In reading I have found two schools of people who think Ranger is weak:
1. People who did not reevaluate Ranger when TCE came out. The PHB Ranger is weak and a lot of people never bothered or don't objectively consider the new abilities when evaluating the Ranger.
2. People that do not like the idea of a magical Ranger. This group would prefer the Ranger be a complete non caster, without supernatural abilities like the better subclasses have. This group pretty much wants to evaluate the Ranger without Fey Wanderer or Swarmkeeper or nature's veil and in extreme cases without spells. If you evaluate the Ranger without considering its most powerful abilities then yes it is weak.
This is my take on why people think the ranger is garbage:
In a system which streamlined things away from the bloat of 3e, but didn't homogenise every class mechanic like 4e, most classes/abilities got a bit easier/better defined, except for the signature abilities of the humble Ranger. Natural Explorer especially is unfortunately somewhat ambiguous in scope, and is more open to interpretation by DMs and players alike in what you can achieve with it. These, and other abilities, also suffer from being difficult to interpret and use (I'm looking at you Primeval Awareness).
Ranger is, imo, a bad class for a beginner to tackle because of this, in a time when I believe D&D has hit its greatest popularity and gathered a large base of new players it just isn't friendly.
Many base Ranger abilities, especially early level abilities, are situational, and poor choices in Favoured Enemy and Natural Explorer may lead to poor experiences with these abilities.
Rangers need a good, flexible DM to get the most out of their abilities, if you have a bad, or even inexperienced DM, then your experience as a Ranger will be sullied.
Base Ranger is not sexy to most people, especially those with a combat/damage focus. There isn't much that leaps out in terms of damage boosting abilities that appeals to a lot of people.
People do not consider the subclasses for Ranger, which are incredibly frontloaded and powerful, and focus on the base Ranger alone, which is an unfair comparison to make against other classes which derive more of their immediately apparent power from the base class, rather than subclass.
Rangers cast spells, and have an incredibly strong spell list to choose from, and people just don't consider this.
There is no universally accepted concept of a Ranger, ask ten different people what their opinion of a Ranger is, and you'll likely get 8-10 different responses. The two most popular, that I know of, Rangers in media are Aragorn and Drizzt, neither is close to how Rangers are presented in D&D, and some people won't even consider them rangers. Most other classes have at least a universally agreed direction for a base concept, Ranger lacks this, and as a result you can't easily make your ideal Ranger.
I've probably missed some things, might come back and edit if I think of anything else.
TL;DR - Rangers are poorly written and poorly presented, leading to a tainted view of their effectiveness in and out of combat.
I am not going to lie with at title like that and an account with only 2 posts. it sounds like someone is trying to stir up trouble.
now that that's out of the way I will defend PHB design.
I would like to say Things that "feel situational" are usually not taking optimal choices and situational analysis into account.
Complexity ranger wording and ability to play is more complex than most classes. you will want to adjust tactics on the fly to take full advantage of your choices and features.
rangers do great as a team. most people analysis is for single class comparison rather that Party role Placement.
there is a lot of outright bad assumptions by players or dms that don't take full value of nuance with the ranger class. Example: One common lie is that beasts do not get death saves Because they are monsters. Verifiably false. There are so many debates with "Poison well" arguments just to prove Ranger bad.
some of the initial ranger supporters on youtube were hit by cancel culture and trolls.
What is great about a PHB ranger. Mix of roleplaying, narative and mechanics. Choices and planning. world and mechanic interaction {sometimes at DM level.} Rangers have versatile choices that can make up for gaps in their build. rangers rarely do the same turn over and over lots of interesting variety. Unique spells that were tailored to the class {originally only a bard could get them but still wouldn't be able to use them as well}.
I don’t think Rangers suffered because of bad design. We can see several people love Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy. With a good DM, those features can be quite useful. Rangers just had a bad execution in terms of consistency — how often their capabilities could be useful without DMs always adjusting on their behalf, almost no other class suffers with that. But…
Even without Tasha’s variant class features, PHB Rangers were doing fine and out outperforming Fighters since forever when played by a seasoned player in terms of DPR, versatility and survivability. Their true power is not just obvious. And I’m talking about a plain basic Hunter against a mighty Battlemaster.
TCoE basically just made Rangers less DM-dependent. In practical terms, you are better at level 1 with a lovely bonus damage from Favored Foe and one useful skill expertise. But from level 2 and so on, once you start getting spells, your contribution to the party goes beyond everything. Goodberry, Fog Cloud, Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, etc — regardless if you are using PHB or TCoE, spells are your differentiator and you should use them all the time. Here I think the community went in the wrong direction because common view was that Rangers should only cast and save their slots for Hunters Mark, nearly ignoring all other options. This was the big mistake that made everyone incorrectly see this class as weak or boring. Hopefully I think this unfair vision was completely changed some years ago.
As I was explaining in the other threads, Gloomstalkers are one of the most powerful sub-classes in the game, barely broken and by far subjugating every other martial including Paladins.
I've made a lot of criticisms of the PHB Ranger that I still mostly stand by:
* Too campaign dependent for low level features to be useful in many campaigns.
* When NExplorer was useful it became SO useful that it could cheese a lot of survival challenges placed by the DM, which, while helping the party get to the mulligan faster, made overland travel pretty boring from a challenge perspective. Had a first hand experience of this in Tomb of Annihilation.
* Mid-tier abilities situational at best.
* Lack of cantrips and lack of a concentration boost. For what is potentially a good gish class, not having any boosts to concentration steered players into making ranged Rangers, which is not good for those of us who prefer melee ones. Significant because Rangers rely more on concentration for sustained damage than Paladins, Warlocks, or Eldritch Knights.
Everything listed above got fixed except for the lack of a concentration boost. The option to pick up a few Druid cantrips kinda makes up for that, maybe, because War Caster feat has become potentially useful beyond just a concentration boost.
Overally, I'm pretty satisfied with the Tasha's (optional) changes to the Ranger as long as the DM approves its use.
Everything listed above got fixed except for the lack of a concentration boost.
Fey Wanderer got a concentration spell they do not need to concentrate on. That is a concentration boost of sorts (and an extremely powerful one in play I will add).
As I was explaining in the other threads, Gloomstalkers are one of the most powerful sub-classes in the game, barely broken and by far subjugating every other martial including Paladins.
In terms of combat I would put Gloomstalkers #3 among martials, after two other Rangers ironically - Swarmkeepers and Fey Wanderers would be #1 and #2 IMO. Although in fairness I am not sure it is correct to call a Fey Wanderer a Martial, the subclass abilities make it more of a Gish or a controller.
I love Rangers. Gloom stalker is a very, very good martial subclass. Generally fighters are ahead in martial prowess, and the paladin is about equal with its focus more on burst damage.
In particular, archer rangers are extremely strong and work very well with the class and its powers. If you wanted to claim Ranger was more powerful than Paladin and based your thesis on Rangers being better ranged attackers and ranged attacks being better in 5e, then you would have a fair point.
I more or less agree that Rangers deserved a concentration boost and sometimes I wished they had CON saves instead of DEX, although it would be a little bit odd for a class that has more of an “agile” appeal.
However, some sub-classes have effective mental boosts at level 7, specially Fey Wanderers and most notably Gloomstalkers, that kind of give more flexibility for Rangers to get Resilient CON at level 8.
In particular, archer rangers are extremely strong and work very well with the class and its powers. If you wanted to claim Ranger was more powerful than Paladin and based your thesis on Rangers being better ranged attackers and ranged attacks being better in 5e, then you would have a fair point.
Rangers are more powerful IMO because they have a ton of abilities and a Paladin can't keep up, especially if you have a game balanced on all 3 pillars. In a purely combat game I think they are close, Paladin is a better Nova Ranger is better on a long day (assuming you picked a good subclass).
Rangers are also more versatile. People talk about archery builds or melee builds but most of the Rangers I play do both of those things and do both of them well, in addition to having a ton of options as straight up casters and controllers.
One of my favorite two characters I ever played was a Fey Wanderer Goblin with a Wand of Fear, Belt of giant Strength and Telepathic, Shadow Touched (cause fear) and Gem dragon feats. She had I think a 16 dex and a 19 Wisdom at 14th level but she was so fun to play and had something in her bag of tricks for any combat. She was not really a "martial" though. She did both melee and use a shortbow but overall was more of a caster/controller. I remember around level 12 we had a huge boss fight fightingt with 4 flying adult dragons while we were in a flying castle and she burned through almost all her spells and used up most of her wand of fear. When that fight ended the castle crashed and we were immediately thrust into more combats (I foolishly blew my spells thinking we would have a long rest). I remember saying to the party "I guess I am going to have to play like a proper Ranger" .... but that was totally fine. Completely out of spells she still held her own working with her shortbow+1 and her dragontooth dagger.
I feel like the fact that resilient Con exists means rangers who think their concentration is at risk can make a build choice to reflect it. and those that don't can get a feat to enhance their build in a different way.
I like that builds for rangers (Especially phb ones) look and feel different from other Ranger builds. feats feel more uniquely tailoring for them more so than any other class. not every class should be good at everything. {although good ranger builds can do alot. }
I more or less agree that Rangers deserved a concentration boost and sometimes I wished they had CON saves instead of DEX, although it would be a little bit odd for a class that has more of an “agile” appeal.
Paladins need good Concentration saves more than Rangers do if they're going to use their spells (they don't for Smiting, which is one reason this isn't discussed nearly as much - it's very popular for Paladins to use all their slots for Smiting) and they don't get Con save proficiency either. What's weird isn't necessarily that Rangers get proficiency in Dex saves (although proficiency in Con saves would be radically more appropriate for an exploration class, given that harsh weather hits you in the Con save), what's weird is that Rangers are the only full/half/warlock caster in the game that doesn't get save proficiency in their casting ability save - and if you include third casters, the only other one that doesn't is Eldritch Knight, and they get Constitution save proficiency. That means even with 1/3 casters in the mix, Rangers are utterly unique in casting with Wisdom but getting proficiency in neither Wisdom nor Constitution saves. Dexterity is the good save that makes the least sense on Rangers.
There's another perspective by which Rangers remain odd ducks: Ranger is the only class in the game that grants Medium Armor and Dexterity Save proficiency. The other Medium Armor classes (Artificer, Barbarian, Cleric, Druid) don't grant Dexterity save proficiency, and the other Dexterity save proficiency classes (Bard, Monk, Rogue) don't provide Medium Armor proficiency.
The save proficiencies that make the most consistent sense for Ranger are:
Wis/Int, which copies the Cleric/Paladin approach of giving the full and half caster with a very similar theme the same save proficiencies (in this case Druid/Ranger), as well as ensuring proficiency in the save of your casting stat.
Con/Str, which copies Eldritch Knight in granting Con proficiency but not proficiency in casting save. This also both copies Artificer in granting a half-caster proficiency in maintaining Concentration and, critically, makes Rangers good at withstanding harsh environments. The bad save emphasizes Rangers as Eldritch Knights only better.
Wis/Str, which compromises on the above two ideas.
However, some sub-classes have effective mental boosts at level 7, specially Fey Wanderers and most notably Gloomstalkers, that kind of give more flexibility for Rangers to get Resilient CON at level 8.
Without multiclassing to fix it, Paladins, Rangers, and Monks have an intrinsic struggle to find the necessary ASIs for feats. You can mitigate this by being a race with functionally more stat points (Tasha's Custom, Half-Elf, Mountain Dwarf).
Without multiclassing to fix it, Paladins, Rangers, and Monks have an intrinsic struggle to find the necessary ASIs for feats. You can mitigate this by being a race with functionally more stat points (Tasha's Custom, Half-Elf, Mountain Dwarf).
I don't think this is true, especially since the best Feats for a Ranger are half-feats that boost wisdom. On point buy any race except custom can start with a 16 and 17 in Dex and Wisdom and that is both high enough to last the entire game and sets you up nice for a half feat at level 4. Certainly there are build and play choices that go with playing "lower" stats at higher levels but as long as you design your build around those choices it is fine.
I take more feats than I do ASIs on virtually all my builds, although I have never taken resilient constitution on any character.
I’ve been playing rangers since 1980, never had a problem. The biggest problems with rangers are 2 fold - 1) they are so “talented” that they are hard to categorize making them difficult for newer players since they do everything pretty well but no one thing fantastically. They are the Decathaletes of the D&D world. Not the best at anything but in the top 3-4 everywhere. 2) their natur skills/abilities often seem wasted since too many DMs (IMO) ignore or gloss over the outdoors/exploration/survival aspects of the game rendering those abilities essentially useless making the ranger as a whole feel useless. Further misunderstanding HOW TO USE some (PHB) abilities makes them seem weak. The detection abilities aren’t really there to tell you what IS THERE ( positive feedback), they are there for negative feedback - you DONT want dragons, demons, devils, aberations etc within 2-6 miles of you most times. i ‘m less concerned than many about the need for CON protection for concentration casting, why? The typically higher AC that a ranger has over a bard/Wizard/sorceror/warlock - concentration checks happen when you get hit - AC stops you from getting hit, built in con protection. At lower levels (1-8) the ranger is typically primarily a martial with slowly increasing spell casting ability. By L8 most rangers have transitioned from martial to controller- caster. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t still very capable martials, just that their casting abilities are now caught up and pulling ahead. yes cantrips would be nice ( personally I would have made them cantrip heavy casters but that is just me) and the PHB SUBCLASSES REALLY NEED THE 5 subclass spells later subclasses get but I suspect that will happen in 5.5 and they are still solid subclasses without the extra spells.
I don't think this is true, especially since the best Feats for a Ranger are half-feats that boost wisdom.
That sounds false. Some excellent feats boost Wisdom, like Fey Touched and Skill Expert, but many don't, like War Caster and Resilient Constitution.
On point buy any race except custom can start with a 16 and 17 in Dex and Wisdom and that is both high enough to last the entire game
17 is worthless the entire game - if you're never going to boost it, 16 is better. And 16 in your attack stat is a good way to stop hitting anything at all at higher levels.
and sets you up nice for a half feat at level 4.
If you start at 17/16/15 you aren't primed for a half-feat, you're primed for 18/16/16. That's why being a half-elf or similar is so nice, so you can avoid that situation.
Certainly there are build and play choices that go with playing "lower" stats at higher levels but as long as you design your build around those choices it is fine.
I take more feats than I do ASIs on virtually all my builds, although I have never taken resilient constitution on any character.
Certainly everything depends on your specific build and it's very possible to build a SAD Ranger around Dexterity or Wisdom and thereby make room for more feats, but generically speaking, Rangers need Dex and Wis.
As I was explaining in the other threads, Gloomstalkers are one of the most powerful sub-classes in the game, barely broken and by far subjugating every other martial including Paladins.
In terms of combat I would put Gloomstalkers #3 among martials, after two other Rangers ironically - Swarmkeepers and Fey Wanderers would be #1 and #2 IMO. Although in fairness I am not sure it is correct to call a Fey Wanderer a Martial, the subclass abilities make it more of a Gish or a controller.
In terms of pure martial power and durability, it’s hard to beat Gloomstalkers. I do agree Fey Wanderers have awesome control skills and Swarmkeepers can capitalize big time with Spike Growth and flying, but Gloomstalkers are made for the war.
- Dread Ambusher is an amazing ability that benefits exponentially from things like Sharpshooter or Hunters Mark, and it’s available in every encounter. It’s more reliable than Action Surge. Other sub-classes would need at least 4 rounds to equalize it in avg DPR figures.
- WIS mod to initiative may not be overly sold across the community, but we all know how important it is. Going first is specially good because of your powerful nova opening turn.
- And if nova opening turn is made with advantage, oh boy, Sharpshooter God is blessing you. Umbral Sight is outstanding, but it’s not as reliable as Dread Ambusher.
- At level 7 then… when everyone is trying to map and plan if the DM will start sending Hags, casters, and mind controllers upon your group. You don’t need to invest in Resilient WIS at 8. You already nailed that one level before and you can afford better things like Sharpshooter, Resilient CON, Alert, etc.
Am I the only one that really doesn't see the need for Con on a Ranger? Not that you can ignore it or anything (you can't.)
But I really don't see it as a huge priority. I focus on Dex and Wis with all my Rangers almost exclusively. Con is usually a tertiary stat, competing with Int.
Like, why do we want Con so badly? For HP and Concentration Saves? In my experience with the class, the Ranger doesn't need to worry about either of those nearly as much as other classes. Full casters tend to have a lower hit dice and no medium armor proficiencies, while Paladins and 1/3 Casters tend to plant themselves in the front and tank hits.
Neither of those apply to Rangers. Their D10 hit die and medium armor/shield proficiency tend to be all the bulk they need (again, you shouldn't neglect Con. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be a huge priority.) As for Concentration saves, Rangers are slippery as hell. Unlike Pallies, they don't need to stay in the front lines to do their thing. So melee Rangers can get in, attack, and get out with Zephys Strike/Flame Stride/the Mobile feat. And archer Rangers can just stay safely out of range. In my experience, Rangers tend to get targeted less than other classes by virtue of not being in the way when attacks are incoming.
Rangers are also deceptively seen as not a priority target. The Pally is right there in the bad guy's face, so most enemies will focus on taking them down first. The Wizard can cast Fireball and fry the bad guys, so better neutralize that threat asap. But Rangers are far away and can't cast Fireball, so bad guys tend to prioritize other characters...much to their regret when the Ranger takes them out. All this to say I've never once taken Resilient Con on any of my Rangers and I've never once felt like I missed out by not doing so.
A lot of people think the ranger is garbage. I feel different, but i want your thoughts ok?
Ranger is the most power martial IMO.
In reading I have found two schools of people who think Ranger is weak:
1. People who did not reevaluate Ranger when TCE came out. The PHB Ranger is weak and a lot of people never bothered or don't objectively consider the new abilities when evaluating the Ranger.
2. People that do not like the idea of a magical Ranger. This group would prefer the Ranger be a complete non caster, without supernatural abilities like the better subclasses have. This group pretty much wants to evaluate the Ranger without Fey Wanderer or Swarmkeeper or nature's veil and in extreme cases without spells. If you evaluate the Ranger without considering its most powerful abilities then yes it is weak.
I'll bite.
This is my take on why people think the ranger is garbage:
I've probably missed some things, might come back and edit if I think of anything else.
TL;DR - Rangers are poorly written and poorly presented, leading to a tainted view of their effectiveness in and out of combat.
I am not going to lie with at title like that and an account with only 2 posts. it sounds like someone is trying to stir up trouble.
now that that's out of the way I will defend PHB design.
What is great about a PHB ranger. Mix of roleplaying, narative and mechanics. Choices and planning. world and mechanic interaction {sometimes at DM level.} Rangers have versatile choices that can make up for gaps in their build. rangers rarely do the same turn over and over lots of interesting variety. Unique spells that were tailored to the class {originally only a bard could get them but still wouldn't be able to use them as well}.
I don’t think Rangers suffered because of bad design. We can see several people love Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy. With a good DM, those features can be quite useful. Rangers just had a bad execution in terms of consistency — how often their capabilities could be useful without DMs always adjusting on their behalf, almost no other class suffers with that. But…
Even without Tasha’s variant class features, PHB Rangers were doing fine and out outperforming Fighters since forever when played by a seasoned player in terms of DPR, versatility and survivability. Their true power is not just obvious. And I’m talking about a plain basic Hunter against a mighty Battlemaster.
TCoE basically just made Rangers less DM-dependent. In practical terms, you are better at level 1 with a lovely bonus damage from Favored Foe and one useful skill expertise. But from level 2 and so on, once you start getting spells, your contribution to the party goes beyond everything. Goodberry, Fog Cloud, Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, etc — regardless if you are using PHB or TCoE, spells are your differentiator and you should use them all the time. Here I think the community went in the wrong direction because common view was that Rangers should only cast and save their slots for Hunters Mark, nearly ignoring all other options. This was the big mistake that made everyone incorrectly see this class as weak or boring. Hopefully I think this unfair vision was completely changed some years ago.
As I was explaining in the other threads, Gloomstalkers are one of the most powerful sub-classes in the game, barely broken and by far subjugating every other martial including Paladins.
I've made a lot of criticisms of the PHB Ranger that I still mostly stand by:
* Too campaign dependent for low level features to be useful in many campaigns.
* When NExplorer was useful it became SO useful that it could cheese a lot of survival challenges placed by the DM, which, while helping the party get to the mulligan faster, made overland travel pretty boring from a challenge perspective. Had a first hand experience of this in Tomb of Annihilation.
* Mid-tier abilities situational at best.
* Lack of cantrips and lack of a concentration boost. For what is potentially a good gish class, not having any boosts to concentration steered players into making ranged Rangers, which is not good for those of us who prefer melee ones. Significant because Rangers rely more on concentration for sustained damage than Paladins, Warlocks, or Eldritch Knights.
Everything listed above got fixed except for the lack of a concentration boost. The option to pick up a few Druid cantrips kinda makes up for that, maybe, because War Caster feat has become potentially useful beyond just a concentration boost.
Overally, I'm pretty satisfied with the Tasha's (optional) changes to the Ranger as long as the DM approves its use.
Fey Wanderer got a concentration spell they do not need to concentrate on. That is a concentration boost of sorts (and an extremely powerful one in play I will add).
Yes, one of the things I like about FWanderer. Doesn't change the overall melee Ranger liability.
In terms of combat I would put Gloomstalkers #3 among martials, after two other Rangers ironically - Swarmkeepers and Fey Wanderers would be #1 and #2 IMO. Although in fairness I am not sure it is correct to call a Fey Wanderer a Martial, the subclass abilities make it more of a Gish or a controller.
I love Rangers. Gloom stalker is a very, very good martial subclass. Generally fighters are ahead in martial prowess, and the paladin is about equal with its focus more on burst damage.
In particular, archer rangers are extremely strong and work very well with the class and its powers. If you wanted to claim Ranger was more powerful than Paladin and based your thesis on Rangers being better ranged attackers and ranged attacks being better in 5e, then you would have a fair point.
I more or less agree that Rangers deserved a concentration boost and sometimes I wished they had CON saves instead of DEX, although it would be a little bit odd for a class that has more of an “agile” appeal.
However, some sub-classes have effective mental boosts at level 7, specially Fey Wanderers and most notably Gloomstalkers, that kind of give more flexibility for Rangers to get Resilient CON at level 8.
Rangers are more powerful IMO because they have a ton of abilities and a Paladin can't keep up, especially if you have a game balanced on all 3 pillars. In a purely combat game I think they are close, Paladin is a better Nova Ranger is better on a long day (assuming you picked a good subclass).
Rangers are also more versatile. People talk about archery builds or melee builds but most of the Rangers I play do both of those things and do both of them well, in addition to having a ton of options as straight up casters and controllers.
One of my favorite two characters I ever played was a Fey Wanderer Goblin with a Wand of Fear, Belt of giant Strength and Telepathic, Shadow Touched (cause fear) and Gem dragon feats. She had I think a 16 dex and a 19 Wisdom at 14th level but she was so fun to play and had something in her bag of tricks for any combat. She was not really a "martial" though. She did both melee and use a shortbow but overall was more of a caster/controller. I remember around level 12 we had a huge boss fight fightingt with 4 flying adult dragons while we were in a flying castle and she burned through almost all her spells and used up most of her wand of fear. When that fight ended the castle crashed and we were immediately thrust into more combats (I foolishly blew my spells thinking we would have a long rest). I remember saying to the party "I guess I am going to have to play like a proper Ranger" .... but that was totally fine. Completely out of spells she still held her own working with her shortbow+1 and her dragontooth dagger.
I feel like the fact that resilient Con exists means rangers who think their concentration is at risk can make a build choice to reflect it. and those that don't can get a feat to enhance their build in a different way.
I like that builds for rangers (Especially phb ones) look and feel different from other Ranger builds. feats feel more uniquely tailoring for them more so than any other class. not every class should be good at everything. {although good ranger builds can do alot. }
Paladins need good Concentration saves more than Rangers do if they're going to use their spells (they don't for Smiting, which is one reason this isn't discussed nearly as much - it's very popular for Paladins to use all their slots for Smiting) and they don't get Con save proficiency either. What's weird isn't necessarily that Rangers get proficiency in Dex saves (although proficiency in Con saves would be radically more appropriate for an exploration class, given that harsh weather hits you in the Con save), what's weird is that Rangers are the only full/half/warlock caster in the game that doesn't get save proficiency in their casting ability save - and if you include third casters, the only other one that doesn't is Eldritch Knight, and they get Constitution save proficiency. That means even with 1/3 casters in the mix, Rangers are utterly unique in casting with Wisdom but getting proficiency in neither Wisdom nor Constitution saves. Dexterity is the good save that makes the least sense on Rangers.
There's another perspective by which Rangers remain odd ducks: Ranger is the only class in the game that grants Medium Armor and Dexterity Save proficiency. The other Medium Armor classes (Artificer, Barbarian, Cleric, Druid) don't grant Dexterity save proficiency, and the other Dexterity save proficiency classes (Bard, Monk, Rogue) don't provide Medium Armor proficiency.
The save proficiencies that make the most consistent sense for Ranger are:
Without multiclassing to fix it, Paladins, Rangers, and Monks have an intrinsic struggle to find the necessary ASIs for feats. You can mitigate this by being a race with functionally more stat points (Tasha's Custom, Half-Elf, Mountain Dwarf).
I don't think this is true, especially since the best Feats for a Ranger are half-feats that boost wisdom. On point buy any race except custom can start with a 16 and 17 in Dex and Wisdom and that is both high enough to last the entire game and sets you up nice for a half feat at level 4. Certainly there are build and play choices that go with playing "lower" stats at higher levels but as long as you design your build around those choices it is fine.
I take more feats than I do ASIs on virtually all my builds, although I have never taken resilient constitution on any character.
I’ve been playing rangers since 1980, never had a problem. The biggest problems with rangers are 2 fold - 1) they are so “talented” that they are hard to categorize making them difficult for newer players since they do everything pretty well but no one thing fantastically. They are the Decathaletes of the D&D world. Not the best at anything but in the top 3-4 everywhere. 2) their natur skills/abilities often seem wasted since too many DMs (IMO) ignore or gloss over the outdoors/exploration/survival aspects of the game rendering those abilities essentially useless making the ranger as a whole feel useless. Further misunderstanding HOW TO USE some (PHB) abilities makes them seem weak. The detection abilities aren’t really there to tell you what IS THERE ( positive feedback), they are there for negative feedback - you DONT want dragons, demons, devils, aberations etc within 2-6 miles of you most times.
i ‘m less concerned than many about the need for CON protection for concentration casting, why? The typically higher AC that a ranger has over a bard/Wizard/sorceror/warlock - concentration checks happen when you get hit - AC stops you from getting hit, built in con protection. At lower levels (1-8) the ranger is typically primarily a martial with slowly increasing spell casting ability. By L8 most rangers have transitioned from martial to controller- caster. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t still very capable martials, just that their casting abilities are now caught up and pulling ahead.
yes cantrips would be nice ( personally I would have made them cantrip heavy casters but that is just me) and the PHB SUBCLASSES REALLY NEED THE 5 subclass spells later subclasses get but I suspect that will happen in 5.5 and they are still solid subclasses without the extra spells.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
That sounds false. Some excellent feats boost Wisdom, like Fey Touched and Skill Expert, but many don't, like War Caster and Resilient Constitution.
17 is worthless the entire game - if you're never going to boost it, 16 is better. And 16 in your attack stat is a good way to stop hitting anything at all at higher levels.
If you start at 17/16/15 you aren't primed for a half-feat, you're primed for 18/16/16. That's why being a half-elf or similar is so nice, so you can avoid that situation.
Certainly everything depends on your specific build and it's very possible to build a SAD Ranger around Dexterity or Wisdom and thereby make room for more feats, but generically speaking, Rangers need Dex and Wis.
In terms of pure martial power and durability, it’s hard to beat Gloomstalkers. I do agree Fey Wanderers have awesome control skills and Swarmkeepers can capitalize big time with Spike Growth and flying, but Gloomstalkers are made for the war.
- Dread Ambusher is an amazing ability that benefits exponentially from things like Sharpshooter or Hunters Mark, and it’s available in every encounter. It’s more reliable than Action Surge. Other sub-classes would need at least 4 rounds to equalize it in avg DPR figures.
- WIS mod to initiative may not be overly sold across the community, but we all know how important it is. Going first is specially good because of your powerful nova opening turn.
- And if nova opening turn is made with advantage, oh boy, Sharpshooter God is blessing you. Umbral Sight is outstanding, but it’s not as reliable as Dread Ambusher.
- At level 7 then… when everyone is trying to map and plan if the DM will start sending Hags, casters, and mind controllers upon your group. You don’t need to invest in Resilient WIS at 8. You already nailed that one level before and you can afford better things like Sharpshooter, Resilient CON, Alert, etc.
Gloomstalkers are no joke.
Am I the only one that really doesn't see the need for Con on a Ranger? Not that you can ignore it or anything (you can't.)
But I really don't see it as a huge priority. I focus on Dex and Wis with all my Rangers almost exclusively. Con is usually a tertiary stat, competing with Int.
Like, why do we want Con so badly? For HP and Concentration Saves? In my experience with the class, the Ranger doesn't need to worry about either of those nearly as much as other classes. Full casters tend to have a lower hit dice and no medium armor proficiencies, while Paladins and 1/3 Casters tend to plant themselves in the front and tank hits.
Neither of those apply to Rangers. Their D10 hit die and medium armor/shield proficiency tend to be all the bulk they need (again, you shouldn't neglect Con. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be a huge priority.) As for Concentration saves, Rangers are slippery as hell. Unlike Pallies, they don't need to stay in the front lines to do their thing. So melee Rangers can get in, attack, and get out with Zephys Strike/Flame Stride/the Mobile feat. And archer Rangers can just stay safely out of range. In my experience, Rangers tend to get targeted less than other classes by virtue of not being in the way when attacks are incoming.
Rangers are also deceptively seen as not a priority target. The Pally is right there in the bad guy's face, so most enemies will focus on taking them down first. The Wizard can cast Fireball and fry the bad guys, so better neutralize that threat asap. But Rangers are far away and can't cast Fireball, so bad guys tend to prioritize other characters...much to their regret when the Ranger takes them out. All this to say I've never once taken Resilient Con on any of my Rangers and I've never once felt like I missed out by not doing so.