Can somebody explain why Ranger is so bad? I've never played a ranger, I've never seen anyone play one, and I'm too lazy to go through the class and see why it's underbalanced. Can someone explain why it's weak?
well simply put, its two main features (natural explorer and favoured) are incredebly situational, and its damage output can at times be a bit underwhelming, but i think there are other people than me who can explain it a little more in depth. Also hunters mark is their one good spell and it makes every other concentration spell less viable
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Rangers aren't that bad, it is just people's opinions. Mostly it is min/maxers who think this. Revised ranger is way too far from the original idea. Rangers aren't meant to be the ultimate fighter. They are meant to be martial druids, those who can wield magic as well as a bow. Fey wanderer is amazing. But people get upset about it because it is 'close to horizon walker'. It really isn't the same. Fey wanderers are the ultimate skirmishers. Horizon walkers are all about one powerful attack. People always dislike a brilliant subclass, then say there are no good subclasses. That is the annoying thing about min/maxers. Rangers aren't bad. People's opinions of them and.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
They are very very good up til level 5 when they get good hp, two attacks, second level spells and a lot of abilities (gloomstalker stands out as the best subclass).
problem is that after this point they basically dont gain anything. Spells get lackluster, no more attacks, no powerful abilities etc.
in other words, they are supergood at low level, and continue to be supergood if multiclassed after level 5. Personal pick is rogue after lv5 for maximum synergy, and staying true to concept. Basically the true ranger 20 is a ranger 5/ rogue15 :)
Compared to other classes, Rangers have a lot of abilities that are only situationally useful and the two PHB specializations have too many options that look good on paper but are not actually easy to use effectively. It's much easier to make a ranger who's simply bad than it is with a fighter or paladin.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
In combat, Ranger does absolutely nothing other classes can't do, likely better. As far as non-full casters go:
Barbarians: Better AC, better HP, better damage output, take half damage from most, better subclass abilities
Fighters: Better armor/AC, more attacks, better subclasses, more ASI
Monk: Better AC, way more attacks, way more maneuverable, better saves eventually
Paladin: Better Armor/AC, way better damage output, self healing, spells that gives them a better animal companion than a Ranger will ever have.
Rogue: More skills, better at skills, better at skills, harder hitter, way more maneuverable.
Warlock: better ranged damage options, plenty of up close damage options.
Rangers: a d6 per hit. Thats it.
I love 5e and I also love Rangers, but what they've done to them has ruined them. They have no niche in combat and nothing they're better at than others. Theres a reason the Crap guide to D&D the first line of the video is "Just play a fighter with a bow, you'll be way better".
They also suck at the two things they're supposed to be good at.
Tracking through the wilderness? Only in one type of terrain!
Slaying Monsters? ONLY ONE CREATURE TYPE, AND ONLY A +2 DAMAGE BONUS!
Sure, Hunter's Mark, but, it is concentration, which makes all of their other spells useless, and they don't have enough spell slots too use it substantially in an adventuring day.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
In combat, Ranger does absolutely nothing other classes can't do, likely better. As far as non-full casters go:
Barbarians: Better AC, better HP, better damage output, take half damage from most, better subclass abilities
Fighters: Better armor/AC, more attacks, better subclasses, more ASI
Monk: Better AC, way more attacks, way more maneuverable, better saves eventually
Paladin: Better Armor/AC, way better damage output, self healing, spells that gives them a better animal companion than a Ranger will ever have.
Rogue: More skills, better at skills, better at skills, harder hitter, way more maneuverable.
Warlock: better ranged damage options, plenty of up close damage options.
Rangers: a d6 per hit. Thats it.
I love 5e and I also love Rangers, but what they've done to them has ruined them. They have no niche in combat and nothing they're better at than others. Theres a reason the Crap guide to D&D the first line of the video is "Just play a fighter with a bow, you'll be way better".
well i think you are a little dishonest here, to start with every single subclass option besides monster slayer becuase monster slayer sucks gets some way of making more than two attacks, from the hunter rangers volley attacks to the beast masters two attacks with pet plus one attack yourself to the horizon walkers three attacks against three diffrent targets and you get to teleport. Yes there are often terms and conditions for this extra third attack to make shure the fighter does not fee threatened.
most of the subclasses will at 3rd level also gain a feature that also allows them to deal a little bit more damage
the companion does indeed have the aproximate durabillity of an egg when it comes to hit points, but in every other category if you choose the right companion they can out-do every other class you just listed in every way, for instance take the giant poisonous snake: if i am willing to invest about 180 gold pices into protecting my most valuable asset with armor, the giant snake will at level 3 right when you get it have an armor class of 18, and it increases by 1 every four levels to a maximum of 22, meaning that each level that the snake exists the monk will have an lower armor class than it if the monk used point buy or standard array. Similarly an giant poisonous snake deals 1d4 + 4 damage and the target must succeed on an DC 11 con save or take 3d6 poison damage (half damage on an sucessful save), since i get to add my proficency bonus to all of the snakes damage rolls, is should deal more damage per hit than any fighter or barbarian, even if the target suceeds on their Constitution saving throw. Furthermore an animal companion can usully be an giant asset in the exploration and interaction pillars of the game, in this instance the giant poisonous snake has both an swimming speed and 10 ft of blindsight that lets it detect invisible opponents, both of whom are really useful to have. Poisonous snake is of course not the only good animal companion you can have, the ptradon has an ludicris flying speed and so when paired with an halfling archer you will be completely out of reach for almost every combat, and giant frogs will grapple and restrain any target they hit, forcing the target of the bite to waste an action if they do not want to have disadvantage on all attacks, or if they dont like everyone else having advantage on attacks against them, also you know frogs can swim and also jump really really far.
also you know, another thing rangers have above fighters is their abillity to ya know, do magic, healing themselves and harming their enemies and/or picking up some fun utillity spell
also to quote the incredebly wise jocat once more "it is not about how many numbers you can throw at the bad guys but whether or not you can shoot spikes out of the ground while firing bolts from your heavy crossbow atop a feathered velociraptor"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The reason why rangers "suck" is that because all other classes are simply better. Rangers in and off themselves aren't really "bad" per se. As for their abilities being situational? Well, so can most other class abilites be as well. Being a champion fighter will probably be pretty boring in a high-society game of intrigue. At the same time, an assassin who will never get the chance disguise himself because the story is focused on wilderness survival is likewise going to be pretty bored.
That said, favoured terrain/enemy can be pretty damn useful and remember that you get more of them as you level up. The extra perks (like languages, don't forget the languages!) can be really useful depending on the setting.
The three boosted subclasses in Xanathar's are all really cool as well. :)
The reason why rangers "suck" is that because all other classes are simply better. Rangers in and off themselves aren't really "bad" per se. As for their abilities being situational? Well, so can most other class abilites be as well. Being a champion fighter will probably be pretty boring in a high-society game of intrigue. At the same time, an assassin who will never get the chance disguise himself because the story is focused on wilderness survival is likewise going to be pretty bored.
That said, favoured terrain/enemy can be pretty damn useful and remember that you get more of them as you level up. The extra perks (like languages, don't forget the languages!) can be really useful depending on the setting.
The three boosted subclasses in Xanathar's are all really cool as well. :)
well i mean an assasin rouge would do pretty damm fine in an wilderness setting depending on what expertise he has and wheter or not he can use his fantastic abillity to get a crit for free, and the wilderness also allows for better poison manufacture
the gloom stalker is cool, the horizon walker is cooler but the monster slayer just kinda sucks balls (am i allowed to say that? it might be a little harsh). Every single other subclass up to that point had a way to make more than two attacks per action at 11th level, even beast master, but monster slayer does not, and its weird mark thing once per turn is way worse than the colossus slayer feature of the hunter ranger and the force damage feature of the horizon walker. Its "find all the weaknesses and immunities of my target" abillity is really cool tho, and i guess the counterspell thing at 11th is fine, but it would have worked just as fine if it can be used a little more frequently than once per short or long rest, but like the ranger already kind of has this problem of not throwing sufficient numbers at the bad guys, this just makes it worse
also i will always think that the beast master is super underrated, y'all have no idea how tterrifying this thing can be and i hope i get to play one at some point becuase oh gosh high armor class glass cannon giant poisonous snake build can deal like so much damage and giant frog is ******* gold in utillity
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Why all the hate on the Monster Slayer? A friend of mine is currently playing one and she loves it. What’s so bad about it? Caveat: she is using the Variant Class Features.
Why all the hate on the Monster Slayer? A friend of mine is currently playing one and she loves it. What’s so bad about it? Caveat: she is using the Variant Class Features.
eh, i just personally dont fancy it as much, if something is not part of an ludicris build to do something truly weird, i am just not insterested, but i will say that to be fait supernatural defense and slayer's counter are both kinda neat and good features especially for fighting like dragons and spellcasters wich is explicitly the goal of this subclass, so it does exactly what its goal was, compared to megaspook ranger and extraplanar ranger and extra murder-y ranger and here have a free pet ranger
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The reason why rangers "suck" is that because all other classes are simply better. Rangers in and off themselves aren't really "bad" per se. As for their abilities being situational? Well, so can most other class abilites be as well. Being a champion fighter will probably be pretty boring in a high-society game of intrigue. At the same time, an assassin who will never get the chance disguise himself because the story is focused on wilderness survival is likewise going to be pretty bored.
That said, favoured terrain/enemy can be pretty damn useful and remember that you get more of them as you level up. The extra perks (like languages, don't forget the languages!) can be really useful depending on the setting.
The three boosted subclasses in Xanathar's are all really cool as well. :)
well i mean an assasin rouge would do pretty damm fine in an wilderness setting depending on what expertise he has and wheter or not he can use his fantastic abillity to get a crit for free, and the wilderness also allows for better poison manufacture
Well, if you had read my post you would have notived that I was talking about that Assassin's ability to create disguises for themselves. That whole point is a counter to the statement that Ranger's Favoured Terrain/Enemy abilities are situational. Yes, but so are other class abilities as well.
The reason why rangers "suck" is that because all other classes are simply better. Rangers in and off themselves aren't really "bad" per se. As for their abilities being situational? Well, so can most other class abilites be as well. Being a champion fighter will probably be pretty boring in a high-society game of intrigue. At the same time, an assassin who will never get the chance disguise himself because the story is focused on wilderness survival is likewise going to be pretty bored.
That said, favoured terrain/enemy can be pretty damn useful and remember that you get more of them as you level up. The extra perks (like languages, don't forget the languages!) can be really useful depending on the setting.
The three boosted subclasses in Xanathar's are all really cool as well. :)
well i mean an assasin rouge would do pretty damm fine in an wilderness setting depending on what expertise he has and wheter or not he can use his fantastic abillity to get a crit for free, and the wilderness also allows for better poison manufacture
Well, if you had read my post you would have notived that I was talking about that Assassin's ability to create disguises for themselves. That whole point is a counter to the statement that Ranger's Favoured Terrain/Enemy abilities are situational. Yes, but so are other class abilities as well.
yes, indeed you are refering to that class feature i forgot existed and thought you simply meant the assasin rouges free proficiency in the disguise kit. Thing is that situational benefit is combined with some other less situational boons, and that favoured enemy and natural explorer are both core parts of the ranger class and its identity. The core mechanics of evey other class are far less situational. The usefulness of an monks ki points will not differ much depending on enviorment or what specific creature types you face, the usefulness of an fighters abillity to self heal and take additional actions will not be less useful if you so are fighting ghosts or abberations or goblins, an wizard who prepares the right spells will always find a sue for themselves, the barbarian, even when facing enemies who are using less physical damage types, will still find use in their rage. Yes these features might work better in certain pillars of the game from combat to exploration to interaction, and might be completely useless in others. If the assasin rouge is not in his native court intruigue setting, and is more on the countryside, he can still spend a week to make an persona of an kindly old lady or trysted physician/ doctor and thus get into other peoples lives and get a use for their abillities. If an ranger goes from being in an forest to being in an grassland, he will be no more competent than an member of any other class who made the same background and skill decisions in survival, same if he decides to climb tall mountains, go into the underdark, or explore djungles wetter, more humid and more dense than the forests of his homeland.
Yeah it makes sense why the ranger only is good at hunting certain monsters and exploring certain enviorments, why an dwarven ranger who grew up in the mountainhomes would be adept at fighting duregar and orcs. It is better to treat favoured enemy and natural explorer as so called "ribbon" abillities, mentioned breifly in the storm sorcerer UA, wich are features that dont significantly alter an class but adds an great deal of flavour. That is what favoured enemy ought to be, an small feature on the side to make an otherwise nice class a little more complete, not as an full-on central class feature that is super duper important. Yes having one or two terrains that the ranger is extra good at exploring is great, but there should also be an feature that makes him at least somewhat decent at exploring other terrains as well. Yes having an extra language and an plot hook completely for free is awesome, but it should not be tied too hard to your combat abillites, you should still be able to fight other things and be at least somewhat good at tracking other things. The list of favoured foes and terrains should be everything you are great at, not an complete list of everything you are even capable of fighting / exploring
to clarify, i am not saying the ranger classes combat abillites is all that tied to your favoured enemy, but your 1st and 6th level features only give you new types of terrain and enemies, not anything else, the 20th level feature only applies to an favoured enemy, and the revised ranger rules did give the player an +2 or +4 to hit against your favoured foe, i think it should be an minor, more interaction / roleplay heavy abillity that is given alongside a bit better abillities, not as a thing on its own, the cherry on top of the ranger chaped cake, not the entire dish that is the only thing you get for a level, and then your specific subclass is the thing that actiually makes you better at fighting certain types of monster by picking an archetype that effectively counters the fighting style of your chosen enemy such as monster slayer for dragons or hunter for swarms or hunter again for giants or horizon walker for more extraplanar threats, the fey wanderer for combating the threats of the feywild, beast master with an giant frog companion for fighting ether aquatic threats or very small foes, gloom stalker for fighting enemies who hide in the dark etc etc
((oh **** this rant took like 40 minutes to write i have homework to do what am i doing ****))
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The reason why rangers "suck" is that because all other classes are simply better. Rangers in and off themselves aren't really "bad" per se. As for their abilities being situational? Well, so can most other class abilites be as well. Being a champion fighter will probably be pretty boring in a high-society game of intrigue. At the same time, an assassin who will never get the chance disguise himself because the story is focused on wilderness survival is likewise going to be pretty bored.
That said, favoured terrain/enemy can be pretty damn useful and remember that you get more of them as you level up. The extra perks (like languages, don't forget the languages!) can be really useful depending on the setting.
The three boosted subclasses in Xanathar's are all really cool as well. :)
well i mean an assasin rouge would do pretty damm fine in an wilderness setting depending on what expertise he has and wheter or not he can use his fantastic abillity to get a crit for free, and the wilderness also allows for better poison manufacture
Well, if you had read my post you would have notived that I was talking about that Assassin's ability to create disguises for themselves. That whole point is a counter to the statement that Ranger's Favoured Terrain/Enemy abilities are situational. Yes, but so are other class abilities as well.
((oh **** this rant took like 40 minutes to write i have homework to do what am i doing ****))
Yeah, good question. Especially since half of it was kind of wrong and still missing the point.
First of all, yes of course you can make up all kinds of far-fetched scenarios where an Assassin can disguise themselves as an old lady. but why would they? Or what if the campaign is an old-fashioned dungeoncrawl? The point you seem to be missing is that many class abilities are situational. Some more than others, sure. But that's not the problem with Rangers.
Second of all, the extra languages aren't tied to combat abilites and they give the Ranger options in any terrain that they are in. You DO know that Rangers doesn't have to be in their favoured terrain to use those languages or their favoured enemy abilities, right?
Third of all, the Rangers ability to track and fight other foes is called "Hunter's Mark" and Survival in combination with a high Wisdom score. Also Hunter's Prey, etc.
Lastly, the level 20 ability works against at least three different kinds of foes, not just one.
The reason why rangers "suck" is that because all other classes are simply better. Rangers in and off themselves aren't really "bad" per se. As for their abilities being situational? Well, so can most other class abilites be as well. Being a champion fighter will probably be pretty boring in a high-society game of intrigue. At the same time, an assassin who will never get the chance disguise himself because the story is focused on wilderness survival is likewise going to be pretty bored.
That said, favoured terrain/enemy can be pretty damn useful and remember that you get more of them as you level up. The extra perks (like languages, don't forget the languages!) can be really useful depending on the setting.
The three boosted subclasses in Xanathar's are all really cool as well. :)
well i mean an assasin rouge would do pretty damm fine in an wilderness setting depending on what expertise he has and wheter or not he can use his fantastic abillity to get a crit for free, and the wilderness also allows for better poison manufacture
Well, if you had read my post you would have notived that I was talking about that Assassin's ability to create disguises for themselves. That whole point is a counter to the statement that Ranger's Favoured Terrain/Enemy abilities are situational. Yes, but so are other class abilities as well.
((oh **** this rant took like 40 minutes to write i have homework to do what am i doing ****))
Yeah, good question. Especially since half of it was kind of wrong and still missing the point.
First of all, yes of course you can make up all kinds of far-fetched scenarios where an Assassin can disguise themselves as an old lady. but why would they? Or what if the campaign is an old-fashioned dungeoncrawl? The point you seem to be missing is that many class abilities are situational. Some more than others, sure. But that's not the problem with Rangers.
Second of all, the extra languages aren't tied to combat abilites and they give the Ranger options in any terrain that they are in. You DO know that Rangers doesn't have to be in their favoured terrain to use those languages or their favoured enemy abilities, right?
Third of all, the Rangers ability to track and fight other foes is called "Hunter's Mark" and Survival in combination with a high Wisdom score. Also Hunter's Prey, etc.
Lastly, the level 20 ability works against at least three different kinds of foes, not just one.
yeah might have worded myself a little ambiguously, yes languages work anywhere as long as there are people who speak those languages, and i am not an egg of course they can use favoured enemy in any enviorment, and yes there are often features who are only usable or more useful in certain situations, but apples and oranges, it is an bit of an false equivalency:
how many times will you find yourself with an creature who does not speak common? how many times do you find yourself with an creature who also does not speak dragonic and undercommon? Languages in dnd are not exactly created equal, and beyond those three big ones, there are few other languages that are really big that you are going to need, most creatures will be able to communicate in at least one of those three languages, if something speaks elvish, it usually speaks common, if something speaks deep speech it is usually also proficient in undercommon and if something is really old it is usually proficient in dragonic. Now look at how many backgrounds there are that give you proficiency in two languages of your choice, quite a lot. Assuming an ranger took such an background, not entirely impossible, and he chose the two most common languages in the world for his background, what language is left of him to learn? and what chances are there that he will find a creature who knows of this language but none of the other ones? and if he finds one, possibly abyssal or something, what language will he pick next time? the more languages he learns, the less useful every new language will become.
favoured enemy is an nice feature for the ranger to have, it is not strong, it does not significantly affect combat (lets keep it that way), it simply grants advantage on a few things and a language that i will agree is very nice to have, and some cute advantage against an enemy you will hopefully get to fight, but it is not enough to be an entire class feature, it could be given alongside an class feature and be fantastic, lovely, but on its own it does not exactly work
natural explorer is fantastic, makes exploration trivial, but unless your particular campaign takes place in a single area with the same biome or a small handful of areas with only one or two biomes, it will defenetly be useful, a boon to be shure, but if the campaign takes place in an large variety of diffrent areas, or if it is entirley urban it might work less well.
there are other features who will not always be useful, in fact no abillity can be useful in every single situation, they will still work in an broad area of situations, creating an alternate persona can be used in many a diffrent ways, remarkable athlete has utillites in many diffrent out of combat situations, as long as you have time and materials and it is vaguely natural you can use hide in plain sight, weras for these two its features might or might not be useful even in two seemingly rather similar situations such as exploring the grassland or exploring an forest, tracking somebody in the mountains might work great but in the underdark not as much, one might know a lot about the dragons and theri wars before time but know far less about the giants they fought back in an really old war, it is a little more specific compared to other class features.
generally, ranger can stand on its own and most features are fine enough, but while at 1st level paladins get minor healing, the fighter gets combat specialisation and the cleric gains an plethora of spells, the ranger merely persists on a single language and a few tricks that dont always work
the 20th level feature works against all your favoured enemies, yes, what did i say to make you thing the opposite? i feel that tying your favoured enemies to your combat is simply a bad idea, favoured enemy is not about the combat pillar of the game in 5e, it is not supposed to be related to combat at all, it is supposed to give you a neat language you will use sometimes and advantage on a few checks, nobody wants an +1 to hit agianst certain foes becuase that is ******* boring, give me resistance to damage types, give me advantage on saving throws against spells, give me pack tactics, just please the wisdom modificer to hit and damage against three diffrent creature types is not exactly a fun feature to have, 20th level is an cleebration of your abillities and your progression, it just seems needlessly restrictive to do so, your ranger specializes his fighting style to fit his enemies, he does not need a stupid wisdom to hit, its worthless, give the ranger something truly special at 20th level, perhaps some feature that truly makes him or her an unrivaled explorer, something that is not just god damm plus to hit certain enemies,
hunters mark is more of an combat spell, but yes if you manage to cast it right as the opponent get away you can get that sweet jucy advantage on the survival check, fair point
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Can somebody explain why Ranger is so bad? I've never played a ranger, I've never seen anyone play one, and I'm too lazy to go through the class and see why it's underbalanced. Can someone explain why it's weak?
Let evil fall and Light prevail!
well simply put, its two main features (natural explorer and favoured) are incredebly situational, and its damage output can at times be a bit underwhelming, but i think there are other people than me who can explain it a little more in depth. Also hunters mark is their one good spell and it makes every other concentration spell less viable
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Rangers aren't that bad, it is just people's opinions. Mostly it is min/maxers who think this. Revised ranger is way too far from the original idea. Rangers aren't meant to be the ultimate fighter. They are meant to be martial druids, those who can wield magic as well as a bow. Fey wanderer is amazing. But people get upset about it because it is 'close to horizon walker'. It really isn't the same. Fey wanderers are the ultimate skirmishers. Horizon walkers are all about one powerful attack. People always dislike a brilliant subclass, then say there are no good subclasses. That is the annoying thing about min/maxers. Rangers aren't bad. People's opinions of them and.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
People's opinions aren't bad. Peoples opinions of peoples opinions are... wait...
just a joke, carry on.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
They are very very good up til level 5 when they get good hp, two attacks, second level spells and a lot of abilities (gloomstalker stands out as the best subclass).
problem is that after this point they basically dont gain anything. Spells get lackluster, no more attacks, no powerful abilities etc.
in other words, they are supergood at low level, and continue to be supergood if multiclassed after level 5. Personal pick is rogue after lv5 for maximum synergy, and staying true to concept. Basically the true ranger 20 is a ranger 5/ rogue15 :)
Compared to other classes, Rangers have a lot of abilities that are only situationally useful and the two PHB specializations have too many options that look good on paper but are not actually easy to use effectively. It's much easier to make a ranger who's simply bad than it is with a fighter or paladin.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
In combat, Ranger does absolutely nothing other classes can't do, likely better. As far as non-full casters go:
Barbarians: Better AC, better HP, better damage output, take half damage from most, better subclass abilities
Fighters: Better armor/AC, more attacks, better subclasses, more ASI
Monk: Better AC, way more attacks, way more maneuverable, better saves eventually
Paladin: Better Armor/AC, way better damage output, self healing, spells that gives them a better animal companion than a Ranger will ever have.
Rogue: More skills, better at skills, better at skills, harder hitter, way more maneuverable.
Warlock: better ranged damage options, plenty of up close damage options.
Rangers: a d6 per hit. Thats it.
I love 5e and I also love Rangers, but what they've done to them has ruined them. They have no niche in combat and nothing they're better at than others. Theres a reason the Crap guide to D&D the first line of the video is "Just play a fighter with a bow, you'll be way better".
They also suck at the two things they're supposed to be good at.
Tracking through the wilderness? Only in one type of terrain!
Slaying Monsters? ONLY ONE CREATURE TYPE, AND ONLY A +2 DAMAGE BONUS!
Sure, Hunter's Mark, but, it is concentration, which makes all of their other spells useless, and they don't have enough spell slots too use it substantially in an adventuring day.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That’s why I love the Variant Ranger rules from the UA.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
And the Revised Ranger, which I still allow in my games.
It was good at traveling, good at tracking, and good at killing monsters (maybe not good, but at least better)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
well i think you are a little dishonest here, to start with every single subclass option besides monster slayer becuase monster slayer sucks gets some way of making more than two attacks, from the hunter rangers volley attacks to the beast masters two attacks with pet plus one attack yourself to the horizon walkers three attacks against three diffrent targets and you get to teleport. Yes there are often terms and conditions for this extra third attack to make shure the fighter does not fee threatened.
most of the subclasses will at 3rd level also gain a feature that also allows them to deal a little bit more damage
the companion does indeed have the aproximate durabillity of an egg when it comes to hit points, but in every other category if you choose the right companion they can out-do every other class you just listed in every way, for instance take the giant poisonous snake: if i am willing to invest about 180 gold pices into protecting my most valuable asset with armor, the giant snake will at level 3 right when you get it have an armor class of 18, and it increases by 1 every four levels to a maximum of 22, meaning that each level that the snake exists the monk will have an lower armor class than it if the monk used point buy or standard array. Similarly an giant poisonous snake deals 1d4 + 4 damage and the target must succeed on an DC 11 con save or take 3d6 poison damage (half damage on an sucessful save), since i get to add my proficency bonus to all of the snakes damage rolls, is should deal more damage per hit than any fighter or barbarian, even if the target suceeds on their Constitution saving throw. Furthermore an animal companion can usully be an giant asset in the exploration and interaction pillars of the game, in this instance the giant poisonous snake has both an swimming speed and 10 ft of blindsight that lets it detect invisible opponents, both of whom are really useful to have. Poisonous snake is of course not the only good animal companion you can have, the ptradon has an ludicris flying speed and so when paired with an halfling archer you will be completely out of reach for almost every combat, and giant frogs will grapple and restrain any target they hit, forcing the target of the bite to waste an action if they do not want to have disadvantage on all attacks, or if they dont like everyone else having advantage on attacks against them, also you know frogs can swim and also jump really really far.
also you know, another thing rangers have above fighters is their abillity to ya know, do magic, healing themselves and harming their enemies and/or picking up some fun utillity spell
also to quote the incredebly wise jocat once more "it is not about how many numbers you can throw at the bad guys but whether or not you can shoot spikes out of the ground while firing bolts from your heavy crossbow atop a feathered velociraptor"
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The reason why rangers "suck" is that because all other classes are simply better. Rangers in and off themselves aren't really "bad" per se. As for their abilities being situational? Well, so can most other class abilites be as well. Being a champion fighter will probably be pretty boring in a high-society game of intrigue. At the same time, an assassin who will never get the chance disguise himself because the story is focused on wilderness survival is likewise going to be pretty bored.
That said, favoured terrain/enemy can be pretty damn useful and remember that you get more of them as you level up. The extra perks (like languages, don't forget the languages!) can be really useful depending on the setting.
The three boosted subclasses in Xanathar's are all really cool as well. :)
well i mean an assasin rouge would do pretty damm fine in an wilderness setting depending on what expertise he has and wheter or not he can use his fantastic abillity to get a crit for free, and the wilderness also allows for better poison manufacture
the gloom stalker is cool, the horizon walker is cooler but the monster slayer just kinda sucks
balls(am i allowed to say that? it might be a little harsh). Every single other subclass up to that point had a way to make more than two attacks per action at 11th level, even beast master, but monster slayer does not, and its weird mark thing once per turn is way worse than the colossus slayer feature of the hunter ranger and the force damage feature of the horizon walker. Its "find all the weaknesses and immunities of my target" abillity is really cool tho, and i guess the counterspell thing at 11th is fine, but it would have worked just as fine if it can be used a little more frequently than once per short or long rest, but like the ranger already kind of has this problem of not throwing sufficient numbers at the bad guys, this just makes it worsealso i will always think that the beast master is super underrated, y'all have no idea how tterrifying this thing can be and i hope i get to play one at some point becuase oh gosh high armor class glass cannon giant poisonous snake build can deal like so much damage and giant frog is ******* gold in utillity
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Why all the hate on the Monster Slayer? A friend of mine is currently playing one and she loves it. What’s so bad about it? Caveat: she is using the Variant Class Features.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
eh, i just personally dont fancy it as much, if something is not part of an ludicris build to do something truly weird, i am just not insterested, but i will say that to be fait supernatural defense and slayer's counter are both kinda neat and good features especially for fighting like dragons and spellcasters wich is explicitly the goal of this subclass, so it does exactly what its goal was, compared to megaspook ranger and extraplanar ranger and extra murder-y ranger and here have a free pet ranger
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Well, if you had read my post you would have notived that I was talking about that Assassin's ability to create disguises for themselves. That whole point is a counter to the statement that Ranger's Favoured Terrain/Enemy abilities are situational. Yes, but so are other class abilities as well.
yes, indeed you are refering to that class feature i forgot existed and thought you simply meant the assasin rouges free proficiency in the disguise kit. Thing is that situational benefit is combined with some other less situational boons, and that favoured enemy and natural explorer are both core parts of the ranger class and its identity. The core mechanics of evey other class are far less situational. The usefulness of an monks ki points will not differ much depending on enviorment or what specific creature types you face, the usefulness of an fighters abillity to self heal and take additional actions will not be less useful if you so are fighting ghosts or abberations or goblins, an wizard who prepares the right spells will always find a sue for themselves, the barbarian, even when facing enemies who are using less physical damage types, will still find use in their rage. Yes these features might work better in certain pillars of the game from combat to exploration to interaction, and might be completely useless in others. If the assasin rouge is not in his native court intruigue setting, and is more on the countryside, he can still spend a week to make an persona of an kindly old lady or trysted physician/ doctor and thus get into other peoples lives and get a use for their abillities. If an ranger goes from being in an forest to being in an grassland, he will be no more competent than an member of any other class who made the same background and skill decisions in survival, same if he decides to climb tall mountains, go into the underdark, or explore djungles wetter, more humid and more dense than the forests of his homeland.
Yeah it makes sense why the ranger only is good at hunting certain monsters and exploring certain enviorments, why an dwarven ranger who grew up in the mountainhomes would be adept at fighting duregar and orcs. It is better to treat favoured enemy and natural explorer as so called "ribbon" abillities, mentioned breifly in the storm sorcerer UA, wich are features that dont significantly alter an class but adds an great deal of flavour. That is what favoured enemy ought to be, an small feature on the side to make an otherwise nice class a little more complete, not as an full-on central class feature that is super duper important. Yes having one or two terrains that the ranger is extra good at exploring is great, but there should also be an feature that makes him at least somewhat decent at exploring other terrains as well. Yes having an extra language and an plot hook completely for free is awesome, but it should not be tied too hard to your combat abillites, you should still be able to fight other things and be at least somewhat good at tracking other things. The list of favoured foes and terrains should be everything you are great at, not an complete list of everything you are even capable of fighting / exploring
to clarify, i am not saying the ranger classes combat abillites is all that tied to your favoured enemy, but your 1st and 6th level features only give you new types of terrain and enemies, not anything else, the 20th level feature only applies to an favoured enemy, and the revised ranger rules did give the player an +2 or +4 to hit against your favoured foe, i think it should be an minor, more interaction / roleplay heavy abillity that is given alongside a bit better abillities, not as a thing on its own, the cherry on top of the ranger chaped cake, not the entire dish that is the only thing you get for a level, and then your specific subclass is the thing that actiually makes you better at fighting certain types of monster by picking an archetype that effectively counters the fighting style of your chosen enemy such as monster slayer for dragons or hunter for swarms or hunter again for giants or horizon walker for more extraplanar threats, the fey wanderer for combating the threats of the feywild, beast master with an giant frog companion for fighting ether aquatic threats or very small foes, gloom stalker for fighting enemies who hide in the dark etc etc
((oh **** this rant took like 40 minutes to write i have homework to do what am i doing ****))
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Yeah, good question. Especially since half of it was kind of wrong and still missing the point.
First of all, yes of course you can make up all kinds of far-fetched scenarios where an Assassin can disguise themselves as an old lady. but why would they? Or what if the campaign is an old-fashioned dungeoncrawl? The point you seem to be missing is that many class abilities are situational. Some more than others, sure. But that's not the problem with Rangers.
Second of all, the extra languages aren't tied to combat abilites and they give the Ranger options in any terrain that they are in. You DO know that Rangers doesn't have to be in their favoured terrain to use those languages or their favoured enemy abilities, right?
Third of all, the Rangers ability to track and fight other foes is called "Hunter's Mark" and Survival in combination with a high Wisdom score. Also Hunter's Prey, etc.
Lastly, the level 20 ability works against at least three different kinds of foes, not just one.
yeah might have worded myself a little ambiguously, yes languages work anywhere as long as there are people who speak those languages, and i am not an egg of course they can use favoured enemy in any enviorment, and yes there are often features who are only usable or more useful in certain situations, but apples and oranges, it is an bit of an false equivalency:
how many times will you find yourself with an creature who does not speak common? how many times do you find yourself with an creature who also does not speak dragonic and undercommon? Languages in dnd are not exactly created equal, and beyond those three big ones, there are few other languages that are really big that you are going to need, most creatures will be able to communicate in at least one of those three languages, if something speaks elvish, it usually speaks common, if something speaks deep speech it is usually also proficient in undercommon and if something is really old it is usually proficient in dragonic. Now look at how many backgrounds there are that give you proficiency in two languages of your choice, quite a lot. Assuming an ranger took such an background, not entirely impossible, and he chose the two most common languages in the world for his background, what language is left of him to learn? and what chances are there that he will find a creature who knows of this language but none of the other ones? and if he finds one, possibly abyssal or something, what language will he pick next time? the more languages he learns, the less useful every new language will become.
favoured enemy is an nice feature for the ranger to have, it is not strong, it does not significantly affect combat (lets keep it that way), it simply grants advantage on a few things and a language that i will agree is very nice to have, and some cute advantage against an enemy you will hopefully get to fight, but it is not enough to be an entire class feature, it could be given alongside an class feature and be fantastic, lovely, but on its own it does not exactly work
natural explorer is fantastic, makes exploration trivial, but unless your particular campaign takes place in a single area with the same biome or a small handful of areas with only one or two biomes, it will defenetly be useful, a boon to be shure, but if the campaign takes place in an large variety of diffrent areas, or if it is entirley urban it might work less well.
there are other features who will not always be useful, in fact no abillity can be useful in every single situation, they will still work in an broad area of situations, creating an alternate persona can be used in many a diffrent ways, remarkable athlete has utillites in many diffrent out of combat situations, as long as you have time and materials and it is vaguely natural you can use hide in plain sight, weras for these two its features might or might not be useful even in two seemingly rather similar situations such as exploring the grassland or exploring an forest, tracking somebody in the mountains might work great but in the underdark not as much, one might know a lot about the dragons and theri wars before time but know far less about the giants they fought back in an really old war, it is a little more specific compared to other class features.
generally, ranger can stand on its own and most features are fine enough, but while at 1st level paladins get minor healing, the fighter gets combat specialisation and the cleric gains an plethora of spells, the ranger merely persists on a single language and a few tricks that dont always work
the 20th level feature works against all your favoured enemies, yes, what did i say to make you thing the opposite? i feel that tying your favoured enemies to your combat is simply a bad idea, favoured enemy is not about the combat pillar of the game in 5e, it is not supposed to be related to combat at all, it is supposed to give you a neat language you will use sometimes and advantage on a few checks, nobody wants an +1 to hit agianst certain foes becuase that is ******* boring, give me resistance to damage types, give me advantage on saving throws against spells, give me pack tactics, just please the wisdom modificer to hit and damage against three diffrent creature types is not exactly a fun feature to have, 20th level is an cleebration of your abillities and your progression, it just seems needlessly restrictive to do so, your ranger specializes his fighting style to fit his enemies, he does not need a stupid wisdom to hit, its worthless, give the ranger something truly special at 20th level, perhaps some feature that truly makes him or her an unrivaled explorer, something that is not just god damm plus to hit certain enemies,
hunters mark is more of an combat spell, but yes if you manage to cast it right as the opponent get away you can get that sweet jucy advantage on the survival check, fair point
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
How’s that homework coming along?
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB