So according to JC there is no more reason to playtest the Ranger. Looking at the two versions they playtested they can move forward to the 2024 phb print. I don’t agree, and feel something else is missing, but comparing the two versions this is best I can expect the 2024 Ranger to be:
1st: Daft Explorer, Spellcasting, Weapon Mastery
2nd: Favored Enemy UA 2 and UA6 combined, Fighting Style
3rd: subclass
4th: ASI
5th: Extra Attack
6th: Roving
7th: subclass
8th: ASI
9th: Expertise
10th: Tireless
11th: Subclass
12th: ASI
13:———
14th: Nature’s Veil both UA2 and UA6 versions combined.
15th: Subclass
16th: ASI
17th: ———
18th: Feral Senses
19th: ASI
20th: Foe Slayer UA 6 version
The hope with Favored enemy is that it gains the free uses based on Wisdom modifier and when you cast the spell this way it doesn’t require concentration. The hope Natures Veil is that it gives you free uses based on wisdom modifier and you can expend a spell slot to use it again if the free uses are gone.
I can’t be sure this will be the final Ranger, but since they are done with playtest it will be this or something worse by my standard.
The one thing Jeremy Crawford has said since last August that gives me any goddamn hope for this rolling ****farce of a "Playtest" cycle is that once the public feedback period ends, further design work is done by the actual paid, trained, and experienced game designers before a book goes to print. There's no guarantee the 2024 Ranger will strictly adhere to the crap UA test cycle. Either way, Tasha's-compliant ranger is actually one of the most powerful classes in the 2014 game and I expect the 2024 updates will be at least that good so eh. Ranger should be fine, one way or another.
I agree something is still missing. They were really vague about the end results. (
I still think if druids get a stat block option so should beastmaster. I think that was the real mini dm experience.
However.... New community advice might not actually achieve a good design goal . Ranger is still a very polarizing topic and some sides don't want a middle ground. Tasha's optional features allowed builds to fit most of the ranger play spectrum.
Also there is the new context of the bastion system which can really re contextualizes some of the ranger gameplay elements. (Menagerie, gardens, greenhouses etc). One of the reasons I play phb Is because it can turn travel into a downtime tool By choosing 'other activities'
I love the idea of druids and rangers having cool Groves that are really just bastions. But I am also concerned it won't really fill the gameplay gap that phb ranger builds/characters satisfied. Being an expert harvester just so your minions can do it instead is lame
Yes, the ranger playtest is now over. That doesn't mean that the final version will be exactly that, but the class is already defined and the community seems to like it. So I certainly don't see any reason to test it further. It is normal that now the playtest focuses on other things that really need to be tested. And not just classes like the warlock (ains), druid wild shape, or the monk. They should also dedicate a playtest to pure rules. And not to see if people like it or not, but especially to see if people understand them or not. I think that the minimum required for this 5e revised is that the rules are clear, and do not lead to ravinic discussions. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that any effort is being made in that regard, which is quite worrying.
I wish they'd do one more pass so we can see what they're aiming for with the completed version, but I dunno if another pass would've been all that helpful since we know they have no intention of presenting us with new features anymore. It'd just be a reshuffle of what we saw in UA2 and UA6.
I think the version in the OP would be more or less acceptable. However, I would like a choice between Weapon Mastery and Cantrips if we can't have both. I think that'd be a meaningful choice between being more martial and focusing on STR or DEX or being more magical and focusing on WIS with the new Shillelagh cantrip.
I'm also really hoping they go back to full prepared casting from UA2. This weird "you can only change one spell" prepared casting feels really limiting, and a big part of the ranger theme is being the guy who is ready for whatever challenges the day will bring.
I know a lot of people feel ranger doesn't have strong flavor, but honestly, that doesn't bother me. Ranger subclasses are overflowing with flavor. Core Ranger just being a generic guy with some skills and the subclass being what truly defines who you are and what you do is fine for me. Other classes mostly just give you additional skill sets while ranger subclasses give you an entire identity as a dread hunter of the Underdark, a fey traveler wandering the realms, or a pet owner.
The one thing Jeremy Crawford has said since last August that gives me any goddamn hope for this rolling ****farce of a "Playtest" cycle is that once the public feedback period ends, further design work is done by the actual paid, trained, and experienced game designers before a book goes to print.
The one thing Jeremy Crawford has said since last August that gives me any goddamn hope for this rolling ****farce of a "Playtest" cycle is that once the public feedback period ends, further design work is done by the actual paid, trained, and experienced game designers before a book goes to print.
I would personally like it if they do a sort of "Beta" version of Basic Rules just to gauge the last opinions. Personally, I still haven't seen them address that Paladin in both releases was out Melee DPS'ed by Cleric due to Searing Smite being so incredibly broken and on the cleric spell list, so want to see that they actually fixed issues like that.
As for Ranger, it sounded like they were going to proceed with a type of Hybrid of the stronger features of both classes proposed, which is ok. Ranger is definitely improved over 2014 in both versions... Personally I liked the concentration free Hunter's Mark, and would have liked Hex to go the same way, those spells are already costing bonus actions to shift around constantly, even if they say, gave disadvantage on concentration saving throws for the user, not that hard to balance out.
While they're not bringing it back out, they've successfully identified the three biggest problem areas for it to continue working on - those being Favored Enemy, Deft Explorer, and Foe Slayer. (And of course, the Weapon Mastery system.) So long as they commit to continuing work on those, I'm fine with them not relying on design by committee going forwrad.
Yeah, and they also made Cunning Strike. Along with everything else thee community liked. Anyone can cherry-pick, especially from the first version of something.
While they're not bringing it back out, they've successfully identified the three biggest problem areas for it to continue working on - those being Favored Enemy, Deft Explorer, and Foe Slayer. (And of course, the Weapon Mastery system.) So long as they commit to continuing work on those, I'm fine with them not relying on design by committee going forwrad.
Yeah, and they also made Cunning Strike. Along with everything else thee community liked. Anyone can cherry-pick, especially from the first version of something.
The design team is not stupid at all. The main problem has been there are too many opinions in the mix. If the team really sticks to a balanced approach it will turn out ok..... but identifying the 'pain points' isnt the same as quantifying the problem or being able to support a gamplay gap. I actually think they can change the balance to be decent. However the Choices for the 'Health of the game' are what concern me. They Might eliminate play choices that are unpopular but important to many players who could only get a desired play experience from the ranger Framework.
Yeah, and they also made Cunning Strike. Along with everything else thee community liked. Anyone can cherry-pick, especially from the first version of something.
Cunning Strikes is great, but it's just catching up with Pathfinder. And they still fail to understand why it rated so high and what barbarian and fighter are missing. If they did, they'd give these two classes something to do other then basic bonk as well.
I think they have enough to work with to make the ranger work. Between the feedback in the 1st and second play test they should be able to make a solid ranger. They can always screw it up sure, but I think they have a solid foundation and good feedback.
While they're not bringing it back out, they've successfully identified the three biggest problem areas for it to continue working on - those being Favored Enemy, Deft Explorer, and Foe Slayer. (And of course, the Weapon Mastery system.) So long as they commit to continuing work on those, I'm fine with them not relying on design by committee going forwrad.
Yeah, and they also made Cunning Strike. Along with everything else thee community liked. Anyone can cherry-pick, especially from the first version of something.
My biggest concern at this point is Favored Enemy.
I think the UA6 Deft Explorer is along the lines of what I'd like to see, at least directionally. My main concern is I don't know if simply granting Advantage on Nature/Survival in chosen terrains is sufficient. I mean, given the choice of 4 Expertise skills in the UA2 version, I'm guessing a lot of Rangers will be picking Nature and/or Survival for two of them, so is this new Deft Explorer all that different in practice? I would like to see them include some of the other Favored Terrain benefits from the 2014 Ranger, like not getting lost, ignoring difficult terrain etc. They would at least make the feature more flavorful rather than just "make the numbers higher".
And again, I think directionally the new Foe Slayer is pretty good. The only downside is that basing on Wisdom means the bonus is often going to be just +2, +3 tops. Maybe that's an incentive for Rangers to prioritize Wisdom more, but basing class features on what is almost always their secondary stat leaves me a bit hesitant. Or maybe I'm just underestimating how helpful a +2/+3 bonus will be at that level, who knows.
But as I said, I'm more concerned with Favored Enemy, because when Crawford talks about picking the best versions of features from both UA releases I get concerned. Both versions of Favored Enemy had elements I liked and elements I didn't. I liked UA6 getting some free castings, though again basing it on WisMod means you're talking 2-3 a day for most Rangers. Seems a bit light for free uses of one of the Ranger's core class features, especially given the Ranger's precious few spell slots. Perhaps adding an enhancement to let them regain a single use on a Short Rest, either from the start or gaining the recharge at a later level? But I also liked UA2's version not requiring Concentration, because it's less useful as a core class feature if using it blocks SO MANY good Ranger combat spells. What I'd like to see for Rangers w/ Hunter's Mark(and Warlocks w/ Hex, as it serves a similar function), is that they can maintain Concentration on Hunter's Mark AND another Ranger spell at the same time, but failing the save loses both spells. I don't think that would be game-breaking and would make life a lot more fun for the Ranger. If they wanted to avoid letting Rangers stack the damage from both spells, they could change the wording of a spell like Lightning Arrow so that the spell does all of the damage, replacing the attack's damage so that Hunter's Mark doesn't apply.
Whatever they go with, I would really like them to show us the "Release Candidate" version of the Ranger before going to print. The Ranger's been such a contentious class for such a long time, I really want them to get it right.
Jeremy Crawford once said (something to the effect of): "only ok" is not good enough. Features that inspire delight is their goal.
Very little about the Ranger inspires delight in me. At best, it's only ok. The only thing that has disappointed me more in the Playtests has been their first "attempt" at Monk.
Why should I play a Ranger? If I want to be a ranged combatant.... if I want to be a melee combatant... if I want to be a skill expert... if I want to be a nature based spell caster... there are other classes that do all of those things just as well or better... and those other classes have flavorful mechanical features that actually make me want to play them. The best thing I can say about any of the 3 versions (4, if you count Tasha's) of Ranger, is that they combine all of those aspects (ranged, melee, skills, nature magic) under one roof. But it's done in such a bland way. Some say Ranger is ok, because its damage output is comparable to other classes. But if all I want is damage, I can play one of those other classes and also get fun things to do with their other features.
Ranger is missing that one "core" feature that makes it unique and fun to play. Barbarian is Rage. Bard is Inspiration. Cleric is Channel Divinity/Turn Undead. Druid is Wildshape. Fighter is Action Surge (and now also Second Wind.) Monk is Ki/Discipline and Unarmed Strike. Paladin is Smite & Lay on Hands. Rogue is Sneak Attack & Skills. Sorcerer us Metamagic. Warlock is Invocations. Wizard is Spells & Scribing Spells. Even the Artificer has Infusions.
What does the Ranger have? Hunter's Mark is not "it"- that's just a damage boost, no matter which version. But I think there's potential for this feature that could mechanically make the Ranger feel unique, and play like an expert hunter. They just haven't hit the mark yet (sorry, i had to.) Terrain-based features also are not it. At least, not yet. Once again, I think there's potential here, but they just haven't figured out a really good way to do it.
I'd say the rangers one thing is unlike paladins they are a triple class hybrid instead of a dual class hybrid. Paladins are fighter/clerics. Rangers are experts/fighters/nature mages.
Ranger is missing that one "core" feature that makes it unique and fun to play. Barbarian is Rage. Bard is Inspiration. Cleric is Channel Divinity/Turn Undead. Druid is Wildshape. Fighter is Action Surge (and now also Second Wind.) Monk is Ki/Discipline and Unarmed Strike. Paladin is Smite & Lay on Hands. Rogue is Sneak Attack & Skills. Sorcerer us Metamagic. Warlock is Invocations. Wizard is Spells & Scribing Spells. Even the Artificer has Infusions.
Oh Ranger has a schtick. It's the master of the exploration pillar. The problem is that most people don't find that pillar to be engaging at all and thus don't spend any time doing those things. Exploration either needs to be reworked or just presented in a more appealing way and then you'll have a good reason for wanting a Ranger in your party.
Ranger is missing that one "core" feature that makes it unique and fun to play. Barbarian is Rage. Bard is Inspiration. Cleric is Channel Divinity/Turn Undead. Druid is Wildshape. Fighter is Action Surge (and now also Second Wind.) Monk is Ki/Discipline and Unarmed Strike. Paladin is Smite & Lay on Hands. Rogue is Sneak Attack & Skills. Sorcerer us Metamagic. Warlock is Invocations. Wizard is Spells & Scribing Spells. Even the Artificer has Infusions.
Oh Ranger has a schtick. It's the master of the exploration pillar. The problem is that most people don't find that pillar to be engaging at all and thus don't spend any time doing those things. Exploration either needs to be reworked or just presented in a more appealing way and then you'll have a good reason for wanting a Ranger in your party.
I hope that’s something they work on in the DMG. The exploration pillar is not much of a pillar in most games.
Ranger is missing that one "core" feature that makes it unique and fun to play. Barbarian is Rage. Bard is Inspiration. Cleric is Channel Divinity/Turn Undead. Druid is Wildshape. Fighter is Action Surge (and now also Second Wind.) Monk is Ki/Discipline and Unarmed Strike. Paladin is Smite & Lay on Hands. Rogue is Sneak Attack & Skills. Sorcerer us Metamagic. Warlock is Invocations. Wizard is Spells & Scribing Spells. Even the Artificer has Infusions.
Oh Ranger has a schtick. It's the master of the exploration pillar. The problem is that most people don't find that pillar to be engaging at all and thus don't spend any time doing those things. Exploration either needs to be reworked or just presented in a more appealing way and then you'll have a good reason for wanting a Ranger in your party.
I hope that’s something they work on in the DMG. The exploration pillar is not much of a pillar in most games.
I agree. I think ranger is great the way that it is at the moment. The only thing I don’t like is that deft explorer only gives you advantage on tracking. I feel like it should do more instead of being so specific. Kind of like the 2014 players handbook but not as wordy. Maybe ranger has advantage stealth, survival, etc while in that terrain of choice. Then it’s not so niche and dependable on what the DM throws at you. I also don’t like how the leveled up deft explorer gives you two additional land types. Why would anyone need 4 land types when you can change them daily? Kind of useless. Other small things:
I liked rangers of cantrips.
I still would like the Beast Master and Hunter subclasses to have spells and Beast Master to allow at least a large size beast at later levels if not a huge one. For thematic reasons and to fulfill that fantasy or at least being able to have a mount.
In all other regards, I would really like to see what is done with exploration in the other books.
Am I happy with the most recent UA ranger? certainly not, but I guess the ranger never excited me to begin with, so its not like anything is lost. I think there are many fairly obvious ways of making the 2014 ranger better, but you can throw as many cantrips, expertises and hunters marks at it as you want and I still dont think its a very interesting class.
What the ranger needed, imo, was an iconic feature for me as a player to latch onto and have it define the class fantasy for me.. We didnt get that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So according to JC there is no more reason to playtest the Ranger. Looking at the two versions they playtested they can move forward to the 2024 phb print. I don’t agree, and feel something else is missing, but comparing the two versions this is best I can expect the 2024 Ranger to be:
1st: Daft Explorer, Spellcasting, Weapon Mastery
2nd: Favored Enemy UA 2 and UA6 combined, Fighting Style
3rd: subclass
4th: ASI
5th: Extra Attack
6th: Roving
7th: subclass
8th: ASI
9th: Expertise
10th: Tireless
11th: Subclass
12th: ASI
13:———
14th: Nature’s Veil both UA2 and UA6 versions combined.
15th: Subclass
16th: ASI
17th: ———
18th: Feral Senses
19th: ASI
20th: Foe Slayer UA 6 version
The hope with Favored enemy is that it gains the free uses based on Wisdom modifier and when you cast the spell this way it doesn’t require concentration.
The hope Natures Veil is that it gives you free uses based on wisdom modifier and you can expend a spell slot to use it again if the free uses are gone.
I can’t be sure this will be the final Ranger, but since they are done with playtest it will be this or something worse by my standard.
The one thing Jeremy Crawford has said since last August that gives me any goddamn hope for this rolling ****farce of a "Playtest" cycle is that once the public feedback period ends, further design work is done by the actual paid, trained, and experienced game designers before a book goes to print. There's no guarantee the 2024 Ranger will strictly adhere to the crap UA test cycle. Either way, Tasha's-compliant ranger is actually one of the most powerful classes in the 2014 game and I expect the 2024 updates will be at least that good so eh. Ranger should be fine, one way or another.
Please do not contact or message me.
I agree something is still missing. They were really vague about the end results. (
I still think if druids get a stat block option so should beastmaster. I think that was the real mini dm experience.
However.... New community advice might not actually achieve a good design goal . Ranger is still a very polarizing topic and some sides don't want a middle ground. Tasha's optional features allowed builds to fit most of the ranger play spectrum.
Also there is the new context of the bastion system which can really re contextualizes some of the ranger gameplay elements. (Menagerie, gardens, greenhouses etc). One of the reasons I play phb Is because it can turn travel into a downtime tool By choosing 'other activities'
I love the idea of druids and rangers having cool Groves that are really just bastions. But I am also concerned it won't really fill the gameplay gap that phb ranger builds/characters satisfied. Being an expert harvester just so your minions can do it instead is lame
its the expectation of wanting more for it without loosing what it have that keep ppl unsure if its good enough.
Yes, the ranger playtest is now over. That doesn't mean that the final version will be exactly that, but the class is already defined and the community seems to like it. So I certainly don't see any reason to test it further. It is normal that now the playtest focuses on other things that really need to be tested. And not just classes like the warlock (ains), druid wild shape, or the monk. They should also dedicate a playtest to pure rules. And not to see if people like it or not, but especially to see if people understand them or not. I think that the minimum required for this 5e revised is that the rules are clear, and do not lead to ravinic discussions. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that any effort is being made in that regard, which is quite worrying.
I wish they'd do one more pass so we can see what they're aiming for with the completed version, but I dunno if another pass would've been all that helpful since we know they have no intention of presenting us with new features anymore. It'd just be a reshuffle of what we saw in UA2 and UA6.
I think the version in the OP would be more or less acceptable. However, I would like a choice between Weapon Mastery and Cantrips if we can't have both. I think that'd be a meaningful choice between being more martial and focusing on STR or DEX or being more magical and focusing on WIS with the new Shillelagh cantrip.
I'm also really hoping they go back to full prepared casting from UA2. This weird "you can only change one spell" prepared casting feels really limiting, and a big part of the ranger theme is being the guy who is ready for whatever challenges the day will bring.
I know a lot of people feel ranger doesn't have strong flavor, but honestly, that doesn't bother me. Ranger subclasses are overflowing with flavor. Core Ranger just being a generic guy with some skills and the subclass being what truly defines who you are and what you do is fine for me. Other classes mostly just give you additional skill sets while ranger subclasses give you an entire identity as a dread hunter of the Underdark, a fey traveler wandering the realms, or a pet owner.
These people made UA monk.
😂
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I would personally like it if they do a sort of "Beta" version of Basic Rules just to gauge the last opinions. Personally, I still haven't seen them address that Paladin in both releases was out Melee DPS'ed by Cleric due to Searing Smite being so incredibly broken and on the cleric spell list, so want to see that they actually fixed issues like that.
As for Ranger, it sounded like they were going to proceed with a type of Hybrid of the stronger features of both classes proposed, which is ok. Ranger is definitely improved over 2014 in both versions... Personally I liked the concentration free Hunter's Mark, and would have liked Hex to go the same way, those spells are already costing bonus actions to shift around constantly, even if they say, gave disadvantage on concentration saving throws for the user, not that hard to balance out.
While they're not bringing it back out, they've successfully identified the three biggest problem areas for it to continue working on - those being Favored Enemy, Deft Explorer, and Foe Slayer. (And of course, the Weapon Mastery system.) So long as they commit to continuing work on those, I'm fine with them not relying on design by committee going forwrad.
Yeah, and they also made Cunning Strike. Along with everything else thee community liked. Anyone can cherry-pick, especially from the first version of something.
The design team is not stupid at all. The main problem has been there are too many opinions in the mix. If the team really sticks to a balanced approach it will turn out ok..... but identifying the 'pain points' isnt the same as quantifying the problem or being able to support a gamplay gap. I actually think they can change the balance to be decent. However the Choices for the 'Health of the game' are what concern me. They Might eliminate play choices that are unpopular but important to many players who could only get a desired play experience from the ranger Framework.
Cunning Strikes is great, but it's just catching up with Pathfinder. And they still fail to understand why it rated so high and what barbarian and fighter are missing. If they did, they'd give these two classes something to do other then basic bonk as well.
I think they have enough to work with to make the ranger work. Between the feedback in the 1st and second play test they should be able to make a solid ranger. They can always screw it up sure, but I think they have a solid foundation and good feedback.
My biggest concern at this point is Favored Enemy.
I think the UA6 Deft Explorer is along the lines of what I'd like to see, at least directionally. My main concern is I don't know if simply granting Advantage on Nature/Survival in chosen terrains is sufficient. I mean, given the choice of 4 Expertise skills in the UA2 version, I'm guessing a lot of Rangers will be picking Nature and/or Survival for two of them, so is this new Deft Explorer all that different in practice? I would like to see them include some of the other Favored Terrain benefits from the 2014 Ranger, like not getting lost, ignoring difficult terrain etc. They would at least make the feature more flavorful rather than just "make the numbers higher".
And again, I think directionally the new Foe Slayer is pretty good. The only downside is that basing on Wisdom means the bonus is often going to be just +2, +3 tops. Maybe that's an incentive for Rangers to prioritize Wisdom more, but basing class features on what is almost always their secondary stat leaves me a bit hesitant. Or maybe I'm just underestimating how helpful a +2/+3 bonus will be at that level, who knows.
But as I said, I'm more concerned with Favored Enemy, because when Crawford talks about picking the best versions of features from both UA releases I get concerned. Both versions of Favored Enemy had elements I liked and elements I didn't. I liked UA6 getting some free castings, though again basing it on WisMod means you're talking 2-3 a day for most Rangers. Seems a bit light for free uses of one of the Ranger's core class features, especially given the Ranger's precious few spell slots. Perhaps adding an enhancement to let them regain a single use on a Short Rest, either from the start or gaining the recharge at a later level? But I also liked UA2's version not requiring Concentration, because it's less useful as a core class feature if using it blocks SO MANY good Ranger combat spells. What I'd like to see for Rangers w/ Hunter's Mark(and Warlocks w/ Hex, as it serves a similar function), is that they can maintain Concentration on Hunter's Mark AND another Ranger spell at the same time, but failing the save loses both spells. I don't think that would be game-breaking and would make life a lot more fun for the Ranger. If they wanted to avoid letting Rangers stack the damage from both spells, they could change the wording of a spell like Lightning Arrow so that the spell does all of the damage, replacing the attack's damage so that Hunter's Mark doesn't apply.
Whatever they go with, I would really like them to show us the "Release Candidate" version of the Ranger before going to print. The Ranger's been such a contentious class for such a long time, I really want them to get it right.
Jeremy Crawford once said (something to the effect of): "only ok" is not good enough. Features that inspire delight is their goal.
Very little about the Ranger inspires delight in me. At best, it's only ok. The only thing that has disappointed me more in the Playtests has been their first "attempt" at Monk.
Why should I play a Ranger? If I want to be a ranged combatant.... if I want to be a melee combatant... if I want to be a skill expert... if I want to be a nature based spell caster... there are other classes that do all of those things just as well or better... and those other classes have flavorful mechanical features that actually make me want to play them. The best thing I can say about any of the 3 versions (4, if you count Tasha's) of Ranger, is that they combine all of those aspects (ranged, melee, skills, nature magic) under one roof. But it's done in such a bland way. Some say Ranger is ok, because its damage output is comparable to other classes. But if all I want is damage, I can play one of those other classes and also get fun things to do with their other features.
Ranger is missing that one "core" feature that makes it unique and fun to play. Barbarian is Rage. Bard is Inspiration. Cleric is Channel Divinity/Turn Undead. Druid is Wildshape. Fighter is Action Surge (and now also Second Wind.) Monk is Ki/Discipline and Unarmed Strike. Paladin is Smite & Lay on Hands. Rogue is Sneak Attack & Skills. Sorcerer us Metamagic. Warlock is Invocations. Wizard is Spells & Scribing Spells. Even the Artificer has Infusions.
What does the Ranger have? Hunter's Mark is not "it"- that's just a damage boost, no matter which version. But I think there's potential for this feature that could mechanically make the Ranger feel unique, and play like an expert hunter. They just haven't hit the mark yet (sorry, i had to.) Terrain-based features also are not it. At least, not yet. Once again, I think there's potential here, but they just haven't figured out a really good way to do it.
I'd say the rangers one thing is unlike paladins they are a triple class hybrid instead of a dual class hybrid. Paladins are fighter/clerics. Rangers are experts/fighters/nature mages.
Oh Ranger has a schtick. It's the master of the exploration pillar. The problem is that most people don't find that pillar to be engaging at all and thus don't spend any time doing those things. Exploration either needs to be reworked or just presented in a more appealing way and then you'll have a good reason for wanting a Ranger in your party.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I hope that’s something they work on in the DMG. The exploration pillar is not much of a pillar in most games.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I agree. I think ranger is great the way that it is at the moment. The only thing I don’t like is that deft explorer only gives you advantage on tracking. I feel like it should do more instead of being so specific. Kind of like the 2014 players handbook but not as wordy. Maybe ranger has advantage stealth, survival, etc while in that terrain of choice. Then it’s not so niche and dependable on what the DM throws at you. I also don’t like how the leveled up deft explorer gives you two additional land types. Why would anyone need 4 land types when you can change them daily? Kind of useless.
Other small things:
I liked rangers of cantrips.
I still would like the Beast Master and Hunter subclasses to have spells and Beast Master to allow at least a large size beast at later levels if not a huge one. For thematic reasons and to fulfill that fantasy or at least being able to have a mount.
In all other regards, I would really like to see what is done with exploration in the other books.
Am I happy with the most recent UA ranger? certainly not, but I guess the ranger never excited me to begin with, so its not like anything is lost. I think there are many fairly obvious ways of making the 2014 ranger better, but you can throw as many cantrips, expertises and hunters marks at it as you want and I still dont think its a very interesting class.
What the ranger needed, imo, was an iconic feature for me as a player to latch onto and have it define the class fantasy for me.. We didnt get that.