for me A common thread among rangers (in both fiction and design)is 'resource management" goes further. The idea that a ranger gets more out of a resource than most Is my 'found fun'
In fiction and in games ranger archetypes Leverage resources like Knowledge, Materials, Time ect. Travel time = 50% faster. Foraging = Just a bit more than normal. The ranger conflict is often 'the weaker ranger Out smarts the enemy by exploiting a weakness.' Even party members can be A resource as a ranger can push them to do more than they think. even their pets do more than most peoples. Almost every dnd ranger player eventually asks 'What can I harvest from this dead creature?' (meat, Milk, poison, saliva, Spider web, claws, teeth, shells ect).
The key is translating such concepts into Balanced gameplay mechanics. They need to be both practical and fulfill a ranger fantasy WHILE allowing individual styles different rangers express.
That's simply a Wis (Survival) check, no need to have it paragraphed explicitly for 100% times to work even without training. The Ranger needs the ability just like any other character, if when creating the character it doesn't care anything about Survival, then it has what it got.
The point is so that even if the ranger is rolling nat 1s left and right there are a few Survival related things they can rely on no matter what. Ranger is, at its core, a wilderness survivalist. It needs to be baseline decent at survival even if the player chooses to put their expertise elsewhere. Giving them a couple of ribbon features is all they really need to have a certain baseline competence at surviving in the outdoors so the game can focus on giving them other, more interesting, features.
But you get 3 proficiencies + expertise with Deft Explorer. If Survival is not one of your choices, then that Ranger seems not to care much about that thing. This can also by applied to any, i.e. the Wizard can not get Investigation, but hey its an "intelligent" type, so it should have.
Another changes could be welcome, like granting Survival proficiency by Deft Explorer, if all Rangers are supposed to have it. But currently as they are designed, seems to be that Ranger is not fixed that explorer, can also be the nature investigator, or animal handler.
What I see is that now is less Expertise, exchanging Expertise by Deft Explorer, that terrain types thing doesn't finish convincing me.
The two best options I've seen that would work for the Deft/Natural Explorer:
Option 1: a single ranger Expertise and you choose a terrain that gives terrain-themed benefits to you and your party (as others have suggested through this thread). The Improvement feature lets you gain another ranger Expertise and terrain.
Option 2: a single ranger Expertise and split the abilities from Natural Explorer while removing/ changing the ones that trivialised travel and make them apply in all terrain (you don't suffer the negative effects of travelling at fast pace, you can do two travel activities simultaneously, and you have advantage on Forced March saves). The Improvement feature lets you gain another ranger Expertise and your whole party benefits from the Natural Explorer effects.
Option 1, because the options would be so focused, will be able to be more powerful and also have combat application. Option 2 has generic useful abilities that support the group when travelling without removing the interaction with the game (I'm also reluctant to add Advantage as a feature; that should be a way the GM rewards clever strategies). Arguably option 2 isn't very useful if your campaign has no travelling in it at all, but that's nothing new for rangers and at least you get Expertise now.
One thing that can be done to address the Expertise question is give one for a Ranger proficiency at 1st, then one that fits thematically with Subclass (Stealth for Gloom Stalker, Animal Handling for Beast Master, Survival for Hunter, etc). Maintains the Expert feel with a bit of limitation that lean into the theme of the subclass.
But why? Why would a ranger with a -2 modifier to Survival be any good as a wilderness survivalist?
"I can't tell a horse foot print from a bear foot print, nor track a raging bull elephant through a forest, nor find edible berries while standing next to a wild blackberry bush, but I just happen to know that that way is North and can cross this swamp without issue."
Why would a Barbarian who dumped WIS be able to sense danger?
"I can't tell if someone's lying to me or not, can't tell a horse from a badger, and am frequently caught completely unaware. But dangit, I intuitively know danger is afoot."
Some class features are divorced from skill checks that normally cover those things.
One thing that can be done to address the Expertise question is give one for a Ranger proficiency at 1st, then one that fits thematically with Subclass (Stealth for Gloom Stalker, Animal Handling for Beast Master, Survival for Hunter, etc). Maintains the Expert feel with a bit of limitation that lean into the theme of the subclass.
See, this I can really get on board with. I have to agree with the majority voice that Rangers don't have the strongest sense of core class identity. It's why I posited cannibalising Hunter as a subclass and putting its features into the core Ranger: you read the flavour text for Hunter, and it adds absolutely nothing atop the flavour text for the Ranger class.
I'd love them to be able to address this, but I'm not convinced at all by the 'Deft Explorer' perk or its prior iterations. It's too specific, and creates limitations for players and DMs alike.
If the Ranger class is to struggle, it's saving grace may be its subclasses. It can afford to be a very customisable class by way of its subclasses. Build in expertise to the subclasses; build in an additional subclass feature that modifies the effects of Hunter's Mark so that each Ranger has a different use for the spell.
The alternative is to go back to the drawing board: stop making the Ranger dependent on Hunter's Mark; discard Deft Explorer and Favoured Enemy, and look for something new. I'd like for them to do that, too, but it doesn't look as though it's going to happen, so the quoted suggestion and modified Hunter's Mark features for each subclasses seems to me the best way to enforce identity on a class that, frankly, isn't keeping up for flavour or mechanics at this stage in the OneDnD process (or whatever we're calling it).
One thing that can be done to address the Expertise question is give one for a Ranger proficiency at 1st, then one that fits thematically with Subclass (Stealth for Gloom Stalker, Animal Handling for Beast Master, Survival for Hunter, etc). Maintains the Expert feel with a bit of limitation that lean into the theme of the subclass.
See, this I can really get on board with. I have to agree with the majority voice that Rangers don't have the strongest sense of core class identity. It's why I posited cannibalising Hunter as a subclass and putting its features into the core Ranger: you read the flavour text for Hunter, and it adds absolutely nothing atop the flavour text for the Ranger class.
I'd love them to be able to address this, but I'm not convinced at all by the 'Deft Explorer' perk or its prior iterations. It's too specific, and creates limitations for players and DMs alike.
If the Ranger class is to struggle, it's saving grace may be its subclasses. It can afford to be a very customisable class by way of its subclasses. Build in expertise to the subclasses; build in an additional subclass feature that modifies the effects of Hunter's Mark so that each Ranger has a different use for the spell.
The alternative is to go back to the drawing board: stop making the Ranger dependent on Hunter's Mark; discard Deft Explorer and Favoured Enemy, and look for something new. I'd like for them to do that, too, but it doesn't look as though it's going to happen, so the quoted suggestion and modified Hunter's Mark features for each subclasses seems to me the best way to enforce identity on a class that, frankly, isn't keeping up for flavour or mechanics at this stage in the OneDnD process (or whatever we're calling it).
Whoa, a cannibal subclass, that’s disturbing and awesome at the same time! I’d love to see that!
Why would a Barbarian who dumped WIS be able to sense danger?
"I can't tell if someone's lying to me or not, can't tell a horse from a badger, and am frequently caught completely unaware. But dangit, I intuitively know danger is afoot."
Some class features are divorced from skill checks that normally cover those things.
They can't. Their Danger Sense is related to their DEX modifier so if their reactions suck (low Dex) their Danger Sense isn't going to be very powerful.
I actually love playing ranger, and more often than not I've been able to really make the characters shine as a Guide outside combat and a Damage Dealer and emergency healer inside combat. I actually think that given the opportunity they do fit the flavor they intend to, they do however tend to have some conflicting feats, and they DO NOT scale past 8 (i think i'm the only person i know that stuck to ranger past 10 and didn't multiclass into Fighter/Rogue)
Now Just read the new ranger, and i have some thoughts, that i'm not sure if more experienced people share/agree or could guide me.
Hunter's Mark not doing damage every attack is a big nerf to damage (and not sure if a needed one now that we don't have Sharpshooter) i like the innate casting tied to WIS, but honestly doesn't make up for the lack of damage now that you don't break concentration, 2 encounters a day already feel exceptional so it's kind of overkill.
The gloomstalker now doesn't have their signature 3 attacks turn 1, instead has a +d8 tied to Wisdom... and forces a wisdom save to frighten. Which is thematically fitting (you are getting attacked out of nowhere in the dark) but... what does that do mechanically when you are invisible? You don't impose disadvantage nor restrict movements because you are not in line of sight. And you overlap the benefits of the conditions with THE feature of the subclass
I actually like the return of the terrain stuff as a concept, but ... as some of you said before the survival advantage in JUST TRACKING seems like a miss.
I don't get why they would remove the cantrips, as the idea is to have some utility and most cantrips do just that.
What would I change??
Make hunter's mark scale, not just as a capstone. I get that lvl 1 with two weapon fighting it was too much damage and following the Hex and Smite trend of once per turn. Lvl 1: Just once per turn Lvl 6: Every one of your attacks Lvl 12: for the party, then the capstone would feel actually decent. granted that clerics can call god and Paladins can turn themselves into avatars of something by that time.
Rethink the whole frightened condition for the Gloomstalker, who already is likely attacking with advantage and being attacked at disadvantage. either go back to the first turn extra attack or ... a WIS tied resource to give a bonus to damage and attack rolls (or aflat +Wis to damage while in darkness)
Just give the expertise in survival, make it also advantage once they've spent a long rest in the area. It doesn't break the game
If you want to restrict the cantrips: just limit them to utility and make their guidance strictly for wilderness rolls
This feels like asking, “why does your fighter have to be proficient in martial weapons.” Just because you want to play a farmer who only trained himself in hand axes doesn’t mean the class needs to change its core identity to match your concept of it. Just like an Eldritch knight with -2 INT can still cast shield, magic missile as good as any other caster.
At the end of the day these classes are archetypes and if you don’t give it some fluff people will cry it’s bland. A better question is, why would a urban Ranger know Druid spells and not any survival skills?
Because beasts (rats, cats, dogs, skunks, birds, bees, spiders), plants (weeds, flowers, trees), dirt (gardens, dirt roads, muddy puddles, wattle-houses), water (sewers, ponds, fountains, wells), fire (stoves, ovens, forges, torches, candles, lanterns) and air, all still exist in urban environments. An urban ranger might have a loyal hound, a mutant giant sewer rat, a pidgeon/crow, or a horse, pig or cow as their Beast companion, they might call upon thistles, rose bushes, or ivy to ensnare their enemies, they might have fireflies be their Faerie Fire, or flavour their spike growth as magical caltrops.
But an urban ranger could still have a high survival modifier. -2 Survival rangers would be more your brutish bounty hunters, or highly-intelligent detective, or charming resourceful pit-fighter.
If you want to perfectly fit the brutish bounty hunter, highly-intelligent detective, or charming resourceful pit-fighter there are bards, fighters, and rogues that do that better than a Ranger. More importantly trying to make the Ranger into those archetypes is similar to making the Academic Druid. You can do it, but there are better classes to use for a book learned spellcaster. The Ranger archetype is heavily tied to nature. You can’t just remove that from its core and expect people be okay with that. If your argument for them not being survival based, but still having druids spells is that there is nature in urban areas, then my argument is survival is still useful and needed in urban areas.
Here's how the Ranger's "Favored Enemy" works in my campaign, and I think it works pretty well. The Ranger's supposed to know things about monsters, and this gets you there without the player picking "Orcs" and then there not being any Orcs in the campaign. (I realize this cannibalizes the 3rd level ability of the Monster Slayer - they get to pick one of the 3rd level Hunter choices instead):
Favored Enemy
Beginning at 1st level, you gain the ability to peer at a creature and magically analyze how best to hurt it. As a bonus action, choose one creature you can see within 60 feet of you. You immediately learn whether the creature has any damage immunities, resistances, or vulnerabilities and what they are. If the creature is hidden from divination magic, you sense that it has no damage immunities, resistances, or vulnerabilities.
Additionally, the first time each turn that you hit the analyzed creature with a weapon attack, it takes an extra 1d6 damage from the weapon.
You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum of once). You regain all expended uses of it when you finish a long rest.
This feels like asking, “why does your fighter have to be proficient in martial weapons.” Just because you want to play a farmer who only trained himself in hand axes doesn’t mean the class needs to change its core identity to match your concept of it. Just like an Eldritch knight with -2 INT can still cast shield, magic missile as good as any other caster.
At the end of the day these classes are archetypes and if you don’t give it some fluff people will cry it’s bland. A better question is, why would a urban Ranger know Druid spells and not any survival skills?
Because beasts (rats, cats, dogs, skunks, birds, bees, spiders), plants (weeds, flowers, trees), dirt (gardens, dirt roads, muddy puddles, wattle-houses), water (sewers, ponds, fountains, wells), fire (stoves, ovens, forges, torches, candles, lanterns) and air, all still exist in urban environments. An urban ranger might have a loyal hound, a mutant giant sewer rat, a pidgeon/crow, or a horse, pig or cow as their Beast companion, they might call upon thistles, rose bushes, or ivy to ensnare their enemies, they might have fireflies be their Faerie Fire, or flavour their spike growth as magical caltrops.
But an urban ranger could still have a high survival modifier. -2 Survival rangers would be more your brutish bounty hunters, or highly-intelligent detective, or charming resourceful pit-fighter.
If you want to perfectly fit the brutish bounty hunter, highly-intelligent detective, or charming resourceful pit-fighter there are bards, fighters, and rogues that do that better than a Ranger. More importantly trying to make the Ranger into those archetypes is similar to making the Academic Druid. You can do it, but there are better classes to use for a book learned spellcaster. The Ranger archetype is heavily tied to nature. You can’t just remove that from its core and expect people be okay with that. If your argument for them not being survival based, but still having druids spells is that there is nature in urban areas, then my argument is survival is still useful and needed in urban areas.
I'm not sure where our disagreement is so here I'll just tell you about the ranger in my last campaign. They were a Drakewarden Ranger, we were in a world where dragons hadn't been seen for centuries, so he was a scholar at a university obsessed with learning all about the history of dragons, and their biology, until he found some old dragon bones down in the university archives and started studying and experimenting with them and learned how to summon a weakened form of the dragon's spirit as his dragon companion.
He had +2 Wisdom, and no proficiency in Survival, instead he took Expertise in History, had proficiency in Religion, Nature, Insight, Investigation, and Sleight of Hand. In combat, he kept away from the fighting and sniped with a longbow and Zephyr Strike when needed, while his drake companion moved in and tanked for him.
Now then, why was his character not really a valid "Ranger"? And what class / subclass should he have been instead if not a Ranger? And if his character is a valid ranger, then why would his character be particularly good at crossing swamps or sneaking through forests?
This feels like asking, “why does your fighter have to be proficient in martial weapons.” Just because you want to play a farmer who only trained himself in hand axes doesn’t mean the class needs to change its core identity to match your concept of it. Just like an Eldritch knight with -2 INT can still cast shield, magic missile as good as any other caster.
At the end of the day these classes are archetypes and if you don’t give it some fluff people will cry it’s bland. A better question is, why would a urban Ranger know Druid spells and not any survival skills?
Because beasts (rats, cats, dogs, skunks, birds, bees, spiders), plants (weeds, flowers, trees), dirt (gardens, dirt roads, muddy puddles, wattle-houses), water (sewers, ponds, fountains, wells), fire (stoves, ovens, forges, torches, candles, lanterns) and air, all still exist in urban environments. An urban ranger might have a loyal hound, a mutant giant sewer rat, a pidgeon/crow, or a horse, pig or cow as their Beast companion, they might call upon thistles, rose bushes, or ivy to ensnare their enemies, they might have fireflies be their Faerie Fire, or flavour their spike growth as magical caltrops.
But an urban ranger could still have a high survival modifier. -2 Survival rangers would be more your brutish bounty hunters, or highly-intelligent detective, or charming resourceful pit-fighter.
If you want to perfectly fit the brutish bounty hunter, highly-intelligent detective, or charming resourceful pit-fighter there are bards, fighters, and rogues that do that better than a Ranger. More importantly trying to make the Ranger into those archetypes is similar to making the Academic Druid. You can do it, but there are better classes to use for a book learned spellcaster. The Ranger archetype is heavily tied to nature. You can’t just remove that from its core and expect people be okay with that. If your argument for them not being survival based, but still having druids spells is that there is nature in urban areas, then my argument is survival is still useful and needed in urban areas.
I'm not sure where our disagreement is so here I'll just tell you about the ranger in my last campaign. They were a Drakewarden Ranger, we were in a world where dragons hadn't been seen for centuries, so he was a scholar at a university obsessed with learning all about the history of dragons, and their biology, until he found some old dragon bones down in the university archives and started studying and experimenting with them and learned how to summon a weakened form of the dragon's spirit as his dragon companion.
He had +2 Wisdom, and no proficiency in Survival, instead he took Expertise in History, had proficiency in Religion, Nature, Insight, Investigation, and Sleight of Hand. In combat, he kept away from the fighting and sniped with a longbow and Zephyr Strike when needed, while his drake companion moved in and tanked for him.
Now then, why was his character not really a valid "Ranger"? And what class / subclass should he have been instead if not a Ranger? And if his character is a valid ranger, then why would his character be particularly good at crossing swamps or sneaking through forests?
That character sounds like a wizard or an Int based class, but you are allowed to play a class however you want. You can ignore features of the class to flavor your character to be whatever you want. I will point out that since it was made in 5e that character did in fact have some abilities of survival, just not the survival skill. Our disagreement comes from the fact that you believe a Ranger can have open expertise without stepping on the rogues toes and I believe that if you give them open expertise you would be stepping on the rogues toes and lose the flavor of a Ranger unless you have features like Natural Explorer. Until Tasha’s many would argue the scout Rogue was the “Ranger” in the game. What they meant was flavor wise. Natural Explorer was a stronger feature than expertise in Nature and Survival, but because of the limitations Natural Explorer it wasn’t used as often and was misunderstood by many. Expertise in Nature and Survival does much of what Natural Explorer does. It’s basically expertise in all Int and Wisdom checks while in that environment. The new Deft Explorer just needs to change its last sentence to just give advantage just give advantage to all survival checks while in the terrain and it will be a close enough fix to make me happy. I would love if it went back to double proficiency bonus on all Int and Wis checks pertaining to the environment since there are other ways to get advantage and that would allow for history checks on the terrain as well. I understand that might be too good considering the new Deft Explorer allows you to switch the terrains on a long rest.
This feels like asking, “why does your fighter have to be proficient in martial weapons.” Just because you want to play a farmer who only trained himself in hand axes doesn’t mean the class needs to change its core identity to match your concept of it. Just like an Eldritch knight with -2 INT can still cast shield, magic missile as good as any other caster.
At the end of the day these classes are archetypes and if you don’t give it some fluff people will cry it’s bland. A better question is, why would a urban Ranger know Druid spells and not any survival skills?
Because beasts (rats, cats, dogs, skunks, birds, bees, spiders), plants (weeds, flowers, trees), dirt (gardens, dirt roads, muddy puddles, wattle-houses), water (sewers, ponds, fountains, wells), fire (stoves, ovens, forges, torches, candles, lanterns) and air, all still exist in urban environments. An urban ranger might have a loyal hound, a mutant giant sewer rat, a pidgeon/crow, or a horse, pig or cow as their Beast companion, they might call upon thistles, rose bushes, or ivy to ensnare their enemies, they might have fireflies be their Faerie Fire, or flavour their spike growth as magical caltrops.
But an urban ranger could still have a high survival modifier. -2 Survival rangers would be more your brutish bounty hunters, or highly-intelligent detective, or charming resourceful pit-fighter.
If you want to perfectly fit the brutish bounty hunter, highly-intelligent detective, or charming resourceful pit-fighter there are bards, fighters, and rogues that do that better than a Ranger. More importantly trying to make the Ranger into those archetypes is similar to making the Academic Druid. You can do it, but there are better classes to use for a book learned spellcaster. The Ranger archetype is heavily tied to nature. You can’t just remove that from its core and expect people be okay with that. If your argument for them not being survival based, but still having druids spells is that there is nature in urban areas, then my argument is survival is still useful and needed in urban areas.
I'm not sure where our disagreement is so here I'll just tell you about the ranger in my last campaign. They were a Drakewarden Ranger, we were in a world where dragons hadn't been seen for centuries, so he was a scholar at a university obsessed with learning all about the history of dragons, and their biology, until he found some old dragon bones down in the university archives and started studying and experimenting with them and learned how to summon a weakened form of the dragon's spirit as his dragon companion.
He had +2 Wisdom, and no proficiency in Survival, instead he took Expertise in History, had proficiency in Religion, Nature, Insight, Investigation, and Sleight of Hand. In combat, he kept away from the fighting and sniped with a longbow and Zephyr Strike when needed, while his drake companion moved in and tanked for him.
Now then, why was his character not really a valid "Ranger"? And what class / subclass should he have been instead if not a Ranger? And if his character is a valid ranger, then why would his character be particularly good at crossing swamps or sneaking through forests?
That character sounds like a wizard or an Int based class, but you are allowed to play a class however you want.
The only Int based classes are Artificer which is extremely tied to enchanting & tinkering in flavour. An Artificer is not an expert in monsters / monster abilities flavourwise regardless of their high Int. Making an Artificer an expert in monsters doesn't make sense. Wizards likewise are not experts in monsters / monster abilities, they are experts in magic. The Ranger has Drakewarden and Hunter and nearly had Monster Slayer which are all experts in monsters & monster abilities, why shouldn't those have high intelligence and expertise in Nature (like Scout Rogue) rather than Survival?
This feels like asking, “why does your fighter have to be proficient in martial weapons.” Just because you want to play a farmer who only trained himself in hand axes doesn’t mean the class needs to change its core identity to match your concept of it. Just like an Eldritch knight with -2 INT can still cast shield, magic missile as good as any other caster.
At the end of the day these classes are archetypes and if you don’t give it some fluff people will cry it’s bland. A better question is, why would a urban Ranger know Druid spells and not any survival skills?
Because beasts (rats, cats, dogs, skunks, birds, bees, spiders), plants (weeds, flowers, trees), dirt (gardens, dirt roads, muddy puddles, wattle-houses), water (sewers, ponds, fountains, wells), fire (stoves, ovens, forges, torches, candles, lanterns) and air, all still exist in urban environments. An urban ranger might have a loyal hound, a mutant giant sewer rat, a pidgeon/crow, or a horse, pig or cow as their Beast companion, they might call upon thistles, rose bushes, or ivy to ensnare their enemies, they might have fireflies be their Faerie Fire, or flavour their spike growth as magical caltrops.
But an urban ranger could still have a high survival modifier. -2 Survival rangers would be more your brutish bounty hunters, or highly-intelligent detective, or charming resourceful pit-fighter.
If you want to perfectly fit the brutish bounty hunter, highly-intelligent detective, or charming resourceful pit-fighter there are bards, fighters, and rogues that do that better than a Ranger. More importantly trying to make the Ranger into those archetypes is similar to making the Academic Druid. You can do it, but there are better classes to use for a book learned spellcaster. The Ranger archetype is heavily tied to nature. You can’t just remove that from its core and expect people be okay with that. If your argument for them not being survival based, but still having druids spells is that there is nature in urban areas, then my argument is survival is still useful and needed in urban areas.
I'm not sure where our disagreement is so here I'll just tell you about the ranger in my last campaign. They were a Drakewarden Ranger, we were in a world where dragons hadn't been seen for centuries, so he was a scholar at a university obsessed with learning all about the history of dragons, and their biology, until he found some old dragon bones down in the university archives and started studying and experimenting with them and learned how to summon a weakened form of the dragon's spirit as his dragon companion.
He had +2 Wisdom, and no proficiency in Survival, instead he took Expertise in History, had proficiency in Religion, Nature, Insight, Investigation, and Sleight of Hand. In combat, he kept away from the fighting and sniped with a longbow and Zephyr Strike when needed, while his drake companion moved in and tanked for him.
Now then, why was his character not really a valid "Ranger"? And what class / subclass should he have been instead if not a Ranger? And if his character is a valid ranger, then why would his character be particularly good at crossing swamps or sneaking through forests?
That character sounds like a wizard or an Int based class, but you are allowed to play a class however you want.
The only Int based classes are Artificer which is extremely tied to enchanting & tinkering in flavour. An Artificer is not an expert in monsters / monster abilities flavourwise regardless of their high Int. Making an Artificer an expert in monsters doesn't make sense. Wizards likewise are not experts in monsters / monster abilities, they are experts in magic. The Ranger has Drakewarden and Hunter and nearly had Monster Slayer which are all experts in monsters & monster abilities, why shouldn't those have high intelligence and expertise in Nature (like Scout Rogue) rather than Survival?
Animal handing, insight and medicine are wisdom based. Those are the skills needed to tame, train and care for a pet. The character you described doesn’t live up to any Ranger tropes. They didn’t train there pet, they summoned it like a mage. D&D doesn’t have a Int based summoner half caster that fits what your player was trying to build, so they made it work with what they had. Considering their backstory it sounds like they should have had proficiency in Arcana, and I’m wondering when did they ring time to learn all there martial abilities. They were just a scholar.
There's no reason a artificer can't be a monster expert. Many magic items are built from monster based components (not to mention basic spells)
A transmuter wizard literally made the Tressym and many monstrosities and constructs are also created by wizards.
The joy of class based systems is that there are multiple ways to approach a problem/job/or concept. (Although difficulties may change). So any class can have try to be a monster expert.
Same with being a guide. Druids or scout rogues could be a guide but a ranger should be the best or at least unique at the job.
The key is how rangers do it differently. Ranger often don't rely on any one method but rather get more out of the methods they try. Often by managing resources or using efficient tactics.
So there are a couple of ways to reinforce such mechanics. Skills like hunter immediately identifying weaknesses and immunity is a starting point for tactics but often monsters aren't developed enough to really make it engaging play.
The phb for better or worse gave potential boons to all int or wisdom checks. (At the cost of scope) This at least gave them a way to try and find a skill to aquire tactical knowledge no matter what skill or stat it was gated behind.
Another method was rolling the flavor of tactics into an ability like hunter's mark. Some people loved it as that method is easy to use but it ties gamplay to one style and might cause multi-class balance issues.
I for one really liked doubling down on harvesting, and foraging and travel speed. I would love to see something like the lizard folk ability converted to something practical. While traveling or after a long rest watch you forage/aquire "x". This then allows for you to tactically use whatever you get.
There are lots of methods but whatever solution needs to not restrict adventurers gamplay or character concepts but rather be a branch point or foundation to build from.
Rangers should be the best class option for ranged combat. Not Fighter, or Rogue, or Bard, or a multiclass. Bonuses to hit, to damage, to # of attacks, to critical range, to critical damage (remember 3/3.5e weapons that had ×2 or ×3 critical multipliers? Something like that maybe- but specific to Rangers? ) Maybe even "trick" arrows for status affects or debuffs (like Hawkeye or Green Arrow).
The part of the Tireless feature that reduces Exhaustion on a Short Rest will only be good if there are creatures, traps, & environments that specifically & explicitly cause Exhaustion. Whichever version of Exhaustion we may get. Right now, only the 2014 Frenzy Barbarian does that. Otherwise, it's up to the DM to determine if lack of sleep or food, or some other factor (environmental or creature) causes it.
Rangers could have non-magical healing. A way to incorporate either the Healer's kit or Herbalism kit, so that they can heal without spells.
Rangers should be immune to difficult terrain.
If Natural Explorer continues as a feature, they could spice it up, perhaps by having it scale into higher levels with more functions. Like bonuses to hit & to damage, if combat takes place in one if their chosen terrain types. Bonuses to AC and/or Saves while fighting in their terrains. Party cannot be surprised while in their terrain. Perhaps some of these bonuses could be shared, like a Paladin's Aura?
Tracking & Exploration are all fine & good, but I just don't see them actually come up much in game play. Right now, anyone with a Locate Animal or Creature spell- or a Paladin with Divine Sense- is as good or better at finding creatures than the Ranger. Perhaps a boost to Passive Perception? Or a "Primal Sense" ability to allow them to sense nearby creatures? One that doesn't burn a spell slot.
A "Natural Empathy" ability, that allows Rangers to summon a familiar pet, like the Druid.
Rangers should get to choose extra tool proficiencies from Woodcarvers, Leatherworkers, Cooks, perhaps others. And it should gicmve them bonuses to harvesting raw materials from plants or creatures or the environment; and also bonuses to crafting mundane (or later magical?) objects from those harvested materials. Things like bows, arrows, leather armors, other clothes or armor (like dragonscale, eg), herbal health potions, antitoxins, tanglefoot bags, etc...
Hunters Mark, Conjure Barrage/Volley.... lose em. Keep em. Idc. But if kept, they should better help to define the Ranger & the Ranger's role in a party & the Ranger's mechanical power relative to other classes.
Why does Gloom Stalker get free extra prepared spells, but Hunter & Beast Master do not? (Not really calling out Fey Wanderer, as it had no revisions printed in UA6.)
Hunter.... kinda sucks. It's not "bad". It's bland. Not sure what the fix here is... doe estrus? Maybe abilities that let the Ranger "bait" or "call" certain creatures into an ambush, if the Ranger knows they're near? Bonuses to using nets?
Even if you disregard the lack of class-defining flavor and unique mechanical features, the Ranger in UA6 suffers greatly in comparison to the other 2 half-casters: Paladin & Warlock. Paladins have Lay on Hands & Channel Divinty & a d8 bonus to all attacks at lvl 11.... and their aura. Warlocks have Invocations. The Ranger has way less in comparison to these resource pools. They have half-caster spell progression and Hunter's Mark. Which sucks under UA6 rules. Compared to the other Expert Classes, well, Bards & Rogues each get 4 Expertises, & Bards get Jack of All Trades & Rogues get Reliable Talent), Rangers got nerfed back to 2 Expertises because of the largely fluff feature of Natural Explorer. Bards were unleashed to be the most customizable casters in the game, with great support features. Rogues gained the ability to trip, blind, disarm, knock out, etc. Which gives them way more combat options. Rangers got a bad Hunter's Mark spell & 2 spell PREPARATIONS of Barrage/Volley.
Rangers should be the best class option for ranged combat. Not Fighter, or Rogue, or Bard, or a multiclass. Bonuses to hit, to damage, to # of attacks, to critical range, to critical damage (remember 3/3.5e weapons that had ×2 or ×3 critical multipliers? Something like that maybe- but specific to Rangers? ) Maybe even "trick" arrows for status affects or debuffs (like Hawkeye or Green Arrow).
100% agree with this. And that they shouldn't have magic, but instead very nice ranged melee skills.
The rest I'm not sure about on a quick read, but they should be experts at terrain for that style of play, but mainly the crowd control from a distance melee fighter.
The rogue is not that. the rogue is the very definition of a glass cannon, able to maximize damage at ONE target. People who say rogue is OP forget that.
Rangers should be able to do damage from a distance and do it through many arrows, giving them the option of divvying that damage amongst targets (as a balance the overall damage should be slightly lower, or the mechanics should encourage use on multiple targets, like chain lightning has, though not chained lightning).
Volley and barrage are nice in that they head in that direction, though they should be traits that scale up or down throughout levels.
In fact, I argues cantrips should scale with level in another topic, I feel like overall, there needs to be skills that scale because they're your go to skills/spells, and ones that give you "features"/ mini-capstones at certain levels. The game as is, is bad at skill levelling when it comes to character leveling in certain areas. (rogue s good there, spell points/levels are fine, though spell power to levels and the effects of upcasting need work).
I definitely do not agree that Ranger should be focused on ranged combat. Dual wielding is an iconic Ranger archetype in DnD, And STRanger needs to be viable so it's possible to capture the feel of Aragorn from LOTR, who is the iconic ranger in fantasy. If Rangers got a feature that specifically improved ranged damage that didn't have a melee equivalent choice it would be a dead level for any melee ranger.
Personally, I feel Ranger combat features should focus on mobility. Ignoring difficult terrain, climbing trees and buildings for better vantage points, running fleeing enemies down with superior speed and stamina, etc. That way Ranger is a solid choice whether you're running toward an enemy or trying to kite them. A ranger shouldn't be as difficult to pin down as a rogue, but they should be almost impossible to escape once they've got you in their preferred range.
I'd also like it if Ranger was good at setting traps. Rogues can be the sneaky class that goes into a place and kills a person quietly. Ranger should be the class that prepares a trap, lures an enemy in with bait, and ambushes them when they pass through.
Basically, there's already a thematic overlap between the Rogue and Ranger. I don't think it's possible to completely avoid it. So lean into it and make them more thematic parallels of one another with Rogue being built more like a cat (sneaky, high burst damage, lots of escape options) while Ranger is built more like a wolf (Sturdy, lots of stamina, hard to escape).
Basically, there's already a thematic overlap between the Rogue and Ranger. I don't think it's possible to completely avoid it. So lean into it and make them more thematic parallels of one another with Rogue being built more like a cat (sneaky, high burst damage, lots of escape options) while Ranger is built more like a wolf (Sturdy, lots of stamina, hard to escape).
Basically, there's already a thematic overlap between the Rogue and Ranger. I don't think it's possible to completely avoid it. So lean into it and make them more thematic parallels of one another with Rogue being built more like a cat (sneaky, high burst damage, lots of escape options) while Ranger is built more like a wolf (Sturdy, lots of stamina, hard to escape).
Rogue is the urban Ranger.
As a rogue player, I take offense to that.. :P
It's not that you're exactly wrong though...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
for me A common thread among rangers (in both fiction and design)is 'resource management" goes further. The idea that a ranger gets more out of a resource than most Is my 'found fun'
In fiction and in games ranger archetypes Leverage resources like Knowledge, Materials, Time ect. Travel time = 50% faster. Foraging = Just a bit more than normal. The ranger conflict is often 'the weaker ranger Out smarts the enemy by exploiting a weakness.' Even party members can be A resource as a ranger can push them to do more than they think. even their pets do more than most peoples. Almost every dnd ranger player eventually asks 'What can I harvest from this dead creature?' (meat, Milk, poison, saliva, Spider web, claws, teeth, shells ect).
The key is translating such concepts into Balanced gameplay mechanics. They need to be both practical and fulfill a ranger fantasy WHILE allowing individual styles different rangers express.
But you get 3 proficiencies + expertise with Deft Explorer. If Survival is not one of your choices, then that Ranger seems not to care much about that thing. This can also by applied to any, i.e. the Wizard can not get Investigation, but hey its an "intelligent" type, so it should have.
Another changes could be welcome, like granting Survival proficiency by Deft Explorer, if all Rangers are supposed to have it. But currently as they are designed, seems to be that Ranger is not fixed that explorer, can also be the nature investigator, or animal handler.
What I see is that now is less Expertise, exchanging Expertise by Deft Explorer, that terrain types thing doesn't finish convincing me.
The two best options I've seen that would work for the Deft/Natural Explorer:
Option 1: a single ranger Expertise and you choose a terrain that gives terrain-themed benefits to you and your party (as others have suggested through this thread). The Improvement feature lets you gain another ranger Expertise and terrain.
Option 2: a single ranger Expertise and split the abilities from Natural Explorer while removing/ changing the ones that trivialised travel and make them apply in all terrain (you don't suffer the negative effects of travelling at fast pace, you can do two travel activities simultaneously, and you have advantage on Forced March saves). The Improvement feature lets you gain another ranger Expertise and your whole party benefits from the Natural Explorer effects.
Option 1, because the options would be so focused, will be able to be more powerful and also have combat application. Option 2 has generic useful abilities that support the group when travelling without removing the interaction with the game (I'm also reluctant to add Advantage as a feature; that should be a way the GM rewards clever strategies). Arguably option 2 isn't very useful if your campaign has no travelling in it at all, but that's nothing new for rangers and at least you get Expertise now.
One thing that can be done to address the Expertise question is give one for a Ranger proficiency at 1st, then one that fits thematically with Subclass (Stealth for Gloom Stalker, Animal Handling for Beast Master, Survival for Hunter, etc). Maintains the Expert feel with a bit of limitation that lean into the theme of the subclass.
Why would a Barbarian who dumped WIS be able to sense danger?
"I can't tell if someone's lying to me or not, can't tell a horse from a badger, and am frequently caught completely unaware. But dangit, I intuitively know danger is afoot."
Some class features are divorced from skill checks that normally cover those things.
See, this I can really get on board with. I have to agree with the majority voice that Rangers don't have the strongest sense of core class identity. It's why I posited cannibalising Hunter as a subclass and putting its features into the core Ranger: you read the flavour text for Hunter, and it adds absolutely nothing atop the flavour text for the Ranger class.
I'd love them to be able to address this, but I'm not convinced at all by the 'Deft Explorer' perk or its prior iterations. It's too specific, and creates limitations for players and DMs alike.
If the Ranger class is to struggle, it's saving grace may be its subclasses. It can afford to be a very customisable class by way of its subclasses. Build in expertise to the subclasses; build in an additional subclass feature that modifies the effects of Hunter's Mark so that each Ranger has a different use for the spell.
The alternative is to go back to the drawing board: stop making the Ranger dependent on Hunter's Mark; discard Deft Explorer and Favoured Enemy, and look for something new. I'd like for them to do that, too, but it doesn't look as though it's going to happen, so the quoted suggestion and modified Hunter's Mark features for each subclasses seems to me the best way to enforce identity on a class that, frankly, isn't keeping up for flavour or mechanics at this stage in the OneDnD process (or whatever we're calling it).
Whoa, a cannibal subclass, that’s disturbing and awesome at the same time! I’d love to see that!
They can't. Their Danger Sense is related to their DEX modifier so if their reactions suck (low Dex) their Danger Sense isn't going to be very powerful.
I actually love playing ranger, and more often than not I've been able to really make the characters shine as a Guide outside combat and a Damage Dealer and emergency healer inside combat. I actually think that given the opportunity they do fit the flavor they intend to, they do however tend to have some conflicting feats, and they DO NOT scale past 8 (i think i'm the only person i know that stuck to ranger past 10 and didn't multiclass into Fighter/Rogue)
Now Just read the new ranger, and i have some thoughts, that i'm not sure if more experienced people share/agree or could guide me.
Hunter's Mark not doing damage every attack is a big nerf to damage (and not sure if a needed one now that we don't have Sharpshooter) i like the innate casting tied to WIS, but honestly doesn't make up for the lack of damage now that you don't break concentration, 2 encounters a day already feel exceptional so it's kind of overkill.
The gloomstalker now doesn't have their signature 3 attacks turn 1, instead has a +d8 tied to Wisdom... and forces a wisdom save to frighten. Which is thematically fitting (you are getting attacked out of nowhere in the dark) but... what does that do mechanically when you are invisible? You don't impose disadvantage nor restrict movements because you are not in line of sight. And you overlap the benefits of the conditions with THE feature of the subclass
I actually like the return of the terrain stuff as a concept, but ... as some of you said before the survival advantage in JUST TRACKING seems like a miss.
I don't get why they would remove the cantrips, as the idea is to have some utility and most cantrips do just that.
What would I change??
Make hunter's mark scale, not just as a capstone. I get that lvl 1 with two weapon fighting it was too much damage and following the Hex and Smite trend of once per turn.
Lvl 1: Just once per turn Lvl 6: Every one of your attacks Lvl 12: for the party, then the capstone would feel actually decent. granted that clerics can call god and Paladins can turn themselves into avatars of something by that time.
Rethink the whole frightened condition for the Gloomstalker, who already is likely attacking with advantage and being attacked at disadvantage. either go back to the first turn extra attack or ... a WIS tied resource to give a bonus to damage and attack rolls (or aflat +Wis to damage while in darkness)
Just give the expertise in survival, make it also advantage once they've spent a long rest in the area. It doesn't break the game
If you want to restrict the cantrips: just limit them to utility and make their guidance strictly for wilderness rolls
If you want to perfectly fit the brutish bounty hunter, highly-intelligent detective, or charming resourceful pit-fighter there are bards, fighters, and rogues that do that better than a Ranger. More importantly trying to make the Ranger into those archetypes is similar to making the Academic Druid. You can do it, but there are better classes to use for a book learned spellcaster.
The Ranger archetype is heavily tied to nature. You can’t just remove that from its core and expect people be okay with that. If your argument for them not being survival based, but still having druids spells is that there is nature in urban areas, then my argument is survival is still useful and needed in urban areas.
Here's how the Ranger's "Favored Enemy" works in my campaign, and I think it works pretty well. The Ranger's supposed to know things about monsters, and this gets you there without the player picking "Orcs" and then there not being any Orcs in the campaign. (I realize this cannibalizes the 3rd level ability of the Monster Slayer - they get to pick one of the 3rd level Hunter choices instead):
Favored Enemy
Beginning at 1st level, you gain the ability to peer at a creature and magically analyze how best to hurt it. As a bonus action, choose one creature you can see within 60 feet of you. You immediately learn whether the creature has any damage immunities, resistances, or vulnerabilities and what they are. If the creature is hidden from divination magic, you sense that it has no damage immunities, resistances, or vulnerabilities.
Additionally, the first time each turn that you hit the analyzed creature with a weapon attack, it takes an extra 1d6 damage from the weapon.
You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum of once). You regain all expended uses of it when you finish a long rest.
I'm not sure where our disagreement is so here I'll just tell you about the ranger in my last campaign. They were a Drakewarden Ranger, we were in a world where dragons hadn't been seen for centuries, so he was a scholar at a university obsessed with learning all about the history of dragons, and their biology, until he found some old dragon bones down in the university archives and started studying and experimenting with them and learned how to summon a weakened form of the dragon's spirit as his dragon companion.
He had +2 Wisdom, and no proficiency in Survival, instead he took Expertise in History, had proficiency in Religion, Nature, Insight, Investigation, and Sleight of Hand. In combat, he kept away from the fighting and sniped with a longbow and Zephyr Strike when needed, while his drake companion moved in and tanked for him.
Now then, why was his character not really a valid "Ranger"? And what class / subclass should he have been instead if not a Ranger? And if his character is a valid ranger, then why would his character be particularly good at crossing swamps or sneaking through forests?
That character sounds like a wizard or an Int based class, but you are allowed to play a class however you want. You can ignore features of the class to flavor your character to be whatever you want. I will point out that since it was made in 5e that character did in fact have some abilities of survival, just not the survival skill. Our disagreement comes from the fact that you believe a Ranger can have open expertise without stepping on the rogues toes and I believe that if you give them open expertise you would be stepping on the rogues toes and lose the flavor of a Ranger unless you have features like Natural Explorer. Until Tasha’s many would argue the scout Rogue was the “Ranger” in the game. What they meant was flavor wise. Natural Explorer was a stronger feature than expertise in Nature and Survival, but because of the limitations Natural Explorer it wasn’t used as often and was misunderstood by many. Expertise in Nature and Survival does much of what Natural Explorer does. It’s basically expertise in all Int and Wisdom checks while in that environment. The new Deft Explorer just needs to change its last sentence to just give advantage just give advantage to all survival checks while in the terrain and it will be a close enough fix to make me happy. I would love if it went back to double proficiency bonus on all Int and Wis checks pertaining to the environment since there are other ways to get advantage and that would allow for history checks on the terrain as well. I understand that might be too good considering the new Deft Explorer allows you to switch the terrains on a long rest.
The only Int based classes are Artificer which is extremely tied to enchanting & tinkering in flavour. An Artificer is not an expert in monsters / monster abilities flavourwise regardless of their high Int. Making an Artificer an expert in monsters doesn't make sense. Wizards likewise are not experts in monsters / monster abilities, they are experts in magic. The Ranger has Drakewarden and Hunter and nearly had Monster Slayer which are all experts in monsters & monster abilities, why shouldn't those have high intelligence and expertise in Nature (like Scout Rogue) rather than Survival?
Animal handing, insight and medicine are wisdom based. Those are the skills needed to tame, train and care for a pet. The character you described doesn’t live up to any Ranger tropes. They didn’t train there pet, they summoned it like a mage. D&D doesn’t have a Int based summoner half caster that fits what your player was trying to build, so they made it work with what they had. Considering their backstory it sounds like they should have had proficiency in Arcana, and I’m wondering when did they ring time to learn all there martial abilities. They were just a scholar.
There's no reason a artificer can't be a monster expert. Many magic items are built from monster based components (not to mention basic spells)
A transmuter wizard literally made the Tressym and many monstrosities and constructs are also created by wizards.
The joy of class based systems is that there are multiple ways to approach a problem/job/or concept. (Although difficulties may change). So any class can have try to be a monster expert.
Same with being a guide. Druids or scout rogues could be a guide but a ranger should be the best or at least unique at the job.
The key is how rangers do it differently. Ranger often don't rely on any one method but rather get more out of the methods they try. Often by managing resources or using efficient tactics.
So there are a couple of ways to reinforce such mechanics. Skills like hunter immediately identifying weaknesses and immunity is a starting point for tactics but often monsters aren't developed enough to really make it engaging play.
The phb for better or worse gave potential boons to all int or wisdom checks. (At the cost of scope) This at least gave them a way to try and find a skill to aquire tactical knowledge no matter what skill or stat it was gated behind.
Another method was rolling the flavor of tactics into an ability like hunter's mark. Some people loved it as that method is easy to use but it ties gamplay to one style and might cause multi-class balance issues.
I for one really liked doubling down on harvesting, and foraging and travel speed. I would love to see something like the lizard folk ability converted to something practical. While traveling or after a long rest watch you forage/aquire "x". This then allows for you to tactically use whatever you get.
There are lots of methods but whatever solution needs to not restrict adventurers gamplay or character concepts but rather be a branch point or foundation to build from.
Ranger Thoughts:
Rangers should be the best class option for ranged combat. Not Fighter, or Rogue, or Bard, or a multiclass. Bonuses to hit, to damage, to # of attacks, to critical range, to critical damage (remember 3/3.5e weapons that had ×2 or ×3 critical multipliers? Something like that maybe- but specific to Rangers? ) Maybe even "trick" arrows for status affects or debuffs (like Hawkeye or Green Arrow).
The part of the Tireless feature that reduces Exhaustion on a Short Rest will only be good if there are creatures, traps, & environments that specifically & explicitly cause Exhaustion. Whichever version of Exhaustion we may get. Right now, only the 2014 Frenzy Barbarian does that. Otherwise, it's up to the DM to determine if lack of sleep or food, or some other factor (environmental or creature) causes it.
Rangers could have non-magical healing. A way to incorporate either the Healer's kit or Herbalism kit, so that they can heal without spells.
Rangers should be immune to difficult terrain.
If Natural Explorer continues as a feature, they could spice it up, perhaps by having it scale into higher levels with more functions. Like bonuses to hit & to damage, if combat takes place in one if their chosen terrain types. Bonuses to AC and/or Saves while fighting in their terrains. Party cannot be surprised while in their terrain. Perhaps some of these bonuses could be shared, like a Paladin's Aura?
Tracking & Exploration are all fine & good, but I just don't see them actually come up much in game play. Right now, anyone with a Locate Animal or Creature spell- or a Paladin with Divine Sense- is as good or better at finding creatures than the Ranger. Perhaps a boost to Passive Perception? Or a "Primal Sense" ability to allow them to sense nearby creatures? One that doesn't burn a spell slot.
A "Natural Empathy" ability, that allows Rangers to summon a familiar pet, like the Druid.
Rangers should get to choose extra tool proficiencies from Woodcarvers, Leatherworkers, Cooks, perhaps others. And it should gicmve them bonuses to harvesting raw materials from plants or creatures or the environment; and also bonuses to crafting mundane (or later magical?) objects from those harvested materials. Things like bows, arrows, leather armors, other clothes or armor (like dragonscale, eg), herbal health potions, antitoxins, tanglefoot bags, etc...
Hunters Mark, Conjure Barrage/Volley.... lose em. Keep em. Idc. But if kept, they should better help to define the Ranger & the Ranger's role in a party & the Ranger's mechanical power relative to other classes.
Why does Gloom Stalker get free extra prepared spells, but Hunter & Beast Master do not? (Not really calling out Fey Wanderer, as it had no revisions printed in UA6.)
Hunter.... kinda sucks. It's not "bad". It's bland. Not sure what the fix here is... doe estrus? Maybe abilities that let the Ranger "bait" or "call" certain creatures into an ambush, if the Ranger knows they're near? Bonuses to using nets?
Even if you disregard the lack of class-defining flavor and unique mechanical features, the Ranger in UA6 suffers greatly in comparison to the other 2 half-casters: Paladin & Warlock. Paladins have Lay on Hands & Channel Divinty & a d8 bonus to all attacks at lvl 11.... and their aura. Warlocks have Invocations. The Ranger has way less in comparison to these resource pools. They have half-caster spell progression and Hunter's Mark. Which sucks under UA6 rules. Compared to the other Expert Classes, well, Bards & Rogues each get 4 Expertises, & Bards get Jack of All Trades & Rogues get Reliable Talent), Rangers got nerfed back to 2 Expertises because of the largely fluff feature of Natural Explorer. Bards were unleashed to be the most customizable casters in the game, with great support features. Rogues gained the ability to trip, blind, disarm, knock out, etc. Which gives them way more combat options. Rangers got a bad Hunter's Mark spell & 2 spell PREPARATIONS of Barrage/Volley.
100% agree with this. And that they shouldn't have magic, but instead very nice ranged melee skills.
The rest I'm not sure about on a quick read, but they should be experts at terrain for that style of play, but mainly the crowd control from a distance melee fighter.
The rogue is not that. the rogue is the very definition of a glass cannon, able to maximize damage at ONE target. People who say rogue is OP forget that.
Rangers should be able to do damage from a distance and do it through many arrows, giving them the option of divvying that damage amongst targets (as a balance the overall damage should be slightly lower, or the mechanics should encourage use on multiple targets, like chain lightning has, though not chained lightning).
Volley and barrage are nice in that they head in that direction, though they should be traits that scale up or down throughout levels.
In fact, I argues cantrips should scale with level in another topic, I feel like overall, there needs to be skills that scale because they're your go to skills/spells, and ones that give you "features"/ mini-capstones at certain levels. The game as is, is bad at skill levelling when it comes to character leveling in certain areas. (rogue s good there, spell points/levels are fine, though spell power to levels and the effects of upcasting need work).
I definitely do not agree that Ranger should be focused on ranged combat. Dual wielding is an iconic Ranger archetype in DnD, And STRanger needs to be viable so it's possible to capture the feel of Aragorn from LOTR, who is the iconic ranger in fantasy. If Rangers got a feature that specifically improved ranged damage that didn't have a melee equivalent choice it would be a dead level for any melee ranger.
Personally, I feel Ranger combat features should focus on mobility. Ignoring difficult terrain, climbing trees and buildings for better vantage points, running fleeing enemies down with superior speed and stamina, etc. That way Ranger is a solid choice whether you're running toward an enemy or trying to kite them. A ranger shouldn't be as difficult to pin down as a rogue, but they should be almost impossible to escape once they've got you in their preferred range.
I'd also like it if Ranger was good at setting traps. Rogues can be the sneaky class that goes into a place and kills a person quietly. Ranger should be the class that prepares a trap, lures an enemy in with bait, and ambushes them when they pass through.
Basically, there's already a thematic overlap between the Rogue and Ranger. I don't think it's possible to completely avoid it. So lean into it and make them more thematic parallels of one another with Rogue being built more like a cat (sneaky, high burst damage, lots of escape options) while Ranger is built more like a wolf (Sturdy, lots of stamina, hard to escape).
Rogue is the urban Ranger.
As a rogue player, I take offense to that.. :P
It's not that you're exactly wrong though...