No, there's no word on the final number of attacks PoB will get in 2024. I hope it goes back to a maximum of 2, and I hope they fixed Conjure Elementals so it's scaling isn't ridiculous for characters with multiple attacks. However, I saw a fair number of people defending 3 attacks for PoB as necessary so that EB+AB doesn't overshadow PoB at high levels, and Treantmonk still believes it is the most powerful class in the game and he does have access to the full 2024 PHB.
I guess we will see. I am not that impressed with Treantmonk. A lot of his stuff seems extreme white room which never really pans out in play.
No, there's no word on the final number of attacks PoB will get in 2024. I hope it goes back to a maximum of 2, and I hope they fixed Conjure Elementals so it's scaling isn't ridiculous for characters with multiple attacks. However, I saw a fair number of people defending 3 attacks for PoB as necessary so that EB+AB doesn't overshadow PoB at high levels, and Treantmonk still believes it is the most powerful class in the game and he does have access to the full 2024 PHB.
I guess we will see. I am not that impressed with Treantmonk. A lot of his stuff seems extreme white room which never really pans out in play.
Agreed, he's better than Colby these days, but still everything is quite white-room, combat oriented, and individualistic. Which are all my issues with 'build' creators. You'll never see them make Bards or Druids because those classes are support-oriented not selfish DPR oriented yet both are often MVPs of a party.
No, there's no word on the final number of attacks PoB will get in 2024. I hope it goes back to a maximum of 2, and I hope they fixed Conjure Elementals so it's scaling isn't ridiculous for characters with multiple attacks. However, I saw a fair number of people defending 3 attacks for PoB as necessary so that EB+AB doesn't overshadow PoB at high levels, and Treantmonk still believes it is the most powerful class in the game and he does have access to the full 2024 PHB.
I guess we will see. I am not that impressed with Treantmonk. A lot of his stuff seems extreme white room which never really pans out in play.
Agreed, he's better than Colby these days, but still everything is quite white-room, combat oriented, and individualistic. Which are all my issues with 'build' creators. You'll never see them make Bards or Druids because those classes are support-oriented not selfish DPR oriented yet both are often MVPs of a party.
Agreed, he's better than Colby these days, but still everything is quite white-room, combat oriented, and individualistic. Which are all my issues with 'build' creators. You'll never see them make Bards or Druids because those classes are support-oriented not selfish DPR oriented yet both are often MVPs of a party.
What? They both have made a metric ton of support and control builds. It's fine not to like character build youtubers, but if you don't know what you're talking about regarding their body of work then your opinion doesn't carry much weight.
Agreed, he's better than Colby these days, but still everything is quite white-room, combat oriented, and individualistic. Which are all my issues with 'build' creators. You'll never see them make Bards or Druids because those classes are support-oriented not selfish DPR oriented yet both are often MVPs of a party.
What? They both have made a metric ton of support and control builds. It's fine not to like character build youtubers, but if you don't know what you're talking about regarding their body of work then your opinion doesn't carry much weight.
Name them. I can think of 1-2 support builds each and even those are primarily designed for combat-based support, vs dozens of DPR / Tank pure combat builds. Then you have the "God Wizard" - aka how to steal the show and make your party hate you build.
Name them. I can think of 1-2 support builds each and even those are primarily designed for combat-based support, vs dozens of DPR / Tank pure combat builds.
Why is "combat-based support" not support? Got a kilt and bagpipes there to go with your No True Scotsman fallacy?
Control is not support. Control is single-handedly ending a combat encounter, which is still anti-social play. My point is Treantmonk & Colby's builds value the individual power of a single character, not how that character can contribute to a party. - E.g. their builds are far far more likely to use BI to buff themselves than to use it to buff their allies. To bring it back to the main topic of the thread, the new Ranger is losing most/all of their old unique contributions to the overall success of the party, sure they are getting a bunch of new toys but so are everyone else so where is the "hero moment" for the Ranger? When/How would they be in a situation where they and they alone can save the party by solving some kind of problem.
The 2014 version had a couple instances where Ranger could do this - though I completely agree they are too niche / rare an occurrence. But I don't really see it for the 2024 Ranger, Hunter's Mark isn't special - it's just Hex but worse, their combat damage isn't special, their survivability isn't special, their unique spells are generally overshadowed by those they share with Druid. The 2024 Ranger will shine in a small party where they are the only Wis-based character, or the only melee character, but in a large party :shrug: they'll pretty much always be someone else who can do the thing better than the ranger can.
PS Ok I guess the climb & swim speed is unique to Ranger, but I fear those have the same 2014 niche-ness problems.
Control is not support. Control is single-handedly ending a combat encounter, which is still anti-social play.
I disagree wholeheartedly with your definition of control. It's very possible to control enemies without "single-handedly ending a combat encounter," unless the encounter in question is extremely simplistic, in which case your DM will eventually get better at crafting them over time. And you were also quite wrong about both creators not making Bard or Druid builds too.
To bring it back to the main topic of the thread, the new Ranger is losing most/all of their old unique contributions to the overall success of the party, sure they are getting a bunch of new toys but so are everyone else so where is the "hero moment" for the Ranger? When/How would they be in a situation where they and they alone can save the party by solving some kind of problem.
The Ranger is not a single ability but the combination of them. When the Ranger uses Locate Creature or Speak With Animals/Plants to know what direction the kidnapped princess was taken in, and then uses their Survival Expertise + high Wisdom score to keep track of them for days even in the dead of night through a torrential downpour, they are shining in a way few other classes can. Now, could the party's Bard theoretically build themselves to have high-Wisdom and perform similarly in that scenario? Sure, but the way D&D works is that the group as a whole does better when each member specializes on just a few things. That Bard would be better off pumping Charisma, putting their Expertises into face skills, and spending one of their more static preparations on a different spell like Charm Person or Suggestion instead.
Hunter's Mark isn't special - it's just Hex but worse, their combat damage isn't special, their survivability isn't special, their unique spells are generally overshadowed by those they share with Druid.
Hunter's Mark being slightly weaker than Hex (in that the latter applies to a type of attack Rangers won't be using anyway) is offset by all the free uses they get.
You have no way to conclude on their combat damage or survivability yet.
When the Ranger uses Locate Creature or Speak With Animals/Plants to know what direction the kidnapped princess was taken in, and then uses their Survival Expertise + high Wisdom score
Lots of classes get Locate Creature, Druids get Speak with Animals/Plants (doesn't one of the subclasses get it for free?), and Forest Gnomes get Speak with Animals for free. In terms of Survival checks Ranger is generally on par with a Druid/Cleric because while they get Expertise they won't be pumping their Wisdom until very late game and many Rangers actually dump Wis because lots of their spells don't rely on it.
e.g. The STR ranger which will be the most combat-effective ranger wants a 17 STR, 14 DEX, 14 CON at 1st level which means they only have a +1 in Wis if using point buy. A Dex-based ranger will want 17 DEX, 14 CON at 1st level, leaving them just barely able to get a 16 Wis if they dump everything else, more often I see even DEX-Rangers with only a 14 Wis. Whereas your Cleric/Druid wants a full 17 Wis at 1st level. At 4th level your Rangers are going to want a combat feat that boosts their attack stat, while the Cleric/Druid will be picking up Warcaster to boost their Wis. Even Monk has more reason to boost their Wis than Ranger because their Stun DC and their AC key off of it. So you're looking at:
Ranger probably isn't going to be noticeably better at Survival than the other Wis-based classes. Particularly not if you factor in that Cleric & Druid both have Guidance that give them an extra +1d4 on top of that. And this is assuming the Ranger using that expertise for Survival rather than say Stealth, or Acrobatics, or Perception, or Animal Handling.
Lots of classes get Locate Creature, Druids get Speak with Animals/Plants (doesn't one of the subclasses get it for free?), and Forest Gnomes get Speak with Animals for free.
You're still overly focused on the individual feature rather than the combination. Druids don't get expertise, Bards don't have high Wisdom, Rogues don't have Speak with Animals etc. Also, Rangers can get Guidance now too if that's a concern for you.
And even if you're not pumping Wis until late game, you're still easily starting with 16, something no Bard or Rogue will ever do. Druids will, but see above.
Not IME. The vast majority of rangers I've played with or DMed have a 14 in Wis. Show me your stats where most Rangers are built with a 16 Wis at 1st level - e.g. look up Colby & Treantmonk's Ranger builds, how many of them have > 14 Wisdom?
The point that every class should have a unique feature(or spin on one) is valid and desired.
People liked favored terrain as a concept but hated the situational aspects. They could have easily kept some of the basic aspects as always on features and complaints Would have been reduced greatly (free travel activity choices, 2Ă— foraging, party travel speed adjustments). Such features are exactly theme an tone of the ranger.
As for builds, ranger used to have one of the most versatile options. Each ranger was a unique distribution based on later choices. Now it's the least versatile and dependant on spell and stat choices that are now non choices. This is particularly offensive considering all the bragging about now you can build more concepts than before and how every class got a glow-up but the new ranger gets lesser versions than Tasha's.
Not IME. The vast majority of rangers I've played with or DMed have a 14 in Wis.
I said it's easy for rangers to start with 16/16; I didn't say anything about "the rangers you've played with or DM'ed for." What your players choose to do is beyond irrelevant to me; it's the base system math I care about.
As for how: with 27 point buy, either 10/15+1/13+1/15+1/10/8 will get you there, or 10/15+2/14/15+1/8/8, or even 8/15+1/15+1/15+1/8/8 (though with a d10 HD, you shouldn't need that last one.) Personally I prefer the second one so that you can nab a half-feat at 4th level and still hit 18 Dex/16 Wis, but any of them are functional.
The point that every class should have a unique feature(or spin on one) is valid and desired.
People liked favored terrain as a concept but hated the situational aspects. They could have easily kept some of the basic aspects as always on features and complaints Would have been reduced greatly (free travel activity choices, 2Ă— foraging, party travel speed adjustments). Such features are exactly theme an tone of the ranger.
As for builds, ranger used to have one of the most versatile options. Each ranger was a unique distribution based on later choices. Now it's the least versatile and dependant on spell and stat choices that are now non choices. This is particularly offensive considering all the bragging about now you can build more concepts than before and how every class got a glow-up but the new ranger gets lesser versions than Tasha's.
Rangers had way less choice in Tasha's. For starters, they were spells known, so you were locked into whatever spells you chose from the time you leveled up until the next time you leveled up, shutting most rangers out of anything situational unless they could be certain that situation was going to come up often enough to be worth whatever spell they gave up. For two, lacking rituals meant a bunch of the utility spells on their list needed actual spell slots to cast unless you paid a feat tax, slots that were competing with your combat allotment. For three, you only had one expertise, which was a lot more restrictive; you could be excellent at foraging and tracking, or excellent at keeping watch, or excellent at sneaking, but never all three unless you burned feats or multiclassed, despite the fact that Rangers should be able to be great at all three. Now Rangers can be Experts at all three natively, freeing up their feats and ASIs for much better options.
Rangers had way less choice in Tasha's. For starters, they were spells known, so you were locked into whatever spells you chose from the time you leveled up until the next time you leveled up, shutting most rangers out of anything situational unless they could be certain that situation was going to come up often enough to be worth whatever spell they gave up. For two, lacking rituals meant a bunch of the utility spells on their list needed actual spell slots to cast unless you paid a feat tax, slots that were competing with your combat allotment. For three, you only had one expertise, which was a lot more restrictive; you could be excellent at foraging and tracking, or excellent at keeping watch, or excellent at sneaking, but never all three unless you burned feats or multiclassed, despite the fact that Rangers should be able to be great at all three. Now Rangers can be Experts at all three natively, freeing up their feats and ASIs for much better options.
Choice of playstyles and builds not arbitrarily setup choices. In particular ranger Is way more wisdom dependant since prof scaling is almost gone.
Changing out spells or features is not additional Choice but rather versatility (which often it had enough to satisfy but is a different point altogether)
When tasha's and phb were both valid a player could mix and match for any type of ranger giving way more flexibility.
As for resources many players saved on slot s via planning. Primal awareness was one source
People who didn't like Favored Foe could swap it out for a "functional 5-8 expertise" but then still disregard primeval awareness because they found primal more valuable.
No one is arguing that 2024 rangers aren’t better than 2014 Rangers. What people keep trying to show you is that 2024 rangers are comparatively in the same place as 2014 Rangers when placed against other classes. Any Survival and Tracking could be handled by the Druid. For most people their Survival checks between the two would would be the same. The only time the Ranger would have superior Survival checks is if it was the Druidic Cantrip instead of Fighting Style Ranger. They would build with a high Wis and would have expertise putting them ahead of other dedicated Wis classes for Wis based checks. I can imagine a Shillelagh Beastmaster build with high Wis that would be better than a Druid at Wis based checks, but it’s niche and not the norm. If your party has a Druid, a Rogue, and any other Martial in it the Ranger has nowhere to shine. If one of the three is missing the Ranger will feel a little useful. If all three are missing the Ranger will feel very useful.
Choice of playstyles and builds not arbitrarily setup choices. In particular ranger Is way more wisdom dependant since prof scaling is almost gone.
Changing out spells or features is not additional Choice but rather versatility (which often it had enough to satisfy but is a different point altogether)
When tasha's and phb were both valid a player could mix and match for any type of ranger giving way more flexibility.
As for resources many players saved on slot s via planning. Primal awareness was one source
People who didn't like Favored Foe could swap it out for a "functional 5-8 expertise" but then still disregard primeval awareness because they found primal more valuable.
The PB/LR vs Wis/LR thing is such a nothingburger. Ranger was always wis-dependent, or at the very least if you were dumping Wis on your ranger you were gimping yourself for no real reason. I consider it a trap option they're helping you avert.
Changing out spells is absolutely choice. And having the "choice" of mixing the 2014 PHB features back in was another trap, because those features sucked.
Primal Awareness is a wash because the 2024 Ranger gets 5 more preparations now and free HM uses. That's without considering the fact that the preparations can be swapped on LR.
Favored Enemy being in any way equivalent to Expertise depended on your GM being very generous. I'd rather just be better at rolling, because if my GM is generous then I'm still good, and if they're a "let the dice decide" type, I still have the odds in my favor.
Any Survival and Tracking could be handled by the Druid. For most people their Survival checks between the two would would be the same. The only time the Ranger would have superior Survival checks is if it was the Druidic Cantrip instead of Fighting Style Ranger.
Druids have Expertise? News to me. Oh, did you mean Guidance spam giving them an edge? It's a good thing Druids never need to concentrate on anything important between combats.
And yet again, "X class can do it better" is still missing the point. Keep your PvP crap out of D&D.
How is it missing the point? The argument is as far as I am understanding it:
"Current Ranger is considered the worst or second worst class in D&D, it is underpowered compared to other martial classes, and fails to achieve the fantasy of the archetype. 2024 Ranger has received some nice boosts but has not fixed any of these underlying problems. Instead it builds around Hunter's Mark which was a poor choice because it is not a powerful spell nor an interesting spell and most players stop using it by mid-tier play and the bonuses granted in 2024 are not sufficient to change that."
So you cherry-picked a whole 7 videos to show those Rangers didn't start with a 16. So?
Where is your evidence that these are cherry picked?
I guess we will see. I am not that impressed with Treantmonk. A lot of his stuff seems extreme white room which never really pans out in play.
Agreed, he's better than Colby these days, but still everything is quite white-room, combat oriented, and individualistic. Which are all my issues with 'build' creators. You'll never see them make Bards or Druids because those classes are support-oriented not selfish DPR oriented yet both are often MVPs of a party.
Not always true:
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
What? They both have made a metric ton of support and control builds. It's fine not to like character build youtubers, but if you don't know what you're talking about regarding their body of work then your opinion doesn't carry much weight.
Name them. I can think of 1-2 support builds each and even those are primarily designed for combat-based support, vs dozens of DPR / Tank pure combat builds. Then you have the "God Wizard" - aka how to steal the show and make your party hate you build.
Why is "combat-based support" not support? Got a kilt and bagpipes there to go with your No True Scotsman fallacy?
https://www.youtube.com/@DnDDeepDive/search?query=control
Control is not support. Control is single-handedly ending a combat encounter, which is still anti-social play. My point is Treantmonk & Colby's builds value the individual power of a single character, not how that character can contribute to a party. - E.g. their builds are far far more likely to use BI to buff themselves than to use it to buff their allies. To bring it back to the main topic of the thread, the new Ranger is losing most/all of their old unique contributions to the overall success of the party, sure they are getting a bunch of new toys but so are everyone else so where is the "hero moment" for the Ranger? When/How would they be in a situation where they and they alone can save the party by solving some kind of problem.
The 2014 version had a couple instances where Ranger could do this - though I completely agree they are too niche / rare an occurrence. But I don't really see it for the 2024 Ranger, Hunter's Mark isn't special - it's just Hex but worse, their combat damage isn't special, their survivability isn't special, their unique spells are generally overshadowed by those they share with Druid. The 2024 Ranger will shine in a small party where they are the only Wis-based character, or the only melee character, but in a large party :shrug: they'll pretty much always be someone else who can do the thing better than the ranger can.
PS Ok I guess the climb & swim speed is unique to Ranger, but I fear those have the same 2014 niche-ness problems.
I disagree wholeheartedly with your definition of control. It's very possible to control enemies without "single-handedly ending a combat encounter," unless the encounter in question is extremely simplistic, in which case your DM will eventually get better at crafting them over time. And you were also quite wrong about both creators not making Bard or Druid builds too.
The Ranger is not a single ability but the combination of them. When the Ranger uses Locate Creature or Speak With Animals/Plants to know what direction the kidnapped princess was taken in, and then uses their Survival Expertise + high Wisdom score to keep track of them for days even in the dead of night through a torrential downpour, they are shining in a way few other classes can. Now, could the party's Bard theoretically build themselves to have high-Wisdom and perform similarly in that scenario? Sure, but the way D&D works is that the group as a whole does better when each member specializes on just a few things. That Bard would be better off pumping Charisma, putting their Expertises into face skills, and spending one of their more static preparations on a different spell like Charm Person or Suggestion instead.
Hunter's Mark being slightly weaker than Hex (in that the latter applies to a type of attack Rangers won't be using anyway) is offset by all the free uses they get.
You have no way to conclude on their combat damage or survivability yet.
Lots of classes get Locate Creature, Druids get Speak with Animals/Plants (doesn't one of the subclasses get it for free?), and Forest Gnomes get Speak with Animals for free. In terms of Survival checks Ranger is generally on par with a Druid/Cleric because while they get Expertise they won't be pumping their Wisdom until very late game and many Rangers actually dump Wis because lots of their spells don't rely on it.
e.g. The STR ranger which will be the most combat-effective ranger wants a 17 STR, 14 DEX, 14 CON at 1st level which means they only have a +1 in Wis if using point buy. A Dex-based ranger will want 17 DEX, 14 CON at 1st level, leaving them just barely able to get a 16 Wis if they dump everything else, more often I see even DEX-Rangers with only a 14 Wis. Whereas your Cleric/Druid wants a full 17 Wis at 1st level. At 4th level your Rangers are going to want a combat feat that boosts their attack stat, while the Cleric/Druid will be picking up Warcaster to boost their Wis. Even Monk has more reason to boost their Wis than Ranger because their Stun DC and their AC key off of it. So you're looking at:
level 1-3: STR Ranger +5 Survival, DEX Ranger +6-7 Survival, Cleric/Druid +5 Survival, Monk +5 Survival
level 5-7: STR Ranger +7 Survival, DEX Ranger +8-9 Survival, Cleric/Druid +7 Survival, Monk +6 Survival
level 9-11: STR Ranger +9 Survival, DEX Ranger +10-11 Survival, Cleric/Druid +9 Survival, Monk +8 Survival
Ranger probably isn't going to be noticeably better at Survival than the other Wis-based classes. Particularly not if you factor in that Cleric & Druid both have Guidance that give them an extra +1d4 on top of that. And this is assuming the Ranger using that expertise for Survival rather than say Stealth, or Acrobatics, or Perception, or Animal Handling.
You're still overly focused on the individual feature rather than the combination. Druids don't get expertise, Bards don't have high Wisdom, Rogues don't have Speak with Animals etc. Also, Rangers can get Guidance now too if that's a concern for you.
And even if you're not pumping Wis until late game, you're still easily starting with 16, something no Bard or Rogue will ever do. Druids will, but see above.
Not IME. The vast majority of rangers I've played with or DMed have a 14 in Wis. Show me your stats where most Rangers are built with a 16 Wis at 1st level - e.g. look up Colby & Treantmonk's Ranger builds, how many of them have > 14 Wisdom?
The point that every class should have a unique feature(or spin on one) is valid and desired.
People liked favored terrain as a concept but hated the situational aspects. They could have easily kept some of the basic aspects as always on features and complaints Would have been reduced greatly (free travel activity choices, 2Ă— foraging, party travel speed adjustments). Such features are exactly theme an tone of the ranger.
As for builds, ranger used to have one of the most versatile options. Each ranger was a unique distribution based on later choices. Now it's the least versatile and dependant on spell and stat choices that are now non choices. This is particularly offensive considering all the bragging about now you can build more concepts than before and how every class got a glow-up but the new ranger gets lesser versions than Tasha's.
I said it's easy for rangers to start with 16/16; I didn't say anything about "the rangers you've played with or DM'ed for." What your players choose to do is beyond irrelevant to me; it's the base system math I care about.
As for how: with 27 point buy, either 10/15+1/13+1/15+1/10/8 will get you there, or 10/15+2/14/15+1/8/8, or even 8/15+1/15+1/15+1/8/8 (though with a d10 HD, you shouldn't need that last one.) Personally I prefer the second one so that you can nab a half-feat at 4th level and still hit 18 Dex/16 Wis, but any of them are functional.
Rangers had way less choice in Tasha's. For starters, they were spells known, so you were locked into whatever spells you chose from the time you leveled up until the next time you leveled up, shutting most rangers out of anything situational unless they could be certain that situation was going to come up often enough to be worth whatever spell they gave up. For two, lacking rituals meant a bunch of the utility spells on their list needed actual spell slots to cast unless you paid a feat tax, slots that were competing with your combat allotment. For three, you only had one expertise, which was a lot more restrictive; you could be excellent at foraging and tracking, or excellent at keeping watch, or excellent at sneaking, but never all three unless you burned feats or multiclassed, despite the fact that Rangers should be able to be great at all three. Now Rangers can be Experts at all three natively, freeing up their feats and ASIs for much better options.
Choice of playstyles and builds not arbitrarily setup choices. In particular ranger Is way more wisdom dependant since prof scaling is almost gone.
Changing out spells or features is not additional Choice but rather versatility (which often it had enough to satisfy but is a different point altogether)
When tasha's and phb were both valid a player could mix and match for any type of ranger giving way more flexibility.
As for resources many players saved on slot s via planning. Primal awareness was one source
People who didn't like Favored Foe could swap it out for a "functional 5-8 expertise" but then still disregard primeval awareness because they found primal more valuable.
No one is arguing that 2024 rangers aren’t better than 2014 Rangers. What people keep trying to show you is that 2024 rangers are comparatively in the same place as 2014 Rangers when placed against other classes. Any Survival and Tracking could be handled by the Druid. For most people their Survival checks between the two would would be the same. The only time the Ranger would have superior Survival checks is if it was the Druidic Cantrip instead of Fighting Style Ranger. They would build with a high Wis and would have expertise putting them ahead of other dedicated Wis classes for Wis based checks. I can imagine a Shillelagh Beastmaster build with high Wis that would be better than a Druid at Wis based checks, but it’s niche and not the norm.
If your party has a Druid, a Rogue, and any other Martial in it the Ranger has nowhere to shine. If one of the three is missing the Ranger will feel a little useful. If all three are missing the Ranger will feel very useful.
The PB/LR vs Wis/LR thing is such a nothingburger. Ranger was always wis-dependent, or at the very least if you were dumping Wis on your ranger you were gimping yourself for no real reason. I consider it a trap option they're helping you avert.
Changing out spells is absolutely choice. And having the "choice" of mixing the 2014 PHB features back in was another trap, because those features sucked.
Primal Awareness is a wash because the 2024 Ranger gets 5 more preparations now and free HM uses. That's without considering the fact that the preparations can be swapped on LR.
Favored Enemy being in any way equivalent to Expertise depended on your GM being very generous. I'd rather just be better at rolling, because if my GM is generous then I'm still good, and if they're a "let the dice decide" type, I still have the odds in my favor.
That's what I'm continuing to disagree with, yes.
Druids have Expertise? News to me. Oh, did you mean Guidance spam giving them an edge? It's a good thing Druids never need to concentrate on anything important between combats.
Ranger builds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPIWAOqFRPM - Wis 14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D8aWenhuHc&list=PLPkI1ComIaiKwP5OduME2NxCuh19_YyhS&index=6 - Wis 16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4yNpIeh1c - Wis 15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTF7G7RbgkE&t=2646s - Wis 14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P1jzyxpzgA - Wis 14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJmy1zCS5i4 - Wis 14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1IUDiXlZAE - Wis 15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEk6VRfSP3Y - Wis 14
Sure a Ranger can get 16 in Wis at 1st level, but a Bard can also get Survival better than a Ranger, in practice they rarely do.
Which 2024 classes are worse than Ranger?
So you cherry-picked a whole 7 videos to show those Rangers didn't start with a 16. So?
Worse at what?
Damage? Rogue.
Skills? Every non-Expert.
Frontlining? Every non-d10 class besides cleric and druid.
Nature specifically? Everyone but Druid, unless they make themselves worse at their primary role to try covering it.
And yet again, "X class can do it better" is still missing the point. Keep your PvP crap out of D&D.
This is all exactly the same as the current Ranger. So how is the 2024 Ranger in a better position than it currently is?
2014 Damage Rankings (worst -> best): Monk, Ranger, Rogue
2024 Damage Rankings (worst -> best): Rogue, Ranger, Paladin
2014 Skills Ranking (best -> worst): Rogue, Bard, Ranger
2024 Skills Ranking (best -> worst): Rogue, Bard, Ranger
2014 Frontlining Ranking (best -> worst): Barb/Paladin, Fighter/Ranger, Rogue/Cleric, Monk, Warlock/Bard, Wizard/Sorcerer
2024 Frontlining Ranking (best -> worst): Barb/Paladin/Fighter/Monk, Ranger, Rogue/Cleric, Warlock/Bard, Wizard/Sorcerer
2014 "Nature" (best -> worst): Druid, Ranger, Cleric
2024 "Nature" (best -> worst): Druid, Ranger, Cleric
How is it missing the point? The argument is as far as I am understanding it:
"Current Ranger is considered the worst or second worst class in D&D, it is underpowered compared to other martial classes, and fails to achieve the fantasy of the archetype. 2024 Ranger has received some nice boosts but has not fixed any of these underlying problems. Instead it builds around Hunter's Mark which was a poor choice because it is not a powerful spell nor an interesting spell and most players stop using it by mid-tier play and the bonuses granted in 2024 are not sufficient to change that."
Where is your evidence that these are cherry picked?