I'm pretty crestfallen by the 2024 Ranger as presented. They are perpetuating the same pitfalls as the earlier playtest. I'm not seeing any strong core-class feature leading to a better established class fantasy, so, making this thread to challenge this.
5E started with a flawed Ranger chassis. But all these refinements have done is streamlining anything that came out of Tasha as a "patch" and making it permanent with a lot less choice and identifiable distinct mechanics 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. I mean, Conjure Barrage? Really?
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. Is that the sum of the ambitions for Rangers? In this period where the class can be rethought, I expect more.
My benchmark for the ranger class fantasy in fiction rests in Paul Kidd's portrayal of the Justicar, in the Justicar & Escalla Adventures Series, whom I think is a terrifically-presented ranger throughout White Plume Mountain, Descent into the Underdark, and Queen of the Demonweb Pits.
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 unknown. 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 hazards.
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 aforce-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 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.)
The way Paladin's Smite was treated could be translated in a similar way here.
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.
The Circle of Land is actually a nicer reference for the Ranger's affinity for terrain. But rather than give intangible "advantage to checks related", the ranger needs meatier features he gets to provide for his party. Bonus spells granted by the terrain selection could be a start, but being a survivalist and guide could go much beyond that. Polar could just as well convey means to help your party avoid falling prone, better deal with pushing/shoving, an resist Cold damage.
In practice:
A white dragon swoops by! The Ranger, an expert with monsters of this region, sees it about to unleash its ice breath and, as a reaction, goes "Take cover!", granting his party resistance against cold damage.
The beauty of that, though, is that these abilities would extend beyond the environment and could be just as useful when dealing with a Grease spell, a wizard casting Cone of Cold, or when standing on a precarious ledge where you don't want to slip off. Not to mention there are no means for party-wide elemental resistance; a playing space the Ranger could totally fit in.
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 the Arctic terrain (as improvised above, 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.
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 glaringly still have yet at our disposal in 5E.
Beyond my impulse to be an armchair designer, I rest vehement on the feeling that they need to do better.
I was literally preparing a thread along the same topic (if not the same approach) but I realized I needed to really to a deep dive into what we have in playtest 6.
The 6th update is still better than the previous version but One still feels like a Caricature of a ranger rather than a tool to build ranger characters. The the fun of the core ranger fantasy is clearly different from the Power fantasy other classes want and they need to support it. I think there are clear points of interest that rise to the top when people want to play a ranger and it usually involves 'smart' or tactical team support, travel/tracking skills and the best 'make do' solutions. More so than any other weapon or ability.
Now there also is still the goal of fitting it into the game. This means matching the skills to the framework 5e "Cough' Cough' lays out. radical changes probably won't happen but frankly most of the real losses are actually subtle ones. ( like the wording of 'share spells' where targeting the ranger vs targeting self make a huge difference )
there is a lot to look at before the next feedback submission, and I intend to investigate a wholistic approach.
Only had a few read throughs and not had time to do a thorough side by side yet but this version feels like a serious downgrade on both the first UA Ranger and the current version.
Why lose cantrips? The notes say they were replaced by weapon mastery but that is such a minor thing to gain its overall a nerf. They should have both.
I agree it is lacking in the feel of being a ranger but it isnt even mechanically good.
Hunter's Mark is bad, making it a scaleable free cast that doesnt use a spell slot is a waste of time, the previous version was better where it wasn't concentration and meant you would actually cast other useful spells with it like Barkskin. I am still of the feeling it should just be a class feature of bonus action studying an enemy that grants you proficiency bonus to damage every hit. Makes it scaleable but never game breakingly so.
Also I hate them making spells I would never take compulsory class features like Conjure Barrage. My character would never use those spells as he is an ambush melee guy, he basically is missing out on class features.
It is also disingenuous to say the Gloomstalker gains more uses of its fear attack benefit when most rangers likely only have a bonus of 2 or 3 so 2d8 or 3d8 damage per day vs a potential 2d8+d6+Str or Dex every single combat so another clear nerf
At this point, I almost feel like Hunter's Mark shouldn't do damage at all since they can't seem to decide how to balance it. Maybe it should be a pure utility tool with a higher emphasis on its use for tracking and information gathering. A class feature really shouldn't use up concentration if it is designed to always be on.
I'm more annoyed by the two arrow spells using up two entire class features. Rangers aren't just bow guys. Melee Ranger is a tried and true trope, and ideally, STRanger should be viable as well.
It sounds like there needs two be two different classes here then:
1) Wilderness Guide - this would be a Primal version of a Bard, where you get very few offensive features and are instead almost entirely support-focused.
2) Monster Slayer - this would be closer to the current Ranger and more fitting the Witcher-type vibe, where you get a handful of tracking / knowledge buffs but are primarily a DPS class that hunts and kills monsters. It would be mechanically closer to a Paladin but be DEX-based and have features related to Fey, Monstrosities, Giants, Dragons, and the like rather than Outer-Planes & undead focused.
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.
If this is the narrative fantasy you're looking for then, this is the Valor Bard's Combat Inspiration. Or the Order Cleric's Voice of Authority.
A white dragon swoops by! The Ranger, an expert with monsters of this region, sees it about to unleash its ice breath and, as a reaction, goes "Take cover!"
Again if this is the narrative fantasy, this is classic Bardic Inspiration, or the Glamour Bard's Mantle of Inspiration, or the New Dancer Bard's group-evasion thingie.
I'm very happy with the current ranger. Instead of being a mess of useless ribbons like 2014 or being functional yet a bit bland like Tasha's, we now have a version that is a true wilderness expert, including being the Best at Tracking (Expertise + Terrain Advantage + divinations), great at combat (Martial weapons + fighting style + weapon mastery), and great at scouting (Roving + Tireless + Nature's Veil). And all of that is before we get to the subclasses. It's right where I want it to be.
At this point, I almost feel like Hunter's Mark shouldn't do damage at all since they can't seem to decide how to balance it. Maybe it should be a pure utility tool with a higher emphasis on its use for tracking and information gathering. A class feature really shouldn't use up concentration if it is designed to always be on.
I'm more annoyed by the two arrow spells using up two entire class features. Rangers aren't just bow guys. Melee Ranger is a tried and true trope, and ideally, STRanger should be viable as well.
It could be for example?:
Increases the all damage dealt by +1, along with the attack rolls and save DCs you (and your allies?) make on the marked target. You get +2 on Wisdom, Intelligence, Charisma, and Dexterity checks related to gathering information about the target (weaknesses, resistances, armor or equipment, abilities, interests, etc.), following or tracking it and avoiding detection in the process, as well as receive greater precision and additional data on these activities. A far greater range, and no concentration.
My initial pass has me lead to a couple of theories.
1. The new design seems to be trying to re-balance certain damage types. Things that were just 'magical damage' are now listed as 'force' or 'radiant'. This could mean dms can make types slightly more important than they were in the past. How this effects rangers is.... the methods of figuring such stuff out. they experimented with hunter just knowing resistances and immunities. I believe the PHB ranger interacted with this type of play via the flexible advantage on all intelligence checks(possibly stacking with FT). now the 6th UA still has less intelligence options unless you specifically invest your build that way. I Don't know if there will actually be enough of a fix but it might make it a possibility.
3. along the lines of part one, 'Mother may I' and 'auto win complaints' seem to make certain design routes automatically not an option. currently there are few ways to by bass difficult terrain (which to me is critical to ranger feel). this gives dms absolute tools to use in combat. If they can reliably predict difficult terrain movement it becomes easier to balance around. but then you no longer have a unique trait to leverage as a class Identity. This also seems to be part of the reason they avoided even rewriting alot of other 'ribbon' features that were part of favored terrain. Arguably they were the most important parts of favored terrain, they just weren't written in a way that interacts with gameplay cleanly.
3. I think there is evidence they will forgo 'Ranger community' opinions to make features VTT friendly. many of the ambush, and travel speed rules don't play nice with VTTS. The phb ranger (especially beasmaster) still isn't implemented right on dndbeyond. (although its seems feasible for most features)
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.
If this is the narrative fantasy you're looking for then, this is the Valor Bard's Combat Inspiration. Or the Order Cleric's Voice of Authority.
A white dragon swoops by! The Ranger, an expert with monsters of this region, sees it about to unleash its ice breath and, as a reaction, goes "Take cover!"
Again if this is the narrative fantasy, this is classic Bardic Inspiration, or the Glamour Bard's Mantle of Inspiration, or the New Dancer Bard's group-evasion thingie.
Don't you think that's a bit of a strawman argument on both counts? The thread wouldn't have much of a reason for being if I could play a Bard and feel like a Ranger. I don't believe its constructive to this discussion to go "If you want a ranger to your liking, go play another class", especially where most of the examples are in fact parcels of a subclass.
Fact is, we have 3 expert classes with different performance inclinations. Two of those are...
Bard: support class with features usually aimed at helping the odds of others succeeding through momentary feats of prowess;
Rogue: a specialist whom knows where to hit where it hurts, on top of a big suite of dungeon-oriented problem-troubleshooting. Kit is generally selfish, in that the Rogue is the best performer of what he does.
What's missing amongst the experts is a kit a non-selfish kit that opens options while doing things that would stack with the two others. it is my impression that making an enemy less capable/vulnerable or protecting against mechanical train/hazards is what is lacking.
My inspirations aside, this seems like opportunities that are unexploited in a main kit, that the Ranger could exploit. But in the Ranger's case, while he could still be a good survivalist on his own, the greatest strength in a party could be how to convey it. And it needs to be mathematically stronger than just features based on DM fiat, just as Roscoeivan mentioned above. Conditions, movement, advantage/disadvantage, reactions - this is a space the Ranger could play more in.
In the Youtube video on the Ranger, one commenter made the interesting suggestion that the Study action could play more in the Ranger's kit. We already know the Hunter subclass does something with it... but should it be more of a core feature?
A Ranger Studying a creature could open up - beyond the base advantages of the Study action - the possibility of helping the rest of his group hitting it where it hurts (perhaps equal to the proficiency bonus). Perhaps you can convey that to a limited number of people (Wisdom modifier?). Perhaps, once you convey it this target that you've marked to you party can be dealt more easily with special tricks that you've learned.
Maybe the Ranger conveys a tip on how to...
better trip the opponent - if you hit the marked target, you get a free chance to trip.
Or help bring down an aerial opponent?
Or deny an opponents opportunity attacks or reduce its reach to hinder the same?
Etc...
I'm sure there are many other possible permutations. Some classes may know how to do the same, but they might not be experts at guiding others to do it. Not that it was impossible before with the original versions of Favored Enemies and Favored Terrain... but there was no mechanical support with it, which was why they failed in our eyes.
Another thing to avoid, with past editions (2-3), you were only good at fighting them. Ideally here, if you're good at dealing with giants (dealing with reach, opportunity attacks, thrown projectiles)... you'll probably end up being pretty good at dealing with other creatures.
Just as, if your favored terrain is Mountains, maybe you're good at dealing with rough terrain, helping others through it/or climbing, and maybe you're better at dealing with fire damage with your entire group. Coupled with your giant-oriented features... that might also make you really good at dealing with Fire Giants and Red Dragons. But did you skip on features to deal with flying or breath weapons? Mm. Maybe you're mostly better with fire giants, but you still have some tricks to use if you run up against a Red Dragon.
And, if you end up fighting salamanders in a rough area of stone bridges surrounded by lava moats, your ranger's foreknowledge of other dangers actually get to be applicable even if giants and mountains are nowhere to be seen.
I know I would really enjoy rangers being masters of reactions oriented toward enduring/resisting elements party-wise. This has been really lacking in 5th edition.
The 'core fantasy' of the ranger has always been the huntsman/wilderness guide. The problem for D&D is that the core fantasy isn't really a very good class -- the thing it's mostly good at is the part of the adventure that players and DMs prefer to fast forward through, and rely on an NPC to solve.
The classic ranger is just fine as an NPC. For a one-off NPC, it's no problem that they have only one favored terrain and one favored enemy, because you introduced the NPC for an adventure that occurred in that terrain with that enemy showing up, and if the party goes somewhere else... new NPC.
That doesn't work for a PC, and thus they need to add stuff that's outside the role, and it's just a question of what that stuff is.
there are plenty of ways to reward sections of adventures that are fast forwarded through.
with the PHB ranger any time a dm or party would skip the travel portion, I would just politley say OK then I get this(free activity, forage, ect) for my class choice. I can sell it later or use it as a creative 'item' for the next section. (a simple fresh rabbit can often solve one small problem)
Just knowing your group travels faster can in fact provide a boon for time sensitive goals, ambushes, or even just getting more done in shorter time. This doesn't have to bog down the game for the players un interested in that type of play. often figuring results takes less than a combat turn.
I feel like the big issue with designing the ranger is that the core class fantasy, that is of a veteran wilderness survivalist, can be almost entirely made with expertise in Survival. That's really the only feature you need to be good at every non-combat thing a ranger is supposed to be good at. With it, you can forage for food to feed the party, navigate through dense forests, track enemies across the map, determine if a wild animal has been through a place recently, avoid dangerous terrain, and even determine if the weather is about to change. Any other rangery jobs can be done with Animal Handling and Perception, which is where more expertise becomes invaluable.
This is why I was excited to see ranger finally get expertise. "Finally," I thought, "the ranger will be as good at tracking enemies as the rogue or bard."
But a lot of people apparently don't think expertise is flavorful enough, which is fair I suppose. But now they're reducing our access to expertise in favor of bonuses to the skills we would've taken expertise with but only if we're in a specific terrain. Favored Terrain might be flavorful, but it's also just a restriction on where we can use our full set of class features, whereas expertise can be used anywhere under any circumstance. Quite frankly, I'd rather Rangers just get Advantage on all Survival checks and call it a day.
But then what about flavor? People seem to really like the Favored Terrain as it gives you a chance to customize your ranger a bit beyond subclass choice. Personally, if I were to make Favored Terrain useful, I'd have the biome you choose just give you general bonuses that can be applied anywhere.
Example: Forest: Proficiency in Stealth and Acrobatics, as you are a ranger who is adept at maneuvering through the trees without leaving a trace. Mountain: Proficiency in Athletics and say, 20ft Climb Speed, as you are a ranger who is skilled at climbing sheer surfaces. Coast: Proficiency in Athletics and a 20ft Swim Speed, as you are a ranger who is a mighty swimmer. Swamp: Proficiency in Medicine and immunity to the Poisoned condition, as you have extensive experience with poisons, venoms, and diseases. Plains: Proficiency in Perception and 10ft Land Speed, as you have sharp eyes and are used to running vast, overland distances. Tundra: Proficiency in Perception and Stealth, as blending in with the snow and watching out for arctic predators were a constant activity in your life. Underdark: 10ft Blindsight, as you are deeply adapted to the near-total darkness of the underground.
Movement speeds stack with Rover, so you're crazy fast in your chosen environment if you go with Mountain, Coast, or Plains.
Skill checks can only go so far and their use is more dm dependent than the phb features.
At least a phb ranger can say I am faster than the bard with expertise. Or I get these exact details(time,# etc) Other classes get info based on dm whimsy.
It isn't just about flavor it's about quantifying their expert nature into mechanics.
I was just told in another forum that if you cast Hunter's Mark, and the target dies, you can hold onto it and move it onto any other target with a bonus action as long as that movement occurs somewhere in that 8 to 24 hour duration.
Does that seem like a correct interpretation of the rules?
I've always interpreted it as having to be done immediately. Likewise with Hex.
I was just told in another forum that if you cast Hunter's Mark, and the target dies, you can hold onto it and move it onto any other target with a bonus action as long as that movement occurs somewhere in that 8 to 24 hour duration.
Does that seem like a correct interpretation of the rules?
"If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to mark a new creature." pretty clearly says yes.
That would actually make Hunter's Mark and Hex somewhat tolerable, although even Ranger must have third level spells they'd rather be concentrating on.
That's just one person's "class fantasy". I might be wrong, but I'm thinking that most people just want the class to be functional. You can pull the fantasy over it with some imagination.
Skill checks can only go so far and their use is more dm dependent than the phb features.
At least a phb ranger can say I am faster than the bard with expertise. Or I get these exact details(time,# etc) Other classes get info based on dm whimsy.
It isn't just about flavor it's about quantifying their expert nature into mechanics.
If you don't trust your DM to provide sufficient benefit to getting a 25+ skill check then you should not be playing with that DM. No amount of rules can make a game fun, if the DM is a d*ck.
Skill checks can only go so far and their use is more dm dependent than the phb features.
At least a phb ranger can say I am faster than the bard with expertise. Or I get these exact details(time,# etc) Other classes get info based on dm whimsy.
It isn't just about flavor it's about quantifying their expert nature into mechanics.
If you don't trust your DM to provide sufficient benefit to getting a 25+ skill check then you should not be playing with that DM. No amount of rules can make a game fun, if the DM is a d*ck.
believe it or not wanting defined skills is not just for dick dms. frankly with a good dm the phb ranger is the best balanced class in the game. (it can also be over powered or under powered with a bad dm) Now IF only I quantified what a good (or bad dm) means we could analyze How to get reliable results. See having things defined allows for clear discussion rather than assumptions.
by placing solid rules it creates reliable expectations shared between the player and dm. It prevents Patrick Rothfuss style feature "overuse" from players. It allows predictable planning rather than in the moment calls. In the moment calls are usually not good because outside factors can subtly change a persons perspective. (this is literally what mentalists magicians take advantage of to guide people into what they want). for example time left in the session might mean the amount of information given in a skill check is lower at the beginning (when you have time) and gives a lot more near the end(when people are tired or ready to end for the night).
I'm pretty crestfallen by the 2024 Ranger as presented. They are perpetuating the same pitfalls as the earlier playtest. I'm not seeing any strong core-class feature leading to a better established class fantasy, so, making this thread to challenge this.
5E started with a flawed Ranger chassis. But all these refinements have done is streamlining anything that came out of Tasha as a "patch" and making it permanent with a lot less choice and identifiable distinct mechanics 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. I mean, Conjure Barrage? Really?
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. Is that the sum of the ambitions for Rangers? In this period where the class can be rethought, I expect more.
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 unknown. 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 hazards.
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:
The way Paladin's Smite was treated could be translated in a similar way here.
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:
The Circle of Land is actually a nicer reference for the Ranger's affinity for terrain. But rather than give intangible "advantage to checks related", the ranger needs meatier features he gets to provide for his party. Bonus spells granted by the terrain selection could be a start, but being a survivalist and guide could go much beyond that. Polar could just as well convey means to help your party avoid falling prone, better deal with pushing/shoving, an resist Cold damage.
In practice:
A white dragon swoops by! The Ranger, an expert with monsters of this region, sees it about to unleash its ice breath and, as a reaction, goes "Take cover!", granting his party resistance against cold damage.
The beauty of that, though, is that these abilities would extend beyond the environment and could be just as useful when dealing with a Grease spell, a wizard casting Cone of Cold, or when standing on a precarious ledge where you don't want to slip off. Not to mention there are no means for party-wide elemental resistance; a playing space the Ranger could totally fit in.
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 the Arctic terrain (as improvised above, 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.
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 glaringly still have yet at our disposal in 5E.
Beyond my impulse to be an armchair designer, I rest vehement on the feeling that they need to do better.
I was literally preparing a thread along the same topic (if not the same approach) but I realized I needed to really to a deep dive into what we have in playtest 6.
The 6th update is still better than the previous version but One still feels like a Caricature of a ranger rather than a tool to build ranger characters. The the fun of the core ranger fantasy is clearly different from the Power fantasy other classes want and they need to support it. I think there are clear points of interest that rise to the top when people want to play a ranger and it usually involves 'smart' or tactical team support, travel/tracking skills and the best 'make do' solutions. More so than any other weapon or ability.
Now there also is still the goal of fitting it into the game. This means matching the skills to the framework 5e "Cough' Cough' lays out. radical changes probably won't happen but frankly most of the real losses are actually subtle ones. ( like the wording of 'share spells' where targeting the ranger vs targeting self make a huge difference )
there is a lot to look at before the next feedback submission, and I intend to investigate a wholistic approach.
Only had a few read throughs and not had time to do a thorough side by side yet but this version feels like a serious downgrade on both the first UA Ranger and the current version.
Why lose cantrips? The notes say they were replaced by weapon mastery but that is such a minor thing to gain its overall a nerf. They should have both.
I agree it is lacking in the feel of being a ranger but it isnt even mechanically good.
Hunter's Mark is bad, making it a scaleable free cast that doesnt use a spell slot is a waste of time, the previous version was better where it wasn't concentration and meant you would actually cast other useful spells with it like Barkskin. I am still of the feeling it should just be a class feature of bonus action studying an enemy that grants you proficiency bonus to damage every hit. Makes it scaleable but never game breakingly so.
Also I hate them making spells I would never take compulsory class features like Conjure Barrage. My character would never use those spells as he is an ambush melee guy, he basically is missing out on class features.
It is also disingenuous to say the Gloomstalker gains more uses of its fear attack benefit when most rangers likely only have a bonus of 2 or 3 so 2d8 or 3d8 damage per day vs a potential 2d8+d6+Str or Dex every single combat so another clear nerf
At this point, I almost feel like Hunter's Mark shouldn't do damage at all since they can't seem to decide how to balance it. Maybe it should be a pure utility tool with a higher emphasis on its use for tracking and information gathering. A class feature really shouldn't use up concentration if it is designed to always be on.
I'm more annoyed by the two arrow spells using up two entire class features. Rangers aren't just bow guys. Melee Ranger is a tried and true trope, and ideally, STRanger should be viable as well.
It sounds like there needs two be two different classes here then:
1) Wilderness Guide - this would be a Primal version of a Bard, where you get very few offensive features and are instead almost entirely support-focused.
2) Monster Slayer - this would be closer to the current Ranger and more fitting the Witcher-type vibe, where you get a handful of tracking / knowledge buffs but are primarily a DPS class that hunts and kills monsters. It would be mechanically closer to a Paladin but be DEX-based and have features related to Fey, Monstrosities, Giants, Dragons, and the like rather than Outer-Planes & undead focused.
If this is the narrative fantasy you're looking for then, this is the Valor Bard's Combat Inspiration. Or the Order Cleric's Voice of Authority.
Again if this is the narrative fantasy, this is classic Bardic Inspiration, or the Glamour Bard's Mantle of Inspiration, or the New Dancer Bard's group-evasion thingie.
I'm very happy with the current ranger. Instead of being a mess of useless ribbons like 2014 or being functional yet a bit bland like Tasha's, we now have a version that is a true wilderness expert, including being the Best at Tracking (Expertise + Terrain Advantage + divinations), great at combat (Martial weapons + fighting style + weapon mastery), and great at scouting (Roving + Tireless + Nature's Veil). And all of that is before we get to the subclasses. It's right where I want it to be.
It could be for example?:
Increases the all damage dealt by +1, along with the attack rolls and save DCs you (and your allies?) make on the marked target.
You get +2 on Wisdom, Intelligence, Charisma, and Dexterity checks related to gathering information about the target (weaknesses, resistances, armor or equipment, abilities, interests, etc.), following or tracking it and avoiding detection in the process, as well as receive greater precision and additional data on these activities.
A far greater range, and no concentration.
higher level, longer duration and bonuses.
My initial pass has me lead to a couple of theories.
1. The new design seems to be trying to re-balance certain damage types. Things that were just 'magical damage' are now listed as 'force' or 'radiant'. This could mean dms can make types slightly more important than they were in the past. How this effects rangers is.... the methods of figuring such stuff out. they experimented with hunter just knowing resistances and immunities. I believe the PHB ranger interacted with this type of play via the flexible advantage on all intelligence checks(possibly stacking with FT). now the 6th UA still has less intelligence options unless you specifically invest your build that way. I Don't know if there will actually be enough of a fix but it might make it a possibility.
3. along the lines of part one, 'Mother may I' and 'auto win complaints' seem to make certain design routes automatically not an option. currently there are few ways to by bass difficult terrain (which to me is critical to ranger feel). this gives dms absolute tools to use in combat. If they can reliably predict difficult terrain movement it becomes easier to balance around. but then you no longer have a unique trait to leverage as a class Identity. This also seems to be part of the reason they avoided even rewriting alot of other 'ribbon' features that were part of favored terrain. Arguably they were the most important parts of favored terrain, they just weren't written in a way that interacts with gameplay cleanly.
3. I think there is evidence they will forgo 'Ranger community' opinions to make features VTT friendly. many of the ambush, and travel speed rules don't play nice with VTTS. The phb ranger (especially beasmaster) still isn't implemented right on dndbeyond. (although its seems feasible for most features)
Don't you think that's a bit of a strawman argument on both counts? The thread wouldn't have much of a reason for being if I could play a Bard and feel like a Ranger. I don't believe its constructive to this discussion to go "If you want a ranger to your liking, go play another class", especially where most of the examples are in fact parcels of a subclass.
Fact is, we have 3 expert classes with different performance inclinations. Two of those are...
What's missing amongst the experts is a kit a non-selfish kit that opens options while doing things that would stack with the two others. it is my impression that making an enemy less capable/vulnerable or protecting against mechanical train/hazards is what is lacking.
My inspirations aside, this seems like opportunities that are unexploited in a main kit, that the Ranger could exploit. But in the Ranger's case, while he could still be a good survivalist on his own, the greatest strength in a party could be how to convey it. And it needs to be mathematically stronger than just features based on DM fiat, just as Roscoeivan mentioned above. Conditions, movement, advantage/disadvantage, reactions - this is a space the Ranger could play more in.
In the Youtube video on the Ranger, one commenter made the interesting suggestion that the Study action could play more in the Ranger's kit. We already know the Hunter subclass does something with it... but should it be more of a core feature?
A Ranger Studying a creature could open up - beyond the base advantages of the Study action - the possibility of helping the rest of his group hitting it where it hurts (perhaps equal to the proficiency bonus). Perhaps you can convey that to a limited number of people (Wisdom modifier?). Perhaps, once you convey it this target that you've marked to you party can be dealt more easily with special tricks that you've learned.
Maybe the Ranger conveys a tip on how to...
I'm sure there are many other possible permutations. Some classes may know how to do the same, but they might not be experts at guiding others to do it. Not that it was impossible before with the original versions of Favored Enemies and Favored Terrain... but there was no mechanical support with it, which was why they failed in our eyes.
Another thing to avoid, with past editions (2-3), you were only good at fighting them. Ideally here, if you're good at dealing with giants (dealing with reach, opportunity attacks, thrown projectiles)... you'll probably end up being pretty good at dealing with other creatures.
Just as, if your favored terrain is Mountains, maybe you're good at dealing with rough terrain, helping others through it/or climbing, and maybe you're better at dealing with fire damage with your entire group. Coupled with your giant-oriented features... that might also make you really good at dealing with Fire Giants and Red Dragons. But did you skip on features to deal with flying or breath weapons? Mm. Maybe you're mostly better with fire giants, but you still have some tricks to use if you run up against a Red Dragon.
And, if you end up fighting salamanders in a rough area of stone bridges surrounded by lava moats, your ranger's foreknowledge of other dangers actually get to be applicable even if giants and mountains are nowhere to be seen.
I know I would really enjoy rangers being masters of reactions oriented toward enduring/resisting elements party-wise. This has been really lacking in 5th edition.
The 'core fantasy' of the ranger has always been the huntsman/wilderness guide. The problem for D&D is that the core fantasy isn't really a very good class -- the thing it's mostly good at is the part of the adventure that players and DMs prefer to fast forward through, and rely on an NPC to solve.
The classic ranger is just fine as an NPC. For a one-off NPC, it's no problem that they have only one favored terrain and one favored enemy, because you introduced the NPC for an adventure that occurred in that terrain with that enemy showing up, and if the party goes somewhere else... new NPC.
That doesn't work for a PC, and thus they need to add stuff that's outside the role, and it's just a question of what that stuff is.
there are plenty of ways to reward sections of adventures that are fast forwarded through.
with the PHB ranger any time a dm or party would skip the travel portion, I would just politley say OK then I get this(free activity, forage, ect) for my class choice. I can sell it later or use it as a creative 'item' for the next section. (a simple fresh rabbit can often solve one small problem)
Just knowing your group travels faster can in fact provide a boon for time sensitive goals, ambushes, or even just getting more done in shorter time. This doesn't have to bog down the game for the players un interested in that type of play. often figuring results takes less than a combat turn.
I feel like the big issue with designing the ranger is that the core class fantasy, that is of a veteran wilderness survivalist, can be almost entirely made with expertise in Survival. That's really the only feature you need to be good at every non-combat thing a ranger is supposed to be good at. With it, you can forage for food to feed the party, navigate through dense forests, track enemies across the map, determine if a wild animal has been through a place recently, avoid dangerous terrain, and even determine if the weather is about to change. Any other rangery jobs can be done with Animal Handling and Perception, which is where more expertise becomes invaluable.
This is why I was excited to see ranger finally get expertise. "Finally," I thought, "the ranger will be as good at tracking enemies as the rogue or bard."
But a lot of people apparently don't think expertise is flavorful enough, which is fair I suppose. But now they're reducing our access to expertise in favor of bonuses to the skills we would've taken expertise with but only if we're in a specific terrain. Favored Terrain might be flavorful, but it's also just a restriction on where we can use our full set of class features, whereas expertise can be used anywhere under any circumstance. Quite frankly, I'd rather Rangers just get Advantage on all Survival checks and call it a day.
But then what about flavor? People seem to really like the Favored Terrain as it gives you a chance to customize your ranger a bit beyond subclass choice. Personally, if I were to make Favored Terrain useful, I'd have the biome you choose just give you general bonuses that can be applied anywhere.
Example:
Forest: Proficiency in Stealth and Acrobatics, as you are a ranger who is adept at maneuvering through the trees without leaving a trace.
Mountain: Proficiency in Athletics and say, 20ft Climb Speed, as you are a ranger who is skilled at climbing sheer surfaces.
Coast: Proficiency in Athletics and a 20ft Swim Speed, as you are a ranger who is a mighty swimmer.
Swamp: Proficiency in Medicine and immunity to the Poisoned condition, as you have extensive experience with poisons, venoms, and diseases.
Plains: Proficiency in Perception and 10ft Land Speed, as you have sharp eyes and are used to running vast, overland distances.
Tundra: Proficiency in Perception and Stealth, as blending in with the snow and watching out for arctic predators were a constant activity in your life.
Underdark: 10ft Blindsight, as you are deeply adapted to the near-total darkness of the underground.
Movement speeds stack with Rover, so you're crazy fast in your chosen environment if you go with Mountain, Coast, or Plains.
Skill checks can only go so far and their use is more dm dependent than the phb features.
At least a phb ranger can say I am faster than the bard with expertise. Or I get these exact details(time,# etc) Other classes get info based on dm whimsy.
It isn't just about flavor it's about quantifying their expert nature into mechanics.
I was just told in another forum that if you cast Hunter's Mark, and the target dies, you can hold onto it and move it onto any other target with a bonus action as long as that movement occurs somewhere in that 8 to 24 hour duration.
Does that seem like a correct interpretation of the rules?
I've always interpreted it as having to be done immediately. Likewise with Hex.
"If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to mark a new creature." pretty clearly says yes.
That would actually make Hunter's Mark and Hex somewhat tolerable, although even Ranger must have third level spells they'd rather be concentrating on.
That's just one person's "class fantasy". I might be wrong, but I'm thinking that most people just want the class to be functional. You can pull the fantasy over it with some imagination.
If you don't trust your DM to provide sufficient benefit to getting a 25+ skill check then you should not be playing with that DM. No amount of rules can make a game fun, if the DM is a d*ck.
believe it or not wanting defined skills is not just for dick dms. frankly with a good dm the phb ranger is the best balanced class in the game. (it can also be over powered or under powered with a bad dm) Now IF only I quantified what a good (or bad dm) means we could analyze How to get reliable results. See having things defined allows for clear discussion rather than assumptions.
by placing solid rules it creates reliable expectations shared between the player and dm. It prevents Patrick Rothfuss style feature "overuse" from players. It allows predictable planning rather than in the moment calls. In the moment calls are usually not good because outside factors can subtly change a persons perspective. (this is literally what mentalists magicians take advantage of to guide people into what they want). for example time left in the session might mean the amount of information given in a skill check is lower at the beginning (when you have time) and gives a lot more near the end(when people are tired or ready to end for the night).