of that. More importantly, the fiction usually support that a party needs what the ranger knows.
Why?
Because the Ranger should have been designed as a force-multiplier.
I think the Ranger should have had a focus on showing his allies how to better hurt monsters, along with a specialize it to provide disadvantages on hit:
In practice:
The use of Hindering Mark, a mark made so that allies hitting the target will deal extra damage and impose disadvantage on the target's next attack. A ranger could yell: "Friends, attack its hind legs!" - knowing striking the hind legs will make it harder for the dragon to attack with its forepaws. Then anyone striking at the marked creature would be the driver for extra damage and applying said condition.
And I believe the Ranger, as the ultimate survivalist guide, should be to pick from a variety of party-wide benefits against danger:
In practice:
A desert-oriented ranger may have picked Firewatcher, a Wilderness Lore feat that helps his party better deal with the extreme heat of a desert, a volcano, or the Fire Elemental plane. In addition, in combat, he could be able to use his reaction to yell - "Firebreath! Take cover!" - halving fire damage to his entire party when a Red Dragon breathes on them.
Rather than spell out a Ranger is a 'slayer of Ice Trolls', a ranger instead trained in Enervating Mark (the Hunter's Mark that hinders healing) and Snowscaper (the Cold equivalent of Firewatcher, cold resists as well as benefits to not slipping and maintaining balance/not being knocked prone) could end up calling himself a specialist at killing Ice Trolls... without being narrowed down to that single monster. His affinities against preventing healing and helping his party resist cold and being knocked prone could come in handy in any number of encounters much more commonly than just with trolls.
Just as a Battlemaster fighter starts with a few maneuvers and picks others later in his career; or Warlock earns extra invocations along the way... such a Ranger could build a repertoire which could benefit both himself and his group. A bard improves the prowess of a group; while a ranger could improve the efficacity of a group against a marked target, against dangers and overall ease of dealing with hazards while traveling.
Also, the few people I've talked to so far whom commented on the idea seemed to find this idea nice, but too powerful in addition to what the Ranger in the UA has. In my eyes it would replace the features Tasha replaced Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer for, provide the substance both original iterations missed, and land the Ranger in the enviable position of giving party-wide 'resist element', something we've yet to have in 5E.
I'm quite happy with these changes. Becoming a prepared caster especially is something I thought rangers needed for a loong time. Rangers are survivalists who solve problems with a mix of magic, knowledge, and skill. It only makes sense that they should be able to choose what spells will most suit their current situation based on what they know of their environment and threats.
Since we're also getting spellcasting at level 1 I wouldn't mind getting Favored Foe at level 2 like some have suggested. Especially since you can just cast Hunter's Mark normally before getting the feature that ignores concentration.
I do get why some people say it is missing flavor, but a lot of ranger flavor is tied to skill checks. Survival, Stealth, Perception, etc are all things a ranger should be expected to excel at, so getting so much Expertise is great for fulfilling that part of the class fantasy.
If I had to suggest some changes to make it more thematic I'd likely include ignoring non-magical difficult terrain to Rover. Rangers moving through harsh environments easier than anyone else is just an iconic part of the class fantasy. I'd also like to see another mechanic dedicated to tracking foes. Maybe rangers can find hidden tracks or get the Scent ability, allowing them to detect and track enemies by smell alone. Something that makes rangers better trackers than a bard or rogue who also took Expertise: Survival.
Hunter's Mark alone kind of does this, but you need to see the enemy first to get your tracking bonus.
Another flavorful addition off the top of my head; Have Tireless also reduce the amount of actual sleep a ranger needs so they can spend a larger percentage of their Long Rest keeping watch.
I think Wizards Of The Coast needs to stop being scared of making Hunter's Mark a core feature of the Ranger.
They literally put it in a class with others who have scalable core features, what is so hard about doing the same for Hunter's Mark? If you have a section for Bardic Inspiration die and a section for Sneak Attack damage then make a section for Hunter's Mark and allow players to do it a number of times equal to their Wisdom modifier before needing a long rest to regain uses. They're giving them Expertise because the others have it so why not give them a scalable core feature too?!
If you're going to keep pushing other class dynamics into Ranger without making it its own thing really then at least copy the good stuff.
Also, have an Urban subclass/bounty hunter type because not every Ranger lives in a forest forever. I get they want to make the "Xiest X to X" for new players but veterans still play too and veteran status aside some people just want variety. But mainly they need to just go ahead and make Hunter's Mark a feature the same as Bardic Inspiration or Sneak Attack because having it still be a spell is weak; I know they took off Concentration to make it more appealing but it still doesn't fix the issue of Ranger not really having its own thing like other classes, no being the "nature one" doesn't count because Druids are nature too and anyone with a high enough perception score can track.
Hunter's Mark is what the Ranger class is known for just like Sneak Attack is the Rogue's butter so why is one locked off but the other not?
Assuming you want to limit 1 level dips and try to force at least 2 level dips for multiclassing then yes moving favored enemy to L2 makes a lot of sense.
Level 1 you get expertise and prepared spells including the basic hunters mark with concentration required. Nothing else.
Level 2 in addition to the fighting style you get favored enemy which grants you the chance to activate hunter’s mark proficiency bonus times per long rest with more uses requiring spell slots. It also makes hunter’s mark a concentrationless ability/ spell for rangers.
Level 3 you choose your subclass. That would go a long way to limiting 1 level dips.
At higher levels my main complaints are:
1) Level 7 Roving you gain 10’ of movement which is fine AND a climbing and swimming speed equal to the (new-40’) movement speed. Now the added walking speed and adding A climbing and A Swimming speed are fine. The speeds are not. I would actually be happy to give all land based humanoid races a climbing speed of 10’ as part of their backgrounds. Then here you would increase tha to 20’ with the 10’ bonus and grant a swimming speed of 10’. Then perhaps add a L8 feat that increased climbing to 30’ and swimming to 20’ but the reality is you can walk the length of an Olympic pool far faster than Phelps can swim it so having a walking and swimming speed that are equal is, to me, crazy.
2) Level 13 Nature’s Veil - should not use spell slots. At level 13 your PB is 5 and that would be plenty if it lasted, like the invisibility spell, until you attacked or cast a spell.
3) Level 18 Foe Slayer - frankly the PHB foe slayer was far better I would go back to it but make it usable on every strike not just ne. The best part of it was that it could be used on either to hit or damage as you needed. The bad part of the lid one was that it could only be used once a round. Making it usable on every strike solves the problem and gives you either a +3-+5 to hit if needed or a +3 to +5 on damage if you hit without it.
4) hunter Level 10 Multi attack: While I get why they used conjure barrage here ( only attack spell available at L3 spells and a way to introduce downcasting) it sucks. Even the PHB multi attack is better, but what should be here is both volley and whirlwind attack not choose one or the other forever. Rangers should gain both abilities and be able to decide each combat which they will use. If you want to put a limit on it make it so you can’t change which you use in a single group fight.
5) there is really nothing left of the wilderness expert mechanically that anyone else with expertise in nature and survival doesn’t have. This flavoring really needs to reappear in some way. That could be by expanding the nature and survival skills and granting rangers (and maybe Druids) something special there. Bluntly a ranger with expertise in nature, survival and stealth should be superior to the rogue in their uses of nature and survival and the rogue’s equal in stealth. As is they are equal.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
All very good points. If a traditionally urban rogue can have a scout subclass, then ranger should have some urban subclass. Like ying and yang. I also agree that hunter's mark, as a basic class feature, should not be a spell, and moreover, it should serve as a foundation for various subclass mechanics, like hunter's lore. We need more of that. It's only logical to make it scaleable. And we won't need every ranger subclass to have its variation of "deal 1d8 damage once per turn, but slightly differently" feature; this tier could have something more interesting.
I think switching Hunters mark to a unique "spell ability" with the same rules, linked either to proficiency, or probably better Ranger level. So it doesn't use a spell slot but can be cast X many times (ranger level divided by 2 rounding up) between long rests maybe, and then at a higher level allow recovery during a short rest. Maybe also increasing the damage as the ranger levels, by level 15 an extra d6 damage is a far lower proportion of the total damage the ranger can do then it is at level 1.
I do like the ability to know the enemies strengths, weakness etc however. Although I would possibly switch that to requiring a successful hit rather than just auto knowing (to stop the ranger moving hunters mark around the battle to learn all the things in the first couple of rounds) similar to the monk subclass that allows a successful flurry of blows hit to learn the same info.
I would also love to see a "trapper" ranger sub class of some description.
I am dissatisfied. Favored enemy is now... a spell. A spell that, so far as I can tell, takes a cast to use. So how is that even a freaking benefit? It's a spell we would already have anyways. I also miss the exploration or tracking benefits of previous versions (though I suppose expertise helps with that a bit). This just doesn't scream Ranger at me at all. The only class feats that even sound 'rangerly' are Nature's Veil (invisibility spell for a spell slot) and Feral Senses (Blindsight). Aside from those two (of which only the Feral Senses strikes me as being class appropriate) there is nothing that makes this version of the Ranger a Ranger to me.
What I would prefer:
Return Natural Explorer (PHB, but get new terrains at 6, 11, and 17th levels) to level one.
Move expertise to level 2 to keep it from being front-loaded so much.
Bring back Primeval Awareness to level 3, but remove the use a spell slot bit (limit use to once per day), increase the range to 5 miles, have the spell give you rough range and bearing to any unnatural presences in the area (aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead) though you don't get an exact number. You get a better range, bearing, and count of any favored enemies (assuming something like the classic favored enemy concept even exists). However, add the ability that regardless if you are in your favored terrain or not, for the next 24 hours (or 1 hour/ranger level may be more appropriate) the terrain you used this in is counted as being favored. That would alleviate the complaint that Natural Explorer is kind of hit or miss if you happen to not have the right terrain for a campaign and it kind of makes sense from the ability description -- you are forging a spiritual connection to the land, which sounds kind of favored to me.
And the big thing, make Favored Enemy something that isn't just hunter's freaking mark. That's just lazy. What about the PHB version of favored enemy, add a +2 to hit, and add the ability to change your favored enemy (or one of them at least if you have more than one) whenever you level up* and also add more opportunities to choose an additional favored enemy (you could have like 5 in ver 3 iirc). The big issue is that if you take a favored enemy at level 1 that is useful to have a bonus against, by the time you are level 10 that enemy is pointlessly easy and the bonus is wasted. Being able to change the foes on a level up is sensible (you're supposed to be studying and training then anyways) and would help with that.
edit to add:
I forgot a couple points: Roving is OP, it should be +10 to all speeds, not making climb and swim the same as walking. That's silly.
Nature's Veil should be only usable in natural environments, but not cost a spell slot.
Foe slayer should be what it was in the PHB (assuming my advice about favored enemy is taken).
*ranger level, sorry multiclassers
While I agree for the most part there is reason some tables couldn't make some of the original stuff work.
Unfortunately some clarity was needed on "related to" and that will probably never get fixed. Skill Advantage Uses per day seems just simpler and in line with the new design philosophy. (Maybe allow
But primal awareness and hide in plain sight could easily be fixed if the raw just tightened up around the interpretation tables that had fun with it practically used.
Hunter's mark cannot be moved unless the target dies or if you recast it. This is why I don't like the whole class being focused around its limited spell slots.
When out of spells (or saving for important combats) you have less to work with and less to provide party support than even the phb ranger.
I built a decent trapper with a phb beastmaster and thief multi-class in 5e but with fast hands nerfed and probably phb beastmaster benefits removed, there's little hope for a trapper without a subclass tied to it.
They feel like dungeoneers, not rangers. Favored Enemy can apply to anyone, anytime, and that makes it too strong. Rover and Tireless are nice, but they're broadly applicable. I really miss having rangers feel tied to specific terrains.
Features like Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer (Favored Terrain) date back to at least AD&D 2nd edition. You'd have specifically designated enemies. You were an experienced woodsman. Now…the current packet dilutes that.
Thank you Jounichi. I feel much the same way. The ranger class is no longer a ranger it’s a dungeoneer Gish Chassis. As I look at at the expert classes what I see is a caster expert (Bard), a non caster expert (rogue) and a half caster half martial expert (ranger). You can sort of make a “ranger” out of any one of the three by taking nature and survival skills and expertise in them and then doing what ever else you want within the rules. Actually, right now until a UA with the scout subclass comes out you can build a trapper ranger better from the rogue chassis than the ranger IF you don’t mind giving up spells - 2 expertise at L1, expertise in nature & survival (scout class feature), 2 more expert skills at L7 and reliable talent at L11.
If WOTC are going to effectively cap play at L20 like they do now I see no reason not to update the PHB favored enemy and terrains so that by L20 you have them all. There are 14 enemy types ( including humanoids), you could get 4 at L1 (or maybe humanoids and 3 others), 3 more at L6, 3 more at L11 and the last 4 at L16. Terrains would work as well: 10 terrains including wildspace (spelljammer) and urban. Then you get 3@L1, 2 at L6 , 3 at L11 and the last 2 at L16. In a terrain you know in addition to the expertise you get advantage on the rolls as well as the ability to treat difficult terrain as normal terrain for you and your party.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It seems to me that there are essentially two main camps on the Ranger, those that want it to be a broad class that can encompass more than just the outdoorsy wilderness master (so a class that can use its abilities more widely) and those (like you and Jounichi) that have problems with it then losing its more classical connections, that then might restrict the usefulness of its features if it is not in a specific environment. Perhaps it might be best to leave the base class very broad but include a sort of "Archetype of the Land" akin to the current Druid's "Circle of the Land". Within that subclass, it would be possible to select a ranger that has abilities tied to a specific type of terrain while also allowing others to play a more general primal/martial gish by selecting one of the other subclasses.
I really think that the battle is pretty much already lost for those who want Rangers to stick to the narrowest view of the wilderness expert and the best that can be hoped for is a broad "Land" subclass that could then include specific choices to focus in on distinct classical Ranger abilities.
I don't think the ranger needs to stick to the narrowest view. Those more niche features can be added on to, rather than disposed of, and allow us to have the best of two worlds. I am worried, however, this elimination means other elements of the game will increasingly fall to the wayside.
Movement, including overland travel and exploration, is an essential pillar of the game. You have to get to the dungeon. You need to explore the dungeon. Stripping out abilities that make these easier doesn't benefit the game. And many players enjoy them. There's an entire module, Tomb of Annihilation, with a dedicated "let's explore this jungle and map it" component. I'm running a game tonight, and we should be wrapping up Unwelcome Spirits from EGW. I chose it specifically because of the hexcrawl. And while nobody chose to play a ranger, having one in the group would have made traversing the Brokenveil Marsh so much easier.
As an aside, I have also noticed what I think are three forced errors with the adventure. First, the timeline of events doesn't match up. The second is Morgid, their guide, a hobgoblin scout who should be a hobgoblin scout. And the third is what I'm hoping was just a typo: saying they could navigate 10 hexes in 8 hours instead of 12 while traveling at a normal pace. But I digress.
Between the class feature variants for rangers introduced in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, the complete disregard for overland travel in Rime of the Frostmaiden (to the point where huge swaths are borderline unplayable), and most recently the complete bungling of Hadozee...WotC is making it increasingly more difficult for me to justify acquiring any new material from them. The rules should support all elements of the game. If a table wants to de-emphasize some of them, they can. But those tools need to still be there.
And I struggle to see how the ranger having some of its archetypal identity stripped away is anything but a bad thing.
I don't think its about narrative as much as it is mechanical uniqueness. right now i see little reason to play a ranger over a fighter/druid multiclass.(using basic extrapolation) extra speed is easy to get via spells or other choices. exhaustion removal is a worse greater restoration(at least let me use it on the party). nothing mechanically fills a gameplay need. (the extra concentration is nice but restrictive to one goal and highly resource dependent). How about a beast master removing concentration on fog cloud. so beast sense can be used tactically with it. where is the expert part (besides spells and expertise)?
just like how bards wanted more than just songs of restoration defining them as healers, many rangers don't want to be dependent on Hunters mark (defining them as multi attack damagers).
So, I had a thought while viewing this thread and ruminating on the Ranger's class identity. As was stated previously, a lot of the Ranger's previous abilities are easily recreated with good survival and nature skills, especially if you get expertise in them. Someone in the thread above said you can make an effective Ranger with the Rogue class, and that got me to thinking: The Ranger could be the thematic opposite to the Rogue. Someone else mentioned that they thought Hunter's Mark should add to the attack roll instead of accuracy, which would provide a distinction from the Rogue, with it's bonus damage. If the Rogue is good at hiding away and sneaking, then the Ranger should be good at finding things, whether that's food, shelter, or enemies. The Ranger's focus could be on Investigation instead of Survival. The Rogue's usual methodology is going solo; The Ranger's should be inherently cooperative, assisting other players with their rolls. I dunno if I'm making any sense here, but I thought I'd put this out there.
I always saw ranger specialization as a weakness. Paladins' divine smite could damage anyone, but was extra effective against undead and fiends. 100% effective normally, 200% effective in select cases. That's how ranger features were supposed to work. But instead, they are 0% effective normally, and 100% effective in select cases. That just sucked. It's like you're a ranger only sometimes, otherwise you're just a weaker fighter with some druid spells. I suppose there's hardly a cure for that other than reimagining ranger altogether. A woodsman is shackled to the woods. Ranger's gotta be more than that.